Meeting of the Board of Regents | April 2008

THE STATE EDUCATION DEPARTMENT / THE UNIVERSITY OF THE STATE OF NEW YORK / ALBANY, NY 12234

 

TO:
FROM:	Johanna Duncan-Poitier
SUBJECT:	Progress Report on Highly Qualified Teachers
DATE:	March 27, 2008
STRATEGIC GOAL:	Goal 3
AUTHORIZATION(S):

 

 

 

SUMMARY

 

Issue for Discussion

 

A review of progress made in school year 2006-2007 to ensure that all classes in core academic subjects are taught by highly qualified teachers, as required by federal law, and initiatives to address remaining gaps. 

 

Reason(s) for Consideration

 

For Information

 

Proposed Handling

 

This item will come before the Higher Education Committee for discussion at its April 2008 meeting.

 

Recommendation

 

N/A

 

Timetable for Implementation

 

N/A

 

Background Information

 

As part of your strategy to help all students meet New York State Learning Standards, raise student achievement and close achievement gaps, you adopted a comprehensive set of teaching policies in 1998 that profoundly changed teacher preparation, certification, mentoring, professional development and professional evaluation. Your teaching policies have been implemented and evaluated.  In response to data and experience, you have amended them on several occasions.

 

The federal Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), also known as the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), was last reauthorized in 2001.  The Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) was last reauthorized in 2004.  Both laws were aligned to require all classes in core academic subjects to be taught by “highly qualified” teachers.  This federal requirement is closely aligned with your policy goal for all students to be taught by appropriately certified teachers. 

 

The Department has been reporting to you regularly on New York State’s progress towards meeting teacher quality goals. 

 

• Federal highly qualified teacher goals.  In January 2007, we reported for school year 2005-2006 on the percent of core classes taught by highly qualified teachers and on gaps between low poverty and high poverty schools.  The attached report is an update on progress made through school year 2006-2007.  We expect to have a list of all districts with less than 100 percent of 2006-2007 core classes taught by highly qualified teachers in time for your April meeting. 

 

• Regents certified teacher goals.  In 2006 and 2007, we reported on the percent of full-time equivalent teaching assignments in all subject areas that were held by teachers with appropriate certification, and on supply and demand for certified teachers.  An update based on school year 2006-2007 data is scheduled for spring 2008.

 

• Certification policy review.  We have been reporting to you about a review of current certification requirements that we are conducting to find options that would address teacher shortages without compromising quality.  To date, we have reported on options for changing the special education certification structure to address shortages of special education teachers in Grades 7-12 and the need to continue the individual evaluation pathway to certification to maintain teacher supply in many subject areas.  Other reports will follow.

Progress Report on Highly Qualified Teachers

April 2008

             

This report describes progress made in New York State towards meeting federal highly qualified teacher goals.  It is based on data from school year 2006-2-007, the most recent year for which data are available.    

 

Federal Highly Qualified Teacher Goals

 

              The No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) and the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) are aligned to require 100 percent of public school classes in core academic subjects – including special classes for students with disabilities – to be taught by highly qualified teachers.  The NCLB requires each state educational agency (SEA) and local educational agency (LEA) to have a plan to reach the 100 percent goal and ensure that low-income and minority students are not taught at higher rates than other students by unqualified, out-of-field and inexperienced teachers.  The NCLB also requires each SEA and LEA to report on progress each year in state and local report cards.  In its enforcement of these requirements, the U.S. Department of Education requires states and LEAs to make a good faith effort to meet these requirements; report accurate, complete and timely data; and demonstrate that they are making progress.

 

For the most part, teachers who meet New York State certification requirements also meet federal highly qualified when they teach in their area of certification.   The NCLB defines highly qualified teachers as teachers who: 

• have a bachelor’s or higher degree;
• meet State certification requirements; and
• demonstrate knowledge of the core academic subjects they teach in one of the ways required by the NCLB. 

The IDEA supplements the NCLB definition for teachers of record in special classes in core subjects for students with disabilities by requiring the teachers to be certified in special education.  The NCLB defines core academic subjects as English, language arts, reading, mathematics, science, social studies (history, geography, economics, civics and government), foreign languages and the arts.

