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

South Dakota
State Plans to Meet the HQT Goal Mandated by NCLB
State Plan Introduction and/or Background
South Dakota's Revised State Plan "Demonstrating Good Faith Effort"

South Dakota has made strong efforts to improve teacher quality over the past four years. The State of South Dakota was awarded a Teacher Quality Enhancement grant that helped us to clearly focus on creating a succinct plan for improving teaching quality. We have created a "Theory of Action" that measures quality against time over the career path of teachers. (See Appendix 5). This theory of action has guided activities as well as resulted in policy making that will provide sustainability for the grant. Additionally, the South Dakota Department of Education has partnered with the South Dakota Board of Regents as well as the private and tribal universities across the state to make a coherent plan of action for Pre-K-16 education.

NCLB legislation has emphasized the need for teacher quality as well by requiring that all teachers be highly qualified by the end of the 2005-06 school year. South Dakota is in a good position to achieve this lofty goal. We currently have 92.7% of core courses taught by highly qualified teachers (based on 2004-05 data). When we disaggregate the data, although we have not closed the gap completely with filling our high and low-poverty schools equitably with highly qualified teachers, we are only 3 percentage points apart.

South Dakota is well on its way to meeting the challenge of the NCLB requirements of 100% of its teachers by the end of the 2006-2007 school year. We intend to phase out the HOUSSE plan over the next year and currently require all incoming core content teachers to validate their content knowledge with the corresponding Praxis II test.

When South Dakota was confronted with the new requirements for highly qualified teachers, a task force was rallied to discuss how best to approach the initiative. It became clear that without testing available in the state, it would be difficult to meet the standards of NCLB. Strong efforts were put forth to validate over 40 content specific Praxis II tests and another five Principals of Teaching and Learning (pedagogy) tests that went beyond the core content areas. Rules were put into place that require testing in both content and pedagogy to be certified in the State of South Dakota effective July 1, 2005. For those elementary teachers that were new to the profession, the South Dakota Department of Education required they pass the Praxis II Elementary content test prior to being hired in the 2005-06 school year. Major efforts were made to contact and inform teachers across the state of this requirement. In addition, South Dakota has gone above and beyond the NCLB requirements for middle and high school core content teachers. While Title I allows these teachers to be highly qualified based on a major in the content, South Dakota requires all new teachers to take the Praxis test to be certified and highly qualified.

In the effort to correctly collect and maintain accurate data based on the federal requirements and South Dakota's HOUSSE rules, a new data system was created that matches teacher preparation to all core content subject areas. Logic is in place that determines the highly qualified status of teachers in each core content subject they are assigned to teach as a result of the yearly data submission of the personnel record form system. This database is a dynamic system that is accessible to districts at all times to reflect the current highly qualified status of a teacher throughout the year. School districts can monitor their HQT status throughout the year in the effort to achieve 100% of core courses being taught by highly qualified teachers. We believe our system accurately reflects the status of teachers as it is not self-reported by districts, but rather is matched to the certification and HOUSSE rule database. If for example a teacher takes a Praxis II test, the data is automatically downloaded into the system to update the teacher's HQT status in that particular content area, which is then reflected instantly on the highly qualified teacher district report.

The South Dakota Department of Education has full intentions to continue to update data systems as needed. Discussions are occurring as how SDDOE will phase out the HOUSSE rules and how the data system will need to be changed to meet this requirement. Additionally, over the past year extensive programming was put into place to collect data on each special education teacher that is teaching core content. This system gives us an accurate picture of the status of these teachers across the state.

South Dakota's Revised Plan

The following plan has provided the South Dakota Department of Education a valuable in-depth look at the distribution of highly qualified teachers across the state. SD DOE has always been exceptionally strong in the ability to collect and maintain strong data systems that accurately reflect an array of information. However, whether it is time constraints or lack of resources in personnel, we are probably not unlike a lot of other states in not taking time to analyze the data. A prime example of the value of data analysis has been brought to the forefront as SD DOE led the way by providing districts with data retreats to scrutinize their assessment data. We recognized that analyzing the data was not enough without an action plan to determine next steps to improving instruction. Thus, statewide efforts were made to train districts in curriculum mapping that took things one step further by helping teachers to alter curriculum based on their previous analysis of the data. The data collection circle became valuable and complete.

Working through this plan provides us the same opportunity for SD DOE to analyze the immense amount of data we have collected regarding the highly qualified status of teachers across our state. This includes specific content needs and equitable distribution of teachers in core content. The most valuable and important step is how as we outline our intentions to address the obvious needs as a result of the data analysis.

As a result of the equity plan and our revised state plan, it has been determined that the South Dakota Department of Education will create as website that will highlight the updates, issue the news releases on improvements on teacher quality and equity issues, highlight the progress on the Governor's 2010E initiative, etc. Additionally, as a result of this analysis, it is important to note that the SD Department of Education, under the advisement of the Secretary of Education, Dr. Melmer, is creating a position that will devote half of its time to analyzing and reporting our data and the other half to research funding sources to support the analysis. We are data rich, analysis poor. The research and analysis done thus far in the revised state plan and in the equity plan have only scratched the surface of information that can be of value for not only teacher quality issues, but for educational issues in general. The SD Department of Education is currently is a study to restructure school funding. Without in-depth analysis of our data, we are making assumptions. The exercise in the creation of these two plans has created a valuable precedent for the South Dakota Department of Education. 

