Title IIA Accountability: The State of Play

Trish KellyDirector, Data and Research

Federal ProgramsTennessee Department of EducationFederal Programs Director Training

Murfreesboro, TN10/23/09

Agenda

Title IIA Requirements and Benchmarks

PD Data: 2008-09 PD Survey HQ Classes Data: 2007-08 CSPR ARRA Metrics

Title II, Part A

Teacher Quality accountability status under NCLB (Section1119(a)(2)) is based on benchmarks for:

• Professional Development (PD)• Highly Qualified Teachers (HQ)

Title IIA 1. Professional Development Benchmarks

The percentage of instructional personnel receiving high-quality professional development:

Exceeds the previous year’s percentage or Averaged over three years exceeds the 2002-03

baseline.

A response rate of 30% or more on the professional development survey (Tennessee Professional Development Teacher Questionnaire)

Title IIA 2. Highly Qualified Teachers Benchmark

100% of core academic courses are taught by highly qualified teachers

Lagged Data

IIA Status for school year 2009-10 will be based on data from 2008-09.

The HQ percentages determining IIA status for school year 2009-10 will be from the 2008-09 HQ snapshot.

The same 2008-09 HQ %s will appear on the 2009 Tennessee State Report Card (opens in fall 2009).

HQ Data Snapshot

Once the HQ Snapshot is taken, the HQ data freeze.

If your district’s HQ % is less than 100%, explain why in your IIA Improvement Plan.

IIA Status for School Year

Good Standing - met the IIA benchmarks Target – failed to meet one or more of the

IIA benchmarks (missed PD or HQ or both) Title II A Improvement - failed to meet a

Title II A benchmark for 2 consecutive years Title II A Corrective Action - did not meet

one of the Title II A benchmarks AND the LEA is high priority (i.e. did not make Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) for 3 consecutive years)

Straight ChartTitle II-A Accountability and LEA Status for School Year 2008-09

(based on prior year data)

LEA Number LEA Name Professional Development

2007-08 %

2008-09 Status

2006-07 %

2007-08 Status

Cumulative Professional Development

Status* Teachers Receiving High Quality Professional Development (Requirement: Exceeds Previous Year)

Instructional Personnel Responding to Professional Development Survey (Requirement: 30% Response Rate)

Overall Professional Development Status -- -- Source: University of Memphis, Center for Research on Education Policy, Tennessee Professional Development Teacher Questionnaire (http://72.51.41.239/CrepReport/PDSurveyIndex.jsp)

Highly Qualified Teachers

2007-08 %

2008-09 Status

2006-07 %

2007-08 Status

Cumulative Highly

Qualified Teachers Status**

% of Core Academic Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers (Requirement: 100%)

Source: Office of Teacher Quality, Tennessee Report Card 2008 (http://edu.reportcard.state.tn.us/pls/apex/f?p=200:70:5620157915983474::NO:::).

2008-09

Title II-A Status***

* Cumulative Professional Development Status equals II-A Improvement for LEAs with Target Status in either Professional Development category for two

consecutive years. ** Cumulative Highly Qualified Teachers Status equals II-A Improvement for LEAs with Target status for two consecutive years. *** Title II-A Status equals II-A Improvement for LEAs with a II-A Improvement designation in either Cumulative Professional Development Status or

Cumulative Highly Qualified Teachers Status.

Generated: January 2009 Office of Federal Programs, Tennessee Department of Education

II-A 2008-09 Based on 2007-08 Data.xls

Average ChartTitle II-A Accountability and LEA Status for School Year 2008-09

(based on prior year data) LEA Number LEA Name

High Quality Professional Development

2002-03 Baseline

%

Average of 2005-06, 2006-07

and 2007-08

%

2008-09 Status

2007-08 Status

Cumulative

High Quality Professional Development

Status

Teachers Receiving High Quality Professional Development (Requirement: 3-Year Average Exceeds 2002-03 Baseline)

Response Rate

2007-08

%

2008-09 Status

2006-07

%

2007-08 Status

Cumulative Response Rate

Status

Instructional Personnel Responding to Professional Development Survey (Requirement: 30% Response Rate)

Overall Professional Development Status

2007-08 %

2008-09 Status

2006-07 %

2007-08 Status

Cumulative Professional Development

Status*

-- -- Source: University of Memphis, Center for Research on Education Policy, Tennessee Professional Development Teacher Questionnaire (http://72.51.41.239/CrepReport/PDSurveyIndex.jsp)

Highly Qualified Teachers

2007-08 %

2008-09 Status

2006-07 %

2007-08 Status

Cumulative Highly

Qualified Teachers Status**

% of Core Academic Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers (Requirement: 100%)

Source: Office of Teacher Quality, Tennessee Report Card 2008 (http://edu.reportcard.state.tn.us/pls/apex/f?p=200:70:5620157915983474::NO:::).

