July 27, 2006

The Honorable Billy K. Cannaday
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Virginia Department of Education
P.O. Box 2120
Richmond, Virginia 23218

Dear Superintendent Cannaday:

I am writing in response to Virginia’s request to amend its State accountability plan under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). Following our discussions with your staff, the changes that are aligned with NCLB are now included in an amended State accountability plan that Virginia submitted to the Department on July 25, 2006. A summary of the approved amendments is attached to this letter. I am pleased to fully approve Virginia’s amended plan, which we will post on the Department’s website.

As you know, if Virginia makes changes to the accountability plan that has been approved, Virginia must submit information about those changes to the Department for review and approval, as required by section 1111(f)(2) of Title I. Please note that approval of Virginia’s accountability plan is not also an approval of Virginia’s standards and assessment system.

Please also be aware that approval of Virginia’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 am confident that Virginia will continue to advance its efforts to hold schools and school districts accountable for the achievement of all students. If you need any additional assistance to implement the standards, assessments and accountability provisions of NCLB, please do not hesitate to contact Abigail Potts (abigail.potts@ed.gov) or David Harmon (david.harmon@ed.gov) of my staff.

Sincerely,

Henry L. Johnson

Enclosure

cc: Governor Tim Kaine

Amendments to the Virginia Accountability Plan

This attachment is a summary of the State’s approved amendments. For complete details, please refer to the Virginia accountability plan on the Department’s website: www.ed.govhttps://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplans03/index.html.

Uniform Averaging (Element 3.2)

Revision: Virginia will calculate adequate yearly progress (AYP) based on data from all assessments administered in grades 3-8 in reading and mathematics in 2005-06. Virginia will compare this calculation to an average of assessment data from the current school year and the immediately preceding school year using only the results from the grade-span assessments administered in both 2004-05 and 2005-06. Virginia will report data resulting from all grades 3-8 assessments on the State, district, and school report cards.

Scores on Re-test for High School End-of-Course Assessments (Element 3.2)

Revision: Virginia will include a student’s proficient score on the re-test of the high school end-of-course assessments in the calculation of AYP up to Grade 12. The end-of-course assessments include English: Reading, Algebra I, Geometry, and Algebra II in high school.

Including students with disabilities in AYP (Element 5.3)

Revision: Virginia will use the “proxy method” (Option 1 in the Department’s guidance dated May 7, 2005) to take advantage of the interim flexibility regarding determining AYP for the students with disabilities subgroup. Virginia will calculate a proxy to determine the percentage of students with disabilities that is equivalent to 2.0 percent of all students assessed. For the 2005-06 AYP determinations, this proxy will then be added to the percent of students with disabilities who are proficient. For any school or district that does not make AYP solely due to its students with disabilities subgroup, Virginia will use this adjusted percent proficient to reexamine if the school or district made AYP for the 2005-06 school year.

Decision Letters on State Accountability Plans

July 15, 2008

The Honorable Rick Melmer
Secretary of Education
South Dakota Department of Education
700 Governors Drive
Pierre, South Dakota 57501-2291

Dear Secretary Melmer:

I am writing in response to South Dakota’s request to amend its state accountability plan under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). Following discussions between the Department and your staff, you made certain changes to South Dakota’s accountability plan, which are now included in the amended state accountability plan that South Dakota submitted to the Department on May 27, 2008. I am pleased to approve South Dakota’s amended plan, which we will post on the Department’s website. A summary of South Dakota’s requested amendments is enclosed with this letter. As you know, any further requests to amend South Dakota’s accountability plan must be submitted to the Department for review and approval as required by section 1111(f)(2) of Title I of the ESEA.

Please also be aware that approval of South Dakota’s accountability plan for Title I, including the amendments approved herein, 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 am confident that South Dakota will continue to advance its efforts to hold schools and school districts accountable for the achievement of all students. If you need any additional assistance to implement the standards, assessment, and accountability provisions of NCLB, please do not hesitate to contact Martha Snyder (Martha.Snyder@ed.gov) or David Harmon (David.Harmon@ed.gov) of my staff.

