Description: Tags: Ga

Revisions to
Georgia’s Plan for Title II, Part A
Reaching and Maintaining the Goal of 100% Highly

Qualified Teachers
Submitted by:
Georgia Professional Standards Commission

Georgia Department of Education
November 21, 2006
Revisions to Georgia’s Plan for Title II-A
Table of Contents
PART I: GEORGIA’S ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE FOR THE

IMPLEMENTATION OF TITLE II A........................................................................................3
TITLE II PART A: STATE ORGANIZATION........................................................................................3
PSC RESPONSIBILITIES FOR TITLE II, PART A FUNDING...................................................................3
LEA RESPONSIBILITIES FOR TITLE II, PART A................................................................................5
PSC GOALS...................................................................................................................................5
TITLE II PART A - ADMINISTRATION................................................................................................6
GEORGIA’S HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHER DEFINITION......................................................................7
PART II: REVISIONS TO THE TITLE II, PART A PLAN......................................................8
REQUIREMENT 1.............................................................................................................................8
Table01: Statewide HiQ Data 2003-2004............................................................................................................9
Table02: State-wide HiQ Data 2004-2005.........................................................................................................11
Table03: State-wide HiQ Data 2005-2006.........................................................................................................12
Table04: 2004-2005 Core Academic Classes Taught by Non Highly Qualified Teachers..............................14
Table 05: 2003-04 Core Academic Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers..........................................18
Table 06: 2004-05 Core Academic Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers..........................................18
Table 07: 2005-06 School System HiQ Summary Data....................................................................................19
REQUIREMENT 2...........................................................................................................................25
Table 08: Remediation Results by Classes for August 2006.............................................................................29
REQUIREMENT 3...........................................................................................................................33
REQUIREMENT4............................................................................................................................38
REQUIREMENT 5...........................................................................................................................42
REQUIREMENT 6...........................................................................................................................44
Table 09: Preliminary Data Compaing High Poverty School Enrollment and Percentage of Non Highly
Qualified Teachers.............................................................................................................................................47
Table 10: 2005-06 HiQ School System Data: Title I and Non-Title I Schools................................................47
Table 11: Minority Enrollment and Percent of Praxis II Failures..................................................................57
PART III: APPENDICES............................................................................................................67
APPENDIX #1: 2004-2005 PERCENTAGE OF NON HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS
IN SCHOOLS NOT MAKING AYP..........................................................................................67
APPENDIX #2: FACT SHEET FOR GEORGIA SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS
...................................................................................................................................................77
APPENDIX #3: RESULTS OF MONITORING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE
VISITS......................................................................................................................................81
APPENDIX # 4: PSC ACTIVITIES RELATED TO REFORMING TEACHER AND
PRINCIPAL PREPARATION AND CERTIFICATION.....................................................88
APPENDIX #5: GEORGIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION RULE 160-7-1-.04........92
APPENDIX #6: REVISED CERTIFICATION SCHEME AND ROUTES TO
CERTIFICATION IN GEORGIA.......................................................................................100
101
2
PART I: Georgia’s Organizational Structure for the Implementation of Title II A
Title II, Part A: State Organization

Four state agencies in Georgia have responsibilities for the preparation, certification, teaching
assignments, discipline, professional development, and resulting publicly reported student
achievement that define highly qualified teachers. These are:
1. The Professional Standards Commission (PSC) – Responsible for setting and enforcing
the teacher and paraprofessional preparation standards, state teacher assessments and
certification; sanctioning teachers and paraprofessionals for professional misbehavior;
teacher recruiting, and reporting teacher work force data for Georgia.
2. The Board of Regents (BOR) - Governs the 15 state institutions that prepare teachers for
initial and advanced degrees in content majors and education pedagogy; the Board of
Regents sets principles and course requirements for teacher preparation at public
institutions of higher education, and manages grant initiatives for innovative programs
such as a teacher induction program or the higher education grants that are part of Title II,
Part A.
3. Georgia Department of Education (GDOE) - Responsible for professional development
of teachers, setting the state teacher pay scale, establishing the state curriculum that
teachers teach, student assessments, school improvement efforts and NCLB programs.
4. The Office of Student Achievement (OSA)-Responsible for collecting, analyzing and
reporting state student achievement data. Georgia operates a single statewide
accountability system for public education that provides a focus for schools, creates a
reward structure for success and gives parents information about how their children are
performing. The system provides an accountability profile for each public school and
public school district. The profiles include (1) adequate yearly progress for schools and
school districts (2) a performance index for schools (3) performance highlights for
schools and school districts.
PSC Responsibilities for Title II, Part A Funding

As the state agency responsible for teacher preparation approval and certification, PSC has
responsibility for the following requirements of NCLB Title II, Part A:
• Review LEA applications, as part of the consolidated state application for NCLB funds
• Provide feedback to LEAs on status of funds use
• Monitor the compliance of statewide, state higher education (SHE) and local funds
• Report annually on the state’s progress toward meeting the state’s annual teacher quality
goals and improvement of LEAs toward meeting teacher quality requirements
• Assess the impact of the funding on student learning
• Assess the impact of the funding on improving teacher quality
• Provide an educational role in interpreting the purpose and use of the federal funds
allotment in collaboration with DOE
• Provide technical assistance in developing a process to assure a highly qualified teacher
in every classroom for each LEA
• Develop mechanisms to support certification requirements with educational opportunities
• Develop and implement state activities that complement LEA activities and needs
3
• Work with the IHE to develop competitive grants for the state and LEA activities
4
LEA Responsibilities for Title II, Part A

• Develop a plan to ensure that all teachers teaching core academic subjects within the
district served by the LEA are highly qualified by the end of the 2005-06 school year
• Develop a plan to ensure that all principals hired within the district served by the LEA are
highly qualified not later than the end of the 2005-06 school year
• Develop a plan to ensure that all paraprofessionals employed within the district served by
the LEA are highly qualified not later than the end of the 2005-06 school year
• Establish measurable benchmarks to mark each year’s progress toward a highly qualified
teaching staff
• Report on progress to assure highly qualified teachers each year beginning with 2001
through 2006
PSC Goals
1. To provide technical assistance and guidance to Local Education Agencies (LEAs) as
they develop an ongoing process to ensure quality teachers in every classroom
2. To identify and implement state-wide activities that complement and support the local
activities to ensure quality teachers in every classroom. These activities are related to the
Department of Education (DOE) responsibilities for professional learning and the
Committee on Quality Teaching (CQT) efforts to support educator quality
3. To report on compliance of local school systems in meeting the goal of a highly qualified
teacher in every classroom by 2006
5
Title II, Part A - Administration

The Professional Standards Commission uses a portion of the Title II, Part A administrative
funds to employ seven state consultants who work in assigned regions of the state to assist school
district personnel in understanding and applying the requirements of Title II, Part A in each of
Georgia’s 183 school districts and the state schools.
6
Additional PSC staff hired with Title II, Part A funds include a data specialist, a part-time
program coordinator, an administrative assistant and a clerk. The PSC provides in-kind support
with the services of the Director of Educator Preparation, who is the Title II, Part A program
administrator, the Director of Certification, the Director of Special Projects, the Director of
Technology and two education staff specialists. The Board of Regents appointed the University
of Georgia as the higher education institution to handle the state IHE grant funds of Title II, Part
A. The University has a Director of Teacher Quality who collaborates with the PSC and the
GDOE. The GDOE uses a portion of the Title II, Part A funds to pay the salary of the Associate
Director of Teacher Quality, and provides in kind service of the Director of Teacher Quality. A
staff member in the Title I program and a staff specialist in the DOE Department of Special
Education also provide input. OSA coordinates the data collection for the state report card
including the list of highly qualified teachers by school and district.
Federal funds for NCLB are granted to the Georgia Department of Education. The Department
in turn contracts with the Professional Standards Commission to carry out the work of Title II,
Part A.
Georgia’s Highly Qualified Teacher Definition

In 2002-03, Georgia adopted a basic definition of a highly qualified teacher as one who holds a
bachelor’s degree or higher, has a major in the subject area or has passed the state teacher content
assessment, and is assigned to teach his/her major subject(s). A veteran teacher is one who has
had three or more years of successful teaching experience. A set of state guidelines located at
www.gapsc.com/nclb/admin/files/ImpPolicy.pdf defines the highly qualified status of every type
of teacher in Georgia who serves as teacher of record for core academic content, including the
special education teacher.
7
PART II: Revisions to the Title II, Part A Plan
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 the HQT
standards, and examine whether or not there are particular hard-to-staff courses
frequently taught by non-highly qualified teachers.
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?
In the 2002-03 during the early phase of NCLB Title II, Part A, the PSC developed a software
program referred to as HiQ (see www.gapsc.org) that compares the PSC teacher and
paraprofessional state certification data with the Department of Education’s teacher employment
data to determine the highly qualified status of every teacher, in every school, in every school
district in the state. Local school district personnel can review the highly qualified status of their
teachers, act on this information to inform parents and the community, as well as work with the
PSC to upgrade and make changes and corrections to the status of the teachers. Highly qualified
paraprofessional data are also reported through HiQ as is the number of long-term substitute
teachers. These data reports are used as a basis for informing parents that their children’s
teachers may not be highly qualified, and provides the reasons for those decisions.
Table 01 and Table 02 show the statewide summary data reported for 2003-04 and 2004-05. For
these data, a teacher is defined as an individual who provides instruction in the core academic
content areas who teaches in kindergarten, grades 1 through 12, or un-graded classes, or
individuals who teach in an environment other than a classroom setting (and who maintain daily
student attendance records). These 2003-04 data were used as a baseline and reported by school
and school district for them to use to set their yearly objectives to achieve 100% highly qualified
teacher work force by 2005-06. The tables included here are aggregated statewide.
8
Table 01: State-wide HiQ Data 2003-2004

State-wide
School Year 2003-2004
Highly Qualified Teachers (FTE) by Subject Area
The following summary data was calculated for the entire school system, for Title I schools (if
any), and for Charter schools (if any). Title I schools are schools that received Title I funding
under a School-wide Program or a Targeted Assistance Program.
Total FTE
NCLB Subject % Highly
Group Considered % Highly
Area Qualified FTE
Qualified FTE
All subjects All schools 71444.7 69448.7 97.2
All subjects Charter schools 671.7 585.8 87.2
All subjects Title I schools 35511.9 34497.8 97.1
Arts All schools 4274.6 4103.1 96.0
Arts Charter schools 46.2 36.8 79.5
Arts Title I schools 1832.9 1721.8 93.9
Civics and All schools 27.2 23.0 84.6
Government
Civics and Title I schools 7.2 7.2 100.0
Government
Economics All schools 17.3 11.4 65.8
Economics Title I schools 0.7 0.5 67.6
Elementary All schools 39252.4 38538.3 98.2
Instruction
Elementary Charter schools 360.3 305.1 84.7
Instruction
Elementary Title I schools 24986.3 24482.8 98.0
Instruction
English All schools 6668.8 6510.5 97.6
Language Arts
English Charter schools 55.2 50.9 92.2
Language Arts
English Title I schools 2136.7 2076.8 97.2
Language Arts
Foreign All schools 1859.5 1785.0 96.0
Languages
Foreign Charter schools 33.6 31.0 92.3
Languages
Foreign Title I schools 376.7 348.9 92.6
Languages
Geography All schools 28.1 16.9 60.0
Geography Title I schools 15.1 9.1 60.1
History All schools 5752.4 5507.3 95.7
History Charter schools 49.3 45.1 91.5
9
State-wide
Total FTE
NCLB Subject % Highly
Group Considered % Highly
Area Qualified FTE
Qualified FTE
History Title I schools 1653.8 1568.7 94.9
Mathematics All schools 6949.1 6701.1 96.4
Mathematics Charter schools 59.6 57.3 96.2
Mathematics Title I schools 2277.0 2196.9 96.5
Reading All schools 1011.9 897.8 88.7
Reading Charter schools 14.4 11.1 76.9
Reading Title I schools 571.4 515.2 90.2
Science All schools 5603.4 5354.3 95.5
Science Charter schools 53.0 48.5 91.5
Science Title I schools 1654.1 1570.0 94.9
The data are disaggregated by school system level, by school, by type of school and by subject
area, by classes taught and by each AYP status. The analysis includes the schools that are not
making adequate yearly progress. The analysis also identifies the districts and schools in which
teachers do not meet HQ requirements and examines the subject areas taught by teachers.
10

State-wide
% Highly
NCLB Subject Total FTE Highly Qualified
Group Qualified
Area Considered FTE
FTE
Civics and All schools 177.7 166.9 94.0
Government
Civics and Charter schools 0.1 0.1 100.0
Government
Civics and Title I schools 35.8 32.5 90.7
Government
Economics Charter schools 0.1 0.1 100.0
Elementary All schools 39111.5 38494.3 98.4
Instruction
Elementary Charter schools 351.1 315.6 89.9
Instruction
Elementary Title I schools 24411.8 24001.5 98.3
Instruction
English All schools 7873.1 7622.3 96.8
Language Arts
English Charter schools 64.4 60.0 93.1
Language Arts
English Title I schools 2536.7 2430.9 95.8
Language Arts
Foreign All schools 1977.2 1898.9 96.0
Languages
Foreign Charter schools 37.7 33.7 89.4
Languages
Foreign Title I schools 401.1 372.6 92.9
Languages
11
State-wide
% Highly
Group Qualified
Area Considered FTE
FTE
Unknown All schools 231.5 0.0 0.0
Unknown Charter schools 3.5 0.0 0.0
Unknown Title I schools 46.4 0.0 0.0

State-wide
% Highly
Group Qualified
Area Considered FTE
FTE
12
State-wide
% Highly
Group Qualified
Area Considered FTE
FTE
Civics and
All schools 290.3 259.6 89.4
Government
Civics and
Charter schools 1.5 0.1 6.7
Government
Civics and
Title I schools 50.9 45.7 89.9
Government
Economics Charter schools 1.5 1.3 87.0
Elementary
All schools 43810.4 42333.6 96.6
Instruction
Elementary
Instruction
Elementary
Title I schools 26808.7 25883.8 96.5
Instruction
English
All schools 12012.6 10912.2 90.8
Language Arts
English
Language Arts
English
Title I schools 3956.2 3590.3 90.8
Language Arts
Foreign
All schools 2110.3 2026.1 96.0
Languages
Foreign
Languages
Foreign
Title I schools 429.4 399.7 93.1
Languages
13
State-wide
% Highly
Group Qualified
Area Considered FTE
FTE
Unknown All schools 17.9 0.0 0.0
Unknown Charter schools - - -
Unknown Title I schools 6.8 0.0 0.0
Table 04: 2004-05 Core Academic Classes Being Taught by Non Highly Qualified
Teachers
TEACHER AND PARAPROFESIONAL QUALITY

Data from the 2004-05 school year for classes in the core academic subjects being taught
by “highly qualified” teachers (as the term is defined in Section 9101(23) of the ESEA),
in the aggregate for all schools and in “high-poverty” and “low-poverty” elementary
schools (as the terms are defined in Section 1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) of the ESEA). Section
1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) defines “high-poverty” schools as schools in the top quartile of
poverty in the State and “low-poverty” schools as schools in the bottom quartile of
poverty in the State.
School Type Total Number of Core Percentage of Core

Number of Academic Classes Academic Classes
Core Taught by Highly Taught by Not Highly
Academic Qualified Teachers Qualified Teachers
Classes
All Schools in 220240 210797 4.3

State
Elementary Level
High-Poverty 14342 13674 4.7
Schools
14
TEACHER AND PARAPROFESIONAL QUALITY

Data from the 2004-05 school year for classes in the core academic subjects being taught
by “highly qualified” teachers (as the term is defined in Section 9101(23) of the ESEA),
in the aggregate for all schools and in “high-poverty” and “low-poverty” elementary
schools (as the terms are defined in Section 1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) of the ESEA). Section
1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) defines “high-poverty” schools as schools in the top quartile of
poverty in the State and “low-poverty” schools as schools in the bottom quartile of
poverty in the State.
School Type Total Number of Core Percentage of Core

Number of Academic Classes Academic Classes
Core Taught by Highly Taught by Not Highly
Academic Qualified Teachers Qualified Teachers
Classes
Low-Poverty 26900 26408 1.8

Schools
All Elementary 61032 59291 2.9
Schools
Secondary Level
High-Poverty 100645 97906 2.7
Schools
Low-Poverty 44600 44046 1.2
Schools
All Secondary 159218 151506 4.8
Schools
For those classes in core academic subjects being taught by teachers who are not highly
qualified as reported in the above table, estimate the percentages of those classes in the
following categories (note: percentages should add to 100 percent of the classes taught by
not highly qualified teachers).
Reason For Being Classified as Not Highly Percentage

Qualified Percentage
a) Elementary school classes taught by certified 6%

general education teachers who did not pass a
subject-knowledge test or (if eligible) have not
demonstrated subject-matter competency
through HOUSSE
b) Elementary school classes taught by teachers 2%
15
who are not fully certified (and are not in an

approved alternative route program)
c) Secondary school classes taught by certified 59%

general education teachers who have not
demonstrated subject-matter knowledge in those
subjects (e.g., out-of-field teachers)
d) Secondary school classes taught by teachers 20%
who are not fully certified (and are not in an
approved alternative route program)
e) Other (please explain) (Insufficient 12%
information provided
by LEA’s)
Does the analysis focus on the staffing needs of schools that are not making AYP? Do
these schools have high percentages of classes taught by teachers who are not highly
qualified?
Review of the statewide data in tables 02 and 03 indicates that the not highly qualified teachers were
assigned to teach in all of the core academic content areas including reading, mathematics, science,
foreign language, the areas listed as critical fields in Georgia. Workforce data indicate a chronic
shortage of teachers in these core academic content areas (See http://www.gapsc.com/Workforce).
The data indicate that non HQT teachers in these particular content areas are dispersed throughout
the state. The percentage of not highly qualified teachers varies widely in schools not making AYP
across the state. There is no apparent pattern in the percentages of teachers who are not highly
qualified in schools not making AYP. However, monitoring and assistance to all districts and schools
will be prioritized based on those not making AYP with the highest percentage of teachers not highly
qualified. See Appendix 01 for the percentages of non-highly qualified teachers teaching in schools
that did not make AYP in 2004-05.
Does the analysis identify particular groups of teachers to which the State’s plan must pay
particular attention, such as special education teachers, mathematics and science teachers, or
multi-subject teachers in rural schools?
Special Education Teachers

For years, Georgia prepared its special education teachers using a categorical approach. Teachers
were prepared as learning disabilities, mental retardation, or behavior disorders teachers. Core
academic content preparation was not required as part of the preparation to become certified as a
special education teacher. Special education data are included in 2005-2006 tables.
Georgia has taken actions to assure that special education teachers are highly qualified as noted in
the Fact Sheet for Georgia Special Education Teachers (see Appendix 2).
16
The results showing the numbers of highly qualified special education teachers and their
assignments will not be available until October 2006. Table 07 illustrates progress special education
teachers have made to date toward obtaining highly qualified teacher status.
In addition to special education, three additional core academic content areas including reading,
civics and government, are listed with higher percentages of non HQT teachers for AYP schools.
For civics and government, Georgia has moved to change the certification requirements to individual
core academic content areas that have replaced broad field social sciences. For reading, in addition
to an extensive Reading First program, the state has used the Voyage project for selected school
districts.
Analysis of state data provided in Table 05 shows that there is a gap in the percentage of core
academic classes taught by teachers who are not highly qualified in both elementary and secondary
schools that are identified as high-poverty. The greatest gap appears to be for elementary schools
with a differential of almost 3 percent between low and high-poverty schools. See Requirement 6
for Georgia’s plan to use this and additional data to inform the state’s Equity Plan.
Does the analysis identify districts and schools around the State where significant numbers of
teachers do not meet HQT standards?
An analysis of school system data indicates that seven LEAs have significant numbers of teachers
not meeting Highly Qualified standards (15+% or greater): Atlanta Public Schools (17%), Bibb
County (17%), Hancock County (21%), Laurens County (15%), Putnam County (19%), Taliaferro
County (27%), Treutlen County (32%). Technical assistance will be provided to these districts by
Title IIA Consultants (See Table 07).
Eleven additional districts which show between 11% and 14% of non HQ teachers will be targeted
for monitoring. These districts include: Calhoun County (14%), Clayton County (12%), Clinch
County (12%), Dooly County (12%), Macon County (13%), Montgomery County (13%), Pulaski
County (14%), Randolph County ((12%), Seminole County (14%), Sumter County (14%), Twiggs
County (12%).
Does the analysis identify particular courses that are often taught by non-highly qualified
teachers?
Title IIA consultants will monitor HQT percentage of teachers in all schools as they monitor the LEA
plans and their progress toward meeting the 100% HQT requirement and the individual plans
developed for each teachers in any district who have not met HiQ requirements. Title IIA consultants
will monitor the use of funds within the local district to ensure that the resources for high quality
professional development are targeted to teachers in order to specifically address their needs to
become highly qualified and then to improve their knowledge and skills to become more effective
classroom teachers, and that these funds are focused on non-HiQ teachers in needs improvement
schools, especially those with a high proportion of poor and/or minority students.
In the fall of 2003, the PSC used the HIQ software to collect the first set of highly qualified teacher
data, by school district and by state for the 2002-03 school year. The data were published as
percentages for the number of teachers highly qualified and were based on the October 2002
Certified/Classified Personnel Information (CPI) report.
Since 2002-03, the PSC has refined the HiQ software each year so that individual each school
districts could update teachers’ HiQ status as they completed requirements to become highly
17
qualified during the school year. These data were again reported to the USDOE in 2003-04, but the
format for the report was based on classes taught, not individual teachers. See Table 08 and Table 09
for the 2004-05 data.
Table 05: 2003-04 Core Academic Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers
School Type Total Number Number of Core Percentage of Core

of Core Academic Classes Academic Classes
Academic Taught by Highly Taught by Highly
Classes Qualified Teachers Qualified Teachers
All Schools in State 430,521 418,585 97.2
All Elementary 324, 956 317,958 97.8
Schools
All Secondary 105,565 100,627 95.3
Schools
High-poverty Schools 91,895 88,798 96.6
Low-poverty Schools 127,264 125,180 98.3
Table 06: 2004-05 Core Academic Classes Taught by Highly Qualified and non Highly
Qualified Teachers
School Type Total Number Number of Core Percentage of Percentage of

of Core Academic Classes Core Academic Core Academic
Academic Taught by Highly Classes Taught by Classes Taught by
Classes Qualified Teachers Highly Qualified non-HQT
Teachers
All Schools in State 220,240 210,797 95.7 4.3 %
All Elementary 61,032 59,291 97.1
Schools 2.9 %
All Secondary 159,218 151,506 95.2 4.8 %
Schools
High-poverty 114,986 111,580 97.0 03 %
Schools
Low-poverty 71,500 70,454 98.5 1.5%
Schools
18
Table 07: 2005-06 HiQ School System Summary Data
2005-06 School System Data: Overall Summary