Revised Plan Status
  • Accepted
  •  
    Comments to Support Determination The State Plan met all six requirements. Reviewers noted that the State’s data system as described for Requirement 1 provides a solid basis for addressing all required elements.  
    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.

    South Dakota's Revised Plan

    South Dakota'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 See individual peer review 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 Analysis was made of all core content courses taught by teachers across the state (Appendix 1).* This data was pulled from the live database that matches teachers' certification to their assignments. Logic based on the federal definition and SD HOUSSE rules is applied that creates the HQT status of teachers in each core content area. These reports are available to districts and are updated as teachers meet the HQT requirements throughout the year (Appendix 2).*

    The data indicates that 13,719 core content classes are being taught by highly qualified teachers. 1075 core content classes are being taught by teachers that are not highly qualified in that particular content area. In 2004-05 this translated into 7.3% of classes not taught by highly qualified teachers or 92.7% of core content classes being taught by highly qualified teachers statewide. Of those classes, only 0.3% was taught by teachers with emergency or provisional certificates. The state report card gives the aggregate information which is available online at both the district and school level.

    Source: South Dakota's Online Report Card 

     
    Peer Review Response to Requirement 1-a A thorough analysis of classes taught by teachers who are not highly qualified was included in the revised plan. Extensive data at LEA, school, and classroom levels was provided in appendices to the plan. 
    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 An analysis of the staffing needs was made of those schools that did not make AYP (Appendix 3).*

    1. 26 of the 90 schools that did not make AYP had 100% of its teachers highly qualified (28.8%)
    2. 50 of the 90 schools fell below the state's 7.3% of classes not taught by highly qualified teachers (55.5%)
    In comparison, those that exceeded the state's 7.3% of classes not taught by highly qualified teachers:

    1. 40 of the 90 schools that did not make AYP ranged from 9.09% to 61.54% of classes not taught by highly qualified teachers (44.4%)
    90 Schools did not make AYPNumber of SchoolsPercentage of Schools
    100% classes taught by HQT2628.8%
    Less than 7.3% (state average) classes NOT taught by HQT5055.5%
    More than 7.3% classes not taught by HQT4044.4%

    Based on the above comparison, although there is a large percentage of schools identified as not making AYP if they have ANY amount of non-HQT (71.2%) the percentage of classes is relatively small until you reach the 7.3%. In many of these schools, they are quite small in number and the percentage translates into only ONE or TWO classes. A better comparison is at the state's point of 7.3% where only 44.4% of the schools have classes not taught by HQT.
    1. 23 of the 50 schools that fell below the state's 7.3% of classes not taught by highly qualified teachers were elementary, (46%), 14 were middle school (28%), 6 were high school (12%), and 7 were alternative schools (14%).
    2. 18 of the 40 schools that were above the state's 7.3% of classes not taught by HQT were elementary (45%), 13 were middle schools (25%), 6 were high schools (15%) and 3 were alternative schools (0.75%)
    Based on the above analysis, there does not appear to be a correlation of classes not taught by HQT and those schools that did not make AYP in relation to the type of attendance center.
    1. 48 of the 90 schools that did not make AYP were identified as being in the highest quartile for schools indicating poverty. (53%)
    2. 13 of the 90 schools that did not make AYP were identified in the lowest quartile (14%) and 29 were in the middle (32%).
    Highest Quartile (25%)Middle Quartile (50%)Lowest Quartile (25%)
    53%32%14%

    Based on this analysis, it appears that poverty may be a significant indicator on student achievement.

    Less than 7.3% of classes not taught by HQTMore than 7.3% of classes not taught by HQT
    46% Elementary 45% Elementary
    28% Middle School32.5% Middle School
    12% High School15% High School
    14% Alternative Schools7.5% Alternative Schools

    1. 46 of the 90 schools (51%) that did not make AYP are within districts have a significant Native American population, which is the largest minority in South Dakota
    2. 24 of the 40 schools (60%) that were above the state's 7.3% of classes not taught by HQT are within districts of a significant Native American population.
    Conclusions:
    There appear to be a number of factors that may influence whether or not schools make AYP. The data supports our assumptions that low income, minorities, and non-highly qualified staff contribute to the lack of student success. This plan will later address how the South Dakota Department of Education is focusing its resources on improving instruction, recruitment, and retention of teachers in these areas.

    However, the data does NOT indicate other factors such as school size, which sometimes impacts the size of the sub-group from being accountable due to the small numbers. This allows many smaller districts to make AYP in subgroups where there may be issues. Secondly, the data does not show what sort of professional development the district has been providing for staff to help them properly analyze and improve instruction. Thirdly, data does not show what sort of leadership is available to the district and the schools. Although we require teachers to be "highly qualified" we do not set the same standard for administration. 

