X hits on this document

Word document

Department of Education - page 21 / 39

78 views

0 shares

0 downloads

0 comments

21 / 39

compared to 9.6% in those district schools not meeting the REAP definition. These results indicate that there is a disparity in the percentages of classes taught by HQ teachers in both charter school and district schools in the most rural areas of the state.  

ADE believes that these numbers may understate the actual number of rural schools as the federal definition is limited to the very few most isolated districts in the state.  ADE will continue to collect data on HQT status in rural areas of Arizona, including REAP data, through Phases II and III of the data collection.  

1d) Does the analysis identify districts and schools around the State where significant numbers of teachers do not meet HQT standards?

In the display of Phase I data below, the number and percentage of classes taught by HQ and Non-HQ teachers is displayed by county.

Table 6.  HQ and Non-HQ status of Arizona classes by county

County

Number of classes taught by non- HQ teachers

Number of classes taught by HQ teachers

Total Number of classes taught

Percent of classes taught by non-HQ teachers

Percent of classes taught by HQ teachers

 Greenlee

7

1

8

87.5%

12.5%

 Gila

16

48

64

25.0%

75.0%

 Pinal

57

190

247

23.1%

76.9%

 Cochise

10

48

58

17.2%

82.8%

 Yuma

51

249

300

17.0%

83.0%

 Apache

56

312

368

15.2%

84.8%

 Pima

85

485

570

14.9%

85.1%

 Navajo

33

234

267

12.4%

87.6%

 Santa Cruz

6

58

64

9.4%

90.6%

 La Paz

1

10

11

9.1%

90.9%

 Yavapai

1

10

11

9.1%

90.9%

 Mohave

3

39

42

7.1%

92.9%

 Maricopa

183

2496

2679

6.8%

93.2%

 Coconino

10

160

170

5.9%

94.1%

 Total

519

4340

4859

10.7%

89.3%

In Greenlee, Gila, and Pinal counties, classes taught by Non-HQ teachers exceed the state average by more than ten percentage points.  Each of these counties faces significant challenges.  Greenlee and Gila counties are located far from population centers.   They are former mining communities with sharply declining populations and low teacher salaries.  Pinal county faces different but equally challenging circumstances.  Sandwiched between the two largest metropolitan areas in Arizona, this formerly rural county faces difficulty in attracting and keeping HQ teachers who are drawn to the higher salaries of the nearby metropolitan areas.  Working to move teachers to HQ status and retaining them in these counties is a priority focus of Arizona’s strategy to assure all students are taught by highly

Document info
Document views78
Page views78
Page last viewedSun Dec 04 16:55:42 UTC 2016
Pages39
Paragraphs1737
Words12515

Comments