 

Implementation of Federal Teacher Quality Requirements

 

              The New York State Education Department (Department) has been implementing federal teacher quality requirements through a wide range of activities, including the following. 

• Part 120 of the Regulations of the Commissioner of Education

              http://www.highered.nysed.gov/nclb052004.htm

• NCLB NYS Field Memos with non-regulatory guidance

              http://www.highered.nysed.gov/nclbhome.htm

• Local consolidated applications for NCLB funds http://www.forms.nysed.gov/emsc/titlei/ca0708/cover.htm
• Technical assistance and monitoring, including an email helpline  NCLBNYS@mail.nysed.gov
• The revised New York State plan for enhancing teacher quality  http://www.ed.gov/programs/teacherqual/hqtplans/index.html#ny
• The Basic Education Data System (BEDS) Personnel Master File (PMF) http://www.emsc.nysed.gov/irts/beds/home.shtml

 

              The Personnel Master File (PMF) for school year 2006-2007 is the data source for this report.  It contains data submitted by LEAs on every school professional and his or her teaching and non-teaching assignments.  For each teaching assignment, the PMF contains data on whether the assignment was held by an appropriately certified teacher.  For each teaching assignment in a core academic subject, it contains data on whether the teacher was highly qualified.  Data on certification and highly qualified status are determined by a computerized match between teaching assignments reported by LEAs and the Department’s certification records.  Data quality controls include a verification process, technical assistance and monitoring.

 

Performance Indicator: 

Percent of Core Classes Taught by Teachers Who Were Highly Qualified

 

In 2006-2007, New York State’s public schools increased the percent of core classes taught by highly qualified teachers and narrowed the gap between high poverty and low poverty districts and schools. (Table 1)

 

• All schools.  In all schools, the percent of core classes taught by teachers who were highly qualified rose to 95.7 percent from 94.5 percent in the prior year. 

 

• All elementary schools.  In elementary schools, the percent rose to 97.4 percent from 96.2 percent in the prior year. 

 

• All middle/secondary schools.  In middle/secondary schools, the percent rose to 93.2 percent from 93.0 percent in the prior year.

 

• Large cities.  Four of the five large cities had higher percentages of core classes taught by highly qualified teachers in 2006-2007 than in the prior year.  New York City had 90.8 percent, up from 87.0 percent in the prior year.  Buffalo had a decline, but still reached 95.0 percent in 2006-2007. 

 

• Other groups of districts.  Outside the five large cities, nearly every Need/Resource Capacity category of districts had at least 95 percent of core classes taught by highly qualified teachers in 2006-2007.  BOCES, State Schools and charter schools were the exceptions.

 

• High and low poverty schools elementary schools.  The NCLB requires states and LEAs to measure the equitable distribution of teachers using high and low poverty quartiles of schools based on the percent of students in each school that is eligible for free and reduced price lunch (FRPL).  In 2006-2007, New York State’s high poverty quartile included schools with 77.1 percent or more students eligible for FRPL and its low poverty quartile included schools with 17.0 percent or fewer students eligible for FRPL.  The percent of core classes taught by highly qualified teachers in high poverty elementary schools rose to 94.9 in 2006-2007, up from 91.9 in the prior year.  The gap between high and low poverty elementary schools narrowed to 4.2 percentage points, down from 7.2 points in the prior year. 

 

• High and low poverty middle/secondary schools.  The percent of core classes taught by highly qualified teachers in high poverty middle/secondary schools rose to 83.9 percent from 82.6 percent in the prior year, narrowing the gap from 15.2 to 13.2 points.  Clearly, high poverty middle/secondary schools are have the greatest need for highly qualified teachers and better matching of teachers’ qualifications and assignments. 

