Tag Archives: Accountability

The Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA)


ESSA Highlights

President Obama signs the Every Student Succeeds Act into law on December 10, 2015.

ESSA includes provisions that will help to ensure success for students and schools. Below are just a few. The law:

  • Advances equity by upholding critical protections for America’s disadvantaged and high-need students.
  • Requires—for the first time—that all students in America be taught to high academic standards that will prepare them to succeed in college and careers.
  • Ensures that vital information is provided to educators, families, students, and communities through annual statewide assessments that measure students’ progress toward those high standards.
  • Helps to support and grow local innovations—including evidence-based and place-based interventions developed by local leaders and educators—consistent with our Investing in Innovation and Promise Neighborhoods
  • Sustains and expands this administration’s historic investments in increasing access to high-quality preschool.
  • Maintains an expectation that there will be accountability and action to effect positive change in our lowest-performing schools, where groups of students are not making progress, and where graduation rates are low over extended periods of time.

History of ESEA

  • The Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) was signed into law in 1965 by President Lyndon Baines Johnson, who believed that “full educational opportunity” should be “our first national goal.” From its inception, ESEA was a civil rights law.

    ESEA offered new grants to districts serving low-income students, federal grants for textbooks and library books, funding for special education centers, and scholarships for low-income college students. Additionally, the law provided federal grants to state educational agencies to improve the quality of elementary and secondary education.


NCLB and Accountability

NCLB put in place measures that exposed achievement gaps among traditionally underserved students and their peers and spurred an important national dialogue on education improvement. This focus on accountability has been critical in ensuring a quality education for all children, yet also revealed challenges in the effective implementation of this goal.

Parents, educators, and elected officials across the country recognized that a strong, updated law was necessary to expand opportunity to all students; support schools, teachers, and principals; and to strengthen our education system and economy.

In 2012, the Obama administration began granting flexibility to states regarding specific requirements of NCLB in exchange for rigorous and comprehensive state- developed plans designed to close achievement gaps, increase equity, improve the quality of instruction, and increase outcomes for all students.


What’s Next?

Over the next few weeks, the U.S. Department of Education will work with states and districts to begin implementing the new law. Visit this page for updates and sign up for news about ESSA.


Have questions?

ESSA State Plan Notice of Intent to Submission

In the November 29, 2016 Dear Colleague Letter on ESSA State Plans, the Department established two deadlines for the submission of ESSA State Plans:

  • April 3, 2017
  • September 18, 2017

Consistent with the requirements of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA), the Department will conduct a peer review process of submitted State plans after each of the two submission dates. The Department will not review plans on a rolling basis and will consider each plan to be submitted only on one of the two dates above. In order to plan for the peer review of State plans, the Department requested that each State provide the date by which it intends to submit a consolidated State plan or individual State plans. The information below is provided for informational purposes. At any time, a State may decide to submit its State plan on the other submission date.

    State Submission Date
    Alabama September 18, 2017
    Alaska September 18, 2017
    Arizona April 3, 2017
    Arkansa September 18, 2017
    BIE September 18, 2017
    California September 18, 2017
    Colorado April 3, 2017
    Connecticut April 3, 2017
    Delaware April 3, 2017
    District of Columbia April 3, 2017
    Florida September 18, 2017
    Georgia September 18, 2017
    Hawaii September 18, 2017
    Idaho September 18, 2017
    Illinois April 3, 2017
    Indiana September 18, 2017
    Kansas September 18, 2017
    Kentucky September 18, 2017
    Louisiana April 3, 2017
    Maine April 3, 2017
    Maryland September 18, 2017
    Massaschusetts April 3, 2017
    Michigan April 3, 2017
    Minnesota September 18, 2017
    Mississippi September 18, 2017
    Missouri April 3, 2017
    Montana April 3, 2017
    Nebraska September 18, 2017
    Nevada April 3, 2017
    New Hampshire September 17, 2017
    New Jersey April 3, 2017
    New Mexico April 3, 2017
    New York September 18, 2017
    North Carolina September 17, 2017
    North Dakota April 3, 2017
    Ohio April 3, 2017
    Oklahoma September 18, 2017
    Oregon April 3, 2017
    Pennsylvania September 18, 2017
    Puerto Rico September 18, 2017
    Rhode Island September 18, 2017
    South Carolina September 18, 2017
    South Dakota September 18, 2017
    Tennessee April 3, 2017
    Texas September 18, 2017
    Utah September 18, 2017
    Vermont April 3, 2017
    Virginia September 18, 2017
    Washington September 18, 2017
    West Virginia September 18, 2017
    Wisconsin September 18, 2017
    Wyoming September 18, 2017