Sincerely,

Kerri L. Briggs, Ph.D.

Enclosure

cc: Governor Mike Rounds
Diane Lowery

Amendments to South Dakota’s Accountability Plan

The following is a summary of South Dakota’s amendment requests. Please refer to the Department’s website (www.ed.govhttps://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplans03/index.html) for South Dakota’s complete accountability plan.

Acceptable amendments

The following amendments are aligned with the statute and regulations.

Reporting on teacher qualifications (Element 1.5)

Revision: Through this technical amendment, South Dakota clarifies that it will include the professional qualifications of teachers in the State and in the districts on the annual State Report Card. Additionally, the report card will also include state-level and district-level information on the percentage of teachers teaching with emergency or provisional credentials, and the percentage of classes in the state and districts not taught by highly qualified teachers, in the aggregate and disaggregated by high-poverty compared to low-poverty schools, which (for this purpose) means schools in the top quartile of poverty and the bottom quartile of poverty in the state and districts. This information will also be included on the annual local educational agency report cards of local educational agencies within the state that receive Title I funds.

Rewards and sanctions (Element 1.6)

Revision: Through this amendment, South Dakota raises the targets that schools and districts must attain in order to be considered distinguished schools and districts. This amendment provides that only student groups meeting the minimum subgroup size of 10 students will be considered in determining whether a school has significantly closed the achievement gap between disaggregated groups of students and should be recognized as a distinguished school.

Including all students (Element 2.1)

Revision: South Dakota clarifies its workbook to specify which district is responsible for students placed out of district for instruction. In particular, this amendment clarifies that, when a student has been assigned out of district and is enrolled in a South Dakota school operated to serve the special needs of a student (e.g., special education or alternative programs), the student will be counted in his or her district of residence for accountability purposes.

Full academic year (Element 2.2)

Revision: For accountability purposes, a student in South Dakota is enrolled for a full academic year (FAY) if the student is continuously enrolled from October 1 through the last day of the testing window. This amendment modifies the FAY definition for students with disabilities to reflect the December 1 child count date for students with disabilities. The FAY definition for students with disabilities is amended such that a student in the students with disabilities subgroup is enrolled for a full academic year if the student is enrolled from December 1 through the last day of the testing window.

Making AYP determinations (Element 3.2)

Revision: South Dakota amends its workbook to reflect new programming for averaging AYP. South Dakota states that, under its uniform averaging procedure, two-year averaging will not be run unless a student group is equal to or greater than 10 across two consecutive years. In cases where there are 10 or more students in the current year, but not the previous year, only the current year’s data will be used to determine AYP.

Including students with disabilities in AYP determinations (Element 5.3)

Revision: In accordance with 34 C.F.R. § 200.20(f)(2)(i)(B), South Dakota will include former students with disabilities as part of the students with disabilities subgroup for two years when determining AYP. A student whose Individualized Education Plan (IEP) has been terminated by the December 1 child count date will be considered a former student with disabilities. A former student with disabilities will be included AYP determinations for the students with disabilities subgroup for a maximum of two test administrations.

Graduation rate (Element 7.1)

Revision: Beginning with the 2008-09 school year, South Dakota will implement a graduation rate that is consistent with the compact created by the National Governors Association. South Dakota amends its workbook to state, “South Dakota intends to implement graduation rate calculations according to the formula promoted by the National Governors Association (NGA) effective the 2008-2009 school year.”

Decision Letters on State Accountability Plans

April 13, 2007

Honorable Rick Melmer
Secretary of Education
South Dakota Department of Education
700 Governors Drive
Pierre, South Dakota 57501-2291

Dear Secretary Melmer:

I am writing in response to South Dakota’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, the changes that are aligned with NCLB are now included in an amended State accountability plan that South Dakota submitted to the Department on February 15, 2007. A summary of the approved amendments is attached to this letter. I am pleased to fully approve South Dakota’s amended plan, which we will post on the Department’s website.