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 1-b A chart provided on Page 4 of the plan reflects a focus on staffing needs of schools that are not making AYP. Data indicate that schools not making AYP have a broad range in percentages of classes taught by teachers that are not highly qualified—from a low of 9% to a high of 62%. 
    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 (See Appendix 1).*

    Analysis of the data:

    1. 170 of the 1075 classes (15.8%) not taught by HQT were elementary. Of the 170 in this group, all but 15 are new to the profession. In taking a quick audit of 15 of the 170 individuals listed as not HQT, all but one now has record of the test. Additionally, of this group, 4 classes were taught by non-certified personnel.
    2. 79 of the 1075 classes (7.3%) taught by teachers that were not HQT were reading classes at middle and elementary school. In analyzing some of the reasons for the number it was again due to the high number of individuals "new to the profession" that most likely did not have test results back at the time of the HQT report. This percentage should greatly decrease this year as only one person was a non-certified educator.
    3. 31 of the 1075 classes (2.9%) taught by teachers that were not HQT were foreign language. Probably the biggest difference in this group is the high number of classes taught by persons that are non-certified (10) or non-authorized (14 - these are people that are certified in another content area but out of field). This is 77% of this particular group of 31 classes taught by non-HQT teachers teaching foreign language. The remaining 7 are state certified with a bachelor's degree, but not with a major or a test in the specific foreign language.
    4. 215 of the 1075 classes (20%) taught by teachers that were not HQT were in the area of language arts. This includes both middle and high school courses that are often taught by the same individual. Language arts preparation in South Dakota includes a Language Arts Composite (grammar, composition, and literature), as well as individual preparations of speech, drama, theater, literature, composition, and mass media. Some preparations are combined. 129 of the classes were taught by existing teachers, while the remaining 86 were new to the profession. 21 of the classes taught by existing teachers were non-certified, and because these are disaggregated by individual content areas, it appeared that it accounted for only 3 teachers who were the "language arts departments" and taught multiple language arts courses in their small districts. Of the 86 classes taught by teachers new to the profession, only one individual was non-certified and taught 6 different classes of language arts in his school. Composition/grammar had the largest number of classes taught by non-HQT teachers, followed by speech.
    5. 149 of the 1075 classes (13.8%) taught by teachers that were not HQT were in the area of math. This includes both middle and high school. 89 of the 149 classes were taught by existing teachers and the remaining 60 classes by teachers new to the profession. Only one teacher that taught a single class was non-certified, while the others lacked a major, the test, or meeting HOUSSE rules.
    6. 142 of the 1075 classes (13.2%) taught by teachers that were not HQT were in the area of science. This is inclusive of both middle and high school teachers. South Dakota prepares teachers in each individual science area at either the major or minor level. There is a general science for middle school and a composite program at one of the universities that allows for two areas of emphasis, but with the new rules requires a content test for each area. The largest number of classes taught by non-HQT teachers was in the specific area of physical science (39 classes = 27.4% of all science taught by non-HQT). Chemistry (15 classes = 10.6%) and Physics (13 classes = 9.1%) were next two closest content areas other than general science taught at the 8th grade (18 classes = 12.7%). 76 of the classes were taught by existing teachers, 66 by new teachers. Only 3 of the teachers were non-certified, while the others lacked a major, the test, or meeting HOUSSE rules.
    7. 165 of the 1075 classes (9.4%) taught by teachers that were not HQT were in the area of social science. 40 of the 165 (24.2%) classes in social science taught by non-HQT were in geography. History to include American and world, was the second content area with 35 of the 165 classes (21%), followed by social science in the 8th grade to include 24 of the 165 classes (14.5%). Existing teachers comprised 92 of the classes taught by non-HQT and the remaining 73 were new to the profession.
    8. 16 of 1075 classes (1.5%) taught by teachers that were not HQT were in the area of art. Two of the teachers were non-certified, while the others lacked a major, the test, or meeting HOUSSE rules. Six of the classes were taught by existing teachers while the remaining 10 were by teachers new to the profession. 3 classes were taught by non-certified personnel (18.7%).
    9. 111 of the 1075 classes (10.3%) taught by teachers that were not HQT were in the area of music, to include both vocal and instrumental. Once again, this represented many of the same teachers who are the music department in their schools teaching multiple classes. This group (music) has the largest number of non-certified individuals teaching 39 of the 111 classes (35%).
    10. Note: Special education was NOT calculated separately in 2004-05. If special education teachers taught core content, they were figured into the collection as a whole. If they were NOT the core content instructor and using the inclusion model, they indicated such in the personnel record form system and no calculation was run. The year, 2005-06, a special report has been created for SPED (see appendix) and a separate calculation will be made to meet the requirements.
    Core Content
    (Total # classes NOT taught by HQT = 1075)
    # Classes taught by non-HQT% of Classes taught by non-HQT in non-HQT group# Classes taught by non-certified personnel% Classes taught by non-certified personnel% of Classes taught by non-HQT compared to all core content classes(14,794)
    Art171.6%317.6%.01%
    Foreign Language312.9%1032%.02%
    Science14313.3%74.9%.97%
    TOTALS1075100%
    This is an abbreviated table. For complete information, see the full report, pages 6-9.

