California Department of Education. What authorization must a charter school teacher hold? Do I need a Certificate of Compliance to apply for a teaching position in California? Last Reviewed: Monday, June 15, Share this Page. Although only 20 percent of districts reported receiving state technical assistance regardless of whether they said they needed it, half of large districts reported receiving it.
More than 80 percent of districts that received state technical assistance found it to be sufficient. Schools were more likely than districts to report needing and receiving technical assistance in the areas of recruitment and retention.
Overall, one third of schools reported they were in need of technical assistance from an outside source to support their recruitment and retention efforts, with almost 50 percent reporting that they received technical assistance in this area regardless of need.
Similar to the district data, more than 85 percent of schools found the technical assistance sufficient. More than 60 percent of principals of these schools identified for improvement reported a need for state or district technical assistance, compared with about 25 percent of principals in schools not identified for improvement.
High poverty, high minority and middle and high schools were more likely than low poverty, low minority and elementary schools to report this need. A minority of districts provided targeted support for teachers who were not considered highly qualified. In addition to efforts made to recruit and retain highly qualified teachers, districts and schools provided various types of support for teachers who were not highly qualified to meet state criteria.
One quarter of all districts required new-not yet highly qualified-teachers to complete an induction or mentoring program, and such programs were much more common in large districts 60 percent than in small districts 19 percent. Seventeen percent of districts assigned teachers who were not highly qualified to an instructional coach or master teacher; this approach also was more common in large districts 43 percent than in small districts 11 percent. About one third of districts reported providing increased amounts of professional development to teachers who were not highly qualified; there was little variation by poverty or minority level or district size.
Very few districts 4 percent transferred teachers who were not highly qualified to other schools in the district upon review of their qualifications. To what extent are teachers participating in high quality professional development e. Nearly all teachers reported that they participated in content focused professional development in reading or mathematics, but few participated for more than 24 hours.
More than half of districts placed major emphasis on professional development initiatives in reading 58 percent and mathematics 54 percent -rather than other academic content areas 18 percent -and also emphasized alignment of curriculum with state standards 61 percent.
Nearly all teachers at all levels reported that they participated in content focused professional development focused on instructional strategies for teaching reading or mathematics. However, few teachers participated for an extended period of time. Even though 90 percent of elementary teachers reported that they participated in at least one hour of professional development focused on instructional strategies for teaching reading, only 20 percent participated for more than 24 hours over the —04 school year and summer.
Fewer teachers of mathematics 9 percent for elementary and 16 percent for secondary mathematics reported that they participated in extended professional development on instructional strategies for teaching mathematics. Teachers in high poverty, high minority and urban schools and Title I schools identified for improvement reported that they participated in more hours of professional development than teachers in other schools in — Likewise, new teachers participated in more professional development than did existing teachers.
While the number of hours varied widely from several hundred to none at all, teachers reported an average of 66 hours of professional development during the —04 school year, including the summer of Teachers in Title I schools identified for improvement averaged 87 hours of professional development during —04, compared with 64 hours for teachers in schools that were not identified for improvement. Among Title I elementary schools, teachers in schools identified for improvement were more likely to receive extended content focused professional development in reading and mathematics than in nonidentified schools 39 percent compared with 19 percent.
Higher proportions of teachers in high poverty and high minority schools as well as teachers in schools in large urban districts reported that they received 24 hours or more of professional development in instructional strategies for teaching reading and mathematics than teachers in other schools.
Teachers with fewer than three years of experience generally took part in more hours of professional development than did teachers with three or more years of experience 77 and 64 hours, respectively. Special education teachers were less likely than general education teachers to report that their professional development was focused on instructional strategies for teaching reading and mathematics, involved active learning, or was designed to support state or district standards or assessments.
Special education teachers reported that they participated in a similar total number of professional development hours as other teachers; however, special education teachers were less likely than general education teachers to participate in professional development focused on reading and mathematics.
For example, while 71 percent of general elementary teachers reported that they participated in at least some training on instructional strategies for teaching mathematics, only 48 percent of special educators reported that they participated in training in this area. Special education teachers, particularly those at the high school level, also described their professional development as having fewer features measured in this study. For example, special education teachers were less likely to have had professional development activities that were aligned with standards and assessments than were general education teachers.
