THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT / THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK / ALBANY, NY 12234 DEPUTY COMMISSIONER Office of Higher Education Office of the Professions

 

TO:	Higher Education and Professional Practice Committee
FROM:	Johanna Duncan-Poitier
SUBJECT:	Report on Progress for Meeting Federal Teacher Quality Goals
DATE:	January 4, 2007
STRATEGIC GOAL:	Goal 3
AUTHORIZATION(S):

 

SUMMARY

 

Issue for Discussion

 

A review of progress made to ensure that all students are taught by highly qualified teachers and what additional initiatives are planned to address this issue.

 

Reason(s) for Consideration

 

For Information

 

Proposed Handling

 

This item will come before the Higher Education and Professional Practice Committee for discussion at its January 2007 meeting.

 

Recommendation

 

N/A

 

Timetable for Implementation

 

N/A

 

         

Background Information

 

In 1998, the Regents set clear goals for teacher quality and comprehensive policies for achieving them in order to raise student achievement and close achievement gaps.  Your policies have been implemented and teacher workforce data show that schools and districts have made significant progress, though teacher quality gaps remain and must be addressed.  We will report to you this spring on the certification status of teachers in school year 2005-2006 in our next annual teacher supply and demand report.

 

            The teacher quality goals in the federal No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 are aligned with Regents goals.  This item shows New York State’s progress toward meeting federal teacher quality goals.  Specifically, it shows 2005-2006 increases in the percent of classes in core academic subjects taught by teachers who met the federal definition of a “highly qualified” teacher.  In general, New York State teachers who meet Regents certification standards to teach a class are also “highly qualified” to teach the class, but there are a small number of exceptions.

 

            Federal Requirements.  Federal law requires (1) all public school classes in core academic subjects to be taught by highly qualified teachers; and (2) each state to have a plan to ensure that low-income and minority students are not taught at higher rates than other students by unqualified, out-of-field and inexperienced teachers.  To meet the federal definition of highly qualified, teachers must have a bachelor’s or higher degree, meet State certification standards and demonstrate subject knowledge for each of their teaching assignments in one of the ways required by law. 

 

            Data Quality.   The U.S. Department of Education requires the states to have accurate and complete teacher data.  The quality of our teacher data system is high because (1) it matches every teaching assignment every year to teacher certification records to determine whether the assignment is taught by an appropriately certified teacher; and (2) it requires districts to verify and/or correct their data when an assignment is taught by a teacher who is not appropriately certified.  Our teacher data system improved between 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 because it was changed to (1) count elementary, self-contained classes as instructed by the U.S. Department of Education; (2) assign a grade level to each core class to improve data consistency over time; and (3) hold charter school teachers to the same standards as all other teachers.  In addition, staff worked with the field to improve teacher data quality.   These improvements cause some data discontinuities between 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 but progress has been real and is not an artifact of data changes. 

 

            Progress in the Percent of Core Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers.  New York State increased the percent of core classes taught by highly qualified teachers and narrowed the gap between high poverty and low poverty districts and schools.  Table 1 shows the percent of core classes taught by highly qualified teachers for selected groups of districts and schools. 

 

·          New York State.  In 2005-2006, 94.5 percent of public school classes in core academic subjects in New York State were taught by highly qualified teachers, compared to 92.1 percent in 2004-2005.  

 

·          Districts.  The percent of core classes taught by highly qualified teachers rose in four of the five large cities between 2004-2005 and 2005-2006.  Of the large city districts, only Yonkers, with 99.4 percent of core classes taught by highly qualified teachers, was comparable to the low poverty districts (low N/RC) that were most likely to meet teacher quality standards. 

 

·          Schools.  The percent of core classes taught by highly qualified teachers in high poverty elementary schools rose from 81.7 to 91.9 percent, narrowing the gap between high poverty and low poverty elementary schools.  The percent of core classes taught by highly qualified teachers in high poverty middle/secondary schools rose from 80.3 to only 82.6 percent in 2005-2006, compared to 97.8 percent for low poverty middle/secondary schools in 2005-2006.  The greatest remaining gap in the State in 2005-2006 was the 15.2 percentage point gap between high poverty and low poverty middle/secondary schools. 