    The conclusions that were drawn from this data are available on pages 8 and 9 in South Dakota's Revised Plan
    Peer Review Response to Requirement 1-c The plan indicated that a separate analysis of special education teachers will be conducted based on 2005-2006 data to more clearly ascertain the needs of special education teachers. The State noted that the analysis revealed a need to pay attention, particularly, to Language Arts (including Reading) teachers. 
    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  
    Peer Review Response to Requirement 1-d Nine (9) LEAs where significant numbers of teachers do not meet highly qualified teacher standards were identified by name in a table on Page 11 of the plan. The table reveals for each of those LEAs the number and percentage of core academic subject classes not taught by highly qualified teachers.

    The State concluded from its analysis that low-income, high-minority, and small/isolated areas have the most difficulty in attracting and retaining highly qualified teachers.  

    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 This analysis was made within question 1-c above down to the course. In many of our small rural districts, teachers are asked to teach multiple subjects and it is not specific to a "math teacher". Thus the analysis done in 1-c covers this quite thoroughly. 
    Peer Review Response to Requirement 1-e Language Arts (including Reading) was identified in the analysis as a course that is frequently taught by teachers that are not highly qualified. 
    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 Refer to sub-requirement responses. 
    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 Our state has a live, online database that is accessible to all LEAs. This database identifies the individual teacher(s) and content are in which they are not currently HQT (Appendix 2).* This online database generates the final data that is used to make the yearly determination of the percentage of classes not taught by HQT at both the district and attendance center level. It is currently based on South Dakota's HOUSSE rules, which will need to be reprogrammed as we phase the HOUSSE rules out over the upcoming year.

    This database generates the final data for South Dakota's online report card, which gives the teacher qualifications for each district and attendance center as well.

    Source: South Dakota's Online Report Card

    Appendix A lists the LEA's that have not met the 100% classes being taught by HQT (based on 2004-05 data).* This same analysis will be made of the 2005-06 data shortly after this submission. 

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 2-a The State identifies LEAs not meeting annual measurable objectives for highly qualified teachers in Appendix 2 where the percentage of classes not taught by highly qualified teachers is provided for each LEA and attendance center. It was noted that 48.4% of LEAs have met the 100% goal. This data is available from an on-line, live database that can be updated and from which data can be extracted at any time. 
    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 The South Dakota Department of Education has traditionally taken the approach that if we supply the data, good decisions would be made as a result. Perhaps the best lesson we learned came from our data retreats that were held statewide after our first few test administrations. Simply having the data at hand did not help districts take the extra step to analyze and make decisions about what to do with the data once they had it. This is where the next step was taken to provide curriculum mapping for the districts to complete the data analysis circle and to make positive approaches to correcting needs.

    We are now at that point with LEAs that have not met annual measurable objectives in achieving the goal of having 100% of their classes taught by HQT. We have given them the necessary information to identify individual teachers who were not properly qualified, however, we did not give them a planning tool to make the next step in moving towards 100% of all classes taught by HQT. The following steps will occur in the upcoming year with the attached HQT Plan Template. Due to our reporting cycle, we feel it is best to allow districts to be able to analyze their staff after inputting the assignments into the PRF system, which is required by all LEAs by October 15.

    1. School districts (LEAs) were sent a memo requesting they review the HQT online report to assure DOE (SEA) of any inaccuracies in teacher status in May 2006;
    2. The SD DOE generated the final report of the each district/school percentage of courses not being taught by HQT on June 30, 2006 for the 2005-06 school year;
    3. This data will populate the online report card for 2005-06;
    4. Changes in staffing will be indicated in the Personnel Record Form system this fall, due October 15, 2006;
    5. e) The online database will reflect the status of any class not being taught by HQT (accessible by individual districts 24/7);
    6. Based on the online database, LEAs will be asked to submit a plan to SD DOE by November 15, 2006, that indicates how they intend to have their teachers on the path to being HQT in all core content by the end of the 2006-07 school year (see Appendix 4 & 5—Guidance for Meeting and Maintaining the 100% Goal and LEA HQ Plan Template);
    7. The plan will be reevaluated by the LEA prior to the end of the year and a progress report will be submitted to the SEA by May 15, 2007.
    Items f and g are NEW requirements imposed by SD DOE that will be used as a planning tool for districts to measure their own progress. 
    Peer Review Response to Requirement 2-b The plan includes specific steps that will be taken by LEAs that have not met annual measurable objectives. For example, the plan includes a guidance document prepared by the State for LEAs to use in developing their LEA highly qualified teacher plans. A companion template for developing local plans includes steps that each LEA must take and requires LEAs to add strategies based on an analysis of highly qualified teachers and assignments in each of the schools within the LEA. 
    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 The LEA HQ Plan Template includes the following components:
    1. Needs assessment
    2. Target audience
    3. Planning collaboration
    4. Lea actions to get all teachers highly qualified
    5. Lea actions to retain highly qualified teachers
    6. Lea assurances related to highly qualified teachers
    7. Individual teacher plan for achieving highly qualified status
     