 

Table 1 Percent of Classes in Core Academic Subjects Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers
	2004- 2005	2005-    2006	2006- 2007	2005-2006 to 2006-2007 difference
New York State – All Public  Schools	92.1	94.5	95.7	+1.2
District Groups
High Need/Resource Capacity (N/RC) Districts
New  York City School District	78.6	87.0	90.8	+3.8
Buffalo City School District	93.2	97.2	95.0	-2.2
Rochester City School District	88.4	89.4	89.8	+0.4
Syracuse City School District	90.7	89.4	92.3	+2.9
Yonkers City School District	97.1	99.4	99.7	+0.3
Urban/Suburban N/RC Districts	95.8	97.6	97.4	-0.2
Rural N/RC Districts	96.5	97.8	97.9	+0.1
Average N/RC Districts	97.7	98.4	98.6	+0.2
Low N/RC Districts	97.8	98.5	98.6	+0.1
* BOCES and State Schools	* 91.8	* 86.7	92.4	+5.7
* Charters	*	*	* 78.8	--
School Groups by Poverty Quartile in New York State
Elementary – All	92.1	96.2	97.4	+1.2
Elementary – Low Poverty Quartile	98.1	99.1	99.1	0.0
Elementary – High Poverty Quartile	81.7	91.9	94.9	+3.0
Gap between High and Low Poverty Quartiles	16.4	7.2	4.2	-3.0
Middle/Secondary – All	93.1	93.0	93.2	+0.2
Middle/Secondary – Low Poverty  Quartile	97.2	97.8	97.1	-0.7
Middle/Secondary – High Poverty  Quartile	80.3	82.6	83.9	+1.3
Gap between High and Low Poverty Quartiles	16.9	15.2	13.2	-2.0
Charters were combined with BOCES and State Schools in 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 but not in 2006-2007. Statewide percentages are slightly higher than those submitted to the federal government in December 2007 because minor corrections were made to the data in February 2008. For this table, low poverty schools had 17.0 percent of students eligible for FRPL and high poverty schools had 77.1 percent of students eligible for FRPL. Charter school percentages may be too high because charter school data were not adjusted for up to 5 teachers per school who do not need to be certified to be highly qualified.

              The NCLB requires SEAs and LEAs to measure the equitable distribution of teachers among schools within LEAs.  To do this, the Department created new high and low poverty quartiles based only on schools in High Need/Resource capacity (High N/RC) districts.  These districts did not have enough low poverty schools to use the statewide quartiles.  In these new High N/RC quartiles in 2006-2007, high poverty schools have 90.5 percent or more students eligible for FRPL and low poverty schools have 66.3 percent or fewer students eligible for FRPL, hardly “low poverty” schools by any other standard. 

 

• High and low poverty elementary schools within High N/RC LEAs.  All High N/RC categories had over 90 percent of core classes taught by highly qualified teachers in both high and low poverty elementary schools.  However, there were gaps.  In four of the five large city districts, core classes in high poverty schools were less likely than in low poverty schools to be taught by teachers who were highly qualified.   The widest gaps were in Syracuse (6.6 percentage points) and Rochester (5.3 percentage points). (Table 2)

 

• High and low poverty middle/secondary schools within High N/RC LEAs.  Three of the large five cities had over 90 percent of core classes taught by highly qualified teachers in both high and low poverty middle/secondary schools.  New York City and Rochester were below 90 percent.  Four of the five cities had no gap between high and low poverty schools.  New York City had a gap of 4.2 percentage points and the lowest percent of core classes taught by highly qualified teachers (84.0 percent).  (Table 2)   

 

Table 2 Percent of Core Classes Taught by Highly Qualified Teachers in 2006-2007 in High Need LEAs
High N/RC Quartiles	Buffalo CSD	New York City CSD	Rochester CSD	Syracuse CSD	Yonkers CSD	Other High N/RC Districts
Elementary – Low Poverty Quartile (for High N/RC districts)	100.0	96.2	100.0	98.3	100.0	99.0
Elementary – High Poverty Quartile( for High N/RC districts)	98.6	93.9	94.7	91.7	N/A	99.3
Gap	1.4	2.3	5.3	6.6	N/A	--
Middle/Secondary – Low Poverty  Quartile (for High N/RC districts)	93.3	88.2	85.3	92.6	100.0	96.8
Middle/Secondary – High Poverty Quartile (for High N/RC districts)	95.9	84.0	89.2	98.6	N/A	95.7
Gap	--	4.2	--	--	N/A	1.1
N/A indicates that no schools met the criteria.  -- indicates no gap for high poverty schools. For this table, low poverty schools had 66.3 percent or fewer students eligible for FRPL and high poverty schools had 90.5 percent or more students eligible for FRPL.