Back to ESSA

Student-Centered Funding Pilot Submissions

This list includes all local educational agencies (LEAs) that applied for the Student-centered Funding Pilot as of the March 12, 2018, deadline and does not indicate their eligibility for an agreement.

District Jurisdiction
Wilsona School District California
Indianapolis Public Schools Indiana
Salem-Keizer School District 24J Oregon
Upper Adams School District Pennsylvania
Puerto Rico Department of Education
Local Flexibility Demonstration Agreement
Approval Letter (6/28/2018)

Updated Implementation Timing (1/3/2019)

Update to Authority (4/16/2019)

Puerto Rico

Summer 2018 Submission
This list includes the LEA that applied for the Student-Centered Funding Pilot as of the July 15, 2018, deadline and does not indicate its eligibility for an agreement.

District Jurisdiction
Roosevelt School District Arizona

Back to ESSA

Student-Centered Funding Pilot

Well-Rounded Education through Student-Centered Funding Demonstration Grants

The Well-Rounded Education through Student-Centered Funding Demonstration Grants program provides competitive grants to local educational agencies (LEAs) to demonstrate model programs for providing well-rounded education opportunities through the development and implementation of student-centered funding (SCF) systems based on weighted per-pupil allocations under Section 1501 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). Grants awarded under this program are intended to help build the capacity of LEAs to provide well-rounded education in order to establish models for expanding and enhancing delivery of such opportunities for educationally disadvantaged students.

For more information, please visit the following page: https://oese.ed.gov/offices/office-of-formula-grants/school-support-and-accountability/well-rounded-education-student-centered-funding-demonstration-grants/.

Student-Centered Funding Pilot

ESEA section 1501 authorizes the U.S. Secretary of Education to enter into local flexibility demonstration agreements with local educational agencies (LEAs) under which such agencies may consolidate eligible Federal education funds with State and local funds in accordance with certain requirements in order to develop a student-centered funding system based on weighted per-pupil allocations for low-income and otherwise disadvantaged students. Under a local flexibility demonstration agreement, an LEA may use the Federal funds allocated through its system flexibly, provided it meets the purposes of each Federal education program supported by the consolidated Federal funds, including serving students from low-income families, English learners, migratory children, and children who are neglected, delinquent, or at risk, as applicable.

For an LEA that enters into a local flexibility demonstration agreement, the Secretary is authorized to waive those provisions of the ESEA that would otherwise prevent the LEA from using eligible Federal funds as part of such an agreement. Relieving an LEA from certain ESEA requirements in this manner would enable the LEA to use the Federal funds allocated through its student-centered funding system flexibly, provided it meets the purposes of each Federal education program supported by the consolidated Federal funds, including serving students from low-income families, English learners, migratory children, and children who are neglected, delinquent, or at risk, as applicable.

For an LEA that enters into a local flexibility demonstration agreement, the Secretary is authorized to waive those provisions of the ESEA that would otherwise prevent the LEA from using eligible Federal funds as part of such an agreement. Relieving an LEA from certain ESEA requirements in this manner would enable the LEA to use the Federal funds allocated through its student-centered funding system flexibly, provided it meets the purposes of each Federal education program supported by the consolidated Federal funds, including serving students from low-income families, English learners, migratory children, and children who are neglected, delinquent, or at risk, as applicable.