    Peer Review Response to Requirement 2-c The plan specifies steps the State will take to ensure that all LEAs have plans in place to assist non-highly qualified teachers to become highly qualified as quickly as possible. While State steps were described, it was not clear that the steps are connected with State policies, practices and strategies articulated elsewhere in 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 Refer to sub-requirement responses. 
    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 The SD Department of Education has been thoughtful in the creation of the database that is accessible to LEAs in monitoring the status of their HQT percentages. SD DOE plans to provide statewide meetings via the Dakota Digital Network that will review the requirements of the HQT plans. Every district has two-way audio/video systems in place that minimize travel time and allow for interactive meetings between districts and SD DOE.
    1. October 2006—Meetings to review requirements of the HQT plan
    2. November 2006—Meetings for districts with concerns prior to November 15, deadline for plan submission
    3. April 2007—Meetings to discuss progress based on SEA review on online progress
    4. May 2007—Monitoring of HQT progress reports.
    A final update will be required of all districts prior to the June 2007 submission which calculates the 2006-07 HQT status of all districts/attendance centers. Districts will need to justify any reasons for not meeting the 100% HQT status before the end of year. 
    Peer Review Response to Requirement 3-a The plan includes a description of technical assistance the State will provide to assist LEAs in successfully carrying out their highly qualified teacher plans. For example, the State will: provide technical assistance for developing LEA plans; conduct follow-up meetings to address LEA concerns; conduct meetings to discuss progress; and conduct monitoring of progress reports submitted periodically by LEAs. 
    Requirement 3-b Does the plan indicate that the staffing and professional development needs of schools that are not making AYP will be given high priority?  
    Does the revised state plan meet requirement 3-b?
  • Yes
  •  
    Revised State Plan Addressing Requirement 3-b AYP determinations are finalized in August each year, and thus many decisions regarding professional development needs to be made prior to that time. However, SD DOE has focused a number of their initiatives on the districts that have not made AYP:
    1. Mentoring—SD DOE has a mentoring program mandated in statute which is not funded. However, through efforts of the Teacher Quality Enhancement grant, money was targeted for mentoring at schools that did not make AYP. Mentoring teams were established and will continue to have funding for one additional year through the grant. Efforts are being made to repurpose funds in SD DOE that will be taken to the 2007 Legislature.
    2. Grants to assist school districts that fail to achieve AYP—the 2006 Legislature passed laws requiring that any district failing to make AYP apply to SD DOE for a grant to assist them in meeting future academic targets. This includes, but is not limited to, ways in which they will properly staff their schools and provide professional development. SDCL 13-3-72
    3. Educational Service Agencies (ESAs)—ESAs were established in 2004. One of their primary focuses is to assist schools by delivering educational services and technical assistance in a sustainable format. School Improvement Specialists provide leadership and support in the areas of federal and state legislative mandates, data analysis, school improvement, and professional development to LEAs that have not met AYP.
     
    Peer Review Response to Requirement 3-b Several specific initiatives are cited that demonstrate a priority for staffing and professional needs of schools not making AYP. One such initiative uses Teacher Quality Enhancement grant funds to provide teacher mentoring in schools that did not make AYP. 
    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 Assistance for LEAs:
    1. E-Learning Center—The Legislature appropriates funds to Northern State University to provide courses via the Digital Dakota Network, South Dakota's two-way video/audio system. The university hires highly qualified staff to offer core content courses that are difficult for some of the smaller districts to find qualified staff. These courses are limited to districts that qualify for the sparcity factor where some of the highest needs are for qualified staff.
    2. Virtual High School—The 2006 Legislature gave the SD DOE the authority to create the South Dakota Virtual High School. An advisory council is underway to create rules that will govern the approval of courses and providers that must meet the standards of highly qualified staff. The intention of the Virtual High School is to provide classes that may otherwise not be available to districts across the state who do not have highly qualified staff.
    3. Educational Service Agencies (ESAs)—ESAs were established in 2004. One of their primary focuses is to assist schools by delivering educational services and technical assistance in a sustainable format. School Improvement Specialists provide leadership and support in the areas of federal and state legislative mandates, data analysis, school improvement, and professional development to LEAs.
    Assistance for teachers:
    1. Praxis II test preparation website—In collaboration with the South Dakota Board of Regents and with funds through the Teacher Quality Enhancement grant, a website is being completed that supports teachers in preparing for the Praxis II tests. Each university that offers the individual program has submitted study guides for the supporting tests.

      Source: Praxis II Teacher Preparation

    2. Support for advanced degrees—Through funds of the Teacher Quality Enhancement grant, master degree cohorts were created across the state in collaboration with the five public universities. The grant pays 1/3, the district 1/3, and the teacher 1/3 of the cost towards the completion of a master's degree. Over 100 teachers statewide are participating in the program and it is geared specifically to curriculum and instruction in their content area.
    3. National Board Certification—In 2001, South Dakota had only 7 teachers who had achieved NBC status. Through focused efforts from the Teacher Quality Enhancement grant, the state developed the EveryTeacher National Board Candidate Support Program. To date, over 40 teachers are NBC with another 35 in candidacy. There is a strong mentoring team in place for those who are working through the process. South Dakota supports NBC teachers with a reimbursement of application fees upon passing the certification and they are paid $1000 from both their district and the SD DOE for five years. New 2006 legislation extend the time to ten years, if the district commits to paying the additional funds.
     