If, over time, South Dakota makes changes to the accountability plan that has been approved, South Dakota must submit information about those changes to the Department for review and approval, as required by section 1111(f)(2) of Title I. Please know that approval of South Dakota’s accountability plan is not an approval of South Dakota’s standards and assessment system.

Please also be aware that approval of South Dakota’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 am confident that South Dakota will continue to hold schools and school districts accountable for the achievement of all students. I wish you well in your school improvement efforts. If you need any additional assistance in implementing the standards, assessments and accountability provisions of NCLB, please do not hesitate to contact Abigail Potts (abigail.potts@ed.gov) or Valeria Ford (valeria.ford@ed.gov) of my staff.

Sincerely,

Kerri Briggs
Acting Assistant Secretary

cc: Governor Mike Rounds

Amendments to the South Dakota’s Accountability Plan

This is a summary of the amendments. For complete details, please refer to the South Dakota’s accountability plan on the Department’s website: www.ed.govhttps://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplans03/index.html

Rewards and Sanctions (Element 1.6)

Revision: South Dakota’s amendment clarifies the requirements for a school improvement plan and the State’s monitoring each school and district’s implementation of the improvement plan.

Inclusion of LEP students (Element 5.4)

Revision: South Dakota’s amendment is a non-substantive change that updates the language for defining a newly arrived LEP student. South Dakota clarified that newly arrived LEP students are in their first 12 months of enrollment in a U.S. school.

Decision Letters on State Accountability Plans

June 29, 2006

The Honorable Rick Melmer
Secretary of Education
South Dakota Department of Education
700 Governors Drive
Pierre, South Dakota 57501-2291

Dear Secretary Melmer:

Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed amendments to your State accountability plan. The information in this letter presents feedback from Department staff on each of South Dakota’s amendment requests and reflects the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) and final U.S. Department of Education (ED) regulations.

Acceptable amendments

We have reviewed your request to amend the South Dakota accountability plan that was fully approved on August 27, 2004, and found the following amendments acceptable:

• Academic achievement standards – South Dakota added the word “achievement descriptors” to indicate that the Board of Education has approved both standards and descriptors.
• Annual report cards – South Dakota clarified the information presented on its NCLB Report Cards by including attendance rates and graduation rates calculated for district grade spans.
• Rewards and sanctions – South Dakota clarified that a “Distinguished School” and “Distinguished District” must meet the annual targets for the other academic indicator in addition to meeting proficiency and participation targets in reading and math. South Dakota also revised language regarding districts in corrective action that must implement recommendations “as determined by the” South Dakota Secretary of Education.
• Definition of adequate yearly progress (AYP) – South Dakota revised this section to reflect a change in the name of South Dakota’s alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards.
• District accountability – South Dakota clarified that school districts are held accountable for the other academic indicator of attendance rate at the elementary and middle school levels and graduation rate at the high school level. South Dakota clarified that school districts will be held accountable for attendance rates across the K-5 and 6-8-grade spans.
• Inclusion of students with disabilities – South Dakota will use the “proxy method” (Option 1 in our guidance dated December 14, 2005) to take advantage of the Secretary’s flexibility regarding calculating AYP for certain students with disabilities. South Dakota will calculate a proxy to determine the percentage of students with disabilities that is equivalent to 2.0 percent of all students assessed. For this year only, this proxy will then be added to the percent of students with disabilities who are proficient. For any school or district that did not make AYP solely due to its students with disabilities subgroup, South Dakota will use this adjusted percent proficient to reexamine if the school or district made AYP for the 2005-06 school year.
• Inclusion of students with disabilities – South Dakota proposes to eliminate the references to their previously approved state-level exception to the 1 percent cap on proficient scores from the alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards.
• Inclusion of English language learners – South Dakota revised the language to reflect the current name of its English Language Proficiency test and to further clarify inclusion policies based on suggestions from local education stakeholders.
• Graduation rate – South Dakota has accumulated the 4 years of data necessary to implement a cohort graduation rate for schools and districts across the 9-12 grade span. South Dakota will count students who did not graduate with a regular diploma in the denominator.
• Validity of AYP determinations – South Dakota clarified its timeline for the appeals process by redefining business and calendar days.

