November 6, 2001

Honorable Elizabeth Burmaster
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
P.O. Box 7841
125 South Webster Street
Madison, Wisconsin 53702

Dear Superintendent Burmaster:

I am writing to discuss the action plan entitled “Enhancing the Wisconsin Student Assessment System” that you submitted to my office on October 30. Because the plan addresses all of the changes needed to comply with the Title I assessment requirements, I agree to grant a two-year waiver of the timeline for completion of Wisconsin’s final assessment system. We understand that it will take some time to complete the revision of assessments to improve alignment with Wisconsin standards, and to complete the changes in policy and procedures needed to ensure an assessment and accountability system that includes all students; however, the revised assessment system must be fully implemented in the 2002-03 school year. I appreciate your cooperation in this endeavor.

The evaluation conducted by external peer reviewers and U.S. Department of Education staff found that, in order to fully meet the requirements of Section 1111(b)(3) and 1116(a) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, Wisconsin must address the following tasks:

• To support full inclusion of students with limited English proficiency and to ensure equity across schools and districts within the State, Wisconsin must adopt a policy that includes in State assessment all students who have been enrolled in a district for a full academic year, with clear criteria for exemption of individual students. Wisconsin needs a uniform standard for exempting individual students. The existing proficiency levels as defined in PI 13.03(3)(a-e) are not tied to performance on any standardized language assessment, and are interpreted inconsistently across the State. The State can either provide operational definitions, such as a score of 1 or 2 on the Language Assessment Scales, or monitor local decisions under the existing guidelines to ensure consistency. You might accomplish this objective through a standard setting activity that identifies cut scores on the most commonly used English proficiency tests for each of the levels of proficiency identified in PI 13.03(3).

 

Page 2 – Honorable Elizabeth Burmaster

• Title I requires a school accountability system that accounts for all students, including students who take alternate assessments and those not tested. School, district, and State profiles must include the performance of all students tested; profiles must also include the number of students exempted; and the performance of all students tested and the number of students exempted must be disaggregated insofar as statistically defensible.
• Wisconsin must improve the alignment of assessment(s) with State standards to ensure that assessment results provide a valid representation of school performance relative to State standards. Wisconsin’s decision to add items to the existing test and to incorporate local assessments as an indicator of school quality is an appropriate response to this requirement. The use of local assessments will require procedures to ensure and document technical quality sufficient for measures of school accountability.

Our Title I office will monitor progress against the timeline you provided. Failure of Wisconsin to complete activities or products as scheduled in the first twelve months will make it necessary for this office to consider the other courses of action available to the Department. These actions include requiring Wisconsin to enter into a compliance agreement in order to remain eligible to receive Title I funds or initiating proceedings to withhold Title I funds from Wisconsin.

Our Title I office will be happy to work with you and your staff to achieve consistency between the Title I requirements and the Wisconsin assessment system. We wish you well in your efforts to improve school and student performance in your State.

Sincerely,

Susan B. Neuman, Ed.D.

Return to state-by-state listing

October 12, 2000

Honorable Inez Tenenbaum
State Superintendent of Education
State Department of Education
1429 Senate Street
Columbia, South Carolina 29201

Dear Mrs. Tenenbaum:

It was a pleasure speaking with you about the outcome of the review of South Carolina’s final assessment system under the Title I requirements of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. We appreciate the effort required to prepare for the review and hope that the process provides useful feedback that will support your State’s efforts to monitor student progress toward challenging standards.

As we discussed, the evaluation conducted by external peer reviewers and U.S. Department of Education staff found that, except for the completion of the high school assessment, South Carolina’s assessment system meets the requirements of Section 1111(b)(3) and 1116(a) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. As we discussed, South Carolina’s timeline for completing the high school assessments in at least reading and math by Spring 2003 does not meet the Title I requirements for a complete assessment system by the 2000-2001 test administration.

You may request a waiver of this timeline to stay in compliance with Title I. In your request, please provide a detailed timeline and the steps South Carolina will take to complete the high school assessment. When completed, South Carolina will need to submit its high school performance standards, as well as evidence of: alignment of the high school assessment with the State’s content and performance standards, the technical quality of the high school assessment and the disaggregated reports for the high school assessment by the categories required by Title I.