    Peer Review Response to Requirement 3-c The plan includes a description of specific programs and services the State will provide to assist teachers and LEAs in meeting highly qualified teacher goals. For example, LEAs may utilize State-provided e-learning courses in small high schools, offer courses through the Virtual High School, and participate in programs and services offered through regional education service agencies. The State provides to teachers a Praxis II test preparation website and support for advanced degrees and NBPTS certification through the Teacher Quality Enhancement grant. 
    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
    1. It is important to note that at the time of this plan, we do not have the current data for the 2005-06 school year. It is anticipated that there will be some significant changes and until then, it would not be appropriate to make final determinations as to where to target resources. It is anticipated that many of the same issues will reside in Language Arts, but with a new look at teacher preparation standards and how we currently code these persons through the Praxis II tests, this may also change. This will be re-evaluated with the new data.
     
    Peer Review Response to Requirement 3-d The plan acknowledges the need to target specific teacher subgroups, including those identified in Requirement 1, and indicates that specific steps will be re-evaluated based on data from the 2005-2006 school year. 
    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
    1. Title II Part A—The SD DOE has prioritized part of its funds to support the Governor's New Teacher Academy. This Academy which is in its 2nd year, is focused on retaining teachers who are new to the profession. Support from educational agencies and higher education are part of the agenda and teachers are advised on how to become HQT if they are assigned in a content area outside of their preparation.
    2. Title II Part A - SAHE—SD DOE has met with the representatives of the Board of Regents regarding the SAHE portion of the Title II Part A money. The SAHE makes competitive grants to eligible partnerships comprised of at least one institution of higher education (IHE) and at least one high need local education agency (LEA). In recent conversations, the revised teacher quality plan was discussed, and it was determined that after the final re-analysis of the data from 2005-06, SD DOE and the SAHE partners would write the grant application specific to the needs found in the data. The previous approach was one of finding a university faculty person with an interest and finding a matching district. Instead, we will identify the need and then find an appropriate higher education institution to work with. These ideas will be brought to the South Dakota Association of Colleges of Teachers Education meeting in the fall of 2006.
    3. Title II Part B—The Mathematics and Science Partnerships (MSP) grant program is authorized under Title II, Part B of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) Act of 2001. The purpose of the program is to fund partnerships of high-need school districts, four-year institutions of higher education (IHEs), and other organizations, to improve the academic achievement of students in mathematics.

      Source: South Dakota Mathematics and Science Grant Application

      The primary goal of the South Dakota MSP is a focused statewide professional development program designed to build broad-based expertise and leadership for improving student achievement in elementary mathematics instruction. This program will develop a statewide educational community with a cadre of skilled professionals to serve as resources and trainers in the ongoing effort to improve elementary mathematics instruction.

      The K-5 mathematics professional development project for this RFP utilizes research based strategies which have been evidenced to be effective with students of diverse backgrounds. It is the intent of this grant that participating teachers complete all components of the training to effectively impact mathematics instruction. Common assessment tools will be utilized across all projects to assist the state in evaluating and providing feedback on the overall state level project as well as ensure a means to conduct research around all awarded projects.

      During the next three years, SD MSP Program will:

      • Increase student academic achievement as measured by the state mathematics standards.
      • Train and place one mathematics specialist in up to 9 different sites in South Dakota.
      • Provide training for one mathematics teacher leader for potentially each elementary building in South Dakota.
      • Support work in each participating district to train additional interested K-5 teachers.
      • Conduct training for building principals to support the work of the mathematics teacher.

    4. Title I Part A—These funds continue to support professional development and data analysis across all districts but are focused intently in districts and schools that fail to make AYP. The Educational Service Agencies are working in close collaboration with the Title I staff to support those districts/school not making AYP.
     
    Peer Review Response to Requirement 3-e The plan includes, on Pages 16-17, a thorough description of how the State will use its available federal funds to address the needs of teachers who are not highly qualified. The plan indicates priority for staffing and professional development needs of schools not making AYP. Examples of this priority include a State partnership with SAHE and increased development and implementation of alternative teacher preparation programs, both of which are focused on teachers in schools not making AYP.  
    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
    1. AYP determinations are not made until August. At that point, many of the grants and projects have been awarded or started. Thus we have tried to focus many of our PD opportunities for schools in high needs areas that are either currently on school improvement or have the highest risk. The MSP program above gave preference to schools that have been identified as high need.
    2. The conversations with the SAHE representatives focused on identifying schools that had not made AYP for the next round of grants. The RFPs will go out in the fall, thus it is time appropriate.
    3. SD DOE has placed a renewed interest in Alternative Certification programs and in placing content experts in high needs schools. Troops to Teachers, Teach for America, and Project Select have all focused on areas with high needs in both income and minorities. This has been given special attention in the Governor's 2010E plan and ways in which we can attract second career persons into teaching.

