Date: March 7, 2013

Honorable James O. Rose
Interim Director
Wyoming Department of Education
2300 Capitol Avenue, 2nd floor Hathaway Building
Cheyenne, WY 82002

Dear Director Rose:

On February 28, 2013, the Wyoming Department of Education (WDE) submitted a request for flexibility in response to the U.S. Department of Education’s (Department’s) September 23, 2011, document titled ESEA Flexibility, which invited each State educational agency (SEA) to request waivers regarding specific requirements of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended, in exchange for rigorous and comprehensive State-developed plans designed to improve educational outcomes for all students, close achievement gaps, increase equity, and improve the quality of instruction.

WDE staff subsequently indicated, in a March 1, 2013, phone call with Department staff, that the request it submitted, while brief, reflected recent legislation related to the State’s transition to college- and career-ready standards; implementation of a more nuanced system of differentiated recognition, accountability, and support; and development and implementation of more accurate teacher and principal evaluation and support systems. The State further indicated that, given additional time, it could describe more comprehensively its plans for reform in each of these areas as required for an approvable request for ESEA flexibility.

I agree that WDE would benefit from additional time to prepare a request that responds more fully to each of the principles of ESEA flexibility and, therefore, I am granting WDE an extension to resubmit its request no later than April 15, 2013. At the same time, given the importance of expediting review and revisions, if needed, to ensure that, if WDE’s request is approved, such approval occurs in time for full implementation by the beginning of the 2013-2014 school year, I believe it is essential to provide technical assistance to WDE staff on key aspects of ESEA flexibility. I am therefore granting this extension to WDE subject to the condition that WDE staff consult regularly with Department staff during the preparation of Wyoming’s revised request. Victoria Hammer of my staff will reach out to WDE staff in the coming days to discuss the details of that consultation.

I anticipate that peer review of WDE’s resubmitted request will occur the week of May 6, 2013.

I look forward to receiving WDE’s complete request and working with WDE to increase student achievement and improve the quality of instruction for all students. Thank you for your commitment to all students in Wyoming.

Sincerely,

/s/

Deborah S. Delisle

November 8, 2012

Jorea M. Marple, State Superintendent of Education
West Virginia Department of Education
1900 Kanawha Boulevard East
Charleston, West Virginia 25305

Dear Superintendent Marple:

Thank you for submitting West Virginia’s request for ESEA flexibility. We appreciate the hard work required to transition to college- and career-ready standards and assessments; develop a system of differentiated recognition, accountability, and support; and evaluate and support teacher and leader effectiveness. The U.S. Department of Education (Department) is encouraged that West Virginia and many other States are designing rigorous plans to increase the quality of instruction and improve student academic achievement.

West Virginia’s request was reviewed by a panel of six peer reviewers during the week of October 1, 2012. During the review, the peers considered each component of West Virginia’s request and provided comments in the form of Peer Panel Notes that the Secretary will use to inform any revisions to your request that may be needed to meet the principles of ESEA flexibility. The Peer Panel Notes, a copy of which is enclosed with this letter, also provide feedback on the strengths of West Virginia’s request and areas that would benefit from further development. The Department’s ESEA flexibility team has also carefully reviewed West Virginia’s request, taking into account the Peer Panel Notes, to determine consistency with the ESEA flexibility principles.

The peers noted, and the Department’s ESEA flexibility team agrees, that West Virginia’s request was particularly strong regarding meaningful consultation of teachers and diverse stakeholders, transition to and implementation of college- and career-ready standards and assessments, and a concrete plan for implementing teacher and principal evaluation and support systems.

At the same time, based on the peer reviewers’ comments and our review of the materials West Virginia has provided to date, we have identified certain components of your request that need further clarification, additional development, or revision. In particular, concerns were identified with respect to the following:

• Weighting of indicators in the accountability index may not reflect appropriate expectations for all students to meet college- and career-ready standards; and
• Annual measurable objectives (AMOs) are not solely proficiency based and lack rigor.

The enclosed list provides details regarding these concerns, as well as other key issues raised in the review of West Virginia’s request, that must be addressed before the Secretary can approve your request for ESEA flexibility. We encourage West Virginia to consider all of the peers’ comments and technical assistance suggestions in making revisions to its request, but we encourage you to focus primarily on addressing the concerns identified on the enclosed list.

Although the Peer Panel Notes for West Virginia provide information specific to your request, West Virginia may also benefit from comments and technical assistance suggestions made by other peer panels regarding issues common to multiple State educational agencies’ (SEA) requests. For this reason, Department staff will reach out to West Virginia to provide relevant technical assistance suggestions and other considerations that may be useful as you revise and refine your request.