"Classes" are inferred from the class subject and the "part-of-day" reported for each educator in
each class. One full "part-of-day" in the "elementary" subject (coded as 920 or 928 on CPI) is
treated as one class. One full "part-of-day" in any other subject is treated as representing five
classes.
School system Classes All classes % Classes Taught Not Highly
Taught Not Qualified Teachers
Highly
Qualified
Teachers
Appling County 40 646 6%
Atkinson County 9 264 3%
Atlanta Public Schools 1,699 9,773 17%
Bacon County 5 322 2%
Baker County - 78 0%
Baldwin County 11 731 2%
Banks County 7 391 2%
Barrow County 15 1,684 1%
Bartow County 236 2,541 9%
Ben Hill County 19 523 4%
Berrien County 12 487 2%
Bibb County 690 3,952 17%
Bleckley County 13 387 3%
Brantley County 54 653 8%
Bremen City 2 295 1%
Brooks County 30 407 7%
Bryan County 15 1,044 1%
Buford City 14 472 3%
Bulloch County 58 1,568 4%
Burke County 18 820 2%
Butts County 65 601 11%
Calhoun City 20 536 4%
Calhoun County 19 142 14%
Camden County 57 1,696 3%
Candler County 7 348 2%
Carroll County 39 3,602 1%
Carrollton City - 598 0%
Cartersville City 10 670 1%
Catoosa County 155 1,676 9%
Charlton County 19 309 6%
Chatham County 357 5,669 6%
19

classes.
Highly
Qualified
Teachers
Chattahoochee County 14 133 10%
Chattooga County 12 496 2%
Cherokee County 106 5,993 2%
Chickamauga City - 194 0%
Clarke County 98 3,446 3%
Clay County 1 64 2%
Clayton County 1,334 11,473 12%
Clinch County 36 290 12%
Cobb County 1,409 18,186 8%
Coffee County 96 1,204 8%
Colquitt County 20 1,416 1%
Columbia County 40 3,573 1%
Commerce City 9 264 3%
Cook County - 504 0%
Coweta County 135 3,180 4%
Crawford County 20 306 6%
Crisp County - 661 0%
Dade County 1 358 0%
Dalton City 34 1,472 2%
Dawson County 6 538 1%
Decatur City 10 628 2%
Decatur County 9 994 1%
DeKalb County 780 16,201 5%
Dodge County 12 576 2%
Dooly County 44 358 12%
Dougherty County 174 2,611 7%
Douglas County 170 3,111 5%
Dublin City 55 580 9%
Early County 3 546 0%
Echols County 9 118 8%
Effingham County 7 1,658 0%
Elbert County 35 673 5%
Emanuel County 11 830 1%
Evans County 14 380 4%
20

classes.
Highly
Qualified
Teachers
Fannin County 17 618 3%
Fayette County 100 4,755 2%
Floyd County 65 1,820 4%
Forsyth County 50 3,955 1%
Franklin County 13 635 2%
Fulton County 706 13,617 5%
Gainesville City 17 815 2%
Gilmer County 8 755 1%
Glascock County 8 118 6%
Glynn County 48 1,964 2%
Gordon County 9 1,035 1%
Grady County 20 764 3%
Greene County 14 357 4%
Gwinnett County 1,254 24,852 5%
Habersham County - 1,005 0%
Hall County 103 3,649 3%
Hancock County 49 237 21%
Haralson County 5 572 1%
Harris County 7 747 1%
Hart County 3 604 1%
Heard County 15 319 5%
Henry County 356 5,504 6%
Houston County 124 4,546 3%
Irwin County 2 308 1%
Jackson County 12 1,057 1%
Jasper County 14 410 3%
Jeff Davis County - 472 0%
Jefferson City 6 337 2%
Jefferson County 9 572 2%
Jenkins County 24 327 7%
Johnson County 24 236 10%
Jones County 38 776 5%
Lamar County 39 406 10%
Lanier County 13 289 5%
21

classes.
Highly
Qualified
Teachers
Laurens County 143 935 15%
Lee County 26 878 3%
Liberty County 144 2,025 7%
Lincoln County 4 250 2%
Long County 14 314 4%
Lowndes County 82 1,576 5%
Lumpkin County 19 609 3%
Macon County 51 389 13%
Madison County 11 799 1%
Marietta City 38 1,498 3%
Marion County 7 326 2%
McDuffie County - 810 0%
McIntosh County 17 341 5%
Meriwether County 38 601 6%
Miller County 16 223 7%
Mitchell County 60 739 8%
Monroe County 9 600 1%
Montgomery County 33 246 13%
Morgan County 19 640 3%
Murray County 29 1,179 2%
Muscogee County 570 6,113 9%
Newton County 92 2,766 3%
Oconee County 4 1,096 0%
Oglethorpe County 10 419 2%
Paulding County 173 3,761 5%
Peach County 68 726 9%
Pelham City 12 244 5%
Pickens County 16 770 2%
Pierce County 19 512 4%
Pike County - 430 0%
Polk County 67 1,160 6%
Pulaski County 46 332 14%
Putnam County 107 571 19%
Quitman County 6 64 9%
22

classes.
Highly
Qualified
Teachers
Rabun County - 459 0%
Randolph County 34 274 12%
Richmond County 278 5,118 5%
Rockdale County 40 2,544 2%
Rome City 17 1,045 2%
Schley County - 200 0%
Screven County 24 652 4%
Seminole County 45 314 14%
Social Circle City 20 433 5%
Spalding County 136 1,715 8%
Stephens County 9 733 1%
Stewart County 12 142 9%
Sumter County 120 886 14%
Talbot County 7 146 5%
Taliaferro County 24 89 27%
Tattnall County 36 710 5%
Taylor County 6 267 2%
Telfair County 35 361 10%
Terrell County 9 211 4%
Thomas County 32 896 4%
Thomaston-Upson County 17 877 2%
Thomasville City 15 518 3%
Tift County 4 1,209 0%
Toombs County 18 746 2%
Towns County 8 444 2%
Treutlen County 61 189 32%
Trion City - 210 0%
Troup County 84 2,040 4%
Turner County 11 339 3%
Twiggs County 28 243 12%
Union County 49 477 10%
Valdosta City 82 1,220 7%
Vidalia City 26 584 4%
Walker County 46 1,379 3%
23

classes.
Highly
Qualified
Teachers
Walton County 29 1,737 2%
Ware County 20 1,097 2%
Warren County 8 137 6%
Washington County 64 702 9%
Wayne County 20 816 2%
Webster County 4 66 6%
Wheeler County - 238 0%
White County 16 1,020 2%
Whitfield County 69 1,901 4%
Wilcox County 22 295 8%
Wilkes County 6 352 2%
Wilkinson County 11 279 4%
Worth County 8 617 1%
24
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.
Does the plan identify LEAs that have not met annual measurable objectives for HQT?
Since fall of 2003, the PSC has used the HiQ software program to identify LEAs that have not met
annual measurable objectives for highly qualified teachers. HiQ compares the PSC teacher and
paraprofessional state certification data with the Department of Education’s teacher employment
data to determine the highly qualified status of every teacher in each school for every school district
in the state. Using this web-based program, LEA personnel have the ability to review the highly
qualified status of their teachers, to identify remedial strategies to pursue with individual teachers,
and to work with the PSC staff to upgrade and make changes and corrections to teacher status
records.
With this information, LEAs identified annual benchmarks that were established to measure progress
at the school and LEA levels (all schools combined and disaggregated by Title I and non-Title I
schools). LEAs were able to make comparisons with State HQT data. LEAs then develop annual
action plans to achieve the goal of 100% highly qualified teachers and monitor their progress toward
meeting annual benchmarks.
Using HiQ and the data reports generated from HiQ, the State can continually monitor LEA HQT
status by system and school, as well as disaggregation by subject areas and high/low poverty levels.
Since the first year of HiQ use, the PSC has systematically refined the software to provide more
accurate data, allowing for needed corrections, and enhanced uses of the HiQ resource.
An analysis of school system data in Table 07 (page 20) indicates that seven LEAs have significant
numbers of teachers not meeting Highly Qualified standards (15% or greater): Atlanta Public
Schools (17%), Bibb County (17%), Hancock County (21%), Laurens County (15%), Putnam
County (19%), Taliaferro County (27%), Treutlen County (32%). Technical assistance will be
provided to these districts by Title IIA Consultants.
Eleven additional districts which show between 11% and 14% of non HQ teachers will be targeted
for monitoring. These districts include: Calhoun County (14%), Clayton County (12%), Clinch
County (12%), Dooly County (12%), Macon County (13%), Montgomery County (13%), Pulaski
County (14%), Randolph County ((12%), Seminole County (14%), Sumter County (14%), Twiggs
County (12%).
Wendy LEA Responsibilities for Title II, Part A - Accountability
LEAs have responsibility for the following requirements of NCLB Title II, Part A related to
compliance with and accountability for their HQT plans:
• Develop a plan to ensure that all teachers teaching core academic subjects within the district
served by the LEA are highly qualified
highly qualified
25
• Develop a plan to ensure that all paraprofessionals employed within the district served by the
LEA are highly qualified
teaching staff
• Report on progress to assure highly qualified teachers each year
Does the plan include specific steps that will be taken by LEAs that have not met annual
measurable objectives?
LEA Responsibilities for Title II, Part A - Accountability
served by the LEA are highly qualified by the end of the 2005-06 school year
LEA are highly qualified not later than the end of the 2005-06 school year
teaching staff
• Report on progress to assure highly qualified teachers each year beginning with 2001 through
2006
LEAs are responsible for reviewing their HQT data and conducting an annual needs assessment
using the HiQ information. The LEAs are required to develop an annual Title II-A Plan based on the
needs assessment to determine the specific issues that have prevented the district and/or schools
from meeting the HQT goal (see Title II-A Handbook, Section VI
http://www.gapsc.com/nclb/Admin/Files/IIA_handbook.pdf). The LEAs analyze major differences
among schools overall, within specific subject areas, and for high and low poverty schools in terms
of equitable distribution of HQT. The LEAs include an analysis as to how the district will reassign
and/or recruit highly qualified teachers to fill gaps in current staffing in core academic subjects. The
LEAs provide timelines of how teachers who are not highly qualified will be provided support via
technical assistance, professional development, and financial and/or other incentives. The LEAs’
annual Title II-A Plans provide information on how the district will meet the annual measurable
objective to have 100% of their teachers highly qualified. LEAs are required to report specific
remediation steps for each non-highly qualified teacher using the Remediation Method function/tool
in HiQ. In addition, the LEAs’ Title II-A Plans includes specific steps to meet AMO, as delineated
below.
Remediation steps for individual teachers who do not meet HQT requirements include, but are not
limited to, the following:
• Testing. The LEA identifies testing options, provide test preparation material or tutorial
support, and/or reimburse testing fees.
• Course work. LEA helps identify course providers and may reimburse tuition fees or provide
stipends.
26
• Conduct HOUSSE evaluations, as appropriate.

• Employment agreements. LEAs negotiate with teachers the necessary steps and timeline to
meet HQT requirements for contract renewal.
• Reassignment of the teacher. LEAs can use the CAPS tool provided by the PSC to determine
appropriate teaching assignments for specific courses based on the teacher’s certification.
Other steps that LEAs may take to meet HQT goals include the following:
• Recruitment of highly qualified teachers. LEAs fill hard to staff positions by recruiting
recent graduates from traditional programs, teachers in alternative preparation programs,
teachers from out of state, teachers returning to the profession, including retired teachers.
• Retention of highly qualified teachers. LEAs implement strategies to increase retention rates
of currently employed highly qualified teachers.
• Hiring practices. LEAs implement policies that require only hiring teachers who are highly
qualified to teach assigned core academic subjects.
• Master schedule adjustments. The LEAs offer courses aligned with the qualifications of its
teaching staff.
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?
• The Professional Standards Commission and the Georgia Department of Education will take
the following actions to ensure that LEAs have plans to assist teachers to become highly
qualified.
PSC Responsibilities for Title II, Part A Monitoring and Compliance
responsibility for the following requirements of NCLB Title II, Part A related to LEA compliance
with and accountability for their HQT plans:
• Collect data on LEAs’ and schools’ progress toward meeting HQT goals, and provide
formative data throughout the academic year to inform LEA and school progress.
• Provide technical assistance in developing a process to assure a highly qualified teacher in
every classroom for each LEA.
Review of LEAs’ Consolidated Applications

Teams of evaluators from the PSC and DOE review LEAs’ consolidated applications annually.
Review criteria related to meeting highly qualified teacher requirements include:
27
• LEA discusses its procedures and policies to ensure teachers and paraprofessionals are highly
qualified by August 31, 2006
• LEA has implemented a plan to monitor the highly qualified status of all teachers and
paraprofessionals within the LEA and ensure that they remain highly qualified if applicable.
• LEA provides data on the numbers of teachers and paraprofessionals disaggregated by
subject taught and grade level that lack certification and are not designated as highly
qualified as well as data on those that are certified and highly qualified.
• LEA has a method for notifying parents to inform them of their right to request the
professional qualifications of their children’s teachers and paraprofessionals, and the LEA
notifies parents if their children have been taught by a teacher who was no considered highly
qualified for 20 consecutive days or more
• LEA shows that it allocated funds to support teachers and paraprofessionals in their efforts to
become highly qualified.
• The LEA has a plan to ensure that poor and minority children are not taught more frequently
by teachers who are not high qualified.
• The LEA ensures that teachers in Title III programs are fluent in English and any
other language of instructions.
• LEA budgets for expenditure of NCLB funds may not be submitted and approved
until the LEA’s Consolidated Application is approved by the DOE.
State Monitoring and Compliance with the 100% Highly Qualified Requirement
The Title II-A consultants assigned to the Local Education Agencies (LEAs) monitor the LEAs’
efforts to meet the state’s highly qualified teacher requirements. The consultants monitor all 183
school districts as well as state schools. The purpose of the monitoring is to ensure that annual needs
assessments and multi-year planning are the basis for the budgeting and expenditures of Title II-A
funding to LEAs and that the process is carried out within the state and federal requirements for
NCLB. LEAs complete a self-monitoring checklist (see www.gapsc.com/nclb/Admin/Files/IIA_selfmonitor.pdf)
that indicates their compliance with Title II-A requirements. The checklist is also used to help LEAs
prepare for monitoring visits by the Title II-A consultants. The consultants use a monitoring form to
gather information about the districts’ planning process, highly qualified teacher and
paraprofessional data, expenditure of funds appropriated to LEAs, private school participation, and
other documentation. The monitoring form is located at
gapsc.com/nclb/Admin/Files/IIA_monitoring.pdf. Monitoring results are aggregated (see Appendix
03) by the Title II-A staff and reviewed to help the consultants know what technical assistance is
needed and where focus should be placed in the next monitoring cycle.
LEAs developed their individual plans to have all teachers highly qualified during the 2006-07
school year and they reported the remediation methods to the PSC by August 31, 2006. To assist
LEAs with this effort, the Remediation Method feature was added to the HiQ program. All LEAs
with any non-highly qualified teachers were required to use the Remediation Method feature to
report to the SEA to report how each teacher will meet HQT requirements.
28
Table 08: Remediation Results by Classes for August 2006

Remediation Method Regular Special Long-Term Parapros Total
Education Education Substitutes Classes
Classes Classes
A highly qualified teacher will be 1,978 2,077 344 132 4,532
placed in this class
Class will be removed from master 188 375 - 32 595
schedule
Coursework - this teacher will 210 252 5 20 487
become highly qualified for this
class by coursework
HOUSSE - this teacher will 125 540 - - 666
become highly qualified for this
class by HOUSSE
Testing - this teacher will become 3,693 3,658 9 97 7,457
highly qualified for this class by
testing
Unknown 420 579 288 327 1,614
For the 2006-07 monitoring, in addition to the monitoring form, the Title II, Part A consultants will
monitor LEAs’ progress in meeting the requirements for the teachers listed in the remediation mode
on HiQ. Using the HiQ correction feature, LEAs will indicate the change in highly qualified status
of each teacher as remediation types are implemented, and the consultants will monitor these
changes. In March 2007, a summary report of highly qualified teacher status will be disseminated to
each LEA and reviewed by the SEA for compliance monitoring.
Technical Assistance Provided
When 100% highly qualified teacher status cannot be maintained because of extenuating
circumstances, each school district has the responsibility to assure that teachers become highly
qualified in a timely manner. Title II, Part A consultants provide a constant source of technical
assistance to LEAs to help all teachers become highly qualified. Each consultant provides whatever
assistance is needed, from answering questions to conducting workshops and/or working with
system-level personnel. At times, consultants will also address concerns of individual teachers. Staff
at the PSC and the DOE are also available to answer questions and provide data to the LEAs as
needed.
For special education, a DOE staff person is assigned to work with Title II, Part A. She attends the
monthly meetings of the Title II, Part A consultants and the PSC/DOE staff. The PSC and the DOE
have offered numerous workshops on the special education requirements around the state ranging
from a statewide Title II, Part A conference, presentations to the Georgia Association of School
Personnel Administrators (GASPA), many groups of special education teachers, and to a University
forum for special education faculty. A question and answer section on the Georgia NCLB website is
immensely helpful to LEAs and school systems. Assistance as a fact sheet, available slide
presentations and 16 workshops presented throughout the state on special education certification
changes are all part of the effort to provide the best information about changes. Copies of slide
29
presentations and other information are located at

http://www.gapsc.com/nclb/Admin/admin_links.htm.
Georgia has also used Title II-A state funds for a number of projects that help LEAs and their
teachers meet the HQT requirements. (See Appendix 3 for a summary of the projects undertaken by
the PSC to support the major goals of Title II-A).
A particular example of a Title II, Part A-funded program is the development of 4 online
mathematics courses and 3 online science courses by Darton College. These courses are made
available throughout Georgia by the Regional Educational Service Agencies (RESAs) and the
Professional Standards Commission. Special education teachers are using these courses to add to
their content expertise in mathematics and science. Part-time faculty are hired and trained by the
RESAs to teach the online courses. Training sessions for instructors have been conducted in three
regions throughout the state. In addition, an advisor was appointed to assist the participants with
inquiries, admission, and getting their grades and transcripts. The first two courses were offered in
January of 2006, the second in March; all of the courses are being offered during summer 2006. By
the end of July 2006, 616 special education teachers will have completed 902 of these content
courses offered by Darton College.
In 2004-05, all LEAs completed a check list indicating their Title II, Part A compliance, and
consultants selected school systems by zip code at random and monitored their efforts. The checklist
is located at www.gapsc.com/nclb/Admin/Files/IIA_selfmonitor.pdf. These results are being
tabulated.
For the 2006-07 monitoring, in addition to the monitoring form used for 2004-05, the Title II Part A
consultants will monitor for progress in meeting the requirements for the teachers listed in the
remediation mode on HiQ for each district. The LEA will indicate the change in the highly qualified
status of each teacher, and the consultant will monitor these changes. In March 2007, a report of
highly qualified teacher status will be run for the entire state. For those systems with teachers who
are not highly qualified, the state will monitor each system and follow the local guidance provided
by the USDOE.
Each school district must determine how it plans to get all teachers highly qualified during 2006-07,
and report the remediation methods to the PSC by August 31, 2006. To assist LEAs with this effort,
a new feature, called the Remediation Method, has been added to the HiQ program. The
Remediation Method is a drop-down box that has been added to the HiQ editor. When a record
displays “not HiQ status”, the Remediation Method dropdown will be visible. The initial (default)
remediation method of “unknown” will be displayed. HiQ operators will replace “unknown” from
among several choices and click the “apply corrections” button to save the remediation method
chosen.
Schools That Do Not Meet AYP Goals

The Title II, Part A consultants will work with the DOE School Improvement teams to report the
highly qualified status of teachers in schools that need improvement. They will identify why the
school system hired a teacher not highly qualified and determine what the school system plans to do
to assure that the teacher becomes highly qualified in a timely manner. The system will be required
to use available Title II-A funds to ensure staffing and professional development needs are met for
these schools. For example, if the teacher is from out-of-state and needs to complete a state teacher
assessment, the school system should see that this need is met in a timely manner. The responsibility
30
for having highly qualified teachers will be placed with the school district and the principal who
does the hiring. (GBOE Rule 160-1-1-.04 –Appendix 4)
Schools That Do Not Meet AYP Goals
It should be noted that not only does Georgia processes met the requirements 2141 but procedures
are being implemented that goes beyond 2141 to address schools that do not meet AYP goals.
The Title II, Part A consultants work with the DOE School Improvement teams to report the highly
qualified status of teachers in schools that need improvement. They will identify why the school
system hired a teacher not highly qualified and determine what the school system plans to do to
assure that the teacher becomes highly qualified in a timely manner. The system will be required to
use available Title II-A funds to ensure staffing and professional development needs are met for
these schools. For example, if the teacher is from out-of-state and needs to complete a state teacher
assessment, the school system should see that this need is met in a timely manner. The responsibility
for having highly qualified teachers will be placed with the school district and the principal who
does the hiring (GBOE Rule 160-1-1-.04 –Appendix 4)
31
Annual Time Table of Ongoing Activities
Note: (Georgia uses Title II Part A funds to provide seven consultants who have the responsibility of
working with school systems in assigned regions of the state on a continuous basis. They live in
their assigned regions, work in those regions and have constant contact with the school system Title
II Part A coordinators. They are available to provide technical assistance whenever they are needed
by school systems. (See page five of this report).
July 1st (each year)
1. PSC HiQ software will be made available to provide # of HIQ teachers by school system, by
school and by class assignments on an ongoing basis. These data are calculated using the CPI
data and the state certification database. School systems have immediate access to the data and
make updates as teachers become highly qualified.
2. Title II Part A consultants will provide technical assistance and disseminate information about
methods school systems can use to get teachers highly qualified.
August 31st (each year)
3. School systems recognize the teachers in their system, school and class assignments and indicate
using the HQ SOFTWARE how the system intends to provide correction(s). Each school system
files a remediation report using HQ with the Professional Standards Commission
August 1st-September 30th (each year)
4. Title II Part A consultants and program manager will approve the school systems budgets for
Title II Part A. Approval is determined by the use of funds to get teachers highly qualified, either
through recruitment, professional development or improved working conditions.
September 15th (each year)
5. Professional Standards Commission tabulates the HQ status report for the previous school year
and prepares individual reports for each school system as well as an aggregated report for the
state. Each school system’s superintendent receives the report and must sign an assurance that
the data are correct to the best of his or her knowledge. These assurance forms are filed with the
Professional Standards Commission. The data are used to compile the highly qualified data
report that is issued to the U. S. Department of Education.
December 1st-January 31st. (each year)
6. Consultants monitor each of the 183 school districts. They select ½ and make an onsite visit.
Paper review is used with the other systems. A monitoring form is provided to each school
system so they can be aware of the information they need to have. Monitoring will include the
distribution of highly qualified teachers who teach poor and minority students.
32
March 1st (each year)
7. Title II A consultant monitoring reports are completed and made available by the Professional
Standards Commission.
March 1st-June 30th (each year
8. End of Year State Equity Report - An equity report will be made available on an annual basis by
the Professional Standards Commission and the State Board of Education.
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.
Does the plan include a description of the technical assistance the SEA will provide to assist
LEAs in successfully carrying out their HQT plans?
When 100% highly qualified teacher status cannot be maintained because of extenuating
circumstances, each school system has the responsibility to assure that teachers become highly
qualified in a timely manner.
Titles II, Part A consultants provide on-going technical assistance to LEAs to help all teachers
become highly qualified. Each consultant provides whatever assistance is needed, from answering
questions to conducting workshops and/or working with system-level personnel. At times,
consultants will also address concerns of individual teachers. Staffs at the PSC and the DOE are also
available to answer questions and provide data to the LEAs as needed.
For special education, a DOE staff person is assigned to work with Title II, Part A. She attends the
monthly meetings of the Title II, Part A consultants and the PSC/DOE staff. The PSC and the DOE
have offered numerous workshops on the special education requirements around the state ranging
from a statewide Title II, Part A conference, and presentations to the Georgia Association of School
Personnel Administrators (GASPA), many groups of special education teachers, and to a University
forum for special education faculty. A question and answer section on the Georgia NCLB website is
immensely helpful to LEAs and school systems. Assistance as a fact sheet, available slide
presentations and 16 workshops presented throughout the state on special education certification
changes are all part of the effort to provide the best information about changes. Copies of slide
presentations, and other information are located at
http://www.gapsc.com/nclb/Admin/admin_links.htm.
Does the plan indicate that the staffing and professional development needs of schools that are
not making AYP will be given high priority?
The Title II, Part A consultants will target their work in schools with the DOE School Improvement
teams to report the highly qualified status of teachers in schools that do not make AYP. They will
identify why the school system hired a teacher not highly qualified and determine what the school
33
system plans to do to assure that the teacher becomes highly qualified in a timely manner. The
system will be required to use available Title II-A funds to ensure staffing and professional
development needs are met for these schools. For example, if the teacher is from out-of-state and
needs to complete a state teacher assessment, the school system should see that this need is met in a
timely manner. The responsibility for having highly qualified teachers will be placed with the school
district and the principal who does the hiring. Title IIA consultants recommend strategies and
allowable expenditures of Title II, Part A funds for improvement activities within the local district.
34
Does the plan include a description of programs and services the SEA will provide to assist
teachers and LEAs in successfully meeting HQT goals?
Programs and services are provided to assist LEAs with:
Recruitment and Retention of Highly Qualified Teachers

• National Board Candidate Recruitment/training - Assistance with teachers’ preparation for
national board teacher certification
• Teacher/principal Recruitment Activities - Preparation of marketing materials, development of
the TeachGeorgia recruitment site; and recruitment of minority students
• Professional Development in Core Content Areas
• Content Course Development for Special Education Teachers - Development of web-based
modules for certified education teachers to add content in reading and mathematics
• Voyager Reading Project - Professional development program for teaching reading strategies
with a web-based module format, developed by Voyager
A particular example of a Title II, Part A-funded program is the development of four online
mathematics courses and three online science courses by Darton College. These courses are made
available throughout Georgia by the Regional Educational Service Agencies (RESAs) and the
Professional Standards Commission. Special education teachers are using these courses to add to
their content expertise in mathematics and science.
Alternative Preparation Programs for Teachers

• Development of Alternative Preparation - Development of web-based modules for the Georgia
TAPP program
• Development of Special Education Modules - Editing and completion of 11 web-based modules
for interrelated special education preparation offered statewide through Armstrong Atlantic State
University
• Transcript Analyses for Verification of Subject Matter for Certified Special Education Teachers -
Analyses of certified special education teachers’ transcripts to assess the number of content
courses and amount of preparation in the core academic content areas
• Alternative North Georgia Consortium – Formation of a regional consortium between
college/universities, regional education state agency, and schools districts to provide alternative
preparation for teachers
Recruiting a Workforce of Highly Qualified Teachers
Georgia has signed the 2005-2010 NASDTEC Interstate Contract and currently has reciprocity with
more than 50 states, territories, and countries to provide a smooth transition to Georgia certification.
Significant changes in Georgia certification rules has helped with reciprocity (see Appendix 5 for
Georgia Certification Changes).
TeachGeorgia.org
TeachGeorgia is an educational recruitment available through the Professional Standards
Commission and is free to all teachers and LEAs for their use. The site lists LEA jobs that are
35
available and leads applicants through the process of creating an electronic resumes for appropriate
placement. Available jobs are posted on the PSC website and candidates are matched to them.
International Teachers
International certificates are issued to applicants who are from a country other than the United States
who have completed at least a bachelor’s degree with a major in the teaching field and have met all
cultural/educational visa requirements. The certificate can be renewed up to two additional years at
the request of the school district provided that the teacher has met all state requirements during the
first year. These teachers often meet critical needs in hard-to-staff geographical and subject areas,
especially special education, secondary math and sciences, and foreign languages.
Troops to Teachers
Troops to Teachers is a cooperative program between the Professional Standards Commission and
the US DOE designed to assist retired and separated members of the Armed Forces, as well as Guard
and Reserve personnel with obtaining certification and employment as teachers. Troops to Teachers
provides support to personnel who are making a transition to teaching and to the districts that hire
them. Eligible veterans receive either a stipend of not more than $5,000 to assist in attaining teacher
certification or $10,000 incentive grant bonus for participants who teach for three years in a high
needs high school. http://www.tttga.net/.
NBPTS Certification Support

Georgia has a large population of teachers who have achieved certification through the National
Board for Professional Teaching Standards (NBPTS), due largely to a substantial investment the
State has made to assist teachers with the costs of the certification and pay increases once the
certification is achieved. Teachers who receive NBPTS certification in 2006 or later must agree to
teach in high needs schools.
Retired Teacher Incentives

