Michigan Decision Letter for State Accountability Plans under the Consolidated State Application Process
January 6, 2005
The Honorable Thomas D. Watkins
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Michigan Department of Education
608 W. Allegan Street, 4th Floor
Lansing, MI 48933
Dear Superintendent Watkins:
I am writing in response to Michigan’s request to amend its State accountability plan under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). Following our discussions with your staff, those changes that are aligned with NCLB are now included in an amended State accountability plan that Michigan submitted to the Department on January 4, 2005. A list of the changes is enclosed with this letter. I am pleased to fully approve Michigan’s amended plan, which we will post on the Department’s website.
Additionally, based on information you have provided us regarding uniform averaging, Michigan has met the conditions of approval that were detailed in the July 1, 2003, letter from Eugene Hickok.
If, over time, Michigan makes changes to the accountability plan that has been approved, Michigan must submit information about those changes to the Department for review and approval, as required by section 1111(f)(2) of Title I. Approval of Michigan’s accountability plan is not also an approval of Michigan’s standards and assessment system. As Michigan makes changes in its standards and assessments to meet requirements under NCLB, Michigan must submit information about those changes to the Department for peer review through the standards and assessment process.
Please also be aware that approval of Michigan’s accountability plan for Title I, including the amendments approved above, does not indicate that the plan complies with Federal civil rights requirements, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.
I hope that you have found the accountability plan amendment process effective for implementing a State accountability system that best serves the needs of Michigan’s students and schools and that will lead to improving the academic achievement of all students. As evidenced by the diversity among State accountability plans and State consolidated applications, States have great flexibility in the design of their systems and implementation of particular NCLB provisions. If, as you implement your accountability plan, you find additional elements of your plan that you believe should be refined or amended for next school year to best serve the needs of your students and schools, I encourage you to explore all the areas of flexibility available to your State.
In addition to the flexibility available to States in the design and implementation of their accountability plans, I also encourage you and your districts to utilize the additional flexibility available for the administration and operation of NCLB programs. NCLB continued the flexibility available to States and districts under the 1994 reauthorization of the ESEA, including the ability to consolidate State and local administrative funds (sections 9201 and 9203), to operate schoolwide programs (section 1114), and to participate in the Education Flexibility Partnership Program ("Ed-Flex"). Additionally, NCLB created several new flexibility options for States and districts for the operation of federal programs. These new flexibility provisions include the State Flexibility Authority (sections 6141 through 6144), the Local Flexibility Demonstration program (sections 6151 through 6156), Transferability (sections 6121 through 6123), and the Rural Education Achievement program (sections 6201 through 6234). These flexibilities truly offer States and districts the ability to target federal resources to their unique and individual needs.
I am confident that Michigan will continue to advance its efforts to hold schools and school districts accountable for the achievement of all students. I wish you well in your school improvement efforts. If I can be of any additional assistance to Michigan in its efforts to implement other aspects of NCLB, please do not hesitate to call.
Sincerely,
Raymond Simon
Enclosure
cc: Governor Jennifer M. Granholm
Enclosure
ATTACHMENT: Amendments to the Michigan’s Accountability Plan
These statements are summaries of the amendments. For complete details, please refer to the Michigan Accountability plan on the Department’s website: www.ed.govhttps://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplans03/index.html.
Accountability for very small schools (Element 1.1)
Revision: Michigan uses a confidence interval around the annual measurable objectives used to calculate adequate yearly progress (AYP) for very small schools (about 3% of all schools).
Use of alternate achievement standards (Element 5.3)
Revision: Michigan applies the flexibility afforded by the December 9, 2003, regulation governing use of alternate achievement standards.
Implement flexibility provisions regarding students with limited English proficiency (Element 5.4)
Revision: Michigan applies the flexibility permitted regarding the assessment of newly arrived LEP students, and the inclusion of "formerly LEP" students as LEP when making AYP decisions for up to two years after they exit LEP status.
Use of interim graduation rate (Element 7.1)
Revision: Michigan uses an estimated completion rate based on drop out data for a four-year period as its graduation rate for AYP purposes until it is able to adopt a four-year cohort graduation rate in 2006.
State appeals process (Element 9.2)
Revision: Michigan includes information in its workbook regarding the state stipulations on determining AYP appeals.
Anticipated changes in assessments (Element 9.3)
Revision: Michigan adjusts the timeline for implementation of 3-8 testing from 2004-05 to take effect in 2005-06.
Participation rate (Element 10.1)
Revision: Michigan applies the flexibility permitted to average participation rate over two or three years.