2008-09

Title II-A Status***

* Cumulative Professional Development Status equals II-A Improvement for LEAs with Target Status in either Professional Development category for two consecutive years.

** Cumulative Highly Qualified Teachers Status equals II-A Improvement for LEAs with Target status for two consecutive years. *** Title II-A Status equals II-A Improvement for LEAs with a II-A Improvement designation in either Cumulative Professional Development Status or Cumulative Highly

Qualified Teachers Status. Generated: January 2009

Office of Federal Programs, Tennessee Department of Education II-A 2008-09 Based on 2007-08 Data.xls

Section 2141 Requirements

LEAs identified as IIA Improvement are required to develop Improvement plans.

The plans: identify problems that prevented achievement of

the benchmarks and specify actions that will be taken to achieve the

benchmarks.

LEAs identified as IIA Corrective Action are required to enter into more extensive improvement agreements with SEA.

IIA Improvement Plan Template

Title II-A Accountability Improvement Plan LEA: _______________________

Instructions: Complete and submit to your NCLB Consultant only the sections for which the LEA was identified as II-A Improvement for SY 2008-09 (based on prior year data).

HQPD Requirement: Increase in Instructional Personnel Receiving High Quality Professional Development (HQPD) % of instructional personnel receiving high quality professional development: ____ 2002-03 Baseline ____ Average of 2005-06, 2006-07, 2007-08 Strategies and Actions Taken or that Will be Taken to Achieve an Increase in Instructional Personnel Receiving HQPD (Add as many rows as necessary.)

Reasons for SY 2008-09 Status (based on prior year data)

Strategies and Action Step(s) Timeframe Documentation

Response Rate Requirement: 30% or More of Instructional Personnel Respond to the Professional Development (PD) Survey _____% of instructional personnel responding to the Professional Development Survey during 2007-08 Strategies and Actions Taken or that Will be Taken to Achieve a 30% Response Rate on the PD Survey (Add as many rows as necessary.)

Reasons for SY 2008-09 Status (based on prior year data)

Strategies and Action Step(s) Timeframe Documentation

IIA Improvement Plan Template HQ Teacher Requirement: 100% of Core Academic Courses Taught by HQ teachers ___ % of core academic classes taught by HQ teachers during SY 2007-08 (based on August 29, 2008 Snapshot). Subsequent Progress: ____ Check this box if the LEA subsequently achieved the 100% benchmark.

Strategies and Actions Taken or that Will be Taken to Achieve the 100% HQ Teachers Benchmark (Add as many rows as necessary.)

Reasons for SY 2008-09 Status (based on prior year data)Strategies and Action Step(s)TimeframeDocumentation Sample Reasons for SY 2008-09 HQ Teachers Status

Inaccurate data was provided to the state through EIS. Teachers who did not meet HQ requirements were assigned to core academic subjects. Sample Strategies for HQ Teachers Ensure Accurate Data in EIS and on the Preliminary Report. Assign Core courses to HQ teachers. Hire Teachers that are HQ. Assist teachers to meet HQ requirements as soon as possible. Sample Action Steps for HQ Teachers (Actions that will or are being taken to achieve the benchmarks) Revise the data collection process to enhance tracking of HQ status and improve accuracy of course coding. Insure that class assignments are accurate in EIS and the Preliminary Report. Initiate a screening procedure prior to making class assignments to ensure teachers are HQ for core courses assigned. Develop and implement a system to determine HQ status prior to employment such as including HQ documentation in application

packets. Insure that special courses with core subjects in the title are assigned to teachers HQ in the core subject. Include in the Principals’ Fall Training: information on class assignments, completing the preliminary report and Title II –A

Accountability. Develop Individual Action Plans for teachers to achieve HQ status. Promote small study groups or hold prep sessions for teachers completing Content Area or Praxis exams. Reimburse teachers for graduate course tuition or for PRAXIS test fees to help teachers attain HQ status. Notify teachers who have not documented HQ status that they will not be rehired unless they meet HQ requirements. Do not rehire teachers who do not meet HQ status. Sample Documentation for HQ Teachers HQ website, Written description of process or procedure, Principals’ Training Agenda, List of Contents of Application Packet

Taking Action – Improve Record Keeping

Revise data collection process to enhance tracking of HQ status.

Insure that class assignments are accurate from the earliest Preliminary Report.

Enter teachers and assignments accurately in EIS.