ESEA Section 1501 Resources

Vermont Decision Letter for State Accountability Plans under the Consolidated State Application Process

July 27, 2006

The Honorable Richard H. Cate
Commissioner
Vermont Department of Education
120 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05620-2501

Dear Commissioner Cate:

I am writing in response to Vermont’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 requested changes that are aligned with NCLB are now included in an amended State accountability plan that Vermont submitted to the Department on July 25th, 2006. The revised and fully approved plan will be posted on the Department’s website. A summary of the approved amendment is enclosed with this letter.

As you know, any additional requests to amend the Vermont accountability plan must be submitted to the Department for review and approval as required by section 1111(f)(2) of Title I. Please note that approval of Vermont’s accountability plan does not constitute approval of the State’s standards and assessment system.

Please also be aware that approval of Vermont’s accountability plan for Title I, including the amendment 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.

NCLB has provided a vehicle for States to raise the achievement of all students and to close the achievement gap. We are seeing the results of our combined endeavor; achievement is rising throughout the nation. I appreciate Vermont’s efforts to raise the achievement of all students and hold all schools accountable. I wish you continued success in your school improvement efforts. If you need any additional assistance in your efforts to implement the standards, assessments, and accountability provisions of NCLB, please do not hesitate to contact Catherine Freeman (catherine.freeman@ed.gov) or Valeria Ford (a href=”mailto:valeria.ford@ed.gov”>valeria.ford@ed.gov) of my staff.

Sincerely,

Henry L. Johnson

Enclosure

Governor Jim Douglas
Gail Taylor


Amendments to the Vermont Accountability Plan

The following is a summary of the State’s approved amendments. Please refer to the Department’s website www.ed.govhttps://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplans03/index.html) for the complete Vermont accountability plan.

Accountability system includes all schools and districts in the state and holds all schools to the same criteria (Elements 1.1 and 1.2)

Revision: In September 2004, revised Rules for Vermont’s School Accountability System Based on Student Achievement took effect, replacing the rules adopted in July 2000. A copy of the rules is attached.

With the implementation of NECAP testing, Vermont no longer uses the Small Schools Review described in the 2003 Workbook. Instead, the State will make adequate yearly progress (AYP) decisions for all schools for the All Student Group, regardless of the “n” size, using the indexes. Vermont will apply a minimum ‘n’ of 40 or more students for subgroup decisions for one year of results (no longer combining two years of results into a rolling average) and continue to use a confidence interval of .01.

Accountability system incorporates the academic achievement standards (Element 1.3)

Revision: For the new NECAP tests, Vermont has adopted four performance levels (with corresponding index values) ? proficient with distinction (500 points), proficient (500 points), partially proficient (375 points), and substantially below proficient (250 and 125 points based on scale scores within that achievement level). Vermont must report percent proficient regardless of whether the index scores are reported.

Accountability system provides information in a timely manner (Element 1.4)

Revision: As indicated above, the new NECAP assessments in grades 3-8 are given in the fall, with results available in late winter/early spring. This will become the case for high schools with the fall 2007 tests.

AYP decisions for 9-12 high schools will be made as soon after receiving and verifying spring 2006 NSRE results as possible – most likely October 2006. These decisions will apply to SY06-07. In spring 2007, when we make AYP decisions to apply to SY07-08, decisions for 9-12 high schools will be based only on the academic indicator (graduation rate) for this one-time transitional decision. In spring 2008, results from NECAP 2007 fall testing at grades 3-8 and grade 11 will determine school status for SY08-09.

Accountability system includes rewards and sanctions (Element 1.6)

Revision: Since the criteria for Academic Achievement Recognition (AAR) must be based on AYP results, schools that meet the criteria for receiving AAR will have that status published on their AYP report and information about these schools will be released as part of the AYP press release.