      Source: 2010 Education Plan

     
    Peer Review Response to Requirement 3-f The plan includes, on Pages 16-17, a thorough description of how the State will use its available federal funds to address the needs of teachers who are not highly qualified. The plan indicates priority for staffing and professional development needs of schools not making AYP. Examples of this priority include a State partnership with SAHE and increased development and implementation of alternative teacher preparation programs, both of which are focused on teachers in schools not making AYP.

    (This information overlaps with Peer Review Response to Requirement 3-e.) 

    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 Refer to sub-requirement response. 
    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
    1. With the HOUSSE rules elimination, the LEAs' HQT plans will most likely give one of three options: 1) reassignment of teachers, 2) additional degree in content, and 3) Praxis II test. The database that calculates the status of classes being taught by HQT is a live database. Any changes in teaching assignments are indicated in the Personnel Record Form system which automatically updates the HQT online report. Additionally, if another degree is added—bachelors, advanced, or NBC—the DOE certification system is updated and this automatically updates the HQT report. Finally, after each Praxis II test administration, SD DOE receives an automatic upload of test scores from ETS. Any person with a passing score is automatically updated in the certification system, which again automatically updates the HQT online report. With these automatic updates occurring through the school year, DOE will be able to compare the initial HQT status from the fall of 2006, the LEA HQT plans, and the final HQT status in the spring of 2007. This comparison is NOT self reported from the districts but instead based on collected data. This will allow the SEA to monitor LEA progress.
    2. LEAs will be required to assess their progress towards the HQT goal
     
    Peer Review Response to Requirement 4-a The revised plan indicates how the State will monitor LEA compliance and hold LEAs accountable for successful implementation of their highly qualified teacher plans through the State's comprehensive live, online database, data interfaces, and required reporting. 
    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
    1. The online database provides the SEA with the ability to spot check LEA progress throughout the year. Additionally, using the timeline prescribed above, districts will need to give justification for not having met the 100 percent HQT goal by the end of the year.
    2. As part of the consolidated application related to Title II Part A, districts are asked to describe how the professional development activities are based on scientifically based research and how they are expected to improve student academic achievement as well as how the district will develop initiatives to recruit and retain highly qualified instructional staff. These applications are reviewed and will be further scrutinized to assure they build on the LEAs HQT plan.
     
    Peer Review Response to Requirement 4-b The plan describes clearly how the state will provide technical assistance to all LEAs in light of the fact that the AYP status of LEAs and schools may change. Provision of technical assistance to all LEAs appears in this case to be a preventive mechanism for having classes taught by non-highly qualified teachers. The plan provides an assurance that LEAs and schools not making AYP will receive a level of technical assistance sufficient to attain the goal of 100% highly qualified teachers. 
    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
    1. The online database provides the SEA with the ability to spot check LEA progress throughout the year. Additionally, using the timeline prescribed above, districts will need to give justification for not having met the 100 percent HQT goal by the end of the year.
    2. As part of the consolidated application related to Title II Part A, districts are asked to describe how the professional development activities are based on scientifically based research and how they are expected to improve student academic achievement as well as how the district will develop initiatives to recruit and retain highly qualified instructional staff. These applications are reviewed and will be further scrutinized to assure they build on the LEAs HQT plan.
     
    Peer Review Response to Requirement 4-c The plan describes how the State will monitor whether LEAs attain the 100% goals in the percentage of highly qualified teachers and the percentage of teachers who receive high-quality professional development. For example, the state will "spot check" LEA progress through the online database and will analyze the Title II, Part A component of each LEA's consolidated application for federal funds to ensure that professional development activities are aligned with the LEA Plan for Highly Qualified Teachers. 
    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 The intent of the SEA is to monitor the LEAs for "good faith efforts" in achieving the 100 percent HQT goals. It is unrealistic to believe that South Dakota will ever achieve 100% of ALL core content courses taught by highly qualified teachers. Teaching staff has a natural attrition of personnel that is due to retirements, relocation, job changes, etc. As a result, districts are often left with gaps in filling positions. Thus it is sometimes necessary to hire staff that is not properly certified nor highly qualified for their teaching assignments. The most important decision a district can make is to determine what is in the best interests of the students and if that requires them to hire someone that is not properly qualified, they may need to do so. However, they THEN need to put in place a plan with that individual to help them to become highly qualified.

    The role of the SEA will be to determine if districts truly are making the good faith effort. It will be possible to monitor their progress through the LEA HQT plans and match it to the online HQT report for each district. Careful attention will be paid to those districts in which no gains are made and technical assistance will be offered to LEAs based on their efforts. 