 

 

 

          Analysis of Classes Not Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers.  Tables 2A through 4B, which are at the end of this item, provide a detailed analysis of the core classes not taught by highly qualified teachers in 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 in order to focus on areas where improvement is needed.  Tables with 2005-2006 data are shaded grey, while tables with 2004-2005 data are not shaded.  The tables show that there is variation by subject area and district group.  A summary of the analysis for New York State as a whole is presented here.

 

·          Elementary core classes.  Only 3.1 percent of elementary core classes (Grades K-6) in New York State were not taught by highly qualified teachers in 2005-2006, down from 4.3 percent in 2004-2005. (Tables 2A and 2B)

 

·          Middle/secondary core classes.  In 2005-2006, only four middle/secondary subject areas in New York State had at least 5 percent of classes not taught by highly qualified teachers, down from six subject areas in 2004-2005.  The four remaining subject areas were the arts, languages other than English, math and science.  (Tables 2A and 2B)  

 

·          Science.  In 2005-2006, 8.0 percent of middle/secondary science classes in New York State were not taught by highly qualified teachers, down from 9.7 percent in 2004-2005.  The statewide percentages ranged from a low of 6.2 percent in biology to a high of 15.6 percent in earth science.  (Tables 3A and 3B)

 

·          Special education.  In 2005-2006, 8.2 percent of core “special classes” for students with disabilities in New York State were not taught by highly qualified teachers, up 0.1 percent from 2004-2005.  For middle/secondary core “special classes,” the percent not taught by highly qualified teachers was 10.3 percent in 2005-2006, up from 9.5 percent in the prior year.  (Tables 4A and 4B)

           

            Remaining challenges.  In fall 2006, many districts submitted teacher quality plans that showed additional progress since their 2005-2006 teacher data were reported.  The remaining challenges for districts are (1) to ensure that teachers have appropriate certification for the classes they teach despite shortages of new teachers in some subjects and geographic regions; and (2) to improve conditions in “hard-to-staff” schools so that certified, highly qualified and experienced teachers will stay. 

 

            Next steps.  To ensure that every class is taught by a certified and, where required, highly qualified teacher, and that there is an equitable distribution of experienced teachers, Department staff are implementing two plans whose teacher quality goals are aligned:

 

·          the September 2006 New York State’s Revised Plan to Enhance Teacher Quality that was approved by the U.S. Department of Education; and

·          the November 2006 P-16 Education: A Plan for Action approved by the Board of Regents. 

 

            As explained in more detail in these plans, we are working with school and district leaders to ensure that (1) teachers are certified and highly qualified, when required, for each of their assignments; (2) low-income and minority students are not taught by out-of-field and inexperienced teachers at higher rates than other students; and (3) districts use their federal funds to achieve these goals.  We are holding districts accountable for progress by requiring those that did not meet teacher quality goals to submit credible, data-driven teacher quality plans before receiving federal funds and by adding new teacher quality indicators to Report Cards and/or Comprehensive Information Reports.  In addition, to help districts meet teacher quality goals over time in the context of teacher shortages, among other things, we are: 

 

·          issuing annual reports on statewide and regional teacher supply and demand to promote and support collaborative regional workforce planning by districts and teacher preparation institutions;

 

·          working with the field on a certification review to bring proposals to the Board of Regents for greater flexibility without compromising quality;

 

·          advocating for funds to expand the Teachers of Tomorrow and Teacher Opportunity Corps to (1) provide incentives to an additional 7,500 qualified teachers to teach in school districts with shortages; (2) provide an additional 1,200 teachers with training, professional development and/or mentoring; and (3) increase support for teaching assistants who want to become teachers;

 

·          fostering new alternative teacher preparation programs where they are needed to meet districts’ short-term staffing goals and supporting the development and expansion of innovative teacher preparation programs to meet districts’ needs;

 

·          working with school districts and their leaders to improve teacher retention;

 

·          advocating for additional federal loan forgiveness for teachers who teach in high need schools and proposing State legislation to allow retired teachers to re-enter the workforce in shortage areas without pension penalty; and

 

·          with the assistance of the Office of Cultural Education, having a prototype developed for “Planting the Seed” to use multi-media innovatively to encourage students in high need communities to graduate from high school and college to pursue careers in teaching and the licensed professions.

 

·          Proposed legislation to allow retired teachers to re-enter the workforce in shortage areas without pension penalty.

 

·          All 110 colleges and universities with teacher education programs that were required to be accredited by the close of 2006 have completed their accreditation.