Members of the Georgia Retirement System who are eligible for service retirement may elect to
participate in the Retired Teachers Program. Teachers may work up to five years as a retiree, while
accumulating a retirement annuity and drawing a salary as a full-time employee. Legislation was
amended to lift the earning limitation on teachers who choose to reenter their profession subsequent
to retirement.
Does the plan specifically address the needs of any subgroups of teachers identified in
Requirement 1?
Review of the statewide data for non-highly qualified teachers indicates that the assignments to teach
in all of the core academic content areas including reading, mathematics, science, foreign language,
the areas listed as critical fields in Georgia. Workforce data indicate a chronic shortage of teachers in
these core academic content areas. (See http://www.gapsc.com/Workforce.asp) The data indicate that
not highly qualified teachers in these particular content areas are dispersed throughout the state.
Appendix 4 summarizes the projects undertaken by Georgia to support the identified needs of
teachers in the areas of reading, mathematics, science, and foreign language.
36
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?
All federal funds and targeted state funds are directed toward high need schools in local districts
with an emphasis on teachers who are not highly qualified. Georgia has and will continue to use
these funds for a number of projects that help LEAs and their teachers meet the requirements for
being highly qualified teachers.
Title IIA Consultants – Team of field specialists available to provide technical support to districts,
schools, and teachers on options for teachers to become highly qualified and supporting available
resources.
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?
Title II-A consultants will work with LEAs who have schools that did not make AYP to ensure the
system has a written plan to address the requirement of 100% Highly Qualified teachers in all
classrooms including assistance for each teacher who is not highly qualified to become so in a timely
manner. Systems will be required to use available Title II-A funds to ensure staffing and
professional development needs are met for these schools.
The Georgia Department of Education School Improvement Division will work collaboratively with
Georgia’s Regional Education Service Agencies (RESAs) to provide technical support for school
improvement to LEAs with schools not making AYP through five Regional Support Teams across
the state. The Regional Support Teams are made up of educators from School Improvement, Title I
and Curriculum and Instruction Georgia Department of Education personnel, RESA School
Improvement Specialists, Professional Standards Commission Title IIA Regional Staff, GLRS
Regional Representatives, Education Technology Training Center Regional Representatives, and
College and University Representatives. Schools in Needs Improvement Years 1-7 receive the
support of a Georgia Department of Education Leadership Facilitator (on-site coach). See Appendix
6: GEORGIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION RULE 160-7-1-.04
Code IAB (4) 160-7-1-.04 ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM AWARDS AND CONSEQUENCES.
Schools that are not making AYP are given priority for state grants for an academic coach.
The Georgia Department of Education is developing state rules to implement a state law passed in
2006 that will provide financial incentives for principals of middle and high schools who have had
high student achievement within the past five years to relocate to a Needs Improvement school.
37
Requirement 4 : The revised plan must describe how the SEA will work with LEAs that fail
to reach the 100 percent HQT goal by the end of the 2006-07 school year.
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?
LEA Responsibilities for Title II, Part A - Accountability

served by the LEA are highly qualified by the end of the 2005-06 school year
LEA are highly qualified not later than the end of the 2005-06 school year
teaching staff
• Report on progress to assure highly qualified teachers each year beginning with 2001 through
2006
PSC Responsibilities for Title II, Part A Monitoring and Compliance

responsibility for the following requirements of NCLB Title II, Part A related to LEA compliance
with and accountability for their HQT plans:
• Collect data on LEAs’ and schools’ progress toward meeting HQT goals, and provide
formative data throughout the academic year to inform LEA and school progress.
• Provide technical assistance in developing a process to assure a highly qualified teacher in
every classroom for each LEA.
Review of LEAs’ Consolidated Applications

Teams of evaluators from the PSC and DOE review LEAs’ consolidated applications annually.
Review criteria related to meeting highly qualified teacher requirements include:
• LEA discusses its procedures and policies to ensure teachers and paraprofessionals are highly
qualified by August 31, 2006
• LEA has implemented a plan to monitor the highly qualified status of all teachers and
paraprofessionals within the LEA and ensure that they remain highly qualified if applicable.
38
• LEA provides data on the numbers of teachers and paraprofessionals disaggregated by

subject taught and grade level that lack certification and are not designated as highly
qualified as well as data on those that are certified and highly qualified.
• LEA has a method for notifying parents to inform them of their right to request the
professional qualifications of their children’s teachers and paraprofessionals, and the LEA
notifies parents if their children have been taught by a teacher who was no considered highly
qualified for 20 consecutive days or more.
• LEA shows that it allocated funds to support teachers and paraprofessionals in their efforts to
become highly qualified.
• The LEA has a plan to ensure that poor and minority children are not taught more frequently
by teachers who are not high qualified.
• The LEA ensures that teachers in Title III programs are fluent in English and any
other language of instructions.
• LEA budgets for expenditure of NCLB funds may not be submitted and approved
until the LEA’s Consolidated Application is approved by the DOE.
State Monitoring and Compliance with the 100% Highly Qualified Requirement
The Title II, Part A consultants assigned to the Local Education Agencies (LEAs) monitor the LEAs’
efforts to meet the state’s highly qualified teacher requirements. In 2003-04, the consultants
monitored all 183 school districts as well as the state schools. The purpose of the monitoring was to
ensure that an annual needs assessment and multi-year planning are the basis for the budgeting and
expenditures of the Title II, Part A funding to local systems, and that the process is carried out within
the state and federal requirements for NCLB. The consultants used a monitoring form to gather
information about the districts’ planning process, highly qualified teacher and paraprofessional data,
expenditure of funds appropriated to LEAs, private school participation, and other documentation.
The monitoring form is located at http://www.gapsc.com/nclb/Admin/Files/IIA_monitor.pdf . The
data were aggregated by the Title II, Part A staff. Ninety-six percent of LEAs provided evidence for
monitoring criterion I-E of planning for improved teacher and principal quality. These data were not
disaggregated based on whether or not school districts met AYP goals.
In 2004-05, all LEAs completed a check list indicating their Title II, Part A compliance, and
consultants selected school systems by zip code at random and monitored their efforts. The checklist
is located at www.gapsc.com/nclb/Admin/Files/IIA_selfmonitor.pdf. These results are being
tabulated, and will be disaggregated based on whether or not school districts meet AYP goals and on
whether school districts include a high proportion of poor and/or minority students.
For 2006-2007, a prioritized monitoring list will be used that is based on districts that did not meet
AYP that have the highest percentages of non-HiQ teachers in needs improvement schools or schools
with a high proportion of poor and/or minority students. On-site monitoring will be conducted first
in those districts with high numbers of non-HiQ teachers teaching in needs improvement schools
with a high proportion of poor and/or minority students.
For the 2006-07 monitoring, in addition to the monitoring form used for 2004-05, the Title II Part A
consultants will monitor for progress in meeting the requirements for the teachers listed in the
remediation mode on HiQ for each district using the HiQ data base. Title II A consultants will
39
carefully review the data and schedule monitoring visits to districts, giving priority to those that do
not make AYP. Districts will provide appropriate documentation of plans and progress toward
meeting the 100% goal. A plan for corrective action will be mandated for districts that do not fulfill
their plans or make sufficient progress.
In March 2007, a report of highly qualified teacher status will be run for the entire state. This report
will be the basis for the annual Title IIA report to be submitted to the U.S. Department of Education
in 2007.
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?
Georgia DOE Responsibilities for Title II, Part A Technical Assistance

As the state agency responsible for student achievement and LEA goals in K-12 schools, the Georgia
Department of Education has established a method for determining whether schools and districts
meet AYP goals annually. Leadership facilitators from the school improvement division of the
department of education will use HiQ data as part of their data analysis in developing school
improvement plans for needs improvement schools.
The Title II, Part A consultants work with the DOE School Improvement teams to prioritize the
delivery of technical assistance to schools not meeting AYP with the highest percentage of non-HQT.
LEAs will provide evidence as to why the school system hired a teacher not highly qualified for a
school not meeting AYP, and determine what the school system plans to do to assure that the teacher
becomes highly qualified in a timely manner. The system will be required to use available Title II-A
funds to ensure staffing and professional development needs are met first for these teachers and
schools. The responsibility for having highly qualified teachers will be placed with the school district
and the principal who does the hiring; progress will be monitored using the HiQ data base as it is
updated regularly.
The Georgia Board of Education has adopted an Accountability System with Awards and
Consequences (GBOE Rule 160-1-1-.04 –Appendix 6) for public schools based on annual yearly
progress determinations. The Accountability Profile and GDOE guidance informs the nature and
degree of the required improvement plans (i.e. school improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring). The GDOE provides, in accordance with the NCLB Act of 2001, section 1117(a), a
system of intensive and sustained support and improvement for LEAs and schools identified as
needs improvement. Included in this support is the monitoring of the highly qualified status of
teachers in needs improvement schools, with plans for remediation to meet the 100% HiQT
requirement. http://www.gaosa.org/
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?
Title IIA consultants will monitor HQT percentage of teachers in all schools as they monitor the LEA
plans and their progress toward meeting the 100% HQT requirement and the individual plans
developed for each teachers in any district who have not met HiQ requirements. Title IIA consultants
40
will monitor the use of funds within the local district to ensure that the resources for high quality
professional development are targeted to teachers in order to specifically address their needs to
become highly qualified and then to improve their knowledge and skills to become more effective
classroom teachers, and that these funds are focused on non-HiQ teachers in needs improvement
schools, especially those with a high proportion of poor and/or minority students. The monitoring
form will be used to gather this data.
The Georgia School Standards (GSS) are the foundation for Georgia’s comprehensive, data-driven
system of school improvement and support. Correlated to several well-known and respected
research frameworks, including the National Staff Development Councils Professional Learning
standards, the Standards describe the effective, high impact practices for schools. The GSS will
serve as the summary document to identify a school’s level of implementation in each of the eight
strands, including high quality Professional Learning, to inform the development of improvement
plans to address specific areas of need.
http://public.doe.k12.ga.us/DMGetDocument.aspx/GSS_06.pdf?p=39EF345AE192D900F620BFDE
9C014CE65F48E7E4CC653240B75F2273979D62CC72C6AE49F194013B&Type=D
The GSS is combined with data collected using the Georgia Assessment of Performance on School
Standards instruments. The GAPSS Analysis provides instruments and tools that can be applied to
the GSS strands, including professional learning, to determine the level of implementation of the
standards at each school. Schools not making AYP have used this instrument since the 2004-05
school year to inform their school improvement plans with assistance from leadership facilitators
from the DOE.
http://public.doe.k12.ga.us/DMGetDocument.aspx/GAPSSManual06-
07.pdf?p=6CC6799F8C1371F612E2DBF71E5D5022E1DFA879E823D051FB4805D8DB4937D1&
Type=D
Consistent with ESEA Section 2141, does the plan include technical assistance or corrective
actions that the SEA will apply if LEAs fail to meet HQT and AYP goals?
The school system must attempt to meet annual measurable objectives, or targets, as identified by
HiQ (a web-based teacher quality inventory program developed by the GAPSC) and established for
the LEA Title II-A Plan. The identified targets allow for assessment of the school system’s Adequate
Yearly Progress (AYP) toward meeting the goal of having all teachers “highly qualified” by the end
of the 2005-2006 school year.
If, after the 2005–2006 school year a school system failed to make adequate progress, the SEA will
enter into an agreement with the school system on its use of Title II-A Improving Teacher Quality
State Grants program funds, which will be evidenced through their consolidated application for
NCLB. The consultants will review LEA plans (AYP schools and those who did not meet the100%
goal) and provide targeted technical assistance.
41
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 teachers
who are highly qualified in language arts, mathematics, or science at the time of hire.
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?
The use of HOUSSE has been limited since its inception. The HOUSSE has been used to date to
establish the highly qualified status of approximately 669 teachers, or less than 1% of Georgia’s
teachers. The HOUSSE instrument has been used for Georgia’s life certificate holders, international
teachers who are in Georgia for a three year period only and veteran teachers moving from out of
state without a state teacher assessment requirement, e.g., teachers from Alabama. The HOUSSE
instrument has not been used to assess the highly qualified status for regular teachers teaching
multiple subjects because state assignment rules require that teachers be assigned according to the
content in which they are certified. See Certification Rule 505-2-.26. Georgia certifies early
childhood, Preschool – Grade 5; Middle Grades 4-8; and Secondary Grades 6-12. To accommodate
these groups, Georgia developed a HOUSSE instrument to determine the highly qualified status of
teachers in regular education with three or more years of teaching experience who did not meet the
basic certification credentialing.
Georgia has required a passing score on a state content assessment for certification since the 1980’s.
A major for secondary content areas and subject matter concentrations for middle grades has been
required since 1995. Georgia’s highly qualified teacher definition is aligned closely with its state
certification requirements. During 2003-04, 2004-5 school years, the Title II, Part A consultants
conducted regional training on the use and potential of the HOUSSE instrument. A copy of The
HOUSSE instrument can be found at www.gapsc.com/nclb/admin/files/HOUSSE.pdf.
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 year?
The HOUSSE process for teachers not new to the profession in the state of Georgia, except for a
small number of multi-subject special education teachers, has been completed. Georgia, consistent
with USED Improving Teacher Quality State Grants Non-regulatory Guidance (August 3, 2005),
will offer HOUSSE only in the following circumstance:
• Multi-subject special education teachers

.
This group is the only group of veteran teachers still eligible for HOUSSE in the state of Georgia,
and it will be available to them only through the 2006 – 07 academic year.
42
Multi-subject secondary teachers in rural schools
Georgia’s certification requirements prohibit use of HOUSSE for this purpose because state
assignment rules require that teachers be assigned according to the content in which they are
certified. (See Certification Rule 505-2-.26)
Use of HOUSSE prior to the end of 2005 – 2006
To date, approximately 669 teachers have established highly qualified credentials through the use of
HOUSSE. Georgia’s HOUSSE has been used in the following situations to allow teachers to
establish highly qualified status:
• Georgia’s Life Certificate holders

• International teachers who in Georgia for a three year period only
• Veteran teachers moving from out of state without a teacher assessment requirement, e.g.,
teachers from Alabama.
43
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 other children.
Does the revised plan include a written equity plan?
Georgia’s Equity Plan
Statement of the Problem
Georgia’s school systems have 48 % white students, 38.3 % black students, 8.4% Hispanic students
and 2.8% other students. An overall 97% of the teachers assigned to teach this student population is
highly qualified, or 3% are not highly qualified according to the state’s accepted definition of highly
qualified teacher. (See page 4 of this report for state definition). Examination of the highly qualified
teacher data by school system, by individual school, and by class indicates a disparity in the
availability and in the assignments of the highly qualified teachers: (a) within specific geographic
regions of the state; (b) for schools statewide that have not made AYP; (c) within specific core
content areas designated as critical teaching fields statewide; (d) with access to highly qualified
teachers being far less likely in the middle grades than in elementary schools; (e) with a
disproportionate number of teachers statewide who have little or no teaching experience assigned to
teach poor and minority children; (f) in the % of teachers who fail Praxis content tests multiple
times before passing the tests assigned to teach poor and minority children.
(a) Distribution of highly qualified teachers within Geographic Regions of the State
The 97% estimate of highly qualified teachers on a statewide basis includes a majority of the 183
school systems that have either reached the 100% goal, or have attained a percentage in the 95-100%
range with effective local needs assessment plans in place to recruit highly qualified teachers.
However, seven of the 183 school systems have significant numbers of teachers not meeting highly
qualified standards (15+% or greater): Atlanta Public Schools (17%), Bibb County (17%), Hancock
County (21%), Laurens County (15%), Putnam County (19%), Taliaferro County (27%), Treutlen
County (32%).
Eleven additional districts have between 11% and 14% of non HQ teachers include: Calhoun County
(14%), Clayton County (12%), Clinch County (12%), Dooly County (12%), Macon County (13%),
Montgomery County (13%), Pulaski County (14%), Randolph County ((12%), Seminole County
(14%), Sumter County (14%), Twiggs County (12%). (See map on Page 5 of this report for the
locations of these counties in the state). These school systems have high percentages of minority
students and high poverty. Among these systems also are a number of schools on the needs
improvement list. (See http://www.gapsc.com/Workforce) and the Georgia Department of Education
website.
44
Although the Title I schools have a slightly higher percentage of highly qualified teachers statewide,
inspection of the data reveal that many of them represent percentages of teachers with the least
experience and are highly qualified based on their content expertise, not their knowledge and
experience with teaching.
(b) AYP Status
Data comparing high minority school enrollment and the percent of not highly qualified teachers and
AYP status shows an inequitable distribution of teachers for some students as illustrated in Table 09
of this report.
45
Table 09: Preliminary Data Comparing High Minority School Enrollment, Percentage of Not
Highly Qualified Teachers and AYP status
(NI+2=needs improvement 2+ years); NI1 =needs improvement 1 year; AP1=made AYP the
most recent reporting year, not the year before; AP2 had made AYP for 2 consecutive years;
AP3=distinguished, has made AYP for 3 or more consecutive years.)
High Schools
% Minority % Not HiQ AYP

63.51 2.79 NI2+
61.72 3.48 NI1
50.40 2.87 AP1
42.71 2.06 AP2
30.60 1.15 AP3+
r= 0.918293
Middle Schools
66.80 2.80 NI2+
45.26 1.28 NI1
56.46 2.32 AP1
39.12 1.33 AP2
32.49 1.23 AP3+
r= 0.950314
Elementary Schools
84.94 3.00 NI2+
70.34 2.20 NI1
75.00 1.80 AP1
51.02 1.79 AP2
48.49 1.15 AP3+
r= 0.843143
46
(c). Content Areas
As reported in the 2003 through 2005-06 HQ data listed on pages 13-17, Requirement One of this
report, availability and assignment of highly qualified teachers vary by core academic content.
Specific core academic content areas designated as critical fields in Georgia reflect the shortage of
these teachers statewide. Title I schools reflect an overall higher % of highly qualified teachers than
do Non-Title I schools. These data represent school systems’ efforts to comply with the NCLB
requirements since its implementation in 2002. Review of the statewide data in tables 02 and 03 of
this report indicates that the not highly qualified teachers were assigned to teach in all of the core
academic content areas including reading, mathematics, science, foreign language, the areas listed as
critical fields in Georgia. Workforce data indicate a chronic shortage of teachers in these core
academic content areas. (See http://www.gapsc.com/Workforce). The data indicate that not HQT
teachers in these particular content areas are dispersed throughout the state.
Preliminary system level data comparing Title I and Non-Title I Schools and the percent of not
Highly Qualified teachers does not indicate a larger percent overall of not Highly Qualified teachers
assigned to teach in Title I schools. In fact, in most school districts, the reverse is true. (See table 10)
Table 10: 2005-06 System Data: Title I and Non-Title I Schools
2005-06 System Data: Title I and Non-Title I Schools

"Classes" are inferred from the class subject and the "part-of-day" reported for each educator
in each class. One full "part-of-day" in the "elementary" subject (coded as 920 or 928 on CPI)
is treated as one class. One full "part-of-day" in any other subject is treated as representing
five classes.
Title I Non-Title I
School system Classes All % Classes All classes %
Taught classes Classes Taught Classes
Not Taught Not Taught
Highly Not Highly Not
Qualified Highly Qualified Highly
Teachers Qualified Teachers Qualified
Teachers Teachers
Appling County 19 408 5% 22 237 9%
Atkinson County 1 176 1% 8 88 9%
Atlanta Public Schools 1,360 8,018 17% 339 1,755 19%
Bacon County 5 209 2% - 114 0%
Baker County - - _ - 78 0%
Baldwin County 10 442 2% 1 289 0%
Banks County 3 266 1% 5 125 4%
Barrow County - 394 0% 15 1,290 1%
Bartow County 16 598 3% 221 1,944 11%
Ben Hill County 4 352 1% 15 171 9%
Berrien County - 320 0% 12 167 7%
Bibb County 399 2,421 16% 290 1,531 19%
47

five classes.
Title I Non-Title I
Teachers Teachers
Bleckley County 3 136 2% 10 251 4%
Brantley County 25 483 5% 29 171 17%
Bremen City - 98 0% 2 197 1%
Brooks County 30 407 7% - - _
Bryan County 11 383 3% 4 661 1%
Buford City 2 303 1% 12 169 7%
Bulloch County 38 1,101 3% 20 467 4%
Burke County 13 544 2% 5 276 2%
Butts County 21 398 5% 44 204 21%
Calhoun City 7 162 4% 13 375 3%
Calhoun County 19 142 14% - - _
Camden County 14 1,005 1% 43 691 6%
Candler County 7 348 2% - - _
Carroll County - 1,355 0% 39 2,247 2%
Carrollton City - 123 0% - 475 0%
Cartersville City 5 461 1% 5 208 2%
Catoosa County 12 423 3% 143 1,253 11%
Charlton County - 129 0% 19 180 10%
Chatham County 203 2,954 7% 154 2,715 6%
Chattahoochee County 3 51 5% 11 82 13%
Chattooga County 1 301 0% 11 195 6%
Cherokee County - 476 0% 106 5,517 2%
Chickamauga City - 36 0% - 158 0%
Clarke County 9 971 1% 89 2,475 4%
Clay County - 30 0% 1 34 3%
Clayton County 310 4,832 6% 1,023 6,641 15%
Clinch County 12 173 7% 23 117 20%
Cobb County 181 2,903 6% 1,228 15,283 8%
Coffee County 10 359 3% 86 845 10%
Colquitt County 12 957 1% 9 459 2%
Columbia County 1 824 0% 39 2,749 1%
Commerce City 1 85 1% 8 179 4%
Cook County - 227 0% - 276 0%
48

five classes.
Title I Non-Title I
Teachers Teachers
Coweta County 5 396 1% 130 2,784 5%
Crawford County 20 293 7% - 13 0%
Crisp County - 466 0% - 195 0%
Dade County 1 95 1% - 263 0%
Dalton City 12 834 1% 23 638 4%
Dawson County - 132 0% 6 407 1%
Decatur City 10 449 2% - 179 0%
Decatur County 8 935 1% 1 58 2%
DeKalb County 537 9,983 5% 243 6,218 4%
Dodge County 12 576 2% - - _
Dooly County 23 274 8% 21 84 24%
Dougherty County 129 2,064 6% 45 547 8%
Douglas County 16 207 8% 154 2,904 5%
Dublin City 54 441 12% 1 139 1%
Early County - 378 0% 3 169 2%
Echols County 9 118 8% - - _
Effingham County 2 578 0% 5 1,080 0%
Elbert County 6 252 2% 30 421 7%
Emanuel County 9 630 1% 2 200 1%
Evans County 4 297 1% 10 84 12%
Fannin County 7 433 2% 10 184 6%
Fayette County 10 734 1% 90 4,021 2%
Floyd County 35 456 8% 31 1,364 2%
Forsyth County 1 308 0% 49 3,647 1%
Franklin County 3 446 1% 10 189 5%
Fulton County 85 2,015 4% 622 11,602 5%
Gainesville City 17 771 2% - 44 0%
Gilmer County 8 755 1% - - _
Glascock County 8 118 6% - - _
Glynn County 14 1,043 1% 34 922 4%
Gordon County 1 663 0% 8 372 2%
Grady County - 413 0% 20 352 6%
Greene County - 247 0% 14 111 13%
49

five classes.
Title I Non-Title I
Teachers Teachers
Gwinnett County 197 3,325 6% 1,057 21,527 5%
Habersham County - 343 0% - 662 0%
Hall County 21 917 2% 82 2,732 3%
Hancock County 44 148 30% 5 90 6%
Haralson County 5 400 1% - 172 0%
Harris County 1 395 0% 6 352 2%
Hart County 2 425 0% 1 179 1%
Heard County 1 124 1% 14 195 7%
Henry County 32 497 6% 324 5,006 6%
Houston County 68 2,278 3% 56 2,268 2%
Irwin County 2 184 1% - 124 0%
Jackson County 7 703 1% 5 354 1%
Jasper County 8 180 5% 6 229 3%
Jeff Davis County - 472 0% - - _
Jefferson City - 117 0% 6 220 3%
Jefferson County 9 572 2% - - _
Jenkins County 9 209 4% 15 118 13%
Johnson County 24 236 10% - - _
Jones County - 136 0% 38 640 6%
Lamar County 39 356 11% - 51 0%
Lanier County 13 113 12% - 176 0%
Laurens County 2 247 1% 141 688 20%
Lee County 24 638 4% 2 241 1%
Liberty County 89 1,493 6% 56 532 10%
Lincoln County 4 165 2% - 85 0%
Long County 14 314 4% - - _
Lowndes County 26 653 4% 56 923 6%
Lumpkin County 14 412 3% 5 197 3%
Macon County 5 120 4% 45 269 17%
Madison County 1 551 0% 10 248 4%
Marietta City 32 1,003 3% 6 495 1%
Marion County 7 326 2% - - _
McDuffie County - 272 0% - 538 0%
50

five classes.
Title I Non-Title I
Teachers Teachers
McIntosh County 12 223 5% 5 118 4%
Meriwether County 23 398 6% 15 204 7%
Miller County 7 142 5% 9 81 11%
Mitchell County 25 503 5% 35 236 15%
Monroe County 9 399 2% - 202 0%
Montgomery County 33 246 13% - - _
Morgan County - 193 0% 19 447 4%
Murray County 27 961 3% 2 218 1%
Muscogee County 188 2,110 9% 382 4,003 10%
Newton County 48 1,638 3% 44 1,129 4%
Oconee County 2 456 0% 2 640 0%
Oglethorpe County 3 301 1% 8 119 6%
Paulding County 22 436 5% 151 3,325 5%
Peach County 12 247 5% 56 480 12%
Pelham City 8 171 5% 4 73 5%
Pickens County 11 405 3% 5 365 1%
Pierce County 19 512 4% - - _
Pike County - 180 0% - 250 0%
Polk County 7 334 2% 60 826 7%
Pulaski County 23 184 13% 23 148 16%
Putnam County 50 384 13% 57 187 30%
Quitman County 6 64 9% - - _
Rabun County - 247 0% - 212 0%
Randolph County 34 269 13% - 5 0%
Richmond County 149 2,221 7% 129 2,897 4%
Rockdale County 10 794 1% 30 1,751 2%
Rome City 5 624 1% 12 422 3%
Schley County - 117 0% - 83 0%
Screven County 24 640 4% - 13 0%
Seminole County 45 314 14% - - _
Social Circle City 1 248 0% 19 186 10%
Spalding County 21 480 4% 115 1,235 9%
Stephens County 3 181 2% 6 552 1%
51

five classes.
Title I Non-Title I
Teachers Teachers
Stewart County 12 142 9% - - _
Sumter County 74 641 11% 46 245 19%
Talbot County 7 146 5% - - _
Taliaferro County 24 89 27% - - _
Tattnall County 8 523 1% 29 187 15%
Taylor County 1 186 1% 5 81 6%
Telfair County 35 356 10% - 5 0%
Terrell County 2 63 2% 8 148 5%
Thomas County - 172 0% 32 723 4%
Thomaston-Upson 9 605 2% 8 272 3%
County
Thomasville City - 287 0% 15 231 6%
Tift County - 246 0% 4 963 0%
Toombs County 9 403 2% 10 343 3%
Towns County 3 144 2% 5 300 2%
Treutlen County 5 54 9% 56 135 42%
Trion City - 72 0% - 138 0%
Troup County 10 520 2% 74 1,520 5%
Turner County 5 246 2% 6 93 7%
Twiggs County 28 243 12% - - _
Union County 1 64 2% 48 414 12%
Valdosta City 36 573 6% 46 648 7%
Vidalia City 7 415 2% 19 169 11%
Walker County 30 912 3% 16 467 3%
Walton County 12 596 2% 17 1,141 1%
Ware County 20 1,006 2% - 91 0%
Warren County 8 137 6% - - _
Washington County 33 506 7% 31 196 16%
Wayne County 3 224 1% 17 592 3%
Webster County - - _ 4 66 6%
Wheeler County - 218 0% - 20 0%
White County - 552 0% 16 468 3%
Whitfield County 4 710 1% 65 1,191 5%
52

five classes.
Title I Non-Title I
Teachers Teachers
Wilcox County 4 210 2% 18 85 21%
Wilkes County 5 259 2% 1 93 1%
Wilkinson County - 71 0% 11 209 5%
Worth County 3 412 1% 5 205 2%
(d) Differences between middle grades and elementary school teacher attributes
Preliminary reports using equity parameters including years of experience teaching in Georgia, age,
Praxis I and Praxis II performance, advanced degrees, highly qualified status and route to
certification indicate that middle grades students in Georgia are far less likely to receive instruction
from teachers who are highly qualified than are elementary grades. The following table 12,
illustrates these findings.
53
Table 11: Teacher attributes of equity parameters by school level
High Schools
Attributes of Attributes of Attributes of Attributes of
Teachers Who Replacements: Teachers Who Replacements:
Left NI2+ Schools New Hires in NI2+ Left AP3+ New Hires in
after 2003-2004 Schools 2004- Schools after AP3+ Schools
(n=573 *) 2005 (n = 658 **) 2003-2004 2004-2005
(n=815 ***) (n = 969 ****)
Average GA 13.2 Yrs 8.7 12.7 8.2

