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
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
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