 

Table 2A  2004-2005   All Subject Areas:  Percent of Core Classes Not Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers
Core Subject Areas	New York State – All Public Schools	Need/Resource Capacity (N/RC) Categories									Charters, BOCES & State Schools
		High N/RC Districts							Average N/RC Districts	Low N/RC Districts
		New  York City	Buffalo	Rochester	Syracuse	Yonkers	Urban/ Suburban Districts	Rural Districts
Elementary (one or more subjects)	4.3	9.6	1.0	6.4	4.7	0.6	2.2	0.8	0.9	1.2	8.8
Arts	6.9	31.3	5.9	7.4	7.9	1.1	2.4	2.2	1.6	1.6	9.6
English	8.7	24.7	3.0	11.6	4.3	1.2	4.2	2.3	2.1	2.0	8.7
Languages Other Than English	11.2	24.4	28.4	19.4	40.7	2.6	10.8	12.8	6.4	5.8	33.2
Mathematics	7.9	21.9	3.7	15.8	8.8	3.7	3.9	3.2	2.1	1.8	12.3
Reading	7.5	31.4	2.0	34.1	4.4	-	3.4	4.7	2.1	1.1	3.9
Science	9.7	25.1	13.1	5.8	9.3	6.5	5.0	4.6	2.8	2.2	11.8
Social Studies (including civics and government, economics, geography & history)	4.6	12.9	3.1	7.3	1.8	-	2.0	1.5	1.5	1.3	4.2
All other core assignments (multiple subjects, unspecified subjects, etc.)	10.2	24.4	7.6	15.3	10.6	2.9	5.5	4.5	2.6	2.7	6.7
Total	7.9	21.4	6.8	11.6	9.3	2.9	4.2	3.5	2.3	2.2	8.2
NOTE Core classes in “other core subjects” are in multiple core subjects or unspecified subjects in Career and Technical Education (CTE), special education or bilingual education.

 

Table 2B  2005-2006   All Subject Areas: Percent of Core Classes Not Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers
Core Subject Areas	New York State – All Public Schools	Need/Resource Capacity (N/RC) Categories									Charters, BOCES & State Schools
		High N/RC Districts							Average N/RC Districts	Low N/RC Districts
		New  York City	Buffalo	Rochester	Syracuse	Yonkers	Urban/ Suburban Districts	Rural Districts
Elementary (one or more subjects)	3.1	6.4	0.8	6.0	7.4	0.2	1.5	0.8	0.9	0.8	17.3
Arts	7.8	30.8	0.7	9.4	9.1	1.4	2.2	2.0	1.7	1.7	27.0
English	4.9	13.3	0.8	7.1	8.8	0.0	2.4	1.7	1.4	1.2	9.0
Languages Other Than English	8.7	17.4	12.9	21.5	48.3	0.0	7.0	9.4	5.1	4.5	44.7
Mathematics	5.7	15.2	1.4	17.2	7.3	1.7	2.3	2.3	1.5	0.9	12.1
Reading	4.7	18.2	1.8	44.9	16.1	0.0	1.5	2.9	1.7	0.6	10.2
Science	8.0	20.3	9.8	16.0	9.7	1.7	3.0	3.4	1.9	1.7	17.9
Social Studies (including civics and government, economics, geography & history)	3.9	9.9	1.0	8.0	3.3	0.0	1.7	1.7	1.2	1.3	13.8
All other core assignments (multiple subjects, unspecified subjects, etc.)	9.0	20.1	5.9	16.2	13.4	0.5	3.7	3.5	2.5	2.6	7.1
Total	5.5	13.0	2.8	10.6	10.6	0.6	2.4	2.2	1.6	1.5	13.3
NOTE Core classes in “other core subjects” are in multiple core subjects or unspecified subjects in Career and Technical Education (CTE), special education or bilingual education.