Accountability system has a consistent definition of full academic year (Elements 2.1, 2.2, and 2.3)

Revision: Vermont has adopted a new definition for “full academic year” because the State is tracking students through its fall and spring data collections. The new definition holds schools accountable for those students who have been continuously enrolled from the first day of school to the last.

Accountability system expects all student subgroups, public schools, and local educational agencies (LEAs) to reach proficiency by 2013-2014 (Element 3.1)

Revision: With the adoption of NECAP tests in grades 3-8, Vermont no longer averages test results over two years; annual determinations are made with one year of results. In addition, adoption of the new tests no longer requires placing equal weight on basic and analytical reporting areas, as each new NECAP (reading, mathematics, and writing) test reports one overall score. Vermont will continue to index the 10th grade NSRE as it has in the past until the new high school NECAP tests are available.

AYP decisions for 9-12 high schools will be made as soon after receiving and verifying spring 2006 NSRE results as possible – most likely October 2006. These decisions will apply to SY06-07. In spring 2007, when Vermont makes AYP decisions to apply to SY07-08, decisions for 9-12 high schools will be based only on the academic indicator (graduation rate) for this one-time transitional decision. In spring 2008, results from NECAP 2007 fall testing at grades 3-8 and grade 11 will determine school status for SY08-09.

Accountability system establishes intermediate goals (Element 3.2)

Revision: Vermont has set new grade span annual measurable objectives (AMOs) using the original 20th percentile model. The State has adopted two grade spans AMOs for the spring 2006 AYP determinations ? grades 3-8 and 7-12. The AMOs for grades 9-12 will continue as before until new NECAP tests are introduced in school year 2007-2008.

Accountability system determines annually the progress of schools and districts (Element 4.1)

Revision: Through Act 64 of 2003 and Act 114 of 2004, the Vermont legislature authorized the Commissioner of Education to determine annually whether schools and LEAs are meeting State standards and making AYP through school year 2006. This authority is extended through school year 2008 pending legislative approval.

Accountability system includes limited English proficient (LEP) students (Element 5.1, 5.2, 5.3, and 5.4)

Revision: To ensure reliable decisions, Vermont will apply AYP determinations only to subgroups with a minimum n-size of 40 or more students in each reporting area in one year and across all grade levels.

LEP students are included in the academic assessments following the flexibility provided by U.S. Department of Education. LEP students who have attended school in the United States for less than one year are not required to participate in Reading/English Language Arts assessments, but must participate in the mathematics and English language proficiency assessments. Vermont clarifies that it does not count fluent English proficient students in the LEP subgroup at this time.

Additional indicators are valid and reliable (Element 7.1, 7.2, and 7.3)

Revision: Vermont’s updated calculation of graduation rate for high schools is a longitudinal cohort count and will allow for the disaggregation of subgroups, if needed, for safe harbor. Because this calculation counts transfers-in for the first time, the State has set the graduation rate at 72%. This change does not impact the number of schools that are below the threshold for not making AYP.

For the spring 2006 AYP decision, Vermont will use the achievement of students in the bottom performance level of the NECAP Reading test for all grades tested in a school as the “additional academic indicator” for AYP purposes. This aligns with the State’s past use of the bottom two-achievement levels of the NSRE Reading Basic Understanding reporting area for schools that did not have grade 2 VT-DRA results. The criterion for identification remains unchanged at 15% or more of students in the lowest achievement level.


Return to state-by-state listing

Vermont Decision Letter for State Accountability Plans under the Consolidated State Application Process

August 16, 2005

Richard H. Cate
Commissioner
Vermont Department of Education
120 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05620-2501

Dear Commissioner Cate:

I am writing in response to your May 31, 2005 letter in which you express interest in the interim flexibility announced by the Secretary in April 2005 regarding calculating adequate yearly progress (AYP) for the students with disabilities subgroup. Your request for this flexibility would not affect accountability determinations until Vermont’s spring 2006 test administration, resulting in an adjustment to the 2006-20 school year AYP determinations.