Experience
Age 42.8 39.4 41.8 38.6
Praxis I Performance 4.2 % had failed 7.9% had failed 2.9% had failed 6.4% had failed
some part some part some part some part
Praxis II Performance 14.5% had failed 18.1% had failed 11.5% had failed 13.2% had failed
Praxis II Praxis II Praxis II Praxis II
Advanced Degrees 63.9% 54.6% 62.8% 52.4%
Not Highly Qualified 8.9% 12.3% 5.5% 9.1%
Certified Through 6.8% 18.1% 2.8% 17.9%

Alternative Routes
* Of the 573 leavers from
NI2+ high schools, 254 left
the workforce and 319
transferred out to other
schools
** Of the 658 replacements
in NI2+ high schools, 325
were not employed in 2004
and 333 transferred in from
other schools.
*** Of the 815 leavers from
AP3+ high schools, 345 left
schools.
**** Of the 969
replacements in AP3+ high
schools, 508 were not
employed in 2004 and 461
transferred in from other
schools.
54
Middle Schools
(n=1172 *) 2005 (n = 1359**) 2003-2004 2004-2005
(n=691 ***) (n = 684****)
Average GA 10.0 Yrs 7.0 Yrs 11.2 Yrs 8.3 Yrs

Experience
Age 40.4 35.6 40.4 38.4
Praxis I Performance 4.4% had failed 9.4% had failed 2.2% had failed 5.1% had failed

Alternative Routes
NI2+ middle schools, 429
left the workforce and 743
schools.
** Of the 1359
replacements in NI2+
middle schools, 679 were
not employed in 2004 and
680 transferred in from
other schools.
AP3+ middle schools, 228
left the workforce and 463
schools.
**** Of the 684
replacements in AP3+
middle schools, 265 were
not employed in 2004 and
419 transferred in from
other schools.
55
Elementary Schools
(n=81) 2005 (n = 99) 2003-2004 2004-2005
(n=7212) (n = 7606)
Average GA 9.9 Yrs 8.3 Yrs 11.3 Yrs 7.9 Yrs

Experience
Age 38.8 37.7 40.5 37.5
Praxis I Performance 2.5% had failed 7.1% had failed 3.6% had failed 8.0% had failed

Alternative Routes
NI2+ elementary schools,
32 left the workforce and 49
schools.
** Of the 99 replacements
in NI2+ elementary schools,
53 were not employed in
2004 and 46 transferred in
from other schools.
AP3+ elementary, 2959 left
schools.
**** Of the 7606
replacements in AP3+
elementary schools, 3577
were not employed in 2004
and 4029 transferred in
from other schools.
56
(e) Little or no initial teaching experience or experience teaching a core academic content area
for the first time
For teacher candidates who are participating in an alternative preparation program, the state grants
an intern certificate or a nonrenewable certificate. These candidates are considered highly qualified
on the basis of their content expertise, but they are beginning teachers who are learning to teach and
earning their full, renewable certificate on the job; they have little or no teaching experience. Of the
3,383 teachers in this category, 1944 or 57% are assigned initially to teach children in poverty, and
1944 or 43 % are assigned to other types of settings.
(f) Praxis II Data Results
Preliminary data analysis comparing high minority school enrollment and % of Praxis II failures by
AYP classification suggest that minority students in schools that need improvement are more likely
to be assigned teachers who have failed the Praxis II test at least twice before receiving a passing
score. Preliminary data comparing high minority school enrollment and % of Praxis II failures by
AYP classification suggest that minority students in schools that need improvement are more likely
to be assigned teachers who have failed the Praxis II test at least twice before receiving a passing
score. See Table 11 listed here)
Table 12: Minority Enrollment and Percent of Praxis II Failures
2005 Middle School Minority Enrollment and Percent

of Praxis II Failures by AYP Classification
80.00
60.00
40.00 % Minority
20.00 % Praxis 2 Fails
0.00
NI2 NI1 AP1 AP2 AP3+
57
2005 High School Minority Enrollment and Percent of
Praxis II Failures by AYP Classification
80.00
60.00
40.00 % Minority
20.00 % Praxis 2 Fails
0.00
NI2 NI1 AP1 AP2 AP3+
58
Georgia’s Equity Plan
Neither the Georgia Professional Standards Commission nor the Georgia Department of Education
has authority to intervene directly in local level decisions about the hiring or assignments of
educator personnel. However, the two state agencies can have a positive impact on the school
systems’ use of Title II Part A funds used for the recruitment, preparation, assignment and retention
of highly qualified teachers by the state approval of the NCLB budgeted funds; by monitoring the
local systems’ actions taken to assure appropriate highly qualified teacher assignments; and publicly
reporting the distribution of teachers by school and by class for poor and minority students, on an
ongoing annual basis. The Professional Standards Commission and the Georgia Department of
Education have the following goals to accomplish equity in the selection and assignment of highly
qualified teachers for all children in Georgia’s 183 school systems.
Equity Goals
1. Ensure that poor and minority children are not taught by inexperienced, unqualified, or mis-
assigned teachers at higher rates than are other children.
2. Ensure that children in low performing schools in all geographic regions of the state have access
to experienced, qualified and appropriately assigned teachers on an equitable basis.
Does the plan delineate specific strategies for addressing inequity in teacher assignment?
Georgia’s Equity Plan focuses on five major areas: 1. availability of accurate and appropriate data to
assist local school systems in making decisions about their needs for and assignments of highly
qualified teachers to teach children of poverty and minority children; 2. using the data to increase the
supply of teachers; 3. using the data to redistribute existing teachers within a local school system; 4.
using the data to improve the knowledge and skills of teachers and (5) using the data to improve the
working conditions for teachers. In each of these areas, the state will identify and disseminate
information about appropriate strategies to all school systems, monitor the school systems’ decisions
made, and report the results of their efforts. (See research base to support these recommendations
included in Appendix **). All of these recommendations are supported by existing state level
preparation, certification and work assignment polices and procedures for hiring and assigning
teachers. (Seehttp://www.gapsc.com/)
59
Strategy #1: Collection and Dissemination of Information
First, the Georgia Professional Standards Commission and the Georgia Department of Education will
continue to work together to provide data that are helpful to local school systems as they make
decisions about the hiring and assigning of teachers to establish an equitable distribution for all
children. This will be accomplished through the use of the HQ software currently used to monitor
and report on the state’s highly qualified teacher status.
Second, the Georgia Professional Standards Commission and the Georgia Department of Education
will recommend the following to increase the supply of highly qualified teachers:
• Scholarships, loans, loan forgiveness programs to recruit and prepare a pool of teachers
specifically for high-poverty, low performing schools
• Alternative routes to teaching
• International teachers
• Targeted teacher preparation programs, such as the Georgia Teacher Alternative Preparation
Program (GA TAPP) to prepare teachers specifically to work in high-need schools
Third, the Georgia Professional Standards Commission and the Georgia Department of Education
will recommend the following to accomplish redistribution of existing teachers:
• Systems’ offering compensation as a way to attract experienced teachers to high-need schools,

high poverty schools
• Financial incentives including the use of the Title II Part A funds
• Non-monetary incentives
• Assure that National Board certified teachers are placed in high-need schools
• Hire retired teachers
Fourth, Georgia Professional Standards Commission and the Georgia Department of Education will
recommend the following to improve the knowledge, skills and training of teaching already working
in high need schools:
• Provide targeted professional development

• Fund mentoring programs
• Use master teachers and coaches
• Transition to Teaching Program
Fifth, Georgia Professional Standards Commission and the Georgia Department of Education will
recommend the following:
• Develop policies and procedures to attract effective principals and teachers

• Develop and implement programs to attract principals and teachers
• Reallocate resources to high-need schools
• Improve safety and discipline in high-needs schools
60
Strategy # 2: Data Collection and Analysis of Highly Qualified Teacher Data
The PSC and DOE will enhance HQ, the state data management and reporting system for the use of
school districts, so that each local school system can continuously update its data on the qualification
and experience of teachers who are teaching Georgia’s poor and minority students to assure that they
are not being taught at higher rates than other students by inexperienced, unqualified, and out-of-
field teachers.
The data collection and analysis on an annual basis will include:
a. Percentage of core academic subjects taught by teachers by school, school system and regions of
the state who do not meet the NCLB HQT requirements in school districts for sp and schools with
the highest concentration of children in poverty and minority children.
b. Percentage of teachers who do not meet the NCLB HQT requirements in school districts and
schools not making AYP with the highest concentration of children in poverty and minority children.
c. A report of the experience levels of teachers who do not meet the NCLB HQT requirements in
school districts and schools with the highest concentration of children in poverty and minority
children.
d. Percentage of the teachers who have taken Praxis content exams multiple times prior experience
level of teachers who do not meet the NCLB HQT requirements in school districts and schools with
the highest concentration of minority children.
e. Compilation of data on the actions taken by school systems to either increase the supply of highly
qualified teachers, redistribute existing teachers; improve the knowledge and skills of teachers
teaching in high-need areas, improve working conditions for teachers in high need schools.
Does the plan identify where inequities in teacher assignment exist?
Does the plan indicate that the SEA will examine the issue of equitable teacher assignment
when it monitors the LEAs, and how will this be done?
61
Strategy # 3: Monitoring of local school systems actions to achieve equitable distribution of

highly qualified teachers for all children
Ongoing state level monitoring and public reporting of local system efforts to establish and maintain
an equitable distribution of teachers will provide an accountability of the state’s efforts to provide
highly qualified teachers for all children.
The statewide monitoring will involve:
1. Conduct statewide monitoring of local systems efforts to achieve 100% highly qualified for all
children.
2. Monitor specific uses of local systems’ budgeted Title II Part A funds to address the needs of not
highly qualified teachers assigned to teach poor and minority children. Monitoring efforts are
described in Requirement #2 of this report.
Strategy 4: Development of a Framework for Instructional Capacity
The Professional Standards Commission will conduct research on the development of a framework
for school system use to measure school faculty instructional capacity by tabulating data appropriate
to the highly qualified teacher expectations as a means of determining appropriate equitable teacher
distribution.
• Data subdivided into secondary middle and elementary will include:

o Minority and high poverty counts, with data
o School AYP status
o Minority school enrollment
o Teacher highly qualified status
o Teacher Praxis I results
o Teacher Praxis II results
o Stability of Principalship
Variables will be compared using standard statistical methods to establish a baseline for planning,
such as chi square techniques to test for association of AYP status with other variables; Spearman
rank correlation to test AYP status with other variables; Pearson correlation test variables in high
school middle schools and elementary schools.
Preliminary findings in a study to examine relationships between AYP classification and educator
attributes show that in a correlation of Middle schools teacher performance on basic skills testing
with school AYP status; the schools most in need of improvement had a greater percentage of
teachers who had failed part of the Praxis I multiple times. In a correlation of elementary teacher
qualifications with school AYP status; schools most in need of improvement had a greater percentage
of teachers who were/are not highly qualified.
62
Further preliminary findings indicate that:
Schools most in need of improvement had a greater principal turnover

Minority students were most likely to have teachers with low experience
Minority students were most likely to have teachers who were not highly qualified.
Further work will be done with the data to develop an instructional capacity index for schools as a
tool to examine inequities and make appropriate decisions to provide for an equitable distribution.
Student achievement data, when it becomes available, will also be studied to identify which teacher
attributes contribute to differences in student achievement.
63
Does the plan provide evidence for the probable success of the strategies it includes?
Strategy # 5: Annual State Report of school efforts to achieve 100% of highly qualified
teachers for minority children and children in poverty
The data to be collected in the State Equity Plan will provide information on the efforts of school
systems to provide equitable distribution of teachers in classes and the results of their efforts will be
reported by school. The gathering of these school level data will begin to provide insight into the
actual inequities in teacher distribution throughout the state. The requirement for LEAs to develop
plans to address inequities with specific strategies targeted to address local needs with annual
measured targets and goals will increase the probable success of the strategies identified in local
plans to address inequities. On-going monitoring of LEA plans and attention to identifying “best
practices” will further increase the impact of local and state plans to address this area of need.
The following measures will be included:
o Compilation of teacher experience and highly qualified status

o Compilation of out-of-field teacher assignments by school
o Compilation of state basic skills assessments by school.
o Compilation of subject area assessments by educator personnel by school
o Compilation of teacher preparation routes by teacher by school
o Compilation of educator turnover by school
Local education systems will be instructed to use their Title II, Part A funds to ensure that highly
qualified teachers are placed in schools with larger numbers of poor and/or minority children.
Georgia law requires that teachers are to be paid according to their certificates as appropriate for
their teaching assignments.
64
Annual Time Table for the Equity Plan Activities
Note: (Georgia uses Title II Part A funds to provide seven consultants who have the responsibility of
working with school systems in assigned regions of the state on a continuous basis. They live in
their assigned regions, work in those regions and have constant contact with the school system Title
II Part A coordinators. They are available to provide technical assistance whenever they are needed
by school systems.
July 1st (each year)
1. PSC HiQ software will be made available to provide # of HIQ teachers by school system, by
school and by class assignments on an ongoing basis. These data are calculated using the CPI
data and the state certification database. School systems have immediate access to the data and
make updates as teachers become highly qualified.
2. Title II Part A consultants will provide technical assistance and disseminate information about
methods school systems can use to get teachers highly qualified.
August 31st (each year)
3. School systems recognize the teachers in their system, school and class assignments and indicate
using the HQ SOFTWARE how the system intends to provide correction(s). Each school system
files a remediation report using HQ with the Professional Standards Commission
August 1st-September 30th (each year)
4. Title II Part A consultants and program manager will approve the school systems budgets for
Title II Part A. Approval is determined by the use of funds to get teachers highly qualified, either
through recruitment, professional development or improved working conditions.
September 15th (each year)
5. Professional Standards Commission tabulates the HQ status report for the previous school year
and prepares individual reports for each school system as well as an aggregated report for the
state. Each school system’s superintendent receives the report and must sign an assurance that
the data are correct to the best of his or her knowledge. These assurance forms are filed with the
Professional Standards Commission. The data are used to compile the highly qualified data
report that is issued to the U. S. Department of Education.
December 1st-January 31st. (each year)
6. Consultants monitor each of the 183 school districts. They select ½ and make an onsite visit.
Paper review is used with the other systems. A monitoring form is provided to each school
system so they can be aware of the information they need to have. Monitoring will include the
distribution of highly qualified teachers who teach poor and minority students.
65
March 1st (each year)
7. Title II A consultant monitoring reports are completed and made available by the Professional
Standards Commission.
March 1st-June 30th (each year
8. End of Year State Equity Report - An equity report will be made available on an annual basis by
the Professional Standards Commission and the State Board of Education.
66
PART III: APPENDICES
APPENDIX 1: 2004-05 PERCENTAGE OF NON HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHERS IN

SCHOOLS NOT MAKING AYP
System System Name Building Building Name Percent
ID ID Not Highly
Qualified
761 Atlanta Public Schools 289 Crim Evening Program -
761 Atlanta Public Schools 2664 Crim High School -
614 Brooks County 2050 Brooks County High School -
619 Calhoun County 4050 Calhoun County Middle/High School -
622 Carroll County 198 Bay Springs Middle School -
622 Carroll County 101 Jonesville Middle School -
766 Carrollton City 1050 Carrollton High School -
627 Chattooga County 1050 Chattooga High School -
629 Clarke County 296 Burney-Harris-Lyons Middle School -
629 Clarke County 102 Cedar Shoals High School -
629 Clarke County 196 Coile Middle School -
629 Clarke County 3058 Fowler Drive Elementary School -
629 Clarke County 4060 Oglethorpe Avenue Elementary School -
629 Clarke County 391 Whit Davis Road Elementary School -
631 Clayton County 173 Kilpatrick Elementary School -
631 Clayton County 295 Lake Ridge Elementary School -
631 Clayton County 2060 Riverdale Elementary School -
631 Clayton County 377 Riverdale High School -
631 Clayton County 5060 Swint Elementary School -
632 Clinch County 201 Clinch County Elementary -
633 Cobb County 2054 Clarkdale Elementary School -
633 Cobb County 502 Cooper Middle School -
633 Cobb County 202 Lindley Middle School -
633 Cobb County 294 Smitha Middle School -
633 Cobb County 3056 South Cobb High School -
636 Columbia County 183 Harlem High School -
636 Columbia County 283 Harlem Middle School -
638 Coweta County 1056 Evans Middle School -
638 Coweta County 301 Smokey Road Middle School -
638 Coweta County 103 Willis Road Elementary -
639 Crawford County 202 Crawford County Middle School -
640 Crisp County 197 Crisp County Middle School -
641 Dade County 295 Dade Middle School -
773 Decatur City 3050 Decatur High School -
647 Dougherty County 3058 Northside Elementary School -
647 Dougherty County 4060 Sherwood Acres Elementary School -
648 Douglas County 2054 Turner Middle School -
67

ID ID Not Highly
Qualified
774 Dublin City 102 Dublin Middle School -
651 Effingham County 390 Effingham County High School -
651 Effingham County 290 Effingham County Middle School -
651 Effingham County 297 South Effingham Middle School -
654 Evans County 2050 Claxton High School -
660 Fulton County 386 Independence Alternative School -
660 Fulton County 189 McNair Middle School -
661 Gilmer County 196 Gilmer High School -
664 Gordon County 292 Ashworth Middle School -
664 Gordon County 286 Gordon Central High School -
665 Grady County 174 Washington Middle School -
667 Gwinnett County 304 Berkmar Middle School -
667 Gwinnett County 388 Gwinnett InterVention Education -
(GIVE) Center
667 Gwinnett County 491 Oakland Center -
667 Gwinnett County 186 Pinckneyville Middle School -
667 Gwinnett County 394 Simonton Elementary School -
669 Hall County 289 East Hall Middle School -
669 Hall County 101 Martin Elementary School -
669 Hall County 103 Sugar Hill Elementary -
671 Haralson County 104 Tallapoosa Primary School -
676 Houston County 200 Perry Middle School -
676 Houston County 204 Thomson Middle School -
682 Jenkins County 201 Jenkins County High School -
684 Jones County 1050 Califf Middle School -
685 Lamar County 105 Lamar County Elementary School -
685 Lamar County 199 Lamar County Middle School -
692 Lowndes County 5050 Lowndes High School -
697 McDuffie County 194 Thomson Middle School -
702 Monroe County 177 Banks Stephens Middle School -
702 Monroe County 305 William M. Hubbard Middle School -
704 Morgan County 1050 Morgan County High School -
705 Murray County 190 Murray County High School -
706 Muscogee County 300 Baker Middle School -
706 Muscogee County 178 Fort Middle School -
706 Muscogee County 180 Marshall Middle School -
707 Newton County 195 Clements Middle School -
707 Newton County 398 Indian Creek Middle School -
707 Newton County 198 Middle Ridge Elementary School -
711 Peach County 197 Byron Middle School -
784 Pelham City 201 Pelham City Middle School -
714 Pike County 188 Pike County Primary School -
68

ID ID Not Highly
Qualified
715 Polk County 1056 Elm Street Middle School -
716 Pulaski County 195 Pulaski County Middle School -
721 Richmond County 4056 Lamar Elementary School -
721 Richmond County 5566 Laney High School -
722 Rockdale County 378 Edwards Middle School -
785 Rome City 293 Rome Middle School -
724 Screven County 4052 Screven County High School -
726 Spalding County 201 Cowan Road Middle School -
745 Thomaston-Upson 395 Upson-Lee Middle School -
County
741 Troup County 191 Gardner-Newman Middle School -
741 Troup County 297 Long Cane Middle School -
742 Turner County 190 Turner County Middle School -
747 Walton County 193 Carver Middle School -
748 Ware County 195 Ware County High School -
748 Ware County 395 Ware County Middle School -
756 Wilcox County 195 Wilcox County Elementary School -
759 Worth County 193 Worth County Middle School -
781 Marietta City 101 Marietta High School 0.25
623 Catoosa County 2552 Lakeview Middle School 0.42
651 Effingham County 203 Ebenezer Middle School 0.54
706 Muscogee County 401 Double Churches Middle School 0.57
667 Gwinnett County 2058 Snellville Middle School 0.63
705 Murray County 4050 Gladden Middle School 0.65
678 Jackson County 197 East Jackson Middle School 0.67
710 Paulding County 2352 Herschel Jones Middle School 0.85
710 Paulding County 394 East Paulding Middle School 0.89
741 Troup County 1052 LaGrange High School 0.96
634 Coffee County 295 West Coffee Middle School 1.10
717 Putnam County 276 Putnam County High School 1.22
635 Colquitt County 1554 Colquitt County High School 1.27
675 Henry County 5052 Stockbridge Middle School 1.33
633 Cobb County 1069 Wheeler High School 1.34
755 Whitfield County 275 Southeast Whitfield County High 1.34
School
743 Twiggs County 201 Twiggs County High School 1.37
667 Gwinnett County 187 Meadowcreek High School 1.39
633 Cobb County 103 Kell High School 1.42
667 Gwinnett County 283 Shiloh Middle School 1.42
669 Hall County 4556 South Hall Middle School 1.42
710 Paulding County 2552 Paulding County High School 1.47
629 Clarke County 291 Fourth Street Elementary School 1.54
663 Glynn County 4752 Glynn Academy 1.57
69

ID ID Not Highly
Qualified
674 Heard County 3050 Heard County Elementary School 1.57
648 Douglas County 5050 Stewart Middle School 1.66
633 Cobb County 4050 Awtrey Middle School 1.76
667 Gwinnett County 1505 Louise Radloff Middle School 1.77
751 Wayne County 101 Wayne County High School 1.87
772 Dalton City 201 Dalton Middle School 1.94
657 Floyd County 203 Model Middle School 1.95
737 Tift County 299 Eighth Street Middle School 1.96
687 Laurens County 297 East Laurens Middle School 1.99
605 Baldwin County 189 Baldwin High School 2.00
605 Baldwin County 104 Eagle Ridge Elementary School 2.04
616 Bulloch County 2054 Statesboro High School 2.08
631 Clayton County 175 Brown Elementary School 2.08
705 Murray County 204 New Bagley Middle School 2.11
709 Oglethorpe County 2050 Oglethorpe County High School 2.11
635 Colquitt County 3052 Gray Middle School 2.13
736 Thomas County 191 Thomas County Central High School 2.14
633 Cobb County 1066 Norton Park Elementary School 2.20
625 Chatham County 2069 Thunderbolt Elementary School 2.30
633 Cobb County 475 Tapp Middle School 2.39
669 Hall County 5052 Lyman Hall Elementary School 2.41
635 Colquitt County 5052 Willie J. Williams Middle School 2.44
675 Henry County 206 Dutchtown Middle School 2.44
633 Cobb County 5058 Floyd Middle School 2.45
622 Carroll County 2052 Central High School 2.47
638 Coweta County 395 Arnall Middle School 2.50
721 Richmond County 1156 Hephzibah Middle School 2.50
669 Hall County 176 Myers Elementary School 2.54
675 Henry County 603 Luella Middle School 2.58
644 DeKalb County 1055 Dresden Elementary School 2.63
663 Glynn County 1554 Jane Macon Middle School 2.63
737 Tift County 199 Tift County High School 2.66
644 DeKalb County 101 Avondale Middle School 2.71
638 Coweta County 289 East Coweta Middle School 2.74
675 Henry County 4050 Henry County Middle School 2.75
644 DeKalb County 1051 Avondale High School 2.78
625 Chatham County 399 Savannah High School 2.81
733 Taylor County 105 Taylor County Upper Elementary 2.85
669 Hall County 3054 Lanier Elementary School 2.86
721 Richmond County 3756 Josey High School 2.86
681 Jefferson County 196 Jefferson County High School 2.87
622 Carroll County 177 Central Middle School 2.93
70