Develop and implement a system to determine HQ status prior to employment.

Enhance Application of HQ Requirements

Apply HQ requirements to Special Course assignments.

Provide additional training and guidelines to principals to insure that HQ teachers are assigned to core academic subjects.

Assist Teachers Seeking HQ status

Meet with individual teachers to evaluate progress on Individual Action Plans.

Promote small study groups / hold preparation sessions for teachers completing Content Area and Praxis requirements.

Reimburse teachers for Praxis exam fee.

Title IIA

Questions/Comments

2008-09 Professional Development Survey

2007-08 2008-09

Respondents 57,341 60,649

Respondents -1 or more PD activity

55,970(97.6%)

59,491(98.0%)

Respondents – No PD activities

1,371(2.4%)

1,158(2.0%)

Number of PD Activities

2007-08 (%)

2008-09(%)

0 2.4 1.9

1-2 9.8 9.7

3-4 22.6 21.2

5-6 28.2 27.2

7 or more 37.0 40.0

Did not reply 0.03 0.01

Number of Total “PD” Days

2007-08(%)

2008-09(%)

0-1 3.3 3.0

2-4 30.3 29.2

5-7 35.8 35.7

8-10 15.1 15.8

11-13 6.0 6.7

14 or more 9.2 9.4

Did not reply 0.24 0.25

Types of PD Activities

2007-08(%)

2008-09(%)

Coaching or mentoring by another teacher

46.1 47.7

Coaching or mentoring by non-peer (e.g., specialist, expert)

54.9 56.6

Training program or institute – more than 1 day in total time

58.5 59.2

College course related to teaching role

12.6 12.3

On-line or self-paced course 11.9 12.9

Completed National Board Certificate requirements

2.0 1.9

Other 13.6 13.9

Attributes of PD Activities

2008-09 %*

2008-09Ave. Rtg.

2007-08Ave. Rtg.

Improved knowledge of academic subjects 88 4.16 4.14

Part of school or district improvement plan 87 4.19 4.18

Improved ability to prepare students 86 4.16 4.12

Positive and lasting impact on instruction 87 4.19 4.16

Advanced understanding of effective instructional strategies

85 4.13 4.10

Aligned with content, achievement and assessment standards

90 4.30 4.25

Included data and assessment practices 81 4.03 3.98

* Sum of Strongly Agree and Agree

Attributes of PD Activities

* Sum of Strongly Agree and Agree 2008-09 %*

2008-09Ave. Rtg.

2007-08Ave. Rtg.

Improved classroom management 72 3.84 3.84

Developed with extensive participation of teachers, administrators, and parents

74 3.91 3.88

Designed to help ESL teachers improve instruction

56 3.52 3.48

Promoted the use of technology to aid instruction and learning

75 3.91 3.86

Evaluated the impact on teaching and learning

76 3.97 3.94

Provided training methods for teaching children with special needs

62 3.63 3.60

Provided more effective ways to work with parents

56 3.48 3.46

Overall Rating: Proportion of High Quality Activities

2007-08 2008-09

None 2.0 1.6

Some 23.7 22.2

Most 47.0 47.7

All 26.4 27.6

Did not reply 1.0 1.0

2007-08 Core Academic Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers (CSPR, 1.5.1)

School Type

% of Core Academic Classes Taught by HQ Teachers

% of Core Academic Classes NOT Taught by HQ Teachers

All Schools 97.8 2.2

     

Elementary 98.9 1.1

High Poverty 98.1 1.9

Low-Poverty 99.4 0.6

 

Secondary Level 96.6 3.4

High Poverty 94.2 5.8

Low-Poverty 98.3 1.7

ARRA – SFSF Metrics Achieving Equity in the Distribution of Teachers

Core HQ classes by poverty quartile Description of evaluation systems for teachers and principals

by LEA Indicate whether achievement outcomes are a criterion in

teacher and principal evaluations If performance ratings are available for teachers and principals,

provide the number and percentage in each performance category

are school level data available to the public in an accessible manner?

Improving Collection and Use of Data 12 elements of America Competes Act Teacher Effect Scores for Math & RLA Assessments

ARRA – SFSF Metrics Standards and Assessments

Evaluation of assessments including for IDEA and ELL students

4-year Adjusted Cohort Graduation Rate High School Graduates Enrolled in Higher Education High School Graduates Earning College Credits within 2

years

Supporting Struggling Schools Schools in Improvement, Corrective Action or

Restructuring turned around, consolidated or closed (additional data for lowest 5% schools)

Charter Schools authorized, operated, closed over last 5 years

Contact Information

Trish Kelly, Federal Programs, Trish.Kelly@tn.gov