As we discussed, you will provide additional information on the following aspects of the South Carolina system that will be, or already have been, addressed:

• A technical manual for the grades 3-8 PACT assessment to demonstrate adequate technical quality for the State assessment.

• Documentation that South Carolina is reporting and including the results of all students, including students who take alternate and off-level assessments, in the State’s procedure for measuring school progress under Title I. For the purpose of school accountability, results from off-level assessments must be reported against standards for the grade in which the student is enrolled.

• Documentation that South Carolina is developing and publicly disseminating disaggregated district-level performance reports. In addition, you must provide examples of State, district, and school performance reports that include disaggregation for migrant status, where statistically sound.

Please submit these items or your plan for completing these items by the 2000-2001 test administration to Mary Jean LeTendre, Director of Title I, within 30 days of receipt of this letter. We will work with you and your staff to support and monitor the implementation of your plan. When the required items have been completed, the assessment system will be fully approved.

If, over time, additional changes are made to South Carolina’s assessment system, you must submit information about those changes to the Department as required by section 1111(e)(2) of Title I.

Please note that the approval of South Carolina’s assessment system for Title I is not a determination that the system 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.

Enclosed with this letter are detailed comments from the peer review team that evaluated South Carolina’s assessment documents. We hope this information will be useful to the South Carolina Department of Education in its efforts to implement a high quality assessment system.

Sincerely,

Michael Cohen

Enclosure

Return to state-by-state listing

September 2, 2004

Honorable Sandy Garrett
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Oklahoma State Department of Education
Hodge Education Building
2500 North Lincoln Boulevard
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105-4599

Dear Superintendent Garrett:

I am pleased to approve Oklahoma’s assessment system under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the Improving America’s Schools Act of 1994 (IASA). I appreciate your cooperation in making the changes in your assessment system to meet fully the IASA assessment requirements.

At the end of its timeline waiver, Oklahoma was to provide the Department documentation of a State assessment system that includes all students and measures higher order thinking, and a reporting/accountability system that reflects the achievement of all students and provides a valid representation of school performance relative to State standards. Peer reviewers external to the Department and Department staff have reviewed evidence of compliance submitted by Oklahoma. We have concluded that this evidence satisfies IASA assessment requirements for Title I.

We look forward to working with you as Oklahoma expands its assessment system to meet the new Title I requirements for standards and assessments under the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). As Oklahoma prepares for the peer review of its standards and assessments under NCLB, I encourage you to review carefully the "Standards and Assessments Peer Review Guidance: Information and Examples for Meeting Requirements of the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001." The purpose of this document is twofold: (1) to inform States about what would be useful evidence to demonstrate that they have met NCLB standards and assessments requirements; and (2) to guide teams of peer reviewers who will examine the evidence submitted by States and advise the Department as to whether a State has met the requirements. I have enclosed a copy of this document with this letter.

Please be aware that approval of Oklahoma’s assessment system for Title I is not a determination that the system 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. Finally, please remember that if Oklahoma makes significant changes to its assessment system, the State must submit information about those changes to the Department for review and approval.

We have found it a pleasure working with your staff on this review. Congratulations on a fully approved assessment system under IASA. I wish you well in your continued efforts to improve student achievement in Oklahoma.

Sincerely,

Raymond Simon

Enclosure

Return to state-by-state listing

November 6, 2001

Honorable Sandy Garrett
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Oklahoma State Department of Education
Hodge Education Building
2500 North Lincoln Boulevard
Oklahoma City, Oklahoma 73105-4599

Dear Superintendent Garrett:

The purpose of this letter is to respond to Oklahoma’s plan and timeline for meeting the final assessment requirements of ESEA Title I as described in your letter of September 27, 2001 and Working Plan document sent to the Department on October 12, 2001. Oklahoma has requested that a two-year timeline waiver be granted to enable your State to complete its final assessment system.

We understand that it will take about two years for Oklahoma to

• Implement and document assessments currently in development or revision, particularly the Algebra I and English II End-of-Instruction Tests,
• Address gaps in the alignment of multiple choice items and Priority Academic Student Skills (PASS),
• Provide evidence that the Oklahoma assessment and accountability system adequately includes measures of higher-order thinking and understanding,
• Provide full assessment participation data, and
• Implement the disaggregated reporting required by Title I.

Because these plans will take additional time, I agree to grant a two-year waiver for completion of Oklahoma’s final assessment system. Oklahoma’s working plan shows that all of these will be complete by Summer 2003. After completion of the above actions and successful peer review, the Oklahoma assessment system can be approved.