What are states, districts and schools doing to help paraprofessionals meet these requirements? Nearly two thirds of Title I instructional paraprofessionals were reported as being qualified as of the —05 school year, but nearly a third of paraprofessionals reported that they did not know or did not report their status.
Data from paraprofessionals mirrored the principal reports, as 63 percent of paraprofessionals also reported they were qualified. Similarly, state performance reports showed that the percentage of paraprofessionals who were qualified in each state varied but averaged 64 percent among the 44 states reporting. Twenty eight percent of paraprofessionals either said they did not know their status or did not respond to this survey item; similarly, principals did not know or did not report on the qualifications status for 26 percent of paraprofessionals.
Despite this fact, approximately 87 percent of paraprofessionals reported holding a qualification that would appear to fulfill the NCLB criteria for qualified status an associate degree, two years or more of college, or a passing score on an assessment.
Most Title I paraprofessionals reported working closely with a supervising teacher, but some indicated that they worked with students on their own without a teacher present. For the most part, this requirement was met, as 83 percent of paraprofessionals reported working closely with their supervising teacher on a daily or nearly daily basis.
Additionally, over half of paraprofessionals reported receiving either detailed instructions or prepared lesson plans from their supervisor on a daily or near daily basis. However, nearly 10 percent of paraprofessionals reported rarely working closely with their supervising teacher and 19 percent reported not receiving prepared lessons or detailed instructions.
Paraprofessionals in high poverty and low poverty schools were about equally likely to report being qualified. However, paraprofessionals in medium and high poverty schools were notably less likely to have completed two years of college or an associate degree than were paraprofessionals in low poverty schools.
Paraprofessionals in high poverty and low poverty schools were about equally likely to report being qualified, after accounting for the unusually high percentage of paraprofessionals in low poverty schools who did not report their qualification status 40 percent. However, when looking at specific qualifications criteria, paraprofessionals in medium and high poverty areas were less likely to have completed two years of college or an associate degree than were paraprofessionals in low poverty areas.
Paraprofessionals in rural schools were also less likely than paraprofessionals in urban schools to have completed two years of college or an associate degree. Title I districts and schools have decreased their reliance on Title I paraprofessionals in recent years, both in terms of absolute numbers and as a proportion of the Title I workforce.
The share of Title I—funded district and school staff who were paraprofessionals declined from 47 percent in —98 to 32 percent in —05, while teachers rose from 45 percent in 55 percent of Title I staff during the same period. The total number of Title I aides declined from about 68, in —98 to 62, in —05, while the number of Title I teachers rose from 66, to 98, and the total number of Title I staff rose from , to , The percentage increase in the number of teachers 49 percent is similar to the inflation adjusted increase in Title I appropriations during this period 46 percent ; the increase in the total number of Title I staff was 23 percent.
In general, the findings of this study indicate that states and districts are working to implement and comply with the NCLB requirements for teacher qualifications: states have set guidelines for highly qualified teachers under NCLB and have been updating their data systems, most teachers have been designated as highly qualified under NCLB , over half of paraprofessionals have been designated as qualified, and teachers report participating in many hours of professional development activities, both formal and informal.
If the goal of having an improved teaching workforce and thus better-served students is to be fully realized, several issues warrant attention. First, the variation across states in their policies concerning highly qualified teachers raises questions about whether some states have set high enough standards for teacher qualifications under NCLB to ensure that teachers have a solid understanding of the subjects they teach.
Third, because many teachers were not aware or notified of their NCLB status, they may not have taken necessary steps to become highly qualified. Search for:. Toggle navigation U. Student Loans Grants Laws Data. At least 36 hours is required to substantively address subject matter content at Level 2. If the teacher has less than 20 total or 10 upper division non-remedial semester units or quarter unit-equivalent in an NCLB core academic subject, the teacher must complete a Level 1 High Quality Professional Development Course as defined in section j and Level 2 High Quality Professional Development Course as defined in section k in the NCLB core academic subject.
At least 36 hours is required to substantively address subject matter content at Level 1. In addition, teachers must also complete the Level 2 requirements, which include at least an additional 36 hours.
Teachers have up to three years from date of assignment as an eligible teacher to complete the program. Last Reviewed: Wednesday, December 23, Share this Page. Trending in State Resources.
0コメント