We are pleased that you are interested in this flexibility; however, we do not yet know what flexibility will be offered next year. The Secretary expressed her willingness to provide States this interim flexibility for the 2004-05 school year while the U.S. Department of Education promulgates a regulation to permit States to develop modified achievement standards and aligned assessments for certain students with disabilities. As we move forward developing this regulation, we will know better what flexibility, if any, would be beneficial for 2005-06. Be assured you will have an opportunity to resubmit your request.

Again, thank you for the opportunity to review Vermont’s request for interim flexibility. We look forward to working with you further as the department establishes a regulation regarding the development of modified achievement standards and aligned assessments for students with disabilities and any further associated flexibility. If I can be of any additional assistance to Vermont in its efforts to implement other aspects of NCLB, please do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely,

Henry L. Johnson

cc: Governor Jim Douglas

Table of Contents Decision Letters on State Accountability Plans

Decision Letter on Request to Amend Rhode Island State Accountability Plan

May 12, 2009

The Honorable Peter McWalters
Commissioner of Education
Rhode Island Department of Education
Shepard Building
255 Westminster Street
Providence, Rhode Island 02903

Dear Commissioner McWalters:

On behalf of Secretary Duncan, I want to thank you for all your hard work over the past 17 years as Commissioner of Education at the Rhode Island Department of Education. Your contributions on behalf of Rhode Island’s children have been immeasurable. As you may know, the Secretary is traveling the country and listening to states, districts, and other stakeholders talk about the ways in which the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) can be improved. These conversations will inform the next reauthorization of the statute. In the meantime, we will push towards our reform goals under the authority of, and in accordance with, the existing statute and regulations.

I am writing in response to Rhode Island’s request to amend its state accountability plan under Title I of the ESEA. Following discussions between the Department and your staff, Rhode Island made a change to its accountability plan, which is now included in the amended state accountability plan that Rhode Island submitted to the Department on January 15, 2009. I am pleased to approve Rhode Island’s amended plan, which we will post on the Department’s website. A summary of Rhode Island’s requested amendment is enclosed with this letter. As you know, any further requests to amend Rhode Island’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 Rhode Island’s accountability plan for Title I, including the amendment 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 Rhode Island 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 the ESEA, please do not hesitate to contact (Patrick.Rooney@ed.gov) or (Sue.Rigney@ed.gov) of my staff.

Sincerely,

Joseph C. Conaty

Enclosure
cc: Governor Donald L. Carcieri
Mary Ann Snider

Amendment to Rhode Island’s Accountability Plan

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

Acceptable amendment

The following amendment is aligned with the statute and regulations.

Graduation rate (Element 7.1)

Revision: Rhode Island will begin using a four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate consistent with 34 C.F.R. § 200.19(b), as amended in October 2008. For adequate yearly progress (AYP) determinations based on 2008–09 assessment results, Rhode Island will use a graduation rate target of 70.1 percent. Rhode Island will also include, for the first time, an “improvement” component for the graduation rate calculation. For any district, school, or subgroup that does not meet the graduation rate target, the state will examine whether the district, school or subgroup experienced a 10 percent decrease in the gap between the prior year’s graduation rate and the 2013–14 goal of 90 percent.

Please note that Rhode Island’s graduation rate target and goal are approved only for use in making AYP determinations based on the results of assessments administered during the 2008–09 school year. In accordance with 34 C.F.R. § 200.19(b)(6)(ii), Rhode Island must submit for peer review and Department approval its graduation rate goal and targets for 2009–10 and beyond.