Failure of the State to complete the activities as scheduled may make it necessary for this office to consider the other courses of action available to the Department. Potential actions include requiring Oklahoma to enter into a compliance agreement in order to remain eligible to receive Title I funds or initiating proceedings to withhold Title I funds from the State. However, with Oklahoma’s proved track record, I am confident none of those steps will be necessary.

I ask that Oklahoma provide quarterly updates regarding your progress in completing the remaining requirements. The actions included in Oklahoma’s plan must be completed no later than September 21, 2003. When all the action steps have been completed, please provide evidence of the completion to our Title I office. The evidence should include such items as policy guidance to local districts, technical reports, sample reports, or other documents that demonstrate the changes that have been made.

I am confident that Oklahoma will continue to advance State and local educational improvement efforts, improve student achievement, and maintain strong accountability for results. We wish you well in your efforts to improve school and student performance in your State.

Sincerely,

Susan B. Neuman, Ed. D.

Return to state-by-state listing

November 6, 2001

Honorable Vito A. Gagliardi
New Jersey Department of Education
P.O. Box 500
Trenton, New Jersey 08625-0500

Dear Commissioner Gagliardi:

I am writing to discuss the action plan for compliance with the assessment requirements of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, recently submitted by New Jersey (as revised November 1). Because this plan addresses all of the changes needed to ensure New Jersey’s compliance with the statute, I agree to grant a two-year waiver of the timeline for completion of New Jersey’s final assessment system. New Jersey has already made several of the changes required, but we understand that additional time is required to complete the changes in policy and procedures needed for full implementation of a complete assessment system that includes all students. The revised assessment system must be fully implemented in the 2002-03 school year.

I appreciate your cooperation in agreeing to make the changes in your assessment system that are necessary for New Jersey to meet the requirements of sections 1111(b)(3) and 1116(a) of the Act. Our Title I office will monitor progress against the timeline you provided. Failure of the State to complete activities or products as scheduled in the first twelve months will make it necessary for this office to consider the other courses of action available to the Department, including the possibility of initiating proceedings to withhold Title I funds from New Jersey.

Our Title I office will be happy to work with you and your staff to achieve consistency between the Title I requirements and the New Jersey assessment system. We wish you well in your efforts to improve school and student performance in your State.

Sincerely,

Susan B. Neuman, Ed. D.
Assistant Secretary

Return to state-by-state listing

October 30, 2001

Honorable Glenn W. McGee
Superintendent of Education
Illinois Board of Education
100 North First Street
Springfield, Illinois 62777

Dear Superintendent McGee:

The purpose of this letter is to grant Illinois a waiver of timeline until December 31, 2002 for meeting the final assessment requirements of Title I as requested in your letter of June 29, 2001.

Illinois has completed most of the requirements for its grades 3, 5, and 8 assessments in reading, writing, and mathematics. This additional time will allow Illinois to complete its high school assessments, the Prairie State Achievement Examination (PSAE), in reading and mathematics for the eleventh grade. When these assessments are completed and administered in 2001, the State will need to submit documentation of its development of performance standards, inclusion policies, and participation rates for these assessments and reporting for individual students and schools and the use of results in the State’s accountability system. For the PSAE, you must also address alignment of content and performance standards with the assessments, including a description of your approach for ensuring alignment, and present a plan for addressing identified gaps or weaknesses, and evidence of technical quality of all components of the PSAE.

Failure of Illinois to complete the activities as scheduled may make it necessary for this office to consider the other courses of action available to the Department. Potential actions include requiring Illinois to enter into a compliance agreement in order to remain eligible to receive Title I funds or initiating proceedings to withhold Title I funds from the State. However, with Illinois’ proven track record, I am confident none of these steps will be necessary.

Page 2 – Honorable Glenn W. McGee

I ask that Illinois provide quarterly updates of progress in completing the remaining Title I assessment requirements. When all of the action steps for the final assessment system are completed, please provide evidence to the Department’s Title I office on or before December 31, 2002.

We will work with you and your staff to support and monitor the implementation of your timeline waiver. If you would like to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Susan B. Neuman, Ed. D.