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 4-d The plan indicates that the State will continue to monitor each LEA's "good faith effort" and that the type and extent of technical assistance and state involvement will depend upon the assessment of effort and resulting progress toward meeting highly qualified teacher and AYP goals. Specifically, the plan states on Page 19 that "Careful attention will be paid to those districts in which no gains are made and technical assistance will be offered … based on their efforts." Based on 2005-2006 data, the State should elaborate on its implementation of ESEA, Section 2141 and more clearly articulate technical assistance and corrective actions that will be applied in the absence of a "good faith effort" and/or failure to meet highly qualified teacher goals.  
    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 Refer to sub-requirement response. 
    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 SEA will allow only those teachers not new to the profession who were hired before the end of the 2005-06 school year to "complete" HOUSSE by the end of the 2006-07 school year if they are currently in the middle of completing requirements. Any new subject area must be validated by a Praxis II content test from this date forward. We require this of all majors and minors for initial certification as well as to add additional authorizations to a certificate. The only exception would be if someone were to become Nationally Board Certified in a particular content area or if they were to obtain an advanced degree in content area. We do not require the Praxis II test at that level. 
    Peer Review Response to Requirement 5-a The revised plan indicates that the State will complete, by the end of the 2006-2007 school year, the HOUSSE process for all teachers not new to the profession who were hired before the end of the 2005-2006 school year. Teachers who currently are in-progress with the HOUSSE will be allowed to complete that option prior to the end of the 2006-2007 school year. 
    Requirement 5-b Does the plan describe how the State will limit the use of HOUSSE after the end of the 2005-06 school year to the following situations:
    • Multi-subject secondary teachers in rural schools who, if HQ in one subject at the time of hire, may use HOUSSE to demonstrate competence in additional subjects within three years of the date of hire; or
    • Multi-subject special education teachers who are new to the profession, if HQ in language arts, mathematics, or science at the time of hire, may use HOUSSE to demonstrate competence in additional subjects within two years of the date of hire.  
    Does the revised state plan meet requirement 5-b?
  • Yes
  •  
    Revised State Plan Addressing Requirement 5-b South Dakota requires all subjects to be validated with the Praxis II content test. For multi-subject secondary teachers in rural schools, although they would have the additional time to demonstrate competency by obtaining a major or passing the appropriate Praxis II content test, they would still show up on the HQT report as not being HQT in that content area. The DOE is encourages districts to help their multi-subject teachers become HQT as quickly as possible so that it will not be reflected on their HQT report. The same guidance is being given to special education teachers so that their HQT reports are not affected adversely by not being HQT.

    As a testing state, we feel we have moved in the right direction by aligning our certification standards to the goals set forth for highly qualified. We have the support of our preparing institutions by testing all students prior to recommendation for certification. We require testing for all out of state teachers entering our state to assure they have proper content knowledge. We require testing for all existing teachers who are adding new authorizations to their certificate. While we know that passing a single does not assure that teachers bring the proper attitudes and dispositions to the field, we can assure hiring LEAs of teachers' content knowledge.  

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 5-b In relating the State's limited need for HOUSSE, the plan indicates that all core academic subject teachers who receive initial certification by the State and those that add content endorsements to existing certificates are required to take the appropriate Praxis II test. (It is noted that teachers who become certified in a content area through the National Board for Professional Teaching Standards and teachers who obtain an advanced degree in a content area are not required to take a Praxis II test.) This discussion seems to indicate that the State will not allow any use of the HOUSSE after the end of the 2006-2007 school year. It is admirable that the State has set a very high standard for demonstrating content knowledge. It should be noted, however, that the use of HOUSSE for certain multi-subject special education teachers who are new to the profession is allowable under IDEA 2004. 
    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 The revised plan includes a comprehensive equity plan that is based on extensive data analyses. Multiple factors representing underlying causes of inequitable teacher distribution and factors impacting the potential success of the strategies are presented and addressed. The plan includes immediate and long-range strategies and measures of success are delineated. The equity plan demonstrates a thorough, measured, and thoughtful approach to a very complex problem. Further, the plan demonstrates the State's commitment to providing equitable distribution of highly qualified, experienced, and effective teachers. 
    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 Yes, the equity plan is a separate document. Please refer to the full text for further information.

    South Dakota's Equity Plan 

    Peer Review Response to Requirement 6-a See overall peer review response for Requirement 6. 
    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 Pages 2-5 discuss and analyze where the inequities exist. We do, however, feel that we now want to do a much more in-depth analysis of the specific teacher assignments within the identified districts. Using the 2005-06 data, we intend to expand our plan and research. 
    Peer Review Response to Requirement 6-b See overall peer review response for Requirement 6. 
    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 The equity plan is based on eight different elements that the South Dakota Department of Education feel will help us to address inequities in the distribution of teachers across the state.
    • Reporting Systems
    • Teacher Preparation
    • Out-of-Field Teaching
    • Recruitment and Retention of Experienced Teachers
    • Professional Development
    • Specialized Knowledge and Skills
    • Working Conditions
    • Policy Coherence
     
    Peer Review Response to Requirement 6-c See overall peer review response for Requirement 6. 
    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 Each element is analyzed by: 1) Inventory of what is in place, 2) Strategies and implementation to support the plan, and 3) Methods for measuring success. 
    Peer Review Response to Requirement 6-d See overall peer review response for Requirement 6. 
    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 The SEA takes the majority of responsibility for making opportunities available to LEAs regardless of their location and regardless of their level of poverty and minority status. The SEA feels that it needs to make available resources that cannot be found in these districts due to a number of factors. It is then incumbent on the LEA to make the right choices when placing and hiring teachers and to take advantage of statewide resources that may help increase the number of highly qualified teachers in these districts. These resources and opportunities are part of the equity plan. 
    Peer Review Response to Requirement 6-e See overall peer review response for Requirement 6. 


    © 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