ID ID Not Highly
Qualified
730 Talbot County 190 Central Elementary/High School 3.00
631 Clayton County 305 Kemp Elem School 3.03
646 Dooly County 104 Dooly County Elementary School 3.06
792 Valdosta City 2052 Southeast Elementary School 3.13
644 DeKalb County 597 Miller Grove Middle School 3.23
774 Dublin City 3050 Dublin High School 3.23
609 Ben Hill County 291 Fitzgerald High School 3.25
669 Hall County 294 West Hall Middle School 3.26
644 DeKalb County 1071 Woodward Elementary School 3.31
634 Coffee County 4550 East Coffee Middle School 3.33
676 Houston County 1054 Perry High School 3.33
699 Meriwether County 102 George E. Washington Elementary 3.33
School
750 Washington County 199 T. J. Elder Middle School 3.33
754 White County 174 White County Middle School 3.33
649 Early County 2050 Early County High School 3.34
644 DeKalb County 301 Columbia Middle School 3.40
647 Dougherty County 1050 Albany High School 3.42
671 Haralson County 2050 Buchanan Primary School 3.45
677 Irwin County 2050 Irwin County High School 3.47
607 Barrow County 2052 Winder-Barrow Middle School 3.56
789 Thomasville City 3050 MacIntyre Park Middle School 3.57
671 Haralson County 3050 Haralson County High School 3.62
622 Carroll County 102 Temple Middle School 3.64
631 Clayton County 197 Kendrick Middle School 3.64
741 Troup County 101 Callaway Middle School 3.70
721 Richmond County 197 Glenn Hills Middle School 3.85
636 Columbia County 176 Evans Middle School 3.88
650 Echols County 1050 Echols County High/Elementary School 3.93
648 Douglas County 4050 Douglas County High School 3.99
737 Tift County 4052 Matt Wilson Elementary School 4.00
615 Bryan County 402 Bryan County Middle School 4.05
611 Bibb County 405 Rosa Taylor Elementary School 4.08
721 Richmond County 2056 Hephzibah High School 4.17
751 Wayne County 194 Martha Puckett Middle School 4.20
644 DeKalb County 189 Peachtree Middle School 4.21
710 Paulding County 192 South Paulding Middle School 4.22
660 Fulton County 176 Banneker High School 4.25
633 Cobb County 2066 Osborne High School 4.33
737 Tift County 3052 Northeast Campus, Tift County High 4.34
School
644 DeKalb County 775 Open Campus High School 4.35
709 Oglethorpe County 3050 Oglethorpe County Middle School 4.41
71

ID ID Not Highly
Qualified
633 Cobb County 4066 Pebblebrook High School 4.49
615 Bryan County 502 Bryan County High School 4.55
644 DeKalb County 3070 McNair High School 4.65
699 Meriwether County 4050 Manchester High School 4.65
721 Richmond County 3054 Glenn Hills High School 4.65
633 Cobb County 2560 Griffin Middle School 4.67
644 DeKalb County 1068 Leslie J. Steele Elementary School 4.67
676 Houston County 4056 Warner Robins High School 4.69
701 Mitchell County 282 Mitchell-Baker High School 4.72
644 DeKalb County 290 Sequoyah Middle School 4.76
677 Irwin County 173 Irwin County Middle School 4.80
644 DeKalb County 4054 Cross Keys High School 4.84
611 Bibb County 386 Southwest High School 4.86
644 DeKalb County 193 Chapel Hill Middle School 4.88
721 Richmond County 3062 Sego Middle School 4.88
644 DeKalb County 4053 Clarkston High School 4.94
699 Meriwether County 400 Greenville Middle School 5.00
663 Glynn County 4054 Risley Middle School 5.17
611 Bibb County 305 Rutland Middle School 5.22
667 Gwinnett County 276 Sweetwater Middle School 5.31
726 Spalding County 187 Griffin High School 5.31
647 Dougherty County 2052 Dougherty Comprehensive High School 5.39
633 Cobb County 1056 East Cobb Middle School 5.47
702 Monroe County 184 Mary Persons High School 5.56
792 Valdosta City 195 Newbern Middle School 5.62
758 Wilkinson County 3050 Wilkinson County High School 5.62
711 Peach County 2052 Peach County High School 5.67
721 Richmond County 184 Morgan Road Middle School 5.71
669 Hall County 102 Chestatee High School 5.73
751 Wayne County 294 Arthur Williams Middle School 5.77
625 Chatham County 3056 Groves High School 5.79
629 Clarke County 5058 Hilsman Middle School 5.84
644 DeKalb County 697 Stone Mountain Middle School 5.88
631 Clayton County 191 Lovejoy Middle School 5.90
625 Chatham County 2068 Spencer Elementary School 5.97
721 Richmond County 1052 Butler High School 6.00
644 DeKalb County 172 Cedar Grove High School 6.07
663 Glynn County 4052 Burroughs-Molette Elementary School 6.12
706 Muscogee County 5062 Jordan Vocational High School 6.15
673 Hart County 3050 Hart County High School 6.16
761 Atlanta Public Schools 3067 Sutton Middle School 6.29
629 Clarke County 1058 Clarke Middle School 6.33
72

ID ID Not Highly
Qualified
706 Muscogee County 2067 Rothschild Middle School 6.37
631 Clayton County 104 Mundy’s Mill High School 6.45
721 Richmond County 1058 Langford Middle School 6.45
721 Richmond County 5058 Murphey Middle School 6.45
721 Richmond County 5062 Tubman Middle School 6.45
629 Clarke County 5556 Clarke Central High School 6.49
729 Sumter County 205 Americus Sumter County High North 6.54
786 Social Circle City 103 Social Circle Middle School 6.58
741 Troup County 201 Callaway High School 6.63
669 Hall County 1552 East Hall High School 6.68
745 Thomaston-Upson 195 Upson-Lee High School 6.73
County
631 Clayton County 100 M. D. Roberts Middle School 6.76
644 DeKalb County 291 Salem Middle School 6.78
633 Cobb County 290 Campbell Middle School 6.80
706 Muscogee County 5052 Carver High School 6.86
625 Chatham County 2052 Beach High School 6.98
686 Lanier County 101 Lanier County Middle School 7.09
653 Emanuel County 189 Swainsboro High School 7.12
663 Glynn County 4952 Glynn Middle School 7.14
694 Macon County 199 Macon County Middle School 7.14
789 Thomasville City 4052 Thomasville High School 7.14
611 Bibb County 505 Weaver Middle School 7.22
733 Taylor County 205 Taylor County Middle School 7.25
660 Fulton County 691 Tri-Cities High School 7.26
721 Richmond County 390 Spirit Creek Middle School 7.32
665 Grady County 1050 Cairo High School 7.37
625 Chatham County 299 Southwest Middle School 7.48
634 Coffee County 195 Coffee County High School 7.52
667 Gwinnett County 4058 Summerour Middle School 7.55
631 Clayton County 1056 Jonesboro High School 7.62
726 Spalding County 1054 Flynt Middle School 7.69
660 Fulton County 383 McClarin Alternative School 7.77
608 Bartow County 190 South Central Middle School 7.78
611 Bibb County 2052 McEvoy Middle School 8.00
681 Jefferson County 396 Wrens Middle School 8.06
717 Putnam County 198 Putnam County Elementary School 8.11
668 Habersham County 296 South Habersham Middle School 8.21
625 Chatham County 201 DeRenne Middle School 8.26
741 Troup County 387 Troup County High School 8.30
617 Burke County 288 Burke County High School 8.33
681 Jefferson County 296 Louisville Middle School 8.33
73

ID ID Not Highly
Qualified
721 Richmond County 2562 East Augusta Middle School 8.33
660 Fulton County 505 Sandtown Middle School 8.34
706 Muscogee County 100 Midland Middle School 8.38
701 Mitchell County 197 Mitchell County Middle School 8.39
644 DeKalb County 401 Mary McLeod Bethune Middle School 8.47
706 Muscogee County 2066 Richards Middle School 8.66
625 Chatham County 2060 Hubert Middle School 8.77
625 Chatham County 2056 Gould Elementary School 8.82
679 Jasper County 201 Jasper County Middle School 8.89
689 Liberty County 197 Lewis Frasier Middle School 8.96
726 Spalding County 188 Taylor Street Middle School 9.09
687 Laurens County 3054 West Laurens High School 9.82
712 Pickens County 198 Pickens County High School 9.98
625 Chatham County 100 Tompkins Middle School 10.00
644 DeKalb County 2054 Columbia High School 10.00
622 Carroll County 189 Temple High School 10.08
644 DeKalb County 205 Redan Middle School 10.17
644 DeKalb County 201 Freedom Middle School 10.19
726 Spalding County 101 Spalding High School 10.31
644 DeKalb County 202 Lithonia High School 10.45
761 Atlanta Public Schools 373 King Middle School 10.56
631 Clayton County 106 Jonesboro Middle School 10.71
761 Atlanta Public Schools 4568 Washington High School 10.75
746 Walker County 390 Rossville Middle School 10.77
631 Clayton County 3050 Babb Middle School 11.00
698 McIntosh County 104 New McIntosh County Academy 11.04
614 Brooks County 197 Brooks County Middle School 11.11
611 Bibb County 298 Miller Magnet Middle School 11.33
725 Seminole County 196 Seminole County Middle/High School 11.51
611 Bibb County 286 Northeast High School 11.74
611 Bibb County 185 Martin Luther King Elementary School 11.76
631 Clayton County 174 Mundy’s Mill Middle School 11.94
631 Clayton County 277 Pointe South Middle School 12.20
611 Bibb County 204 Rutland High School 12.48
706 Muscogee County 378 Spencer High School 12.50
644 DeKalb County 105 Miller Grove High School 12.54
611 Bibb County 3054 Bruce Elementary School 12.78
706 Muscogee County 5058 Eddy Middle School 12.86
618 Butts County 100 Henderson Middle School 13.11
735 Terrell County 4050 Terrell County Middle/High School 13.44
625 Chatham County 198 Coastal Middle School 13.52
631 Clayton County 2054 Forest Park Middle School 14.17
74

ID ID Not Highly
Qualified
639 Crawford County 193 Crawford County High School 14.29
644 DeKalb County 1057 McNair Middle School 14.29
689 Liberty County 101 Midway Middle School 14.67
625 Chatham County 4054 Ellis Elementary School 15.19
729 Sumter County 105 Americus Sumter County High South 15.31
646 Dooly County 182 Dooly County High School 15.38
729 Sumter County 188 Sumter County Elementary School 15.38
608 Bartow County 577 Cass High School 15.84
625 Chatham County 199 West Chatham Middle School 15.90
644 DeKalb County 3069 Toney Elementary School 16.27
644 DeKalb County 705 DeKalb: PATH Academy Charter 16.67
School
644 DeKalb County 4069 Towers High School 17.47
644 DeKalb County 276 Stone Mountain High School 17.48
647 Dougherty County 1058 Monroe High School 18.07
608 Bartow County 301 Adairsville Middle School 18.13
625 Chatham County 5060 Jenkins High School 18.37
631 Clayton County 177 Adamson Middle School 18.52
631 Clayton County 3060 Riverdale Middle School 18.97
699 Meriwether County 300 Greenville High School 19.60
761 Atlanta Public Schools 191 Turner Middle School 20.00
694 Macon County 2060 Macon County High School 21.03
761 Atlanta Public Schools 173 Long Middle School 21.14
720 Randolph County 201 Randolph Clay High School 21.29
666 Greene County 401 Greene County High School 21.50
625 Chatham County 301 Myers Middle School 21.69
611 Bibb County 303 William S. Hutchings Career Center 21.98
611 Bibb County 5050 Appling Middle School 22.08
602 Atkinson County 103 Atkinson County High School 22.13
630 Clay County 204 Clay County Elementary 22.22
761 Atlanta Public Schools 5056 Coan Middle School 23.53
728 Stewart County 201 Stewart-Quitman High School 27.54
761 Atlanta Public Schools 504 Harper-Archer Middle School 27.69
731 Taliaferro County 102 Taliaferro County School 28.69
761 Atlanta Public Schools 5664 Parks Middle School 29.32
629 Clarke County 104 Classic City Performance Learning 33.33
Center
761 Atlanta Public Schools 703 School for Integrated Academics and 50.00
Technologies
761 Atlanta Public Schools 403 APS-CEP Partnership School 94.51
75
76
APPENDIX 2: FACT SHEET FOR GEORGIA SPECIAL EDUCATION TEACHERS

Fact Sheet for Georgia Special Education Teachers
Certification and Highly Qualified Teacher Requirements
This Fact Sheet provides a summary of changes for Special Education (SpEd) teachers in
Georgia as a result of the highly qualified (HiQ) teacher requirements of NCLB and IDEA.
These changes are being implemented during the 2005-06 school year along with the state
certification rule changes that became effective August 15, 2005. This is not an exhaustive
explanation of all requirements and changes but hopefully provides a helpful summary.
Special education teachers are encouraged to discuss requirements and concerns with their
system level administrators. These administrators receive frequent updates and technical
assistance, and should be considered the best sources of information. Some systems have
requirements for their teachers in addition to state and federal requirements.
HIGHLY QUALIFIED TEACHER REQUIREMENTS

Federal law requires that all special education teachers, including special education
teachers in Title I and non-Title I schools, be “highly qualified” on or before August
31, 2006 just as all other teachers of core academic content subjects.
 NCLB “highly qualified” teacher requirements refer specifically to the qualifications
and certification of teachers who assigned to teach core academic content courses.
 Certified Special Education teachers are highly qualified to offer expertise in teaching
students with disabilities and to provide opportunities for those students to be successful
academically in inclusive classroom settings or in pull-out, resource delivery models.
Although highly qualified in the area of special education, IDEA and NCLB now
require that all teachers, including special education teachers, provide evidence that they
are highly qualified and certified in the content subjects that they teach.
 Core academic concentrations in Reading, Language Arts, Math, Science, and/or Social
Studies must be listed on the Special Education teacher’s teaching certificate in order for
the teacher to serve as the teacher of record for any of these subjects. Special
Education teachers may meet the highly qualified requirements by meeting the
certification requirements to teach the core academic subjects at the required cognitive
level and by being assigned to teach the content area listed on their certificate.
 Core concentration areas are acquired by (a) having a combination of college course
work and/or PLUs totaling 15 semester hours (5 quarter hours or 5 PLUs = 3 semester
hours) OR (b) a major in the content area, OR (c) passing the appropriate PRAXIS II
ECE, Fundamental Subjects: Content Knowledge test or individual Middle Grades or
Secondary subject tests, OR (d) obtaining, at a minimum, 100 points on the Special
Education HOUSSE evaluation (veteran teachers only). Core concentrations at the
secondary cognitive level are acquired by (a) having a major or 21 semester hours
and/or PLUs (3 semester hours = 5 PLUs), OR (b) passing the appropriate Praxis II
subject test(s), OR (c) obtaining, at a minimum, 100 points on the Special Education
HOUSSE rubric (veteran teachers only.)
 Special Education teachers are not required to meet highly qualified requirements if they
are not providing core academic content instruction as the teacher of record. However,
77
all students enrolled in grades K – 12 must be provided core academic content

instruction by either a Special Education teacher or one who is certified in the content
area.
CERTIFICATE CHANGES
 The names of most SpEd certificates have changed. Many were changed by adding
“Consultative Special Education” to the beginning of the certificate title. Some that
were given completely new names include:
(a) Interrelated is now Special Education General Curriculum
(b) Mental Retardation is now Special Education Adapted Curriculum and
Special Education General Curriculum
(c) Hearing Impaired is now Special Education Deaf Education
(d) Orthopedically Impaired is now Special Education Physical and Health
Disabilities
 These certificates allow teachers to provide Special Education support to students with
disabilities within a “consultative” or co-teaching model. In other words, the Special
Education teacher can work with another teacher who holds certification in the core
content concentration area as a co-teacher or as a consultant, providing special education
expertise for students in an inclusive classroom setting.
 These certificates do not allow Special Education teachers to be the teacher of record
for core content subjects (including English/Language Arts, Reading, Math, Science,
Social Studies), unless the teacher has a core academic concentration on his/her
certificate for the subject.
CORE ACADEMIC CONTENT CONCENTRATIONS

 The PSC has evaluated transcripts for teachers who have renewable certificates in
Special Education and who were employed by Georgia school systems during the last
two years. Core academic content concentration areas were added to their Special
Education certificates during the conversion to the new titles. The concentrations were
identified based on 15 semester hours of core academic content credit on any available
college transcripts. These content areas were added at the P-5 and 4-8 cognitive level
only.
 An appeals procedure to request consideration of additional core content concentration
areas at the middle grade cognitive level is available until August 31, 2006. Send an e-
mail message to spedappeal@gapsc.com with the following information:
 Your name and Social Security number or Certificate number
 The specific Core Academic Content Concentration for which you think you
qualify
 The specific college transcript/s (15 sem hr) or PLU transcript(s)* (25 PLUs) or
combination of the two that reflect the content courses (not methods courses)
you think will qualify. The specific content course numbers and titles must be
listed along with the institution/s from which they were earned.
 If you believe that you qualify for a Cognitive Level that is not reflected on your
certificate. Please reference in your e-mail the specific content area exam that
78
you think will qualify in addition to ALL the information above that is
requested for the Concentration.
 Although PLUs were not considered in the transcript analysis that was completed before
August 15, 2005, PLUs will be considered with proper documentation that they are
content and not pedagogy courses. A combined total of the equivalent of 15 sem. hours
(5 PLUs = 3 sem. hrs.) is required to add a content concentration at the middle grades
level. A combined total of the equivalent of 21 sem. hours (5 PLUs = 3 sem. hrs.) is
required to add a content concentration at the secondary level.
 In addition to the transcript analysis described above, there are other ways to add
content concentration areas:
 *Content Assessment(s), OR
 Recommendation from Approved Provider (approved under the new rules), OR
 Transcript showing a major in a content field, OR
 HOUSSE Criteria (for veteran Special Education teachers teaching content)
*The currently applicable content tests and cognitive levels are provided on the
Testing Options Table, which is available at www.gapsc.com/nclb/home.html,
Section 8.
All options above except the transcript analysis option will continue to be available after
August 31, 2006.
DEFINITIONS
Consultative is used to refer to the specific roles that special education teachers have when they are
providing services in their area(s) of exceptionality(ies). The term incorporates references such as
inclusion, mainstreaming, collaborative or co-teacher.
The “teacher of record” is defined as the teacher who is responsible for direct instruction of core
academic content subjects. Students being taught core academic subjects must be taught by a
teacher who is highly qualified to teach that content area and grade level. For special education
students this may be either a general education or special education teacher who is certified to teach
the subject and grade level.
Core academic content concentration areas for special education teachers include language arts,
mathematics, science, reading, and social science. Eligibility for a concentration is based on five
content courses (15 semester hours/25 PLUs) or completion of the appropriate content area exam
(Praxis II, etc.). Eligibility for concentration at the secondary cognitive level is based on seven
content courses (21 semester hours/35 PLUs) or completion of the appropriate content area exam
(Praxis II,etc.) or completion of HOUSSE.
Cognitive level refers to the grade level of instruction provided to Special Education students and is
based on a description of how well the student is performing on the curriculum being provided, as
described in the student’s Individualized Education Program (IEP). Cognitive levels included grades
P-5, 4-8, and 6 – 12 and parallel certification grade spans except for P-12 certificates.
HOUSSE is an assessment that may be used to verify a veteran teacher’s competency if the teacher
has not met either the content or testing requirement in a specific core academic content area. A
score of 100 points or more on the Georgia Content Area Rubric is required to determine that a
veteran regular education teacher or special education teacher is “highly qualified,” and/or to add
79
core academic content concentrations to special education teachers’ certificates. Since HOUSSE is
not time limited, it will remain available for teachers in Georgia. A veteran teacher is one who is
not new to the profession and is defined as a teacher in a public school who has been teaching a total
of three or more complete school years. The document and instructions for its completion can be
found at www.gapsc.com/nclb/Admin/Files/HOUSSE.pdf.
ADDITIONAL RESOURCES
Specific information regarding these changes can be found at the following web sites:
Georgia Professional Standards Title II, Part A: Improving Teacher Quality
Commission
http://www.gapsc.com/ http://www.gapsc.com/nclb/home.html
Certification Rules, Testing Information Highly Qualified Requirements
GA Implementation Guidelines (Section 8),
HOUSSE Rubric & Instructions, Special Education
Testing Chart, Frequently Asked Questions for
Special Educators
80
APPENDIX 3: RESULTS OF MONITORING AND TECHNICAL ASSISTANCE VISITS
Section I: Planning
Figure 2: Systems in Compliance with Monitoring Criterion Figure 3: Systems in Compliance with Monitoring Criterion
I-A: Annual Needs Assessment I-B: Alignment of Activities with Annual Needs
Assessment
0%
Item I-A 0%
0% Item I-B
0%
1% 2% 1% 0%
Systems Not in Compliance

Systems in Compliance
Not Complete Systems in Compliance
N/A NoComplete
No Data N/A
No Data
97% 99%
Figure 5: Systems in Compliance with Monitoring Criterion

I-D: Evidence of collaboration with principals,
I-C: The Title II-A Plan coordinates with state, and
teachers, paraprofessionals, other relevant school
other federal , and local programs
personnel, and parents
0%
Item I-C 0% 0%
Item I-D 0%
1% 0%
1% 1%

Systems Not in Compliance Systems in Compliance
Not Complete
Not Complete
N/A N/A
No Data No Data
99% 98%
81
Figure 6: Systems In Compliance With Monitoring Criterion

I-E: Evidence of Planning for Improved Teacher and
Principal Quality
Item I-E 2% 0%
1% 1%

Systems in Compliance 96%
Not Complete
N/A
No Data
82
Section II: Expenditure of Funds

II-A: Targeting of Expenditures II-B: Budget
Item II-A
1% 0%
4% 0% Item II-B
2% 0%
0% 1%

Systems Not In Compliance
95% Not Complete 97%
Systems In Compliance N/A
Not Complete No Data
N/A
No Data
Figure 9: Systems in Compliance with Monitoring Criterion Figure10: Systems in Compliance with Monitoring Criterion
II-C: Records of Consolidation or Transfers II-D: Completion Report from Previous Year
0% 2% 0%
5% Item II-D
Item II-C
0% 3% 2%
0%
Systems In Compliance
Not Complete Systems Not in Compliance
N/A Systems in Compliance
No Data Not Complete
N/A
No Data
95% 93%
II-E: Documentation of Expenditures II-F: Documentation that Title II-A Funds
Supplement and Do Not Supplant
Item II-E 1% 0% Item II-F 0%

10%
2% 4% 1%
1%
Systems Not in Compliance Systems in Compliance
Systems in Compliance Not Complete
Not Complete N/A
N/A No Data
No Data 93% 88%
83
II-G: Documentation of required Maintenance of II-H: Private School Participation
Fiscal Effort
0%
Item II-G 1% 0% Item II-H 1%
0% 0% 18%
Systems Not in Compliance Systems Not in Compliance 1%

Systems in Compliance Systems in Compliance
Not Complete Not Complete
N/A N/A
No Data No Data
99% 80%

II-I: Documentation of Appropriateness of Payments
to Personnel
4% 0%
Item II-I
1% 4%

Not Complete
N/A
No Data
91%
84
Section III: Parent Notices

III-A: Parents Informed of Their “Right to III-B: Parents Informed of Non-HiQ Status of
Know” Teachers
Item III-A
2% 0%
Item III-B
14% 0% 16%
1%
28%
Systems in Compliance Systems Not in Compliance
Not Complete Systems in Compliance 3%
N/A Not Complete
No Data N/A
No Data
53%
83%
Section IV: Private School Participation

IV-A: Opportunity for Equal Participation IV-B: Participation in Design, Development, and
Implementation of Professional Learning Plan
Item IV-B 0%
Item IV-A
0% 3%
0% 13%
31%
0%
Not Complete 0% Not Complete
N/A 69% N/A
No Data No Data 84%

IV-C: Activities for Private School Teachers Meet
Title II-A Requirements
0%
Item IV-C 0%
14%
1%
Systems Not In Compliance
Not Complete
N/A
No Data 85%
85
Section V: Other Documentation

V-A: Highly Qualified Teacher Benchmarks V-B: Professional Learning Activities Based on
Scientific Research
Item V-B
Item V-A 3% 0% 1% 0%
0% 0% 4% 0%

Systems in Compliance Systems in Compliance
Not Complete Not Complete
N/A N/A
No Data
No Data
97% 95%
V-C: Teachers in Alternative Routes Making V-D: Complete Documentation for All Teachers
Progress Toward Full HiQ Status Reported HiQ Due to HOUSSE
0% Item V-D
Item V-C
17% 1% 2%
2%
3% 34%
Not Complete Not Complete 60%
N/A N/A 2%
No Data 79% No Data
Figure 25: Systems in Compliance with Monitoring Figure 26: Systems in Compliance with Monitoring Criterion
Criterion V-E: HiQ2 Report V-F: Evidence of Monthly Consultation for
Alternative Schools Using Consultative Model
3% 0% 0%
Item V-F
Item V-E
0% 0% 9%
13%
4%
Not Complete
Not Complete
N/A N/A 74%
No Data
No Data 97%
86

V-G: LEA Charter Schools’ HiQ Teacher Data
1%
Item V-G 1%
5%
0%

Not Complete
N/A
93%
No Data
87
APPENDIX 4: PSC ACTIVITIES RELATED TO REFORMING TEACHER AND

PRINCIPAL PREPARATION AND CERTIFICATION
List of PSC Activities Related to Reforming Teacher and Principal Preparation and Certification
State Activity Description
Praxis I Project Workshop Assistance to students preparing

for Praxis I Basic Assessments by Kaplan
organization
Assessment of Analyses conducted with the Board of

Preparation Programs Regents to determine the data elements that
could be used for performance assessment
of the candidates in preparation programs
Paraprofessional State provided paraprofessional assessment

Assessment during the summer of 2002 prior to the
development of the ETS paraprofessional
assessment, which is used presently
Performance Assessment Beginning development of a state managing

and Program Activities and reporting system for annual reporting
of candidates’ and units’ performance on
state standards
Program Development Focus Group meetings and surveys with

for Special Education special education teachers on issues of
Teacher Preparation and certification for special education
Certification
Transcript Analyses for Analyses of certified special education