Decision Letters on State Accountability Plans

Decision Letter on Request to Amend Rhode Island State Accountability Plan

June 11, 2008

The Honorable Peter McWalters
Commissioner of Education
Rhode Island Department of Education
Shepard Building
255 Westminster Street
Providence, RI 02903

Dear Commissioner McWalters:

I am writing in response to Rhode Island’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 your state accountability plan, which are now included in the amended state accountability plan that Rhode Island submitted to the Department on June 10, 2008. I am pleased to fully approve Rhode Island’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 Rhode Island’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 Rhode Island’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 Rhode Island 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 Abigail Potts (Abigail.Potts@ed.gov) or Sue Rigney (Sue.Rigney@ed.gov) of my staff.

Sincerely,

Kerri L. Briggs, Ph.D.

Enclosure

cc: Governor Donald L. Carcieri
Mary Ann Snider


Amendments to Rhode Island’s Accountability Plan

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

Acceptable amendments

The following amendments are aligned with the statute and regulations.

Annual Measurable Objectives (Element 3.2)

Revision: Rhode Island will maintain its high school annual measurable objectives (AMOs) with the implementation of its new high school assessment.

Determining adequate yearly progress (AYP) for local educational agencies (LEAs) (Element 3.2)

Revision: Rhode Island will identify districts for improvement after missing any target for two consecutive years in the same subject area.

Inclusion of students with disabilities in AYP determinations (Element 5.3)

Revision: Rhode Island will include students who were formerly classified as students with disabilities in that subgroup for two additional years for purposes of calculating AYP.

Assessments used in AYP (Element 3.2)

Revision: Rhode Island updated its accountability workbook to reflect the implementation of the new NECAP high school assessments in reading, writing, and mathematics for the 2007-08 school year.

Revision: Rhode Island will continue weighting the new high school reading and writing assessments in the same manner as the previous testing system. Reading will be weighted as 80 percent of the English/language arts score and writing will be weighted as 20 percent of the English/language arts score.

Graduation rate (Element 7.1)

Revision: With the transition to high school assessments in the fall, Rhode Island will use the graduation rate that corresponds to the instructional year measured by the high school assessments. For example, high school AYP determinations will be based on the reading, writing, and mathematics assessments administered in fall 2007, which measured academic achievement during 2006-07, and the graduation rate from the 2006-07 school year.

Unacceptable amendment

The following amendment does not comply with the statute or regulations. Therefore, it may not be included in Rhode Island’s accountability plan.

Appeals process (Element 3.1)

Rhode Island requested to consider supplemental data for schools missing a single target by a small margin. Section 1116(b)(2)(B) allows local educational agencies (LEAs) to consider appeals of school level AYP determinations if the principal of a school, or a majority of the parents enrolled in the school, believe that the determination is in error for statistical or other substantive reasons. If a school appeals a designation on the basis of a statistical error, the LEA may consider supporting evidence. However, missing AYP by a small margin or missing AYP in only one subgroup is not a statistical error. Therefore, the LEA does not have the authority to consider additional evidence to re-evaluate the school’s AYP determination.


Decision Letters on State Accountability Plans

Decision Letter on Request to Amend Rhode Island State Accountability Plan

July 26, 2006

The Honorable Peter McWalters
Commissioner of Education
Rhode Island Department of Education
Shepard Building
255 Westminster Street
Providence, RI 02903

Dear Commissioner McWalters:

I am writing in response to Rhode Island’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 Rhode Island submitted to the Department on June 22, 2006. A summary of the approved amendments is attached to this letter. I am pleased to fully approve Rhode Island’s amended plan, which we will post on the Department’s website.

If, over time, Rhode Island makes changes to the accountability plan that has been approved, Rhode Island 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 Rhode Island’s accountability plan is not an approval of Rhode Island’s standards and assessment system.

Please also be aware that approval of Rhode Island’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 Rhode Island 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 Sue Rigney (sue.rigney@ed.gov) of my staff.