We remain committed to working with West Virginia to meet the principles of ESEA flexibility and improve outcomes for all students. We stand ready to work with West Virginia as quickly as possible. In order to ensure prompt consideration of revisions or additional materials, we are asking SEAs to submit those materials by November 30, 2012.

Department staff will be in touch to set up a call as early as this week to discuss the timeline and process for providing revisions or materials.
You and your team deserve great credit for your efforts thus far, and I am confident that the Department’s ESEA flexibility team will work with your staff to address outstanding concerns. If you have any additional questions, please do not hesitate to contact Grace Ross at 202-260-0967. Thank you for your continued commitment to all of West Virginia’s children.

Sincerely,

/s/

Deborah S. Delisle

cc: Robert E. Hull, Associate Superintendent

Enclosure

March 26, 2013

The Honorable Randall I. Dorn
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Washington Department of Public Instruction
P.O. Box 47200
Olympia, WA 98504

Dear Superintendent Dorn:

I am writing to inform you of the outcome of the U.S. Department of Education’s (ED’s) review of Washington’s guidelines for teacher and principal evaluation and support systems. During the week of July 16, 2012, two peer experts reviewed Washington’s guidelines and the corresponding changes to Principle 3 of Washington’s request. ED staff also reviewed Washington’s submission and both the peers and ED provided feedback to Washington regarding its submission.

Based on the review of Washington’s guidelines and the corresponding changes to Principle 3 of its ESEA flexibility request, and the information Washington submitted February 1, 2013, in response to peer and ED feedback, it is determined that Washington has not yet adopted guidelines for teacher and principal evaluation and support systems that meet all requirements of ESEA flexibility.

In particular, Washington has not yet determined how it will measure student growth for English Learners and students with disabilities. Washington also has not fully determined how it will measure growth for teachers of students in non-tested grades and subjects, nor has Washington finalized consequences for educators who receive low student growth ratings. This determination is consistent with the condition that ED placed on the July 19, 2012 approval of Washington’s request for ESEA flexibility. Accordingly, in order to receive full approval of its ESEA flexibility request through the 2013–2014 school year, Washington must continue its work to satisfy the condition placed on the approval of its request and, prior to the end of the 2012–2013 school year, submit evidence that it has satisfied the condition along with a request for an extension of the approval of its request, as indicated in ED’s July 19, 2012 letter.

On February 1, 2013, Washington submitted Chapter 392-191A of the Washington Administrative Code, which outlines regulations for teacher and principal evaluation systems and requires each focused evaluation to use student growth data. ED accepted this information to satisfy the condition related to Washington’s commitment to seeking a legislative change to require that focused educator evaluations include student growth.

Please keep in mind that Washington must submit additional evidence that satisfies the condition originally placed on its approved request as well as the additional outstanding requirements identified above before receiving approval to continue implementing ESEA flexibility during the 2013-2014 school year. Should Washington wish to make any other changes that affect its implementation of ESEA flexibility, it may need to amend its approved ESEA flexibility request. If you have any questions regarding the amendment process or anything else related to Washington’s implementation of ESEA flexibility, please contact Leslie Clithero at (202) 260-1840 or leslie.clithero@ed.gov

A copy of Washington’s Principle 3 submission will be posted on ED’s Web site at: www.ed.gov/esea/flexibiity/request

I look forward to Washington’s continued progress in fully implementing ESEA flexibility and to continuing to support the State as you work to improve the quality of instruction and academic achievement for all students in Washington. Thank you for your commitment to all students in Washington.

Sincerely,

/s/

Deborah S. Delisle
Assistant Secretary
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

cc: Bob Harmon, Assistant Superintendent, Special Programs and Federal Accountability

August 14, 2013

The Honorable Randy Dorn
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Washington Department of Public Instruction
P.O. Box 47200
Olympia, WA 98504

Dear Superintendent Dorn:

I am writing in response to Washington’s July 19, 2013 request to extend approval of its ESEA flexibility request through the end of the 2013–2014 school year. Currently, Washington’s ESEA flexibility request is approved through the end of the 2012–2013 school year, subject to the conditions that Washington submit to the U.S. Department of Education (ED) for review and approval an amended request incorporating: (1) the final version of the new index, including by attaching to the amended request any technical documentation, administrative rules, and other relevant information; and (2) rules regarding the use of student growth as a significant factor in teacher and principal evaluation and support systems.

On March 26, 2013, I sent you a letter indicating that Washington had not yet adopted guidelines for teacher and principal evaluation and support systems that met all of the requirements of ESEA flexibility and needed to continue working to address the condition it received when approved for ESEA flexibility.