Verification of Subject teachers’ transcripts to assess the number
Matter for Certified of content courses and amount of
Special Education preparation in the core academic content
Teachers areas
Orientation and Training Series of training sessions and meetings

for New State statewide by the PSC on certification
Certification Rules reforms
Performance Assessment Determination of data elements to be used

of Educator Preparation for the statewide approval of preparation
Activities programs based on performance standards
for candidates and education unit
88
Content Course Development of web-based modules for

Development for Special certified education teachers to add content
Education Teachers in reading and mathematics
Birth to Five Preparation Development of innovative delivery for

Program birth to five curriculum to prepare and
certify teachers for early childhood 0-5
List of PSC Activities Related to Teacher Mentoring

Program Development Development of 7 web-based modules by E-

and Training for Teacher School for the preparation of teachers who
Support Specialists mentor candidates and provide induction
(TSS)
TSS statewide training Orientation and statewide training on the

use of the TSS Modules as preparation
List of PSC Activities Related to Creation or Expansion of Alternative Routes to Certification
Editing and completion of 11 web-based

Development of Special modules for interrelated special education
Education Modules preparation offered statewide through
Armstrong Atlantic State University
Development of Development of web-based modules for the

Alternative Preparation Georgia TAPP program
State provided paraprofessional assessment

Program Development
during the summer of 2002 prior to the
and Training for Special
development of the ETS paraprofessional
Education Preparation
assessment, which is used presently
Continuation of the development of web-

Program Development
based modules for the Georgia TAPP
and Training for Georgia
program
Alternative North Formation of a regional consortium

Georgia Consortium between colleges/universities, regional
education state agency, and school systems
89
to provide alternative preparation for

qualified candidates
Evaluation study to determine the

Georgia TAPP –
outcomes, attrition of the GA TAPP
Evaluation of Programs
program after 4 years of operation
List of PSC Activities Related to Teacher Recruitment and Retention

National Board
Recruitment
National Board
Candidate Recruitment Funds used to recruit and provide
assistance with teachers’ preparation for
National Board
national board teacher certification
Recruitment
National Board
recruitment/training
Teacher/principal
Recruitment Activities
Preparation of marketing materials,
Teacher/principal development of the TeachGeorgia
Recruitment Activities recruitment site; and recruitment of
minority students
Teacher/principal
Recruitment Activities
90
List of PSC Activities Related to High-quality Professional Development in Core Academic Areas
Professional development program for

teaching reading strategies with a
Voyager Reading project
web-based module format, developed
by Voyage
Professional Analysis of a survey on professional

Development Survey development by DOE
Development of a videotaped
interview with the national staff
Professional
development president, on the
Development
national standards for staff
development
This project will develop a mechanism

to use the HiQ data by school system
Teacher Professional
or by RESA as a needs assessment
Assessment using HiQ
instrument to determine teacher
Data
preparation needs and professional
learning on teacher qualifications
91
APPENDIX 5: GEORGIA STATE BOARD OF EDUCATION RULE 160-7-1-.04
Code IAB (4) 160-7-1-.04 ACCOUNTABILITY SYSTEM AWARDS AND

CONSEQUENCES.
1(1) Awards.
2(a) Each public school shall be eligible for Awards based on its Accountability Profile, including
primarily its Performance Index determination. Awards may include public recognition, increased
flexibility, with regard to state or federal requirements (to the extent permitted under state and
federal law), and financial awards (subject to appropriation). Detailed information regarding Awards
and criteria for Awards shall be included in the Accountability Plan presented annually to the State
Board of Education, described in Rule 160-7-1-.03 Accountability Profiles.
3
4(2) School-Level Consequences.
5
6(a) In accordance with state and federal law, each public school identified as Needs Improvement
shall be subject to consequences designed to help improve student achievement based on its
Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) determination. The Accountability Profile and Georgia
Department of Education (GDOE) guidance will inform the nature and degree of the required
improvement plans (i.e., school improvement, corrective action, or restructuring). The GDOE shall
provide, in accordance with the NCLB Act of 2001, section 1117 (a), a system of intensive and
sustained support and improvement for LEAs and schools identified as Needs Improvement.
1.A school shall be identified as in Needs Improvement status if the school has not made AYP in
the same subject for two consecutive years.
2.A school shall be removed from Needs Improvement status if the school has made AYP for two
consecutive years.
3.Escalation in levels of Needs Improvement status shall be based on the school’s failure to make
AYP in the same subject for two or more consecutive years. A school that fails to make AYP, but
does not fail to make AYP in the same subject for two consecutive years, will remain in its
existing Needs Improvement status for the following school year. A school that makes AYP for
one year will also remain in its existing Needs Improvement status for the following year.
4.Pursuant to recommendations of the School Performance Review and needs assessment

conducted by the GDOE, schools identified as Needs Improvement 7 or beyond may be, at any
time, subject to escalating consequences to include, but are not limited to, an Improvement
Contract, pursuant to paragraph (g) (2), or a Management Contract, pursuant to Section (i) (2).
5.The LEA must promptly notify parents of each student enrolled in such schools of the school’s
classification. The notice must be in an understandable and uniform format and, to the extent
practicable, in a language that parents understand. Additionally, it must honor the privacy of all
students and their families. The notice must include:
(i) An explanation of a school’s status under this rule and the school’s performance relative to
92
other schools in the LEA and the state.
(ii) Reasons the school is identified for improvement.
(iii) An explanation of actions by the school to improve student achievement.
(iv) An explanation of what the LEA and/or the GDOE are doing to improve student
achievement.
(v) An explanation regarding the means for parent involvement in issues which contributed to
the school’s failure to make AYP.
6.The LEA shall provide technical assistance to the school identified as Needs Improvement.
(b) Needs Improvement Year 1. A school that has not made AYP for a period of two consecutive
years in the same subject shall be identified as Needs Improvement Year 1 and shall be subject
to the following requirements:
1.The school shall develop, no later than 3 months after being identified as Needs Improvement,
a School Improvement Plan. The School Improvement Plan shall be for a minimum of a two-
year period. The plan shall be subject to a peer review process by the LEA within 45 days of
receipt, shall be coordinated by the LEA, shall be approved by the local board of education, and
shall be made available to the GDOE upon request. The School Improvement Plan shall meet
the requirements of NCLB Act of 2001, section 1116, as applicable and as provided in the GDOE
School Improvement Fieldbook. The school shall implement the School Improvement Plan upon
approval by the LEA.
2.The LEA shall provide students enrolled in the school the option to transfer to another public
school that has not been identified as Needs Improvement within the LEA.
0(i) LEAs shall provide or ensure transportation to students exercising the option to transfer to
another public school in the LEA that has not been identified as Needs Improvement. For the 2004-
05 school year and any subsequent year in which the legislature does not appropriate funds for the
provision of transportation to non-Title I students exercising the option to transfer to another public
school pursuant to this rule, the parent or guardian assumes responsibility for the transportation of
that student. The LEA shall provide transportation for students transferring from Title I schools in
accordance with federal law.
1
2(ii) For students transferring from non-Title I schools, the LEA is not required to exceed facility
capacity when determining school choice options and shall give priority to the lowest achieving
students. For students transferring from Title I schools, the LEA may not use lack of capacity to deny
school choice to those students.
3
(c) Needs Improvement Year 2. A school identified as Needs Improvement Year 2 pursuant to
paragraph (2)(a)(3) shall be subject to all consequences applicable to schools in Needs
93
Improvement Year 1 as well as to the following requirement:
1.The LEA shall offer students enrolled in the school access to instructional extension services in
accordance with SBOE Rule 160-4-2-.14 Instructional Extension prioritizing the school’s lowest
achieving students. For Title I schools, Supplemental Educational Services shall be provided in
accordance with federal law and State Board of Education Rule 160-4-5-.03 Supplemental
Educational Services.
(d) Needs Improvement Year 3. A school identified as Needs Improvement Year 3 pursuant to
Section (2)(a)(3) shall be subject to all consequences applicable to schools in Needs
Improvement Year 2 as well as to the following requirements:
1.The LEA shall develop and implement, no later than 3 months after being identified for
corrective action, a School Corrective Action Plan. The Corrective Action Plan shall be
approved by the local board of education, and shall be made available to the GDOE. The School
Corrective Action Plan shall be in accordance with content, format, and procedures developed
and disseminated by the GDOE in the GDOE School Improvement Fieldbook. The school shall
implement the School Corrective Action Plan upon approval by the LEA. The LEA shall select
at least one corrective action from the following:
4(i) Replace the school staff that are relevant to the school not making AYP.
5
6(ii) Institute and fully implement a new curriculum, including providing appropriate professional
learning opportunities that are grounded in scientifically-based or evidence-based research and offer
substantial promise of improving educational achievement for low-achieving students.
7
8(iii) Significantly decrease management authority at the school level.
9
10(iv) Appoint an outside expert to advise the school on its progress toward meeting required
achievement targets.
11
12(v) Extend the school year and/or school day for the school.
13
14(vi) Restructure the internal organizational arrangement of the school.
15
(e) Needs Improvement Year 4. A school identified as Needs Improvement Year 4 pursuant to
paragraph (2)(a)(3) shall be subject to all consequences applicable to schools in Needs
Improvement Year 3 as well as to the following requirements:
1.The LEA shall continue to implement the corrective action selected the previous year.
2.The LEA shall develop a plan to restructure the governance arrangement of the school and
shall assure that the School Restructuring Plan is received by the GDOE no later than six months
after the school is identified for improvement and restructuring. The School Restructuring Plan
shall be implemented for a minimum of a two-year period, shall be subject to a peer review
process coordinated by the GDOE, and shall be approved by the GDOE. The School
94
Restructuring Plan shall meet the requirements of NCLB Act of 2001, section 1116, as applicable
and as provided in the GDOE School Improvement Fieldbook. The LEA shall implement the
plan no later than the beginning of the school year in which the LEA/school is identified as
Needs Improvement Year 5. The LEA shall include in its plan at least one of the restructuring
options from the following:
(i) Reopening the school as a public charter school.
(ii) Replacing all or most of the school staff (which may include the principal) who are
relevant to the school not making AYP.
(iii) Entering into a contract with an entity, such as a private management company, with a
demonstrated record of effectiveness, to operate the public school.
(iv) Any other major restructuring of the school’s governance arrangement that makes
fundamental reforms, such as significant changes in the school’s staffing and governance, to
improve student academic achievement in the school and that has substantial promise of
enabling the school to make AYP.
(f) Needs Improvement Year 5. A school identified as Needs Improvement Year 5 pursuant to
paragraph (2)(a)(3) shall be subject to all consequences applicable to schools in Needs Improvement
Year 4 in addition to the requirement that the LEA begin implementing the restructuring plan
developed and approved the previous year.
(g) Needs Improvement Year 6. A school identified as Needs Improvement Year 6 pursuant to
paragraph (2)(a)(3) shall continue to implement the Restructuring Plan. The LEA and GDOE,
through ongoing monitoring and evaluation, will determine appropriate updates and revisions to the
Restructuring Plan during this second year of implementation.
1.The LEA and Needs Improvement Year 6 school shall be subject to a School Performance
Review and needs assessment conducted by the GDOE. The GDOE School Performance
Review team will make recommendations to the State Board of Education regarding school-level
and/or LEA-level interventions needed to address the findings from the School Performance
Review.
2.The Improvement Contract, outlining the LEA’s commitment to implement the identified
interventions with assistance from the GDOE, will be developed and signed by the LEA
superintendent, the local board of education chair, the State Superintendent, and the State Board
of Education chair. Failure of the LEA to enter into the Improvement Contract pursuant to this
rule will result in a referral to the Office of Student Achievement (OSA) for non-compliance.
The Improvement Contract must be implemented no later than the beginning of the school year
the school is identified in Needs Improvement Year 7. The Improvement Contract shall be in
effect for a minimum of a two-year period and shall be subject to ongoing review and
evaluations conducted by the GDOE. The Improvement Contract shall be developed in
accordance with content, format, and procedures developed and disseminated by the GDOE.
95
3.School-level interventions may include, but are not limited to the removal of personnel at the
school level relevant to the school not making AYP; appointment of a Principal Master and/or
Instructional Coach; management of the school budget; and utilization of Georgia Performance
Standards (GPS) Learning Frameworks and nine-week Progress Monitoring.
4.LEA-level interventions may include, but are not limited to the removal of personnel at the
LEA level relevant to the school not making AYP; appointment of an LEA Support Specialist to
manage and approve the financial, personnel, and program resources of the school; redirection of
resources (state and federal) to support improvements; plan for a local conversion charter.
(h) Needs Improvement Year 7. A school identified as Needs Improvement Year 7 pursuant to
paragraph (2)(a)(3) shall be classified as a Contract-Monitored School and shall implement the
interventions outlined in the Improvement Contract developed and agreed upon no later than the
beginning of the school year. The LEA and GDOE, through ongoing monitoring and evaluation, will
determine appropriate amendments and revisions to the Improvement Contract during this first year
of implementation to be approved by the State Board of Education.
(i) Needs Improvement Year 8. A school identified as Needs Improvement Year 8 pursuant to
paragraph (2)(a)(3) shall remain classified as a Contract-Monitored School and shall be subject to all
consequences applicable to schools in Needs Improvement Year 7. The LEA and GDOE, through
ongoing monitoring and evaluation, will determine appropriate updates and revisions to the
Improvement Contract during this second year of implementation to be approved by the State Board
of Education.
1.The LEA and Needs Improvement Year 8 school shall be subject to a System Performance
Review and needs assessment conducted by the GDOE. The GDOE System Performance
Review team will make recommendations to the State Board of Education regarding school-level
and/or LEA-level interventions needed to address the findings from the System Performance
Review.
2.The Management Contract, outlining the commitment to implement the identified interventions
with assistance from the GDOE, will be developed and signed by the LEA superintendent, the
local board of education chair, the State Superintendent, and the State Board of Education chair.
Failure of the LEA to enter into the Management Contract pursuant to this rule will result in
referral to OSA for non-compliance. The Management Contract must be implemented no later
than the beginning of the school year the school is identified in Needs Improvement Year 9. The
Management Contract shall be in effect for a minimum of a two-year period and shall be subject
to ongoing review and evaluations conducted by the GDOE. The Management Contract shall be
developed in accordance with content, format, and procedures developed and disseminated by
the GDOE.
3.School-level interventions may include, but are not limited to school closure; mandated
charter school; complete reconstitution of the school; site-based expenditure controls; specified
maximum class sizes.
96
4.LEA-level interventions may include, but are not limited to a decrease of management
authority for the superintendent and local board of education; assignment of a management team
to operate all or part of the LEA; restructuring of the LEA’s governance arrangement.
(j) Needs Improvement Year 9. A school identified as Needs Improvement Year 9 pursuant to
paragraph (2)(a)(3) shall be classified as a Contract-Managed School and shall be subject to all
ongoing monitoring and evaluation, will determine appropriate amendments and revisions to the
Management Contract during this first year of implementation to be approved by the State Board of
Education.
(k) Needs Improvement Year 10. A school identified as Needs Improvement Year 10 pursuant to
paragraph (2)(a)(3) shall remain classified as a Contract-Managed School and shall be subject to all
ongoing monitoring and evaluation, will determine appropriate amendments and revisions to the
Management Contract during this second year of implementation to be approved by the State Board
of Education.
(3) LEA-Level Consequences.
(a) Each LEA identified as Needs Improvement shall be subject to consequences designed to help
improve student achievement based on its AYP determination. The Accountability Profile and
GDOE guidance will inform the nature and degree of the required improvement plans. The GDOE
shall provide assistance to LEAs identified as Needs Improvement.
1.An LEA shall be identified as in Needs Improvement status if the LEA has not made AYP in
the same subject for two consecutive years at both elementary/middle school and the high school
levels.
2.An LEA shall be removed from Needs Improvement status if the LEA has made AYP for two
consecutive years.
(b) An LEA that has not made AYP in the same subject for a period of two consecutive years at both
elementary/middle school and the high school levels shall be identified as Needs Improvement
Year 1 and shall be subject to the following requirements:
1.The LEA shall develop, no later than 3 months after being identified as Needs Improvement, an
LEA Improvement Plan. The LEA Improvement Plan shall be for a minimum of a two-year
period and shall be reviewed and approved by the GDOE. The LEA Improvement Plan shall be
in accordance with content and procedures developed and disseminated by the GDOE. The LEA
shall implement the plan expeditiously, but not later than the beginning of the next school year
after the school year in which the LEA was identified for improvement.
(c) An LEA identified as Needs Improvement Year 2 shall implement the LEA Improvement Plan
developed pursuant to subsection (3)(b), if not previously implemented.
(d) An LEA identified as Needs Improvement Year 3 pursuant to subsection (3)
97
(b) shall be subject to the following requirements:
1.The LEA shall develop, no later than 3 months after being identified for corrective action, an
LEA Corrective Action Plan. The LEA Corrective Action Plan, shall be integrated with the LEA
Improvement Plan, shall be for a minimum of a two-year period, and shall be reviewed by the
GDOE and approved by the State Board of Education upon recommendation of the GDOE. The
LEA Corrective Action Plan shall be in accordance with content, format, and procedures
developed and disseminated by the GDOE. The LEA shall implement the Corrective Action Plan
no later than the beginning of the school year following the school year in which the LEA was
identified for corrective action.
2.The LEA Corrective Action Plan shall include at least one corrective action as defined in
federal law, which may include major restructuring of the system’s governance arrangement that
makes fundamental reforms, consistent with the corrective action options, and has substantial
promise of enabling the LEA to meet AYP.
7(4) OSA Audit Function and Record Retention Requirements.

8
1.Record Retention Requirements. In addition to all other records required to be maintained by
federal and state law, LEAs and schools shall maintain current records of contact information for
all teachers, parents, and school council members. Teacher contact information shall include
subjects and grade level/s taught, class schedules, years of experience, and certificate level.
Parent contact information shall include current school or schools attended by children and
current grade levels of children. School council member contact information shall include name,
title, and community relationship to the school.
2.Right to Audit. OSA may, upon GDOE recommendation or upon its own initiative, investigate
evidence of school or LEA noncompliance with the requirements of this rule at any time. Such
investigation may include performing an on-site audit of any school or LEA at any time. The on-
site OSA Audit may include, but is not limited to, a review of the school or LEA’s records or
procedures, including a review of school or LEA performance and accounting information and
records. Auditors may gather school performance information from school administrators,
teachers, and parents of students enrolled in the LEA.
3.Upon conclusion of its investigation, OSA, where applicable, will prepare a draft audit report
detailing the findings of its investigation. OSA will provide the affected LEA or school with a
copy of the draft report and provide the school or LEA with thirty days to review and comment
on the findings contained in the draft report. The affected school or LEA must submit its
comments on the findings contained in the draft report to the attention of OSA’s Executive
Director. OSA may include, but is not required to include, the comments provided by the affected
school or LEA in its final report. OSA will transmit its final report to the GDOE for submission
to the SBOE.
4.When applicable, OSA’s final report may make a recommendation to the SBOE as to how to
address the school or LEA’s noncompliance with this rule. OSA may recommend sanctions
98
including, but not limited to, withholding of federal and/or state funds pursuant to the procedures
provided in State Board of Education Rule 160-5-2- .02.
Authority O.C.G.A. § 20-14-26; 20-14-37; 20-14-38; 20-14-41.
Adopted: July 14, 2005 Effective: August 4, 2005
99
APPENDIX 6: REVISED CERTIFICATION SCHEME AND ROUTES TO

CERTIFICATION IN GEORGIA
CATEGORIES (2)
Renewable Non-Renewable
TITLES (7)
Clear Renewable Non-Renewable Professional (N)
Performance-Based (PB) Intern (I)
International Exchange (X)
Life (D)
Waiver (W)
TYPES (6)
Teaching (T), Service (S), Leadership (L),
Parapro (PARA), Technical Specialist (TS), Permit (P)
Routes to Certification
Traditional Routes - Obtaining a Georgia certificate by completing a state-approved educator preparation program, usually
at a college or university.
This process could include earning a college degree along with the state certificate, or you might complete the requirements
just for a certificate after you have already finished your degree. In addition, educators who move to Georgia with an out-
of-state certificate must meet Georgia's certification requirements through reciprocity procedures. For the most part, the
traditional initial programs are completed prior to employment in a public school and lead directly to Georgia's Clear
Renewable Certificate.
Alternative Routes - Obtaining a Georgia certificate while you work as an educator.
Designed for "career switchers" who already hold degrees and have various life experiences, as well as former educators
with expired or invalid certificates who wish to return to the classroom. These routes are not limited to, but are of particular
importance when completed in high need, shortage fields such as math, science, foreign language and special education.
Initial eligibility requirements lead to a Non-Renewable Certificate and remaining requirements are completed while the
individual is serving as an educator in a Georgia public school. Upon completion of this route, the Clear Renewable
Certificate is issued.
International Exchange Teacher Route - Obtaining a Georgia certificate based on your teacher certification in another
country.
International exchange certificates may be awarded to teachers certified in their native country who are not U.S. citizens but
who wish to come to Georgia and teach for up to three years.
Permit Route - Obtaining a Georgia permit to teach in special restricted circumstances.
Permits allow performing artists, retired teachers and native foreign language speakers to teach in Georgia classrooms and
selected business/professional leaders to serve in Superintendent positions based on their rich expertise.
Each route is designed to combine high standards with flexibility to bring quality teachers into the classroom. While each
route has a unique set of eligibility requirements and different ways to achieve certification, the standards and requirements
for the Clear Renewable Certificate are the same regardless of the route chosen.
100
Changes Resulting From Georgia’s Certification Changes with its Focus On Highly Qualified
Teachers And Paraprofessionals
Developing the concept of the highly qualified teacher has brought about a number of changes in
Georgia’s teacher certification rules. The current definition for the HiQ software uses basic
credentialing to establish highly qualified teacher status. To clarify and strengthen the HiQ
requirements, a total revision of the certification rules has resulted
As a specific example, the PSC enforced the concept of the middle grades teachers being
appropriately prepared in the content which they are assigned to teach. State rules no longer permit
teaching core academic content based on a generic middle grades certificate. The rule change
requires the teacher to have specific preparation in the content taught and/or a passing score on the
appropriate content assessment with the content areas listed on the certificate. This specific
certification rule has been in effect for five years. The graph in figure 1 shows the changes resulting
from that certification decision. It also illustrates that changes in certification rules take time to
implement. Therefore, the impact of many changes resulting from Title II, Part A will not be
realized immediately. Another certification change is in the out-of-field teaching rule. This change
allows no out-of-field teaching during any part of the school day. Rule 505-2-.26 In-field
Assignments states that all teachers must have assignments within their field and grade level as
specified on their certificate for one hundred percent of the school day. Rule 505-2-.84 Middle
Grades provides a phase-in period which will result in all teaching assignments being in-field by the
beginning of 2006-2007 school year. For more information refer to
http://www.gapsc.com/TeacherCertification.asp.
Figure 1: Effect of PSC Middle Grades Certification Rule Changes on the Certification of
Teachers
Georgia Public Middle School Teacher Subject Assignment
7,000
6,000
5,000
Number of Teachers
4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
0
1999 2000 2001 2002 2003 2004 2005
Middle 6,179 6,307 5,377 4,665 3,849 1,897 1,855
English 2,186 2,240 2,694 3,010 3,422 4,147 4,234
Math 1,694 1,748 2,037 2,371 2,722 3,361 3,512
Science 1,336 1,387 1,658 1,939 2,255 2,700 2,822
SocSt 1,458 1,507 1,649 2,025 2,318 2,746 2,815
School Year
101
APPENDIX SEVEN: REFERENCES FOR QUALITY TEACHING
Aaronson, D., Barrow, L., & Sander, W. (2003). Teachers and student achievement in Chicago public
Abernathy, T.V., Forsyth, A., and Mitchell, J. (2001). "The Bridge from Student to Teacher: What Principals, Teacher
Education Faculty and Students Value in a Teaching Applicant." Teacher Education Quarterly, 28 (4), 109-119.
achievement: A quantitative synthesis of the research. Aurora, CO: Mid-continent Research for
Adams, G.J. (1996). "Using a Cox Regression Model To Examine Voluntary Teacher Turnover." Journal of Experimental
Education, 64 (3), 267-285.
Adkins, K.R. and P.B. Oakes (1995). Inside the Kentucky Teacher Intern Program: Impressions of the
Participants.
Alexander, R. (2000). Culture and pedagogy: International comparisons in primary education. Oxford, UK:
Allen, M. (2003). Eight Question on Teacher Preparation: What Does the Research Say? Denver, CO: Education
Commission of the States. http://www.ecs.org/tpreport.
Allred, W.E., and Smith, R.B. (1984). "Profile of Utah Teachers Leaving the Teaching Profession." Rural Educator, 5 (3),
2-5.
Alvermann, D.E. and G.G. Hruby (2000). "Mentoring and Reporting Research: A Concern for Aesthetics." Reading
Research Quarterly, 35(1): 46-63.
American education. In E. Z. Rothkopf (Ed.), Review of Research in Education (Vol. 14, pp. 169-238).
American Federation of Teachers (AFT) (2003). 2003 Survey and Analysis of Teacher Salary Trends . Washington, DC:
AFT. http://www.aft.org/salary/.
Andrew, M.D. (1983). "The Characteristics of Students in a Five Year Teacher Education Program." Journal of Teacher
Education, 34 (1), 20-23.
Andrew, M.D., and Schwab, R.L. (1995). "Has Reform in Teacher Education Influenced Teacher Performance? An
Outcome Assessment of Graduates of an Eleven-University Consortium." Action in Teacher Education, 17 (3), 43-53.
Applegate, J.H., and Shaklee, B. (1988). "Some Observations about Recruiting Bright Students for Teacher Preparation."
Peabody Journal of Education, 65 (2), 52-65.
Archer, J. (2004, January 21). Leaders group faces shortcomings. Education Week. Retrieved September
Arends, R.I. and A.J. Rigazio-DiGilio (2000). Beginning Teacher Induction: Research and Examples of Contemporary
Practice.
Arnold, C.L., Choy, S.P., and Bobbitt, S.A. (1993). Modeling Teacher Supply and Demand, with Commentary.
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Bainer, D.L., G.A. Kramer et al. (1999). "Mid-Western Educational Researcher, 1999." Mid Western Educational
Researcher, 12(1).
Ballou, D. (1996). "Do Public Schools Hire the Best Applicants?" Quarterly Journal of Economics, 111 (1), 97-133.
102
Ballou, D., and Podgursky, M. (1995). "Recruiting Smarter Teachers." Journal of Human Resources, 30 (2), 326-338.
Ballou, D., and Podgursky, M. (1997). Teacher Pay and Teacher Quality . Kalamazoo, MI: W.E. Upjohn Institute.
Ballou, D., and Podgursky, M. (1998). "Teacher Recruitment and Retention in Public and Private Schools." Journal of
Policy Analysis and Management, 17 (3), 393-417.
Baltimore, MD. Retrieved August 5, 2003, from c-b-e.org/martp/pubsinfo.htm