 

Performance Indicator:

Percent of Core Classes Taught by Teachers Who Were Not Highly Qualified

 

              In 2006-2007, over 32,600 core classes in New York State were taught by teachers who were not highly qualified.  Of those classes, over 70 percent were in Grades 7 through 12 and had teachers who were not highly qualified because they lacked appropriate certification and over 60 percent were in New York City.

 

              Nine tables (Tables 3A through 5C) that appear at the end of this report, show the percent of core classes taught by teachers who were not highly qualified in the most recent three years for which data are available.  Each table has data for New York State, for each large city school district and for all Need/Resource Capacity (N/RC) categories of districts.  Tables for 2004-2005 and 2005-2006 have BOCES, State Schools and charter schools as one category.  Tables for 2006-2007 give charter schools their own category.  Each table has data for a specific set of core classes. 

• Tables 3A, 3B and 3C have data for subject areas. 
• Tables 4A, 4B and 4C have data for specific science subjects, such as biology and chemistry.
• Tables 5A, 5B and 5C have data for special classes for students with disabilities.

Each table shows data for one of three years:

• Tables 3A, 4A and 5A have data for school year 2004-2005.  These tables appeared in prior reports.
• Tables 3B, 4B and 5B have data for school year 2005-2006.  These tables also appeared in prior reports.
• Tables 3C, 4C and 5C have data for school year 2006-2007.  These tables are shaded grey to make them easy to identify as new tables with the most recent year of data.

 

              A summary of statewide data for school year 2006-2007, with comparisons to the prior year, is presented here. 

 

• Elementary core classes.  Only 2.2 percent of elementary core classes in New York State in 2006-2007 were taught by teachers who were not highly qualified, down from 3.1 percent in the prior year.  Three of the large five cities had percentages above 2.2 percent.  (Tables 3B and 3C)

 

• Middle/secondary core classes by subject area.  Every middle/secondary subject area in New York State in 2006-2007 had some classes taught by teachers who were not highly qualified, although the percentage went down in all subject areas compared to the prior year.   Statewide, three subject areas had 5 percent or more classes taught by teachers who were not highly qualified in 2006-2007:  languages other than English (8.2 percent), science (6.5 percent) and multiple or unspecified subjects (8.7 percent).  In nearly every subject area, four of the five cities (not Yonkers) had higher percentages than other districts.  (Tables 3B and 3C)

 

• Science core classes.  In 2006-2007, 6.5 percent of middle/secondary science classes in New York State were taught by teachers who were not highly qualified, down from 8.0 percent in the prior year.  In 2006-2007, percentages ranged from a low of 4.7 percent in “other sciences” to a high of 16.5 percent in earth science.  Percentages were higher in 2006-2007 than in the prior year in earth science and physics.  In 2006-2007, four of the five large cities (not Yonkers) had higher percentages than other districts.  (Tables 4B and 4C)

 

• Special classes for students with disabilities in core subjects.  When a teacher of a “special class” for students with disabilities teaches core academic subjects as the teacher of record, the teacher must meet the definition of highly qualified for each core subject taught.  In 2006-2007, 8.9 percent of all “special classes” for students with disabilities in New York State were taught by teachers who were not highly qualified, up from 8.2 percent in the prior year.  In 2006-2007, 14.1 percent of middle/secondary “special classes” in core subjects were taught by teachers who were not highly qualified, up from 10.3 percent in the prior year.  Four of the five large cities (not Yonkers) had higher percentages than other districts and two city districts (New York City and Syracuse) had higher percentages in 2006-2007 than in the prior year.  (Tables 5B and 5C)

             

Summary of Findings

 

New York State has made progress toward ensuring that all core classes are taught by highly qualified teachers and that low income students are not taught at higher rates than other students by teachers who are not highly qualified.  However, more progress is needed in every subject area and in many districts.  In 2006-2007, the greatest gaps were in:

• the subject areas of languages other than English, sciences and special education in Grades 7 -12; and
• the large cities (except for Yonkers) as well as BOCES and State Schools and charter schools.