In February 2013, through Part A monitoring, ED learned that Washington will not begin using its new index in the 2013–2014 school year as it had originally planned. Rather, Washington will delay implementation of that system until the 2014–2015 school year. In the interim, Washington will continue to meet all requirements of ESEA flexibility as it did in the 2012–2013 school year by continuing to implement its transitional accountability system. As such, I have determined that the condition on Washington’s ESEA flexibility request is moot. I additionally note that on February 28, 2013, Washington submitted an amended ESEA flexibility request to ED that reflects the new timeline for implementing its new index and demonstrates that Washington will continue to meet all requirements of ESEA flexibility during the 2013–2014 school year.

As a result, I am lifting this condition on the approval of Washington’s ESEA flexibility request. Please note that prior to the end of the 2013–2014 school year, Washington, like other Window 1 and Window 2 States approved to implement ESEA flexibility, may request an additional extension of the waivers granted through ESEA flexibility. Please also note that this approval is not an approval of the new index that I understand Washington intends to implement in the 2014–2015 school year. In order to receive approval to implement any system of differentiated recognition, accountability, and support that differs from the system that Washington is being approved to use today through the end of the 2013–2014 school year, Washington will be required to submit a final version of that system to ED for review and approval.

On July 19, 2013, Washington submitted an amended request intended to support extension of its approval for ESEA flexibility through the 2013−2014 school year. This request included evidence of Washington’s continued work to meet its condition to provide rules regarding the use of student growth as a significant factor in teacher and principal evaluation and support systems.

Although staff from your office provided information about how Washington intends to incorporate student growth as a significant factor in teacher and principal evaluation and support systems, ED staff learned that Washington’s interpretation of including student growth as a significant factor in educator evaluation systems is inconsistent with the ESEA Flexibility definition of “student growth”. Specifically, in accordance with Washington State law, a local educational agency (LEA) has discretion as to whether or not to include data from Statewide assessments in determining a teacher’s student growth rating. Since Washington’s rules on the incorporation of student growth as a significant factor in teacher and principal evaluation systems do not incorporate the ESEA Flexibility definition of student growth, and Washington has not yet committed to requiring all LEAs to incorporate the results of Statewide assessments as a measure of student growth beginning in the 2014−2015 school year, the rules that Washington submitted regarding the use of student growth as a significant factor in teacher and principal evaluation and support systems are insufficient to address this condition.

Accordingly, I have determined that Washington has failed to meet the second condition that was placed on the approval of its ESEA flexibility request. However, in its July 19 letter requesting to extend ESEA flexibility through the 2013-2014 school year, Washington committed to seeking a legislative change to ensure that Washington’s definition of “student growth” aligns with the definition described in ESEA Flexibility. In light of Washington’s on-going efforts to meet the condition and the ESEA flexibility requirements relevant to that condition, I am granting Washington’s request to extend approval of its ESEA flexibility request through the end of the 2013–2014 school year, subject to the condition that Washington complete the actions listed below. In addition, pursuant to the authority in 34 C.F.R. § 80.12, I am placing Washington on high-risk status.

In order to have the condition on the approval of its ESEA flexibility request lifted and its high-risk designation removed, Washington must:

• Submit to ED, no later than 30 calendar days from the date of this letter, a high-quality plan describing Washington’s work during the 2013−2014 school year to ensure its teacher and principal evaluation systems meet the requirements of ESEA flexibility. The plan must, at a minimum, include:
• A description of Washington’s process to seek legislative change to incorporate student growth, as defined by ESEA Flexibility, as a significant factor in teacher and principal evaluation systems in all LEAs throughout the State at the beginning of the 2014−2015 school year;
• A description of how Washington will study and collect data about how student growth ratings are provided when a teacher participates as a member of a grade-level, subject matter, or other instructional team within a school, which should explain how Washington will ensure that the use of shared attribution of student growth does not mask the high or low performance of individual teachers; and
• Washington’s plan for ensuring that LEAs will include student growth as a significant factor, in accordance with the definition included in ESEA flexibility, in time for LEAs to fully implement evaluation and support systems consistent with ESEA flexibility requirements in the 2014−2015 school year.
• Following ED’s Part B monitoring of Washington’s ESEA flexibility implementation, which is scheduled for October 2013, provide updates to ED on a monthly basis on its progress in carrying out its high-quality plan to address the outstanding condition on the approval of its ESEA flexibility request and ensure its teacher and principal evaluation and support system meets the principles of ESEA flexibility.
• By May 1, 2014, submit to ED an amended request that incorporates final guidelines for teacher and principal evaluation and support systems that meet the requirements of ESEA flexibility, including the use of student growth, as defined in ESEA Flexibility, as a significant factor in determining teacher and principal performance levels. Since under Washington state law student growth data elements may include the teacher’s performance as a member of a grade-level, subject matter, or other instructional team within a school, along with the amended request, Washington must provide business rules defining these teams of teachers and explaining how student growth is calculated for a team. Washington must also provide data to demonstrate that Washington’s use of shared attribution of student growth does not mask high or low performance of educators.