Basil Blackwell.
Beaudin, B.Q. (1993). "Teachers Who Interrupt Their Careers: Characteristics of Those Who Return to the Classroom."
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 15 (1), 51-64.
Beaudin, B.Q. (1995). "Former Teachers Who Return To Public Schools: District and Teacher Characteristics of Teachers
Who Return To the Districts They Left." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 17 , 462-475.
Bell, R.H. (1999). "On Becoming a Teacher of Teachers. Voices Inside Schools." Harvard Educational Review, 69(4):
447-55.
Bennett, N. et al. (1995). The Impact of Training and Role Differentiation on the Nature and Quality of Mentoring
Processes.
Berliner & B. Rosenshine (Eds.), Talks to teachers (pp. 93-110). New York: Random House.
Berliner, D. C. (1987). Simple views of effective teaching and a simple theory of classroom instruction. In D. C.
Berliner, D. C. (2004). If the underlying premise for No Child Left Behind is false, how can that act solve our
Berry, B. (1986). "Why Bright College Students Won't Teach." Urban Review, 18 (4), 269-280.
Berry, B., Noblit, G.W., and Hare, R.D. (1985). "A Qualitative Critique of Teacher Labor Market Studies." Urban
Review, 17 (2), 98-110.
Boe, E. E., & Gilford, D. M. (Eds.). (1992). Teacher supply, demand, and quality: Policy issues, models,
Boe, E.E., Bobbitt, S.A., Cook, L., Whitener, S.D., and Weber, A.L. (1997). "Why Didst Thou Go? Predictors of
Retention, Transfer, and Attrition of Special and General Education Teachers from a National Perspective." The Journal
of Special Education, 30, 390-411.
Boe, E.E., S.A. Bobbitt et al. (1998). National Trends in Teacher Supply and Turnover for Special and General
Education. Data Analysis Report No. 1998-DAR1. Philadelphia Center for Research and Evaluation in Social Policy,
Pennsylvania University.
Bradley, L. and S.P. Gordon (1994). "Comparing the Ideal to the Real in State-mandated Teacher Induction Programs."
Journal of Staff Development, 15(3): 44-48.
Brewer, D. J. (1961). Threat of discovery. Harvard Education Review, 31, 21-32.
Brewer, D.J. (1996). "Career Paths and Quit Decisions: Evidence from Teaching." Journal of Labor Economics, 14 (2),
313-339.
103
.Broughman, S.P. and M.R. Rollefson (2000). Teacher Supply in the United States: Sources of Newly Hired Teachers in
Public and Private Schools, 1987-88 to 1993-94. Statistical Analysis Report. Washington, DC: National Center for
Education Statistics.
Broughman, S.P. and Rollefson, M.R. (2000). "Teacher Supply in the United States: Sources of Newly Hired Teachers in
Public and Private Schools: 1987-88 to 1993-94." Education Statistics Quarterly, 2 (3), 28-32.
Brown, J.G. and C. Wambach (1987). Using Mentors To Increase New Teacher Retention: The Mentor Teacher Induction
Project. Annual Meeting of the American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education, Arlington, VA: Department of
Elementary Education, San Francisco State University.
Bullard, C. 1998. Qualified Teachers for All California Students: Current Issues in Recruitment, Retention, Preparation
and Professional Development, CRB-98-012. Sacramento, CA: California Research Bureau.
Burns, D. (1980). The Evaluation of Student Teaching Practice – An Occupational Analysis Approach.
Burns, D. (1982). Trainers in Industry and Teachers in Schools: A Comparative Analysis of Two Teaching Professions.
Buttery, T.J. et al. (1990). "First Annual ATE Survey of Critical Issues in Teacher Education." Action in Teacher
Education, 12(2): 1-7.
Carroll, S., Reichardt, R., & Guarino, C. (2000). The distribution of teachers among California’s school
Carroll, S., Reichardt, R., and Guarino, C., assisted by Mejia, A. (2000). The Distribution of Teachers Among
California's School Districts and Schools (MR-1298.0-JIF). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Carter, M., and Carter, C.M. (2000). "How Principals Can Attract Teachers to the Middle Grades." Schools in the Middle,
9 (8), 22-25.
Carter, P. and R. DiBella (1982). Follow-up of 1980-81 Graduates at the Ohio State University's College of Education
Teacher Certification Program. Technical Report No. 7.
Case, C.W., Shive, R.J., Ingebretson, K., and Spiegel, V.M. (1988). "Minority Teacher Education: Recruitment and
Retention Methods." Journal of Teacher Education, 33 (4), 54-57.
Center for the Future of Teaching and Learning (2002). California’s teaching force: Key issues and
Chapman, D.W., and Hutcheson, S.M. (1982). "Attrition from Teaching Careers: A Discriminant Analysis." American
Educational Research Journal, 19 (1), 93-105.
Charles A. Dana Center. (2002). Texas Beginning Educator Support System Evaluation Report for Year Three – 2001-02.
Austin, TX.
Cheng, M. and R.S. Brown (1992). A Two-year Evaluation of the Peer Support Pilot Project: 1990-1992. Toronto,
Ontario, Canada: Toronto Board of Education, Research Department.
104
Cheung, O. (2000). Privacy issues in education staff records: Guidelines for education agencies.
Clewell, B.C., and Villegas, A.M. (2001). Evaluation of the DeWitt Wallace-Reader's Digest Fund's Pathways to
Teaching Careers Program . Washington, DC: The Urban Institute.
Colbert, J.A. and D.E. Wolff (1992). "Surviving in Urban Schools: A Collaborative Model for a Beginning Teacher
Support System." Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3), 193-199.
College Record, 107(1), 186-215.
Condliff, S. (2001). Teacher demand and supply projections for the Mid-Atlantic Region: A macro
Council for Basic Education (2000). Steps towards data driven policy: A profile of teacher supply and
Council, National Academy Press.
Cyphert, F.R. and K.A. Ryan (1984). "Extending Initial Teacher Preparation: Some Issues and Answers." Action in
Teacher Education, 6(1-2): 63-70.
Danielson, C. (1999). "Mentoring Beginning Teachers: The Case for Mentoring." Teaching and Change, 6(3): 251-57.
Danser, T. (2002). "Building the Capacity of School Districts To Design, Implement and Evaluate New Teacher Mentor
Programs: Action Points for Colleges and Universities." Mentoring and Tutoring, 10(1), 47-55.
Darling-Hammond, L. (1996). What Matters Most: Teaching for America's Future. Washington, DC: National
Commission on Teaching and America's Future .
Darling-Hammond, L. (2000, January). "Teacher Quality and Student Achievement: A Review of State Policy Evidence."
Education Policy Analysis Archives, 8 (1). http://epaa.asu.edu/epaa/v8n1/.
Darling-Hammond, L., Kirby, S.N. and Hudson, L. (1989). Redesigning Teacher Education: Opening the Door for New
Recruits to Science and Mathematics Teaching (R-3661-FF/CSTP). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Davis, B.H., Higdon, K.A., Resta, V.K., and Latiolais, L.L. (2001). "Teacher Fellows: A Graduate Program for Beginning
Teachers." Action in Teacher Education, 23 (2), 43-49.
DeBolt, G. (1991). Mentoring: Studies of Effective Programs in Education.
DeBolt, G.P. (1989). Helpful Elements in the Mentoring of First Year Teachers. A Report to the State Education
Department on the New York State Mentor Teacher-Internship Program for 1988-1989.
DeLong, T.J. (1987). "Teachers and Their Careers: Why Do They Choose Teaching?" Journal of Career Development,
14 (2), 118-125.
deVoss, G. and R. DiBella (1981). Follow-up of 1979-80 Graduates at the Ohio State University's College of Education
Teacher Certification Program. Technical Report #6. Columbus, OH: Ohio State University.
districts and schools (MR-1298.0-JIF). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Dometrius, N.C., and Sigelman, L. (1988). "The Cost of Quality: Teacher Testing and Racial-Ethnic Representativeness
in Public Education." Social Science Quarterly , 69 (1), 70-82.
Durbin, D. (1991). Review of Pre-1980 and Post-1980 Induction Programs. Induction Program Review.
105
Dworkin, A.G. (1980). "The Changing Demography of Public School Teachers: Some Implications for Faculty Turnover
in Urban Areas." Sociology of Education, 53 (2), 65-73.
Eberhard, J., P. Reinhardt-Mondragon et al. (2000). Strategies for New Teacher Retention: Creating a Climate of
Authentic Professional Development for Teachers with Three or Less Years of Experience. Corpus Christi, TX: South
Texas Research and Development Center, Texas A&M University.
Education Leaders Council. (2001). Weekly policy update,October 5, 2001. Retrieved September 10, 2004 from
Educational Researcher, 23(2), 13-23.
Ehrenberg, R.G., and Brewer, D.J. (1994). "Do School and Teacher Characteristics Matter? Evidence from High School
and Beyond." Economics of Education Review, 13 (1), 1-17.
Ehrenberg, R.G., and Brewer, D.J. (1995). "Did Teachers' Verbal Ability and Race Matter in the 1960s? Coleman
Revisited." Economics of Education Review, 14 (1), 1-21.
Ehrenberg, R.G., Goldhaber, D.D., and Brewer, D.J. (1995). "Do Teachers' Race, Gender and Ethnicity Matter?
Evidence from the National Educational Longitudinal Study of 1988." Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 48 (3),
547-561.
Evans, R.H. (1987). "Factors Which Deter Potential Science/Math Teachers from Teaching: Changes Necessary To
Ameliorate Their Concerns." Journal of Research in Science Teaching, 24 (1), 77-85.
Evertson, C.M. and M.W. Smithey (2000). "Mentoring Effects on Proteges' Classroom Practice: An Experimental Field
Study." Journal of Educational Research, 93(5): 294-304.
Farkas, S., Johnson, J., and Foleno, T. (2000). A Sense of Calling: Who Teaches and Why . New York: Public Agenda.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (1996). "Teacher Mentoring: A Critical Review." ERIC Digest. Washington, DC: ERIC
Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education.
Feiman-Nemser, S. (2001). "From Preparation to Practice: Designing a Continuum To Strengthen and Sustain Teaching."
Teachers College Record, 103(6), 1013-55.
Feiman-Nemser, S. and M.B. Parker (1992). Mentoring in Context: A Comparison of Two U.S. Programs for Beginning
Teachers. National Center for Research on Teacher Learning (NCRTL) Special Report. East Lansing, MI: NCRTL.
Feiman-Nemser, S. et al. (1992). Are Mentor Teachers Teacher Educators? East Lansing, MI: National Center for
Research on Teacher Learning.
Feiman-Nemser, S., S. Schwille et al. (1999). A Conceptual Review of Literature on New Teacher Induction. Washington,
DC: National Partnership for Excellence and Accountability in Teaching, 47.
Fenstermacher, G. D., & Richardson, V. (2005). On making determinations of quality in teaching. Teachers
Ferguson, R.F. (1991). "Paying for Public Education: New Evidence on How and Why Money Matters." Harvard
Journal on Legislation 28, 465-498.
Ferguson, R.F. (1998). "Can schools narrow the black-white test score gap?" In C. Jencks and M. Phillips (Eds.), The
Black-White Test Score Gap . Washington, DC: Brookings Institution, 318-374.
106
Fetler, M. (1999). High School Characteristics and Mathematics Test Results. Education Policy Analysis Archives, 7 (9).
Fideler E. and D. Haselkorn (1999). Learning the Ropes: Urban Teacher Induction Rrograms and Practices in the
United States. Belmont, MA: Recruiting New Teachers.
Figlio, D.N. (2002). "Can Public Schools Buy Better-Qualified Teachers?" Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 55
(4), 686-697.
Fletcher, S., M. Strong and A.Villar (2004). An Investigation of the Effects of Teacher Experience and Teacher
Preparedness on the Performance of Latino Students in California. Santa Cruz, CA: New Teacher Center, University of
California, Santa Cruz.
Flyer, F., and Rosen, S. (1997). "The New Economics of Teachers and Education." Journal of Labor Economics, 15 (1),
S104-S139.
Frankfort, KY: Kentucky Department of Education, Office of Education Technology, Division of