Sincerely,

Henry L. Johnson

Enclosure

cc: Governor Donald Carcieri


Amendments to the Rhode Island Accountability Plan

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

School Accountability (Element 1.2)

Revision: Rhode Island has recently moved the elementary and middle school assessments from March to October. The newly implemented October assessments are designed to measure grade-level expectations of the prior grade. Therefore, Rhode Island will attribute the October assessment scores to the prior grade for purposes of adequate yearly progress (AYP) and will attribute participation rates to the current grade.

Method of AYP Determination (Element 3.1)

Revision: Rhode Island will replace previous statistical methods used when determining AYP with a 95 percent confidence interval applied to the percent proficient when calculating AYP.

Performance Index (3.2)

Revision: Rhode Island will adjust its performance index to account the transition to a new assessment system with four achievement levels. Rhode Island will allocate 100 index points for performance at the Proficient with Distinction and Proficient level, 75 points for performance at the Partially Proficient level, 50 points for the upper half of the Substantially Below Proficient level, 25 points for the lower half of the Substantially Below Proficient Level, and 0 points for No Score.

Uniform Averaging (3.2)

Revision: With the implementation of 3-8 assessments in 2005-06, Rhode Island will use a single year of test scores, aggregated across grades, for AYP determinations, rather than averaging scores across three years. As additional years of 3-8 assessment data become available, Rhode Island will allow schools to average one, two, or three years of data.

Method of AYP Determination (3.2)

Revision: Rhode Island will replace the standard error of measurement with a 95 percent confidence interval when calculating the percent proficient for AYP.


Decision Letters on State Accountability Plans

Decision Letter on Request to Amend Rhode Island State Accountability Plan

August 27, 2004

Honorable Peter McWalters
Commissioner of Education
Rhode Island Department of Education
Shepard Building
255 Westminster Street
Providence, RI 02903

Dear Commissioner McWalters:

I am writing in response to Rhode Island’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 Rhode Island submitted to the Department on July 22, 2004. A list of the changes is enclosed with this letter. I am pleased to fully approve Rhode Island’s amended plan, which we will post on the Department’s website.

If, over time, Rhode Island makes changes to the accountability plan that has been approved, Rhode Island 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 Rhode Island’s accountability plan is not also an approval of Rhode Island’s standards and assessment system. As Rhode Island makes changes in its standards and assessments to meet requirements under NCLB, Rhode Island 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 Rhode Island’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 Rhode Island’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 Rhode Island 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 Rhode Island in its efforts to implement other aspects of NCLB, please do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely,

Raymond Simon

Cc: Governor Donald L. Carcieri


Enclosure

Amendments to the Rhode Island’s Accountability Plan

These statements are summaries of the amendments. For complete details, please refer to the Rhode Island Accountability plan on the Department’s website:www.ed.govhttps://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplans03/index.html.

Accounting for non-participants in calculating AYP (Elements 1.3 and 3.1)

Revision: Rhode Island will assign a score of zero to students who do not participate in assessments up to the point of 95% of students being accounted for. These students will not be counted as participants.

Uniform Averaging (Elements 3.1, 4.1, and 9.2)

Revision: Rhode Island requests to allow all schools to use one or three years of data to make AYP determinations, given they have sufficient numbers of students to meet the minimum group size.

Assessment and accountability for LEP students (Element 5.4)

Revision: Rhode Island will include the flexibility that the Secretary’s letter of February 20, 2004 provides relative to LEP students for assessment and accountability purposes.

Additional Indicator Target for Elementary and Middle Schools (Element 7.2)

Revision: Rhode Island requests changing its target for attendance from 90 percent to 90 percent or any improvement of two percentage points or more.

Participation Rate (Elements 10.1 and 10.2)

Revision: Rhode Island indicates that it will implement the new flexibility regarding multi-year averaging of participation rate, and the new flexibility regarding students who have medical emergencies during the testing window and its effect on a school’s participation rate.

Table of Contents Decision Letters on State Accountability Plans