Amendment under consideration

Additional information is required to determine whether the following amendment is acceptable. Please provide the information requested below regarding new starting points, annual measurable objectives, and intermediate goals based on South Dakota’s new math assessments.

• Starting points and Annual Measurable Objectives for AYP – Due to a change in the academic content and achievement standards, as well as the assessments for math, the starting points, intermediate goals and annual measurable objectives for math will be revised during the summer of 2006. Cut scores for the revised math assessment will be set in May 2006. The same procedure for setting the starting point and annual measurable objectives that was used for reading/language arts will be used for math in June 2006. South Dakota may reset its starting points, annual measurable objectives and intermediate goals on the basis of data from its new math assessments and use those starting points to make decisions about AYP for the 2005-06 school year. Please provide South Dakota’s starting points, annual measurable objectives, and intermediate goals, based on the new math assessments, on or before September 1, 2006.

Thank you for the opportunity to review the proposed amendments to your State accountability plan. Please make the acceptable changes to your accountability workbook, incorporate the information requested above, and note on the cover page the date submitted and the elements amended. Upon satisfactory review of the workbook, the amended plan will be approved and posted to the Department’s website. My staff and I are willing to discuss this feedback with you in greater detail. Abigail Potts (abigail.potts@ed.gov) or Valeria Ford (valeria.ford@ed.gov) can answer any questions you might have about the issues in this letter and how we can help you through this process. We hope this information will be useful to the South Dakota Department of Education as it refines its accountability system to ensure that no child is left behind.

Sincerely,

Henry L. Johnson

cc: Governor Mike Rounds

Return to state-by-state listing

August 5, 2005

Honorable Rick Melmer
Secretary of Education
South Dakota Department of Education
700 Governors Drive
Pierre, South Dakota 57501-2291

Dear Secretary Melmer:

I am writing in response to South Dakota’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). The changes you requested are aligned with NCLB and are now included in an amended State accountability plan that South Dakota submitted to the Department on August 2, 2005. The changes are
listed in an attachment to this letter. I am pleased to fully approve South Dakota’s amended plan, which we will post on the Department’s website.

If, over time, South Dakota makes changes to the accountability plan that has been approved, South Dakota 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 South Dakota’s accountability plan is not also an approval of South Dakota’s standards and assessment system. South Dakota has submitted changes in its standards and assessment system to the Department for peer review and we will communicate the results of that review separately.

Please also be aware that approval of South Dakota’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 am confident that South Dakota 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 South Dakota in its efforts to implement other aspects of NCLB, please do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely,

Henry L. Johnson

cc: Governor M. Michael Rounds

Attachment

Amendments to the South Dakota Accountability Plan

This attachment is a summary of the amendments. For complete details, please refer to the South Dakota Accountability plan on the Department’s website: www.ed.govhttps://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplans03/index.html

Accountability system holds all schools to the same criteria (Elements 1.2 and 2.1)

Revision: The language clarifies that students in institutions for the blind and deaf will be counted for accountability purposes in the resident school. Students placed in South Dakota private/non-profit facilities will be included for accountability purposes in the resident district (rather than tracked back to the resident school as was the case in the previous plan). New language was inserted stating that students placed by other State agencies will be included for accountability purposes at the district level.

Rewards and Sanctions for public schools and LEAs (Element 1.6)

Revision: The language clarifies that at least 10 students in the grades tested in schools are needed in order for a school to be eligible for the Distinguished Schools award. At least 10 students per grade span in the district are needed for a district to be eligible.

Definition of Adequate Yearly Progress (Element 3.2)

Revision: A 75% confidence interval will be applied to the calculations for ‘safe harbor.’