Trends from 2004-2005 through 2006-2007 suggest that these findings are likely to apply to school year 2007-2008 as well. 

 

Initiatives to Address Remaining Gaps

 

The Regents adopted four interrelated plans that guide the Department’s initiatives for addressing teacher quality issues:

• Teaching to Higher Standards:  New York State’s Commitment (1998)
• Regents Statewide Plan for Higher Education (2005)
• New YorkState’s Revised Plan to Enhance Teacher Quality (2006)
• P-16 Education: A Plan for Action (2006) 

Consistent with these plans, the Department is working with partners to make further progress towards federal highly qualified teacher quality goals and Regents certification goals.  Examples include the following. 

 

• Certification policy review.  We are in the process of conducting a review of current certification requirements with the Regents and the education community to identify options for increasing flexibility without compromising quality.  The focus is on subject areas with the greatest need for highly qualified teachers, which are special education in Grades 7-12, languages other than English and the sciences. 

 

• P-16 partnerships.  We are working with five pilot regions of the State to promote and strengthen P-16 partnerships for teacher quality and increase the supply of teachers in shortage subject areas and hard-to-staff schools.  Districts, BOCES, teacher preparation institutions and others are involved in the partnerships.  We provide data to the partnerships to inform their work.  We plan to promote partnerships in other regions as resources permit.

 

• Data for college and university program assessment and planning.  We are developing new data resources for teacher preparation institutions to inform program assessment and planning.  For example, with matching funds from the Carnegie Corporation of New York, we are supporting a 2007-2008 pilot project for a Teacher Quality Research Center (TQRC) at the University at Albany that will test the feasibility and utility of enabling institutions to track the certification and public school employment rates of their graduates over time. 

 

 

 

• Advocacy.   We are working with partners to advance the Regents federal and state legislative agendas to increase the supply of certified and highly qualified teachers.  For example, in Albany, we are advocating for:
• $25,000,000 over three years to fund 8 pilot projects to prepare 1,000 new teachers in shortage subjects for high need schools; and
• relief from pension penalties for retired public employees who teach in hard-to-staff schools in shortage areas.

Similarly, in Washington, we are advocating for Higher Education Act Title II programs that would support teacher development in shortage subject areas and hard-to-staff schools and Title IV amendments that would make BOCES teachers eligible for all federal loan forgiveness that is currently available to teachers in high-poverty schools. 

 

Table 3A  2004-2005   All Subject Areas:  Percent of Core Classes Taught by Teachers Who Are Not Highly Qualified
Core Subject Areas	New York State – All Public Schools	Need/Resource Capacity (N/RC) Categories									Charters, BOCES & State Schools
		High N/RC Districts							Average N/RC Districts	Low N/RC Districts
		New York City	Buffalo	Rochester	Syracuse	Yonkers	Urban/ Suburban Districts	Rural Districts
Elementary (one or more subjects)	4.3	9.6	1.0	6.4	4.7	0.6	2.2	0.8	0.9	1.2	8.8
Arts	6.9	31.3	5.9	7.4	7.9	1.1	2.4	2.2	1.6	1.6	9.6
English	8.7	24.7	3.0	11.6	4.3	1.2	4.2	2.3	2.1	2.0	8.7
Languages Other Than English	11.2	24.4	28.4	19.4	40.7	2.6	10.8	12.8	6.4	5.8	33.2
Mathematics	7.9	21.9	3.7	15.8	8.8	3.7	3.9	3.2	2.1	1.8	12.3
Reading	7.5	31.4	2.0	34.1	4.4	-	3.4	4.7	2.1	1.1	3.9
Science	9.7	25.1	13.1	5.8	9.3	6.5	5.0	4.6	2.8	2.2	11.8
Social Studies (including civics and government, economics, geography & history)	4.6	12.9	3.1	7.3	1.8	-	2.0	1.5	1.5	1.3	4.2
All other core assignments (multiple subjects, unspecified subjects, etc.)	10.2	24.4	7.6	15.3	10.6	2.9	5.5	4.5	2.6	2.7	6.7
Total	7.9	21.4	6.8	11.6	9.3	2.9	4.2	3.5	2.3	2.2	8.2
NOTE Core classes in “other core subjects” are in multiple core subjects or unspecified subjects in Career and Technical Education (CTE), special education or bilingual education.