 

 

 

 

Table 3A  2004-2005   Science:  Percent of Core Classes Not Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers
Science Subject	New York State – All Public Schools	Need/Resource Capacity Categories									Charters, BOCES and State Schools
		High N/RC Districts							Average N/RC Districts	Low N/RC Districts
		New  York City	Buffalo	Rochester	Syracuse	Yonkers	Urban/ Suburban Districts	Rural Districts
Biology	7.5	17.6	10.0	6.3	2.0	7.2	5.0	3.7	2.6	1.7	8.1
Chemistry	7.2	21.3	27.6	-	19.0	16.2	3.9	2.8	2.3	2.4	8.9
Earth Science	17.5	43.5	18.5	8.0	15.4	-	6.3	8.7	5.1	4.4	10.0
Physics	11.2	30.8	10.7	15.0	33.3	-	14.4	15.4	4.4	3.3	3.6
Other Sciences	8.0	27.0	8.8	5.1	8.7	4.6	4.0	2.7	1.9	1.3	11.8
Total	9.7	27.5	13.1	6.3	9.5	7.4	5.1	4.6	2.8	2.2	9.8
NOTE  “Other sciences” includes general science, life science, and physical science as well as science electives such as astronomy.

 

 

 

Table 3B  2005-2006   Science:  Percent of Core Classes Not Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers
Science Subject	New York State – All Public Schools	Need/Resource Capacity Categories									Charters, BOCES and State Schools
		High N/RC Districts							Average N/RC Districts	Low N/RC Districts
		New  York City	Buffalo	Rochester	Syracuse	Yonkers	Urban/ Suburban Districts	Rural Districts
Biology	6.2	14.4	5.5	8.5	4.3	3.3	2.6	2.5	1.7	1.2	9.4
Chemistry	7.0	20.4	32.1	7.3	14.8	0.0	2.7	2.9	2.3	1.4	17.6
Earth Science	15.6	51.8	22.4	21.7	13.3	6.5	5.0	5.9	3.8	2.5	17.0
Physics	10.2	28.6	6.1	11.5	28.6	0.0	2.2	11.8	4.3	3.6	11.1
Other Sciences	6.8	16.5	2.1	21.3	10.1	0.0	2.7	2.2	1.0	1.4	22.6
Total	8.0	20.3	9.8	16.0	9.7	1.7	3.0	3.4	1.9	1.7	17.9
NOTE  “Other sciences” includes general science, life science, and physical science as well as science electives such as astronomy.

 

 

 

 

 

Table 4A  2004-2005   “Special Classes” for Students with Disabilities:  Percent of  Core Classes Not Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers
Class Level for Special Classes for Students with Disabilities in Core Subjects	New York State – All Public Schools	Need/Resource Capacity (N/RC)Categories									Charters, BOCES and State Schools
		High N/RC Districts							Average N/RC Districts	Low N/RC Districts
		New  York City	Buffalo	Rochester	Syracuse	Yonkers	Urban/ Suburban Districts	Rural Districts
Elementary	8.8	16.7	0.6	14.5	6.0	1.1	2.8	3.4	1.5	1.5	1.6
Middle/secondary	9.5	24.8	3.8	6.7	9.8	2.8	3.6	5.7	2.2	3.1	2.0
Other	2.7	4.7	0.6	27.8	4.0	3.4	2.0	0.9	2.0	0.5	4.5
Total	8.1	20.6	2.4	11.5	7.5	2.7	3.2	4.1	2.0	2.1	2.6
NOTES Elementary assignments are special classes in Grades K-6 or special classes in which all students are eligible to take the New York State Alternate Assessment.  Middle/secondary assignments are special classes in Grades 7-12.

 

 

 

 

Table 4B  2005-2006   “Special Classes” for Students with Disabilities:  Percent of  Core Classes Not Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers
Class Level for Special Classes for Students with Disabilities in Core Subjects	New York State – All Public Schools	Need/Resource Capacity (N/RC)Categories									Charters, BOCES and State Schools
		High N/RC Districts							Average N/RC Districts	Low N/RC Districts
		New  York City	Buffalo	Rochester	Syracuse	Yonkers	Urban/ Suburban Districts	Rural Districts
Elementary	7.9	14.0	7.7	12.1	8.9	0.0	3.3	3.5	1.5	1.6	3.0
Middle/secondary	10.3	24.6	3.8	15.2	15.4	0.3	2.5	2.7	2.5	5.3	3.1
Other	1.7	2.9	0.6	7.4	3.5	0.0	1.3	0.2	0.8	1.7	3.3
Total	8.2	19.0	3.8	13.4	10.6	0.2	2.4	2.4	1.9	3.6	3.2
NOTES Elementary assignments are special classes in Grades K-6 or special classes in which all students are eligible to take the New York State Alternate Assessment.  Middle/secondary assignments are special classes in Grades 7-12.