Starting points and Annual Measurable Objectives (AMOs) for Adequate Yearly Progress (Elements 3.2a, b, c and 9.3)

Revision: Due to a change in the academic content and achievement standards, as well as the assessment for reading, the starting point and AMOs for reading were revised during the summer of 2005. South Dakota used the same methodology as they did in 2003, with 100% of the students reaching proficiency by 2013-14 in equal intervals, with each increase occurring no more than three years apart. Content standards and achievement descriptors for mathematics have been revised and will be implemented during the 2005-06 school year. Cut scores for the revised math assessment will be set in May 2006. The same procedure for setting the starting point and AMOs for math will be used in June 2006.

Including students with disabilities in adequate yearly progress (Element 5.3)

Revision: A standards setting process was conducted in May 2005 based upon results of the alternate assessment for students with severe cognitive disabilities administered during the 2004-05 school year. The narrative for this element has been revised to reflect the establishment of alternate academic achievement standards and the intended use of the alternate assessment scores in determining adequate yearly progress for the 2004-05 school year.

Revision: South Dakota will use the “proxy method” (Option 1 in our guidance dated May 7, 2005) to take advantage of the Secretary’s flexibility regarding calculating AYP for students with disabilities. South Dakota will calculate a proxy to determine the percentage of students with disabilities that is equivalent to 2.0 percent of all students assessed. For this year only, this proxy will then be added to the percent of students with disabilities who are proficient. For any school or district that did not make AYP solely due to its students with disabilities subgroup, South Dakota will use this adjusted percent proficient to reexamine if the school or district made AYP for the 2004-05 school year.

Inclusion of limited English proficient (LEP) students in AYP determinations (Element 5.4)

Revision: South Dakota has clarified language pertaining to the English Language Proficiency Test and participation of LEP students in assessments consistent with the Secretary’s flexibility offered in February 2004.

Revision: LEP students who attain a proficient achievement level for two consecutive years on the overall composite score of the English language proficiency assessment will no longer be considered an active LEP student.

High school graduation rate (Element 7.1)

Revision: The graduation rate target has been changed from 90% to 80%. The new target is based on four years of data for the “all student” group and is set one standard deviation below the State average.

Appeals of adequate yearly progress status (Element 9.2)

Revision: The new language clarifies that districts must submit a letter regarding appeals no later than 10 working days after notification of AYP determination (as opposed to 10 calendar days).

Application of 95% participation requirement (Element 10.2)

Revision: South Dakota modified language regarding the 95% participation requirement in order to provide greater clarity to the field. If a school, district grade span, or student group has 40 or fewer students enrolled in the tested grades, then it shall have no more than two students not participate in the State assessment.

Decision Letters on State Accountability Plans

August 27, 2004

Honorable Rick Melmer
Secretary of Education
South Dakota Department of Education
700 Governors Drive
Pierre, South Dakota 57501-2291

Dear Secretary Melmer:

I am writing in response to South Dakota’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 South Dakota submitted to the Department on August 3, 2004. A list of the changes is enclosed with this letter. I am pleased to fully approve South Dakota’s amended plan, which we will post on the Department’s website.

Additionally, based on information you have provided us regarding uniform averaging and the actions taken by the South Dakota State Board of Education to finalize certain elements in the accountability plan required under NCLB, South Dakota has met the conditions of approval that were detailed in the July 1, 2003, letter from Eugene Hickok.

If, over time, South Dakota makes changes to the accountability plan that has been approved, South Dakota 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 South Dakota’s accountability plan is not also an approval of South Dakota’s standards and assessment system. As South Dakota makes changes in its standards and assessments to meet requirements under NCLB, South Dakota 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 South Dakota’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 South Dakota’s students and schools and that will lead to improving the academic achievement of all students. 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.