 

Table 3B  2005-2006   All Subject Areas: Percent of Core Classes Taught by Teachers Who Are Not Highly Qualified
Core Subject Areas	New York State – All Public Schools	Need/Resource Capacity (N/RC) Categories									Charters, BOCES & State Schools
		High N/RC Districts							Average N/RC Districts	Low N/RC Districts
		New York City	Buffalo	Rochester	Syracuse	Yonkers	Urban/ Suburban Districts	Rural Districts
Elementary (one or more subjects)	3.1	6.4	0.8	6.0	7.4	0.2	1.5	0.8	0.9	0.8	17.3
Arts	7.8	30.8	0.7	9.4	9.1	1.4	2.2	2.0	1.7	1.7	27.0
English	4.9	13.3	0.8	7.1	8.8	0.0	2.4	1.7	1.4	1.2	9.0
Languages Other Than English	8.7	17.4	12.9	21.5	48.3	0.0	7.0	9.4	5.1	4.5	44.7
Mathematics	5.7	15.2	1.4	17.2	7.3	1.7	2.3	2.3	1.5	0.9	12.1
Reading	4.7	18.2	1.8	44.9	16.1	0.0	1.5	2.9	1.7	0.6	10.2
Science	8.0	20.3	9.8	16.0	9.7	1.7	3.0	3.4	1.9	1.7	17.9
Social Studies (including civics and government, economics, geography & history)	3.9	9.9	1.0	8.0	3.3	0.0	1.7	1.7	1.2	1.3	13.8
All other core assignments (multiple subjects, unspecified subjects, etc.)	9.0	20.1	5.9	16.2	13.4	0.5	3.7	3.5	2.5	2.6	7.1
Total	5.5	13.0	2.8	10.6	10.6	0.6	2.4	2.2	1.6	1.5	13.3
NOTE Core classes in “other core subjects” are in multiple core subjects or unspecified subjects in Career and Technical Education (CTE), special education or bilingual education.

 

Table 3C  2006-2007   All Subject Areas: Percent of Core Classes Taught by Teachers Who Are Not Highly Qualified
Core Subject Areas	New York State – All Public Schools	Need/Resource Capacity (N/RC) Categories									BOCES & State Schools		Charters
		High N/RC Districts							Average N/RC Districts	Low N/RC Districts
		New York City	Buffalo	Rochester	Syracuse	Yonkers	Urban/ Suburban Districts	Rural Districts
Elementary (one or more subjects)	2.2	4.1	0.8	4.2	6.4	0.0	1.3	0.8	0.5	0.5	2.1	13.6
Arts	4.4	16.0	6.5	13.5	1.5	1.4	1.8	1.1	1.3	1.3	3.4	33.8
English	4.5	11.2	4.5	10.1	6.2	1.2	2.2	1.2	1.4	1.6	7.5	27.2
Languages Other Than English	8.2	14.6	22.9	12.3	40.6	0.5	6.7	10.3	5.3	4.0	29.1	60.4
Mathematics	3.6	8.2	4.6	13.7	7.0	1.0	2.3	2.0	1.0	0.9	7.9	31.6
Reading	3.3	9.8	9.2	30.5	1.0	0.0	3.2	2.1	1.7	1.6	2.9	24.7
Science	6.5	15.5	11.8	12.8	10.8	0.0	3.6	3.4	1.5	1.8	13.2	38.2
Social Studies (including civics and government, economics, geography & history)	3.0	7.2	5.2	11.4	2.9	0.0	1.5	1.5	0.9	0.7	4.2	28.5
All other core assignments (multiple subjects, unspecified subjects, etc.)	8.7	21.3	5.9	15.7	9.1	0.0	5.6	4.1	3.1	2.7	7.3	13.7
Total	4.3	9.2	5.0	10.2	7.7	0.3	2.6	2.1	1.4	1.4	7.6	21.2
NOTE Core classes in “other core subjects” are in multiple core subjects or unspecified subjects in Career and Technical Education (CTE), special education or bilingual education. Charter school percentages may be too high because charter school data were not adjusted for up to 5 teachers per school who do not need to be certified to be highly qualified.