Freiberg, M. et al. (1994). Perceptions of Beginning Teachers in an Urban Setting: Does Mentoring Make a Difference?
from http://www.c-b-e-org/martp/pubdatarpt.htm.
Fuller, E. (2003). Begining Teacher Retention Rates for TxBESS and Non-TxBESS Teachers. Unpublished paper. State
Board for Educator Certification, Texas.
Furtwengler, C. (1995). "Beginning Teachers Programs: Analysis of State Actions during the Reform Era." Education
Policy Analysis Archives.
Galchus, K.E. (1994). "An Analysis of the Factors Affecting the Supply and Demand for Teacher Quality." Journal of
Economics and Finance, 18 (2), 165-178.
Ganser, T. (1994). "The Perceptions of School Principals about a Mentoring Program for Newly Hired Urban School
Teachers." Educator, 30(2): 13-23.
Ganser, T. (1996). "What Do Mentors Say about Mentoring?" Journal of Staff Development, 17(3): 36-39.
Ganser, T. (1997). The Contribution of Service as a Cooperating Teacher and Mentor Teacher to the Professional
Development of Teachers.
Ganser, T. (1999). Areas of Advice Seeking among Beginning Teachers in a Mentoring Program.
Ganser, T. (2000). Evaluating a University Mentoring Program for K-12 Teachers: The University of Wisconsin-
Whitewater Beginning Teacher Assistance Program.
Ganser, T. (2002). "The New Teacher Mentors: Four Trends That Are Changing the Look of Mentoring Programs for
New Teachers." American School Board Journal, 189(12), 25-27.
Giebelhaus, C. (1999). "Leading the Way . . . State Initiatives and Mentoring." Mid-Western Educational Researcher,
12(4): 10-13.
Giebelhaus, C. and M. Bendixon-Noe (1997). "Mentoring: Help or Hindrance? Research Alive." Mid-Western
Educational Researcher, 10(4): 20-23.
Giebelhaus, C.R. and C. Bowman (2000). Teaching Mentors: Is It Worth the Effort?
107
Gitomer, D.H., Latham, A.S., and Ziomek, R. (1999). The Academic Quality of Prospective Teachers: The Impact of
Admissions and Licensure Testing . Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
Glennie, E., Coble, C.R. and Allen, M. (2004, November). Teacher Perceptions of the Work Environment in Hard-to-
Staff Schools. Denver, CO: Education Commission of the States. http://www.ecs.org/clearinghouse/55/87/5587.doc.
Gold, M. (1987). Retired Teachers as Consultants to New Teachers: A New Inservice Teacher Training Model. Final
Report. Washington, DC: American Association of State Colleges and Universities, 54.
Gold, Y. (1999). “Beginning Teacher Support.” In J. Sikula, T. Buttery and E. Guyton (Eds.), Handbook of Research in
Teacher Education (2nd ed.): 548-594. New York: Macmillan.
Goldhaber, D.D., and Brewer, D.J. (2000). "Does Teacher Certification Matter? High School Teacher Certification Status
and Student Achievement." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 22 (2), 129-145.
Goldhaber, D.D., Brewer, D.J. and Anderson, D.J. (1999). "A Three-Way Error Components Analysis of Educational
Productivity." Education Economics, 7 (3), 199-208.
Gordon, J.A. (1994). "Why Students of Color Are Not Entering Teaching: Reflections from Minority Teachers." Journal
of Teacher Education, 45, 346-353.
Gregson, J.A. and J.W. Piper (1993). "The Ohio Induction Process: Perceptions of Beginning Secondary School Trade
and Industrial Teachers." Journal of Industrial Teacher Education, 30(2): 30-43.
Grissmer, D. and S. Kirby (1987). Teacher Attrition: The Uphill Climb To Staff the Nation's Schools. Santa Monica, CA:
Rand Corporation.
Grissmer, D. and S. Kirby (1992). Patterns of Attrition among Indiana Teachers, 1965-1987. Santa Monica, CA: Rand
Corporation.
Grissmer, D. and S. Kirby (1997). "Teacher Turnover and Teacher Quality." Teachers College Record, 99: 45-56.
Grissmer, D.W., and Kirby, S.N. (1992). Patterns of Attrition Among Indiana Teachers: 1965-87 (R-4076-LE). Santa
Monica, CA: RAND.
Grissmer, D.W., and Kirby, S.N. (1997). "Teacher Turnover and Teacher Quality." Teachers College Record, 99 (1), 45-
56.
Gritz, R.M., and Theobald, N.D. (1996). "The Effects of School District Spending Priorities on Length of Stay in
Teaching." Journal of Human Resources, 31 (3), 477-512.
Hafner, A. and J. Owings (1991). Careers in Teaching: Following Members of the High School Class of 1972 In and Out
of Teaching (NCES Report No. 91-470). Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education
Statistics.
Haggstrom, G. W., Darling-Hammond, L., & Grissmer, D. W. (1988). Assessing teacher supply and
Hall, B.W., Pearson, L.C., and Carroll, D. (1992). "Teachers' Long-Range Teaching Plans: A Discriminant Analysis."
Journal of Educational Research, 85 (4), 221-225.
Haney,W., Madaus, G.,&Kreitzer,A. (1987). Charms talismanic: Testing teachers for the improvement of
108
Hanushek, E.A. (1992). "The Trade-Off between Child Quantity and Quality." Journal of Political Economy, 100 (1), 84-
117.
Hanushek, E.A. and Pace, R.R. (1995). "Who Chooses To Teach (and Why)?" Economics of Education Review, 14 (2),
101-117.
Hanushek, E.A., Kain, J.F., and Rivkin, S.G. (2004, Spring). "Why Public Schools Lose Teachers." Journal of Human
Resources, 39 (2), 326-354.
Harding, B., McLain et al. (1999). Teacher Preparation and Development. Olympia, WA: Washington State Institute for
Public Policy.
Hare, D. and J.L. Heap (2001). Effective Teacher Recruitment and Retention Strategies in the Midwest: Who Is Making
Use of Them? Naperville, IL: North Central Regional Education Laboratory.
Hare, D., Nathan, J., & Darland, J. (2000). Teacher shortages in the Midwest: Current trends and future
Harper-Jones, G. (1994). "The Induction of Newly Qualified Teachers in Wales." European Early Childhood Education
Research Journal, 2(2): 33-47.
Harris, D.N., and Adams, S. (2004, Forthcoming). Putting Teacher Labor Markets in Context: A Comparison of
Turnover Across Professions and Industries. Washington, DC: Economic Policy Institute.
Harris, M.M. and M.P. Collay (1990). "Teacher Induction in Rural Schools." Journal of Staff Development, 11(4): 44-48.
Hawk, P., Coble, C., and Swanson, M. (1985). "Certification: It Does Matter." Journal of Teacher Education, 36 (3), 13-
15.
Hawkey, K. (1997). "Roles, Responsibilities, and Relationships in Mentoring: A Literature Review and Agenda for
Research." Journal of Teacher Education, 48(5): 325-35.
Haynes, D. (2005, April 5). "25% of City Teachers Short on Credentials, Janey Says." Washington Post .
Hegstad, C.D. (1999). "Formal Mentoring as a Strategy for Human Resource Development: A Review of Research."
Human Resource Development Quarterly, 10(4): 383-90.
Hendrick, L. and L. Childress (2002). The RIMS Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Partnership: A Study of
Eight Years of Collaboration. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American Educational Research Association.
Hendrick, L., L. Sanada, Z. Franco and D. Huston (2001). A Study of the Elements of Induction Support and Assessment
That Facilitate Skill and Self-Confidence in New Teachers. Paper presented at the annual meeting of the American
Educational Research Association.
Henke, R.R., Chen, X., and Geis, S. (2000). Progress Through the Teacher Pipeline: 1992-93 College Graduates and
Elementary/Secondary Teaching as of 1997. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Henke, R.R., X. Chen et al. (2000). Progress through the Teacher Pipeline: 1992-93 College Graduates and
Elementary/Secondary School Teaching as of 1997. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
109
Henke, R.R., Zahn, L., and Carroll, C.D. (2001). Attrition of New Teachers Among Recent College Graduates:
Comparing Occupational Stability Among 1992-93 College Graduates Who Taught and Those Who Worked in Other
Occupations. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Hibpshman, T. (1998, February). Issues related to upgrade of the professional staff data system.
high schools (WP2002-28). Chicago: Federal Research Bank of Chicago.
Holloway, J. (2001) “The Benefits of Mentoring.” Educational Leadership, 58(8): 85-86.
Hounshell, P.B., and Griffin, S.S. (1989). "Science Teachers Who Left: A Survey Report." Science Education, 73 (4),
433-443.
Huling-Austin, L. (1990). "Teacher Induction Programs and Internships." In W.R. Houston (Ed.) Handbook of Research
on Teacher Education. Reston, VA: Association of Teacher Educators.
Ingersoll, R. (2000).” The Status of Teaching as a Profession.” In Schools and Society: A Sociological Approach to
Education. Edited by Jeanne Ballantine and Joan Spade. Belmont, CA: Wadsworth Press.
Ingersoll, R. (2001). “Teacher Turnover and Teacher Shortages: An Organizational Analysis.” American Educational
Research Journal, 38(3): 499-534.
Ingersoll, R. and T. Smith (2003). “The Wrong Solution to the Teacher Shortage.” Educational Leadership, 60(8): 30-33.
Ingersoll, R., and Kralik, J.M. (2004). The Impact of Mentoring on Teacher Retention: What the Research Says . Denver,
CO: Education Commission of the States.
Ingersoll, R.M. (1999). "The Problem of Underqualified Teachers in American Secondary Schools." Educational
Researcher, 28 (2), 26-37.
Ingersoll, R.M. (2001a). "Teacher Turnover and Teacher Shortages: An Organizational Analysis." American Educational
Research Journal, 38 (3), 499-534.
Ingersoll, R.M. (2001b). Teacher Turnover, Teacher Shortages and the Organization of Schools. Washington, DC: Center
for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Ingersoll, R.M. and Alsalam, N. (1997). Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment: A Multilevel Analysis
(NCES 97-069). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Ingersoll, R.M. et al. (1997). Teacher Professionalization and Teacher Commitment: A Multilevel Analysis. Statistical
Analysis Report. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Jacobson, S.L. (1988). "The Distribution of Salary Increments and Its Effect on Teacher Retention." Educational
Administration Quarterly, 24 (2), 178-199.
Johnson, S. (1990). Teachers at Work: Achieving Success in Our Schools. New York: Basic Books.
Johnson, S. and S. Birkeland (2003, Forthcoming). "Pursuing 'a Sense of Success': New Teachers Explain Their Career
Decisions." American Educational Research Journal, 38.
Johnson, S.M., and Birkeland, S.E. (2003). "Pursuing a 'Sense of Success': New Teachers Explain Their Career
Decisions." American Educational Research Association, 40 (3), 581-617.
110
Jones, L., D. Reid et al. (1997). "Teachers' Perceptions of Mentoring in a Collaborative Model of Initial Teacher
Training." Journal of Education for Teaching, 23(3): 253-61.
Kamii, M. and S. Harris-Sharples (1988, August 1-5). Mentors and New Teachers: Reshaping the Teaching Profession in
Massachusetts. Report of the Wheelock College Conference on Mentor Teacher Training. Boston, Massachusetts.
Karge, B.D. and M.R. Freiberg (1992). Beginning Special Education Teachers: At Risk for Attrition.
King, S.H. (1993). "Why Did We Choose Teaching Careers and What Will Enable Us To Stay? Insights from One Cohort
of the African American Teaching Pool." Journal of Negro Education, 62 (4), 475-492.
Kirby, S. N., Grissmer, D. W., & Hudson, L. (1991). New and returning teachers in Indiana: Sources of
Kirby, S.N., Berends, M., and Naftel, S. (1999). "Supply and Demand of Minority Teachers in Texas: Problems and
Prospects." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 21 (1), 47-66.
Kirby, S.N., Darling-Hammond, L., and Hudson, L. (1989). "Nontraditional Recruits to Mathematics and Science
Teaching." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11 (3), 301-323.
Kirby, S.N., Grissmer, D., and Hudson, L. (1991). "Sources of Teacher Supply: Some New Evidence from Indiana."
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 13 (3), 256-268.
Klug, B.J. and S A. Salzman (1991). "Formal Induction vs. Informal Mentoring: Comparative Effects and Outcomes."
Teaching and Teacher Education, 7(3): 241-51.
Kowalski, J.P.S. (1977). "Orientation Programs for New Teachers." ERS Report. Arlington, VA, Educational Research
Service.
Kyle, D.W., G.H. Moore et al. (1999). "The Role of the Mentor Teacher: Insights, Challenges and Implications."
Peabody Journal of Education, 74(3 and 4): 109-22.
Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2002). Teacher sorting and the plight of urban schools: A
Lankford, H., Loeb, S., and Wyckoff, J. (2002). "Teacher Sorting and the Plight of Urban Schools. A Descriptive
Analysis." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis , 24 (1), 37-62.
Lankford, H., Loeb, S., and Wyckoff, J. (2002). "Teacher Sorting and the Plight of Urban Schools: A Descriptive
Analysis." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 24 (1), 37-62.
Latham, A.S., Gitomer, D.H., and Ziomek, R. (1999). "What the Tests Tell Us about new Teachers." Educational
Leadership, 56 (8), 23-26.
Levin, H.M. (1985). "Solving the Shortage of Mathematics and Science Teachers." Educational Evaluation and Policy
Analysis, 7, 371-382.
Levin, J., and Quinn, M. (2003). Missed Opportunities: How We Keep High-Quality Teachers Out of Urban Schools. The
New Teacher Project.
Loeb, S., and Page, M.E. (2000). "Examining the Link Between Teacher Wages and Student Outcomes: The Importance
of Alternative Labor Market Opportunities and Non-Pecuniary Variation." The Review of Economics and Statistics, 82
(3), 393-408.
111
Loeb, S., and Reininger, M. (2004). Public Policy and Teacher Labor Markets: What We Know and Why It Matters. East
Lansing, MI: The Education Policy Center at Michigan State University.
Lortie, D. (1975). Schoolteacher: A Sociological Study. Chicago, IL: University of Chicago Press.
MA: Author. Retrieved March 11, 2005, from aepa.nesinc.com/PDFs/AZ_vol1_frontmatter.pdf
Madaus, G., & Mehrens, W. A. (1990). Conventional tests for licensure. In J. Millman & L. Darling-Hammond
Mager, G.M. et al. (1987). A Report to the State Education Department on the New York State Mentor Teacher-
Internship Program for 1986-1987.
Mager, G.M. et al. (1990). A Follow-up on the Experiences of Intern Teachers: A Report to the State Education
Department on the New York State Mentor Teacher-Internship Program for 1986-1987 and 1987-1988. New York:
School of Education, Syracuse University.
Manski, C.F. (1987). "Academic Ability, Earnings, and the Decision To Become a Teacher: Evidence from the National
Longitudinal Study of the High School Class of 1972." In D.A. Wise (Ed.), Public Sector Payrolls. Chicago, IL:
University of Chicago Press.
Marso, R.N. and F.L. Pigge (1990). Teacher Mentor Induction Programs: An Assessment by First-Year Teachers.
Marso, R.N., and Pigge, F.L. (1997). "A Longitudinal Study of Persisting and Nonpersisting Teachers' Academic and
Personal Characteristics." The Journal of Experimental Education, 65, 243-254.
Marzano, R., (2000). School-level, teacher-level, and student level variables related to academic
Mayer, D.P., Mullens, J.E., and Moore, M.T. (2000). Monitoring School Quality: An Indicators Report (NCES 2001-
303). Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
McKee, J.G. (1991). Toward an Agenda for Induction: Perceptions of Beginning Teachers and Student Teachers.
Messick, S. (1989). Meaning and values in test validation. The science and ethics of assessment. Educational
Messick, S. (1994). The interplay of evidence and consequences in the validation of performance assessments.
Miech, R.A., and Elder, G.H., Jr. (1996). "The Service Ethic and Teaching." Sociology of Education, 69 , 237-253.
Mills, H., D. Moore et al. (2001). "Addressing the Teacher Shortage: A Study of Successful Mentoring Programs in
Oakland County, Michigan." Clearing House, 74(3): 124-26.
Mitchell, D., L. Scott et al. (1998). The California Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Program: 1998 Statewide
Evaluation Study. Riverside, CA: California Educational Research Cooperative, Graduate School of Education,
University of California, Riverside.
Mitchell, D., L. Scott et al. (1999). The California Beginning Teacher Support and Assessment Program. 1998 Statewide
Evaluation Study. Riverside, CA: California Educational Research Cooperative, Graduate School of Education,
University of California, Riverside.
Mitchell, N., and Hubbard, B. (2004, December 24). "Districts Face Revolving Door: One in Five Teachers Changes
Schools Each Year in State." Rocky Mountain News .
112
Monk, D.H. (1994). "Subject Area Preparation of Secondary Mathematics and Science Teachers and Student
Achievement." Economics of Education Review, 13 (2), 125-145.
Mont, D., and Rees, D.I. (1996). "The Influence of Classroom Characteristics on High School Teacher Turnover."
Economic Inquiry, 34 (1), 152-167.
Moskowitz, J. and M. Stephens (1997). From Students of Teaching to Teachers of Students: Teacher Induction Around
the Pacific Rim. Singapore: Asia Pacific Economic Cooperation Secretariat, BBB32706.
Murnane, R., J. Singer, J. Willett, J. Kemple and R. Olsen (1991). Who Will Teach? Policies That Matter. Cambridge,
MA: Harvard University Press.
Murnane, R.J. (1984). "Selection and Survival in the Teacher Labor Market." The Review of Economics and Statistics,
66 , 513-518.
Murnane, R.J., and Olsen, R.J. (1989a). "The Effects of Salaries and Opportunity Costs on Duration in Teaching:
Evidence from Michigan." Review of Economics and Statistics, 71 (2), 347-352.
Murnane, R.J., and Olsen, R.J. (1989b). "Will There Be Enough Teachers?" The American Economic Review, 79, 242-
246.
Murnane, R.J., and Olsen, R.J. (1990). "The Effect of Salaries and Opportunity Costs on Length of Stay in Teaching:
Evidence from North Carolina." The Journal of Human Resources, 25 (1), 106-124.
Murnane, R.J., and Phillips, B.R. (1981). "What Do Effective Teachers of Inner-City Children Have in Common?"
Social Science Research, 10 , 83-100.
Murnane, R.J., and Schwinden, M. (1989). "Race, Gender and Opportunity: Supply and Demand for New Teachers in
North Carolina, 1975-1985." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 11 (2), 93-108.
Murnane, R.J., Singer, J.D., and Willett, J.B. (1989). "The Influences of Salaries and 'Opportunity Costs' on Teachers'
Career Choices: Evidence from North Carolina." Harvard Educational Review, 59 (3), 325-346.
Murnane, R.J., Singer, J.D., Willett, J.B., Kemple, J.J., and Olsen, R.J. (1991). Who Will Teach? Policies that Matter.
Cambridge, MA: Harvard University Press.
National Center for Education Statistics (2003). Digest of Education Statistics, 2002. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics (2003). Public School Student, Staff and Graduate Counts, By State: 2001-2002
School Year. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
National Center for Education Statistics (2004). Digest of Education Statistics, 2003. Washington, DC: U.S. Department
of Education.
National Collaborative on Diversity in the Teaching Force (2004). Assessment of Diversity in America's Teaching Force:
A Call to Action . Washington, DC: Author.
National Commission on Mathematics and Science Teaching for the 21st Century (2000). Before It's Too Late.
Washington, DC: Author.
113
National Commission on Teaching and America's Future (2003). No Dream Denied: A Pledge to America's Children.
Washington, DC: Author.
National Evaluation Systems. (2003). Arizona educator proficiencyassessments: Study guide (Vol. 1). Amherst,
National Partnership for Teaching in At-Risk Schools (NPTARS) (2005). Qualified Teachers for At-Risk Schools: A
National Imperative . Washington, DC: Author.
Natriello, G., and Zumwalt, K. (1993). "New Teachers for Urban Schools? The Contribution of the Provisional Teacher
Program in New Jersey." Education and Urban Society, 26 (1), 49-62.
North Central Regional Educational Laboratory. (2000). Teacher shortages in the Midwest: Current
Norton, C.S. (1988). Mentoring: A Representative Bibliography. New York: Teachers College, ERIC Clearinghouse on
Urban Education, Columbia University.
Odell, S.J. (1990). Mentor Teacher Programs: What Research Says to the Teacher. Washington, DC: National Education
Association.
Odell, S.J. and D.P. Ferraro (1992). "Teacher Mentoring and Teacher Retention." Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3):
200-04.
Odell, S.J. and L. Huling (Eds.) (2000). Quality Mentoring for Novice Teachers. Indianapolis, IN: Kappa Delta Pi.
Odell, S.J., and Ferraro, D.P. (1992). "Teacher Mentoring and Teacher Retention." Journal of Teacher Education, 43 (3),
200-204.
Ohio State Department of Education (1999). Ohio Teacher, Principal and Superintendent 1999 Supply and Demand
Information. Columbus, Ohio: Author.
Olebe, M. (1999). "California Formative Assessment and Support System for Teachers (CFASST): Investing in Teachers'
Professional Development." Teaching and Change, 6(3): 258-71.
Olsen, D.G. and K.L. Heyse (1990). Development and Concerns of First-year and Reentry Teachers with and without
Mentors.
Pardini, P. (2000). "Data, Well Done." Journal of Staff Development, 21(1): 12-18.
Parsad, B., L. Lewis and E. Farris (2001). Teacher Preparation and Professional Development. Washington, DC:
National Center for Education Statistics.
Perez, K., C. Swain et al. (1997). "An Analysis of Practices Used to Support New Teachers." Teacher Education
Quarterly, (Spring): 41-52.
Peterson, K. and J. Bercik (1995). Frame Theory Analysis of the Cultures of Three Outstanding Teacher Induction
Programs.
Peterson, K.M. (1996). The Importance of Support through Induction Programming in the Teacher Socialization
Process.
Pigge, F.L. (1985). "Teacher Education Graduates: Comparisons of Those Who Teach and Do Not Teach." Journal of
Teacher Education, 36 (4), 27-28.
114
Pigge, F.L., and Marso, R.N. (1992). "A Longitudinal Comparison of the Academic, Affective, and Personal
Characteristics of Persisters and Nonpersisters in Teacher Preparation." Journal of Experimental Education, 61 (1), 19-
26.
Raymond, M., Fletcher, S.H., and Luque, J. (2001, August). Teach for America: An Evaluation of Teacher Differences
and Student Outcomes in Houston, Texas. Unpublished manuscript. Stanford, CA: CREDO, Hoover Institution.
115
Reed, D.F., and Busby, D.W. (1985). "Teacher Incentives in Rural Schools." Research in Rural Education, 3 (2), 69-73.
Rees, D.I. (1991). "Grievance Procedure Strength and Teacher Quits." Industrial and Labor Relations Review, 45 (1), 31-
43.
Reid, D. and L. Jones (1997). "Partnership in Teacher Training: Mentors' Constructs of Their Role." Educational Studies,
23(2): 263-76.
Reiman, A.J. and R.A. Edelfelt (1990). School-based Mentoring Programs: Untangling the Tensions between Theory
and Practice. Raleigh, NC: Raleigh Department of Curriculum and Instruction, North Carolina State University.
Reiman, A.J. et al. (1995). "Counselor- and Teacher-led Support Groups for Beginning Teachers: A Cognitive-
Developmental Perspective." Elementary School Guidance and Counseling, 30(2): 105-17.
Researcher, 18, 5-11.
Rickman, B.D., and Parker, C.D. (1990). "Alternative Wages and Teacher Mobility: A Human Capital Approach."
Economics of Education Review, 9 (1), 73-79.
Riggs, I.M. (2000). The Impact of Training and Induction Activities upon Mentors as Indicated through Measurement of
Mentor Self-Efficacy.
Rivkin, S.G., Hanushek, E.A., and Kain, J.F. (1998). Teachers, Schools and Academic Achievement (Working Paper
6691). Cambridge, MA: National Bureau of Economic Research.
Rivkin, S.G., Hanushek, E.A., and Kain, J.F. (2000). Teachers, Schools and Academic Achievement (Unpublished
Manuscript).
Robinson, G.W. (1998). New Teacher Induction: A Study of Selected New Teacher Induction Models and Common
Practices.
Rong, X.L., and Preissle, J. (1997). "The Continuing Decline in Asian American Teachers." American Educational
Research Journal, 34 (2), 267-293.
Rumberger, R.W. (1985). "The Shortage of Mathematics and Science Teachers: A Review of the Evidence." Educational
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 7 (4), 355-369.
Rumberger, R.W. (1987). "The Impact of Salary Differentials on Teacher Shortages and Turnover: The Case of
Mathematics and Science Teachers." Economics of Education Review, 6 (4), 389-399.
Runyan, K., V. White et al. (1998). A Seamless System of Professional Development from Preservice to Tenured
Teaching.
Rutherford, J. (2002). How Do Teachers Learn To Teach Effectively? Quality Indicators from Quality Schools. A Report
to the Rockefeller Foundation from Just for the Kids and the Southeast Center for Teaching Quality.
Sanders, W., and Rivers, J. (1996). Cumulative and Residual Effects of Teachers on Future Student Academic
Achievement . Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee, Value-Added Research and Assessment Center.
Saurino, D.R. and P.L. Saurino (1999). Making Effective Use of Mentoring Teacher Programs: A Collaborative Group
Action Research Approach.
116
Schaffer, E. et al. (1992). "An Innovative Beginning Teacher Induction Program: A Two-year Analysis of Classroom
Interactions." Journal of Teacher Education, 43(3): 181-92.
Scherer, M. (Ed.) (1999). A Better Beginning: Supporting and Mentoring New Teachers. Alexandria, VA: Association for
Supervision and Curriculum Development.
Schlechty, P.C., and Vance, V.S. (1981). "Do Academically Able Teachers Leave Education? The North Carolina Case."
Phi Delta Kappan, 63 (2), 106-112.
Schlecty, P. and V. Vance (1981). "Do Academically Able Teachers Leave Education? The North Carolina Case." Phi
Delta Kappan, 63: 105-112.
.
Scott, N.H. (1997). Beginning Teacher Induction Program in New Brunswick, 1996-97. Report. Fredericton (Canada),
New Brunswick Department of Education.
Scott, N.H. (1997). PFD's for Beginning Teachers: A Report on the Teacher Induction Program in New Brunswick.
Scott, N.H. (1998). Careful Planning or Serendipity? Promoting Well-Being through Teacher Induction.
Scott, N.H. (1998). Off to a Good Start: Report on the 1997-98 Beginning Teacher Induction Program in New
Brunswick. Fredericton (Canada), New Brunswick Department of Education.
Scott, N.H. (1999). Supporting New Teachers: A Report on the 1998-99 Beginning Teacher Induction Program in New
Brunswick.
Scott, N.H. (2000). Building a Strong Foundation for Teaching: The Fifth Annual Report of the Beginning Teacher
Induction Program in New Brunswick. Saint John, New Brunswick University.
Scott, N.H. (2000). Four Years Later: Issues in Teacher Induction.
Scott, N.H. (2001). Mentoring New Teachers: A Report on the 2001 Beginning Teacher Induction Program in New
Brunswick. Saint John, New Brunswick University.
Scott, N.H. and E. Compton (1996). Report on the 1995-96 Beginning Teacher Induction Program in New Brunswick.
Serpell, Z. and L.A. Bozeman (1999). Beginning Teacher Induction: A Report on Beginning Teacher Effectiveness and
Retention. Washington, DC: National Partnership for Excellence and Accountability in Teaching.
Seyfarth, J.T., and Bost, W.A. (1986). "Teacher Turnover and the Quality of Worklife in Schools: An Empirical Study."
Journal of Research and Development in Education, 20 (1), 1-6.
Shapley, K.S. and H.D. Luttrell (1992). "Effectiveness of Mentor Training of Elementary Colleague Teachers." Journal
of Elementary Science Education, 4(2): 1-12.
Shen, J. (1997). "Teacher Retention and Attrition in Public Schools: Evidence from SASS91." Journal of Educational
Research, 91 (2), 81-88.
Shields, P. et al. (2001). The Status of the Teaching Profession, 2001. Santa Cruz, CA: Center for the Future of Teaching
and Learning.
Shin, H.S. (1995). "Estimating Future Teacher Supply: Any Policy Implications for Educational Reform?" International
Journal of Educational Reform, 4 (4), 422-433.
117
Shipp, V.H. (1999). "Factors Influencing the Career Choices of African American Collegians: Implications for Minority
Teacher Recruitment." Journal of Negro Education, 68 (3), 343-351.
Singer, J.D. and Willett, J.B. (1988). "Detecting Involuntary Layoffs in Teacher Survival Data: The Year of Leaving
Dangerously." Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 10 , 212-224.
Sizer. T. (1992). Horace's Compromise: The Dilemma of the American High School. Boston: Houghton Mifflin.
Smerdon, B., L. Lewis, B. Parsad et al. (1999). Teacher Quality: A Report on the Preparation and Qualifications of
Public School Teachers. Washington, DC: National Center for Education Statistics.
Smith, M. L. (2004). Political spectacle and the fate of American schools. New York: Routledge Farmer.
Smith, T.M., and Ingersoll, R.M. (2004, Summer). "What Are the Effects of Induction and Mentoring on Beginning
Teacher Turnover?" American Educational Research Journal, 41 (2).
Smithey, M.W. and C.M. Evertson (1995). "Tracking the Mentoring Process: A Multimethod Approach." Journal of
Personnel Evaluation in Education, 9(1): 33-53.
Spuhler, L. and A. Zetler (1993). Montana Beginning Teacher Support Program. Helena, MT: Montana State Board of
Education.
Education.
Education.
Spuhler, L. and A. Zetler (1995). Montana Beginning Teacher Support Program. Final Report. Helena, MT: Montana
State Board of Education.
Stinebrickner, T.R. (1998). "An Empirical Investigation of Teacher Attrition." Economics of Education Review, 17 (2),
127-136.
Stinebrickner, T.R. (1999). "Estimation of a Duration Model in the Presence of Missing Data." Review of Economics and
Statistics, 81 (3), 529-542.
Stinebrickner, T.R. (2001a). "A Dynamic Model of Teacher Labor Supply." Journal of Labor Economics, 19 (1), 196-
230.
Stinebrickner, T.R. (2001b). "Compensation Policies and Teacher Decisions." International Economic Review, 42 (3),
751-779.
Stinebrickner, T.R. (2002). "An Analysis of Occupational Change and Departure from the Labor Force. Evidence of the
Reasons that Teachers Leave." Journal of Human Resources, 37 (1), 192-216.
Stoddart, T. (1990). "Los Angeles Unified School District Intern Program: Recruiting and Preparing Teachers for an
Urban Context." Peabody Journal of Education, 67, 84-122.
Storms, B., J. Wing, T. Jinks, K. Banks and P. Cavazos (2000). CFASST (Field Review) Implementation 1999-2000: A
Formative Evaluation Report. Princeton, NJ: Educational Testing Service.
118
Strong, M. (1998). Study of Reading Performance among 1-3 Grade Students in Classes Taught by SCNTP Teachers.
Santa Cruz, CA: New Teacher Center, University of California, Santa Cruz.
Strong, M. (2005). Induction, Mentoring and Teacher Retention: A Summary of the Research (unpublished) Santa Cruz,
CA: New Teacher Center.
Strong, M. and L. St. John (2001). A Study of Teacher Retention: The Effects of Mentoring for Beginning Teachers. Santa
Cruz, CA: University of California, Santa Cruz.
Stroot, S.A., J. Fowlkes et al. (1999). "Impact of a Collaborative Peer Assistance and Review Model on Entry-year
Teachers in a Large Urban School Setting." Journal of Teacher Education, 50(1): 27-41.
supply (R-4049-LE). Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Sweeny, B. (1994). A New Teacher Mentoring Knowledge Base of Best Practices: A Summary of Lessons Learned from
Practitioners. Mentor Center.
Sweeny, B. (1998). What's Happening in Mentoring and Induction in Each of the United States? Mentor Center.
Taylor, S. (1986). "Mentors: Who Are They and What Are They Doing?" Thrust for Educational Leadership, 15(6): 39-
41.
Theobald, N.D. (1990). "An Examination of the Influence of Personal, Professional and School District Characteristics
on Public School Teacher Retention." Economics of Education Review, 9 (3), 241-250.
Thies-Sprinthall, L.M. (1990). "Support Groups for Novice Teachers." Journal of Staff Development, 11(4): 18-22.
Thomsen, S.R. and R.L. Gustafson (1997). "Turning Practitioners into Professors: Exploring Effective Mentoring."
Journalism and Mass Communication Educator, 52(2): 24-32.
Tushnet, N. et al. (2000). Final Report of the Independent Evaluation of the Beginning Teacher Support and
Assessment Program (BTSA).
Van Thielen, B. (1992). Tutoring Beginning Teachers through a Mentor Teacher Program. Monograph No. 16.
Saskatoon College of Education, Saskatchewan University.
Veenman, S. (1985). "Perceived Problems of Beginning Teachers." Review of Educational Research, 54(2): 143-178.
Veenman, S., H. de Laat et al. (1998). Coaching Beginning Teachers.
Villegas, A.M., and Clewell, B.C. (1998). "Increasing the Number of Teachers of Color for Urban Schools: Lessons from
the Pathways National Evaluation." Education and Urban Society, 31 (1), 42-61.
Villeme, M.G. et al. (1992). "Are Teachers Receiving Adequate Support from Their Beginning Teacher Programs? The
Florida Experience." Teacher Educator, 28(2): 10-16.
Vonk, J.H.C. (1996). Conceptualizing the Mentoring of Beginning Teachers.

Wagner, U. (1992). Environments of Support. Washington, DC: Office of Minorities in Higher Education, American
Council on Education.
Waller, W. (1932) The Sociology of Teaching. New York: Wiley.
Wang, J. and S.J. Odell (2002). "Mentored Learning To Teach According to Standard-based Reform: A Critical Review."
Review of Educational Research, 72(3), 481-546.
119
Weiss, E.M. (1999). "Perceived Workplace Conditions and First-Year Teachers' Morale, Career Choice Commitment and
Planned Retention: A Secondary Analysis." Teaching and Teacher Education, 15 (8), 861-879.
Wilkerson, T. (1997). The Preparation of Teachers for Kentucky Schools: A Survey of New Teachers. Summary Report.
Louisville, KY: Wilkerson (Tom) and Associates, Ltd.
Wilkinson, G.A. (1997). "Beginning Teachers Identify Gaps in Their Induction Programs." Journal of Staff Development,
18(2): 48-51.
Williams, E. et al. (1994). Training Teachers To Plan Staff Development Programs for Rural Schools.
Williams, E.U. et al. (1991). A Teacher Training Mentor Model in Rural Special Education.
Wilson, S., L. Darling-Hammond and B. Berry (2001). A Case of Successful Teaching Policy: Connecticut's Long-term
Efforts To Improve Teaching and Learning. Seattle, WA: Center for the Study of Teaching and Policy.
Wilson, S.M., and Floden, R.E. (2002.) Creating Effective Teachers - Concise Answers for Hard Questions (An
Addendum to the Report Teacher Preparation Research: Current Knowledge, Gaps and Recommendations). Washington,
DC: ERIC Clearinghouse on Teaching and Teacher Education.
Wise, A.E., Darling-Hammond, L., and Berry, B. (1987). Effective Teacher Selection: from Recruitment to Retention.
Santa Monica, CA: RAND.
Wollman-Bonilla, J.E. (1997). "Mentoring as a Two-Way Street." Journal of Staff Development, 18(3): 50-52.
Wright, S.P., Horn, S.P., and Sanders, W.L. (1997). "Teacher and Classroom Context Effects on Student Achievement:
Implications for Teacher Evaluation." Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, 11 , 57-67.
Yosha, P. (1991). The Benefits of an Induction Program: What Do Mentors and Novices Say?
Zarkin, G.A. (1985). "Occupational Choice: An Application to the Market for Public School
Teachers." The Quarterly Journal of Economics, 100 , 409-446.
Zeichner, K.M. and J.M. Gore (1990). “Teacher Socialization.” In W.R. Houston (Ed.), Handbook of Research on
Teacher Education, 329-348. New York: Macmillan.
120

Description: Tags: Ga

Uploaded by

Document Information

Original Description:

Original Title

Copyright

Available Formats

Share this document

Share or Embed Document

Sharing Options

Did you find this document useful?

Is this content inappropriate?

Copyright:

Available Formats

Description: Tags: Ga

Uploaded by

Copyright:

Available Formats

Revisions to

Georgia’s Plan for Title II, Part A

Reaching and Maintaining the Goal of 100% Highly

Georgia Professional Standards Commission

PART I: GEORGIA’S ORGANIZATIONAL STRUCTURE FOR THE

PART I: Georgia’s Organizational Structure for the Implementation of Title II A

Title II, Part A: State Organization

PSC Responsibilities for Title II, Part A Funding

LEA Responsibilities for Title II, Part A

Title II, Part A - Administration

Georgia’s Highly Qualified Teacher Definition

PART II: Revisions to the Title II, Part A Plan

Table 01: State-wide HiQ Data 2003-2004

Table 02: State-wide HiQ Data 2004-2005

Table 03: State-wide HiQ Data 2005-2006

TEACHER AND PARAPROFESIONAL QUALITY

School Type Total Number of Core Percentage of Core

All Schools in 220240 210797 4.3

TEACHER AND PARAPROFESIONAL QUALITY

School Type Total Number of Core Percentage of Core

Low-Poverty 26900 26408 1.8

Reason For Being Classified as Not Highly Percentage

a) Elementary school classes taught by certified 6%

b) Elementary school classes taught by teachers 2%

who are not fully certified (and are not in an

c) Secondary school classes taught by certified 59%

Special Education Teachers

School Type Total Number Number of Core Percentage of Core

School Type Total Number Number of Core Percentage of Percentage of

Table 07: 2005-06 HiQ School System Summary Data

2005-06 School System Data: Overall Summary

2005-06 School System Data: Overall Summary

2005-06 School System Data: Overall Summary

2005-06 School System Data: Overall Summary

2005-06 School System Data: Overall Summary

2005-06 School System Data: Overall Summary

• Conduct HOUSSE evaluations, as appropriate.

PSC Responsibilities for Title II, Part A Monitoring and Compliance

Review of LEAs’ Consolidated Applications

Table 08: Remediation Results by Classes for August 2006

Technical Assistance Provided

presentations and other information are located at

Schools That Do Not Meet AYP Goals

Annual Time Table of Ongoing Activities

July 1st (each year)

August 31st (each year)

August 1st-September 30th (each year)

September 15th (each year)

December 1st-January 31st. (each year)

March 1st (each year)

March 1st-June 30th (each year

Recruitment and Retention of Highly Qualified Teachers

Alternative Preparation Programs for Teachers

Recruiting a Workforce of Highly Qualified Teachers

NBPTS Certification Support

Retired Teacher Incentives

LEA Responsibilities for Title II, Part A - Accountability

PSC Responsibilities for Title II, Part A Monitoring and Compliance

Review of LEAs’ Consolidated Applications

• LEA provides data on the numbers of teachers and paraprofessionals disaggregated by

Georgia DOE Responsibilities for Title II, Part A Technical Assistance

• Multi-subject special education teachers