I wish you well in your school improvement efforts. If I can be of any additional assistance to South Dakota in its efforts to implement other aspects of NCLB, please do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely,

Raymond Simon

cc: Governor M. Michael Rounds

Enclosure

Amendment to the South Dakota Accountability Plan

This statement is a summary of the amendment. For complete details, please refer to the South Dakota Accountability plan on the Department’s website: http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplans03/index.html

Identification of districts for improvement (Elements 1.4, 3.1, 3.2, 3.2a, 3.2b, 4.1, 5.4, 6.1, and 8.1 )

Revision: South Dakota will identify districts for improvement only when they do not make AYP in the same subject and all grade spans (i.e., elementary, middle, and high schools) for two consecutive years. In implementing this provision, States should 1) monitor districts that have not made AYP in one grade span but have not been identified for improvement to ensure they are making the necessary curricular and instructional changes to improve achievement, and 2) take steps to ensure supplemental services are available to eligible students from a variety of providers throughout the State (including in LEAs that have not been identified for improvement but that have schools that have been in improvement for more than one year).

District Rewards (Element 1.6)

Revision: South Dakota will reward districts that make AYP in both reading and math for two consecutive years in all grade spans.

Decision Letters on State Accountability Plans

Amendments to New Hampshire’s Accountability Plan

April 25, 2008

Dr. Lyonel Tracy
Commissioner of Education
New Hampshire Department of Education
101 Pleasant Street
Concord, New Hampshire 03301

Dear Commissioner Tracy:

I am writing in response to New Hampshire’s request to amend its state accountability plan under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). Following our discussions with your staff, the changes are now included in an amended state accountability plan that New Hampshire submitted to the Department on April 22, 2008. I am pleased to fully approve New Hampshire’s amended plan, which we will post on the Department’s website. A summary of the amendments submitted for the 2007-08 school year is enclosed with this letter. As you know, any further requests to amend the New Hampshire accountability plan must be submitted to the Department for review and approval as required by section 1111(f)(2) of Title I of the ESEA.

Please also be aware that approval of New Hampshire’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 am confident that New Hampshire will continue to hold schools and school districts accountable for the achievement of all students. I wish you well in your school improvement efforts. If you need any additional assistance in implementing the standards, assessment and accountability provisions of NCLB, please do not hesitate to contact Martha Snyder (martha.snyder@ed.gov), Leighann Lenti (leighann.lenti@ed.gov), or Sue Rigney (sue.rigney@ed.go).

Sincerely,

Kerri L. Briggs, Ph.D.

Enclosure

cc: Governor John Lynch
Deb Wiswell

Amendments to the New Hampshire Accountability Plan

The following is a summary of the state’s amendment requests. Please refer to the Department’s website (www.ed.govhttps://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplans03/index.html) for the complete New Hampshire accountability plan.

Acceptable amendments

The following amendments are aligned with statute and regulations.

Index system (Element 3.2)

Revision: New Hampshire will continue to use the index system approved in 2005-06 and 2006-07 for adequate yearly progress (AYP) determinations. New Hampshire will allocate 100 index points for performance at the Proficient with Distinction and Proficient levels, 80 points for the upper portion of Partially Proficient, 60 points for the lower portion of Partially Proficient, 40 points for the upper portion of Substantially Below Proficient, 20 points for the lower portion of Substantially Below Proficient and 0 points for No Score.

Annual measurable objectives (Element 3.2)

Revision: With the transition to a new high school assessment, New Hampshire has revised its starting points, annual measurable objectives, and intermediate goals based upon these new assessments and its performance index.

Safe Harbor (Element 3.2)

Revision: With the transition to a new high school assessment, New Hampshire will use a transitional measure to determine safe harbor by comparing the NHEIAP assessment results from May 2006 to NECAP results from October 2007 using an equi-percentile comparison.

Unacceptable amendment

The following amendment is not aligned with the statute and regulations and is therefore not approved.

Including Students with Disabilities (Element 5.3)

New Hampshire requested to use the “proxy method” to take advantage of the transition flexibility authorized by the Department’s April 2007 regulations regarding the development of alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement standards for certain students with disabilities. To be eligible for this flexibility, a state must meet the criteria established in the Department’s April 2007 guidance, including having an approved assessment system (see: http://www.ed.govhttps://www2.ed.gov/policy/speced/guid/nclb/twopercent.doc). Because New Hampshire’s assessment system is currently Approval Pending and will not be approved for 2007-08, the state is not eligible to use the transition flexibility for 2007-08 adequate yearly progress determinations.