 

 

 

Table 4A  2004-2005   Science:  Percent of Core Classes Taught by Teachers Who Are Not Highly Qualified
Science Subject	New York State – All Public Schools	Need/Resource Capacity Categories									Charters, BOCES and State Schools
		High N/RC Districts							Average N/RC Districts	Low N/RC Districts
		New  York City	Buffalo	Rochester	Syracuse	Yonkers	Urban/ Suburban Districts	Rural Districts
Biology	7.5	17.6	10.0	6.3	2.0	7.2	5.0	3.7	2.6	1.7	8.1
Chemistry	7.2	21.3	27.6	-	19.0	16.2	3.9	2.8	2.3	2.4	8.9
Earth Science	17.5	43.5	18.5	8.0	15.4	-	6.3	8.7	5.1	4.4	10.0
Physics	11.2	30.8	10.7	15.0	33.3	-	14.4	15.4	4.4	3.3	3.6
Other Sciences	8.0	27.0	8.8	5.1	8.7	4.6	4.0	2.7	1.9	1.3	11.8
Total	9.7	27.5	13.1	6.3	9.5	7.4	5.1	4.6	2.8	2.2	9.8
NOTE  “Other sciences” includes general science, life science, and physical science as well as science electives such as astronomy.

 

 

 

Table 4B  2005-2006   Science:  Percent of Core Classes Taught by Teachers Who Are Not Highly Qualified
Science Subject	New York State – All Public Schools	Need/Resource Capacity Categories									Charters, BOCES and State Schools
		High N/RC Districts							Average N/RC Districts	Low N/RC Districts
		New York City	Buffalo	Rochester	Syracuse	Yonkers	Urban/ Suburban Districts	Rural Districts
Biology	6.2	14.4	5.5	8.5	4.3	3.3	2.6	2.5	1.7	1.2	9.4
Chemistry	7.0	20.4	32.1	7.3	14.8	0.0	2.7	2.9	2.3	1.4	17.6
Earth Science	15.6	51.8	22.4	21.7	13.3	6.5	5.0	5.9	3.8	2.5	17.0
Physics	10.2	28.6	6.1	11.5	28.6	0.0	2.2	11.8	4.3	3.6	11.1
Other Sciences	6.8	16.5	2.1	21.3	10.1	0.0	2.7	2.2	1.0	1.4	22.6
Total	8.0	20.3	9.8	16.0	9.7	1.7	3.0	3.4	1.9	1.7	17.9
NOTE  “Other sciences” includes general science, life science, and physical science as well as science electives such as astronomy.

 

 

 

 

Table4C  2006-2007   Science:  Percent of Core Classes Taught by Teachers Who Are Not Highly Qualified
Science Subject	New York State – All Public Schools	Need/Resource Capacity (N/RC) Categories									BOCES & State Schools		Charters
		High N/RC Districts							Average N/RC Districts	Low N/RC Districts
		New York City	Buffalo	Rochester	Syracuse	Yonkers	Urban/ Suburban Districts	Rural Districts
Biology	4.8	11.5	5.6	12.9	5.3	0.0	2.9	2.0	1.0	1.1	9.8	28.1
Chemistry	6.0	15.6	22.5	9.5	20.7	0.0	5.3	2.2	1.6	2.5	21.4	50.0
Earth Science	16.5	25.0	29.4	42.9	44.4	0.0	1.5	7.4	2.9	0.9	16.7	66.7
Physics	10.9	37.4	25.0	15.8	19.6	0.0	5.5	6.7	2.9	2.8	19.4	73.3
Other Sciences	4.7	10.0	5.8	10.2	8.4	0.0	3.0	2.9	0.9	1.6	13.6	33.5
Total	6.5	15.5	11.8	12.8	10.8	0.0	3.6	3.4	1.5	1.8	13.2	38.2
NOTE “Other sciences” includes general science, life science, and physical science as well as science electives such as astronomy.   Charter school percentages may be too high because charter school data were not adjusted for up to 5 teachers per school who do not need to be certified to be highly qualified.