Return to state-by-state listing

November 13, 2001

Honorable Delaine A. Eastin
Superintendent of Public Instruction
California Department of Education
721 Capitol Mall
Sacramento, California 95814

Dear Superintendent Eastin:

It was a pleasure meeting with your staff on September 28. We appreciate California???s continued efforts to meet the Title I assessment requirements. After reviewing the evidence and timelines submitted by California in May 2000 and additional evidence that we reviewed in September 2000, August, and October 2001, we have determined that several aspects of California???s assessment system do not meet the requirements of sections 1111(b) and 1116(a) of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Act of 1965. However, on the basis of the additional information you provided, and upon your submission of an approvable timeline, I would be willing to grant California a timeline waiver in order to allow your State to complete the additional requirements.

As we discussed with your staff, California???s timeline for completing its final assessment system will exceed the 2000-2001 statutory deadline. To stay in compliance with the requirements of Title I, you must submit a request to waive the deadline. Please send this waiver request to me within 10 days of receipt of this letter.

In order to obtain full approval, California must complete the following tasks:

• Follow through on the development and implementation of all components of the final assessment and accountability systems. Include timelines for development of all components and inclusion of all components in the accountability system. Show that the entire system will be in place by spring 2003, or earlier.
• Provide evidence of the adoption of English language arts (ELA) performance standards based on the 2001 test administration. Develop and adopt mathematics performance standards for the Statewide Testing and Reporting (STAR). Provide documentation on performance standard setting, including a description of the process that will provide for equivalently rigorous standards across content areas and grade levels for both the STAR and the high school assessment. (We are enclosing the Peer Guidance for Performance Standards.)
• Provide evidence on how the final assessment system assesses higher-order thinking skills at the high schools level.

  Page 2 ??? Honorable Delaine A. Eastin

• Provide evidence describing how the State???s alternative accountability system evaluates the performance of schools with fewer than 11 test scores, including how it combines groups and interprets scores.
• Provide evidence describing how the performance of K-1 schools is evaluated and becomes part of the accountability system.
• For the 2001 administration of the STAR and the High School Exit Examination (HSEE), provide evidence of participation rates for each grade assessed, each subject (ELA and math), and –for students with disabilities (SWD) and limited English proficient (LEP) student populations — the total enrollment, number assessed, and number exempted. The number assessed should be broken down by type of assessment accommodation (regular, standard accommodation, non-standard accommodation, and alternate assessment). Provide assessment participation rates for LEP students by type of assessment accommodation (regular, standard accommodation, non-standard accommodation). For all students, provide current participation rates for inclusion in the accountability system by grade and by subject. Provide the percent of students included in the accountability system.
• Develop and approve a comprehensive policy on assessment guidelines and accommodations for LEP students, rather than allowing each local board of education to develop such policies. Develop a plan for implementing the new LEP inclusion policies and for monitoring local educational agency (LEA) compliance with the new inclusion policies.
• Provide clarification of the policies in California Education Code 52052(a)(3)(A) to ensure that they are not in conflict with the ESEA statute. This section of the code appears to allow only the test scores of pupils who were in enrolled in a school district the prior fiscal year to be included in the test results reported in the Academic Performance Index (API).
• Provide evidence that you have deleted California Education Code Section 60852, which currently allows a district to defer, for up to 24 months of a student???s enrollment in the California public school system or until a student has completed six months of instruction in reading, writing, and comprehension of the English language, the requirement that a pupil pass the high school exit examination.
• Provide evidence of the use of the California Special Education alternate assessment program in your State???s accountability program, including technical quality, participation, success, and reporting.

  Page 3 ??? Honorable Delaine A. Eastin

• Provide evidence of the alignment of the content and performance standards with the fully implemented HSEE and provide a plan to fill in the gaps in the STAR that were indicated by the alignment study. This is crucial because alignment is a prerequisite for standard setting.
• Provide individual student reports on the attainment of math student performance standards for the STAR.
• Provide evidence that LEAs are completing school and district profiles that show student performance related to mastery of standards for the STAR and HSEE.

Enclosed with this letter are detailed comments from the peer review team that evaluated California???s assessment documents. We hope this information will be useful to the California Department of Education in its efforts to implement a high-quality assessment system. We will work with you and your staff to support and monitor the implementation of your timeline waiver. If you would like to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to contact me.

Sincerely,

Susan B. Neuman, Ed.D

Enclosure

Return to state-by-state listing