Decision Letters on State Accountability Plans

June 23, 2005

The Honorable Joseph B. Morton
Interim State Superintendent of Education
Gordon Persons Building
P. O. Box 302101
Montgomery, AL 36130-2101

Dear Superintendent Morton:

I am writing in response to Alabama’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 Alabama submitted to the Department on April 13, 2005. A list of the changes is attached to this letter.

I would also like to inform you that I have determined that Alabama has met all of its conditions for approval of its accountability plan that were detailed in Eugene Hickok’s letter of July 1, 2003. The determination is based on the clarifications you provided in your correspondence of April 6, 2005, and in the final amended Alabama Accountability Workbook, which deletes references to a state accountability system. I am pleased to fully approve Alabama’s amended plan, which we will post on the Department’s website.

If, over time, Alabama makes changes to the accountability plan that has been approved (including adding a new state accountability system), Alabama 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 Alabama’s accountability plan is not also an approval of Alabama’s standards and assessment system. As Alabama makes changes in its standards and assessments to meet requirements under NCLB, Alabama 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 Alabama’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 am confident that Alabama 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 Alabama in its efforts to implement other aspects of NCLB, please do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely,

Raymond Simon

cc: Governor Bob Riley

Amendments to the Alabama Accountability Plan

This statement is a summary of the amendment. For complete details, please refer to the Alabama Accountability plan on the Department’s website: www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplans03/index.html

Providing information in a timely manner (Element 1.4): Report cards will be produced in the five most prevalent languages in the state through a contract with Transact. The SDE will inform the LEAs of the five languages in which the report cards are available. The LEAs will inform parents of the availability through websites, parent meetings, and school bulletins.

Rewards and Sanctions (Element 1.6): Alabama added the State Board of Education resolution pertaining to rewards and sanctions.

New data management system (Element 2.2, 2.3, 5.1, 10.1): Alabama has added a new data management system.

Full academic year definition (Element 2.2): The new definition of full academic year is enrollment from October 1 of any school year to the first day of the testing window.

Method of AYP determinations (Element 3.1, 3.2c): The timeline for intermediate goals has been updated to include new assessments that will be added in spring 2005 and grade spans for determining AYP for local educational agencies have been revised.

Use of proficiency index (Element 3.1, 3.2a): Grades 3-8 and 11 within a school will be combined for adequate yearly progress determinations using a proficiency index. For an LEA, a proficiency index will be determined separately for elementary (Grades 3-5), middle (Grades 6-8), and high school (Grade 11).

Administration of mathematics assessment (Element 1.3, 3.1, 3.2a, 3.2c, 9.3): The date for administration of the Grade 8 mathematics assessment has been changed from spring 2004 to spring 2005.

District identification for improvement (Element 3.2): Districts will be identified for improvement only when they do not make AYP in the same subject or the additional indicator in all three grade spans (i.e., elementary, middle, and high schools) for two consecutive years. In implementing this provision, States should 1) monitor districts that have not made AYP in one grade span but have not been identified for improvement to ensure they are making the necessary curricular and instructional changes to improve achievement, and 2) take steps to ensure supplemental services are available to eligible students from a variety of providers throughout the state (including in districts that have not been identified for improvement but that have schools that have been in improvement for more than one year).

English language proficiency assessment (Element 5.4): Alabama will revise the test that is identified for measuring students’ attainment of English language proficiency. Beginning in 2004-05, LEAs will use the English language proficiency test ACESS for ELLs, which is currently under development by the Wisconsin, Illinois, Delaware, Arkansas Consortium project of which Alabama is a participant.

Participation rate (Element 10.1): Add uniform averaging over a three-year period for participation rates.

State accountability system (Elements 1.1, 1.2, 1.3, 6.1, and 8.1): This plan no longer has references to a State accountability system that is not yet in place.

Decision Letters on State Accountability Plans

Amendments to Wyoming’s Accountability Plan