 

 

Table 5A  2004-2005   “Special Classes” for Students with Disabilities:  Percent of Core Classes Taught by Teachers Who Are Not Highly Qualified
Class Level for Special Classes for Students with Disabilities in Core Subjects	New York State – All Public Schools	Need/Resource Capacity (N/RC)Categories									Charters, BOCES and State Schools
		High N/RC Districts							Average N/RC Districts	Low N/RC Districts
		New York City	Buffalo	Rochester	Syracuse	Yonkers	Urban/ Suburban Districts	Rural Districts
Elementary	8.8	16.7	0.6	14.5	6.0	1.1	2.8	3.4	1.5	1.5	1.6
Middle/secondary	9.5	24.8	3.8	6.7	9.8	2.8	3.6	5.7	2.2	3.1	2.0
Other	2.7	4.7	0.6	27.8	4.0	3.4	2.0	0.9	2.0	0.5	4.5
Total	8.1	20.6	2.4	11.5	7.5	2.7	3.2	4.1	2.0	2.1	2.6
NOTES Elementary assignments are special classes in Grades K-6 or special classes in which all students are eligible to take the New York State Alternate Assessment.  Middle/secondary assignments are special classes in Grades 7-12.

 

 

 

 

Table 5B 2005-2006   “Special Classes” for Students with Disabilities:  Percent of Core Classes Taught by Teachers Who Are Not Highly Qualified
Class Level for Special Classes for Students with Disabilities in Core Subjects	New York State – All Public Schools	Need/Resource Capacity (N/RC)Categories									Charters, BOCES and State Schools
		High N/RC Districts							Average N/RC Districts	Low N/RC Districts
		New York City	Buffalo	Rochester	Syracuse	Yonkers	Urban/ Suburban Districts	Rural Districts
Elementary	7.9	14.0	7.7	12.1	8.9	0.0	3.3	3.5	1.5	1.6	3.0
Middle/secondary	10.3	24.6	3.8	15.2	15.4	0.3	2.5	2.7	2.5	5.3	3.1
Other	1.7	2.9	0.6	7.4	3.5	0.0	1.3	0.2	0.8	1.7	3.3
Total	8.2	19.0	3.8	13.4	10.6	0.2	2.4	2.4	1.9	3.6	3.2
NOTES Elementary assignments are special classes in Grades K-6 or special classes in which all students are eligible to take the New York State Alternate Assessment.  Middle/secondary assignments are special classes in Grades 7-12.

 

 

Table 5C  2006-2007   “Special Classes” for Students with Disabilities:  Percent of Core Classes Taught by Teachers Who Are Not Highly Qualified
Class Level for Special Classes for Students with Disabilities in Core Subjects	New York State – All Public Schools	Need/Resource Capacity (N/RC) Categories									BOCES & State Schools		Charters
		High N/RC Districts							Average N/RC Districts	Low N/RC Districts
		New York City	Buffalo	Rochester	Syracuse	Yonkers	Urban/ Suburban Districts	Rural Districts
Elementary	4.2	7.7	1.6	3.6	4.3	0.0	3.0	0.8	1.4	2.0	4.8	32.3
Middle/secondary	14.1	32.1	3.3	13.5	18.5	0.0	8.5	4.2	4.4	5.5	6.5	8.3
Other	3.0	6.8	0.5	13.3	11.3	0.0	3.5	1.1	1.9	1.6	3.6	0.0
Total	8.9	21.1	2.3	11.8	12.1	0.0	6.0	2.4	3.0	3.3	5.3	13.2
NOTE Elementary assignments are special classes in Grades K-6 or special classes in which all students are eligible to take the New York State Alternate Assessment.  Middle/secondary assignments are special classes in Grades 7-12.   Middle/secondary assignments were defined slightly differently in 2006-2007 than in prior years to reflect specific subjects taught. Charter school percentages may be too high because charter school data were not adjusted for up to 5 teachers per school who do not need to be certified to be highly qualified.