Please note that should Washington request renewal of its ESEA flexibility request beyond the 2013–2014 school year, ED would not be able to grant that request for renewal until the issues that resulted in Washington’s continued condition and high-risk status are resolved. If those issues cannot be resolved prior to the start of the 2014–2015 school year, Washington may not be able to continue with its implementation of ESEA flexibility beyond the 2013–2014 school year.

Washington may request reconsideration of its high-risk designation by submitting in writing to me, no later than 10 business days from the date of this letter, a detailed discussion setting forth the basis for its belief that this designation is improper, including the specific facts that support its position. If Washington chooses to request such reconsideration, that request must be submitted via email to me, with a copy to Leslie Clithero, as well as by U.S. mail or commercial delivery. If I do not receive a request for reconsideration by August 28, 2013, Washington’s high- risk status will be considered final and will be lifted only upon completing the actions set forth above.

Washington continues to have an affirmative responsibility to ensure that it and its districts are in compliance with Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, disability, and age in their implementation of ESEA flexibility, as well as their implementation of all other Federal education programs. These laws include 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, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

If you have any questions regarding this letter or the implementation of Washington’s ESEA flexibility request, please not hesitate to contact of my staff at: Leslie.Clithero@ed.gov or (202) 260-1840. Thank you for your continued focus on enhancing education for all of Washington’s children.

Sincerely,

/s/

Deborah S. Delisle
Assistant Secretary

cc: Gil Mendoza, Assistant Superintendent

February 12, 2014

The Honorable Randy Dorn
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction
PO Box 47200
Olympia, WA 98504-7200

Dear Superintendent Dorn:

I am writing in response to the Washington State Office of the Superintendent of Public Instruction’s (OSPI) request on behalf of selected schools to waive certain statutory and regulatory requirements of Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended. Specifically, OSPI has requested on behalf of the selected schools a one-year waiver to allow the State to field test in 2013–2014 assessments in mathematics and reading/language arts aligned to college- and career-ready standards developed by the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) in lieu of the State’s assessments in grade 3 through 8 and high school. OSPI has also requested flexibility in making accountability determinations for the selected schools.

I am pleased to grant, pursuant to my authority under section 9401 of the ESEA, a one-year waiver of the following statutory and regulatory requirements under Title I, Part A of the ESEA and their associated regulatory provisions:

• ESEA sections 1111(b)(1)(B) and 1111(b)(3)(C)(i), which require a State educational agency (SEA) to apply the same academic achievement standards, and to use the same academic assessments, for all public school children in the State. OSPI requested these waivers so that any individual student within Washington will be permitted to take only one assessment in each content area in 2013–2014 — either the current State assessment or the full form of the field test of the new assessments aligned to college- and career-ready standards.
• ESEA section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xii), which requires the provision of individual student interpretive, descriptive, and diagnostic reports that include information regarding achievement on State assessments to parents, teachers, and principals as soon as is practically possible after an assessment is given. OSPI requested this waiver to permit OSPI and its local educational agencies (LEAs) to refrain from producing or providing these reports for a student’s performance on a field test.
• ESEA sections 1111(h)(1)(C)(ii) and 1111(h)(2)(B), which require an SEA and an LEA, respectively, to report on performance against annual measurable objectives (AMOs). OSPI requested these waivers to permit OSPI and its LEAs to refrain from reporting performance against AMOs for any school or single-school LEA that participates in the field test of the new assessments aligned to college- and career-ready standards.

This waiver is granted to OSPI on the condition that it will implement the following assurances:

• OSPI and its LEAs will ensure that all students in the tested grades who do not take a field test in a particular subject will take the current State assessment in that subject, as required by the ESEA.
• OSPI and its LEAs will report performance against AMOs for a subject that is not being field tested in a school that participates in the field test, for all schools that do not participate in the field test, and for all LEAs (except single-school LEAs that participate in the field test of a tested subject) based on current State assessments administered in the 2013–2014 school year.
• OSPI and its LEAs will meet all reporting obligations with respect to reporting the actual achievement of students who take the current State assessments.
• OSPI has properly notified all LEAs and schools that will participate in the field test of that participation.
• OSPI has ensured that parents of students in each school participating in the field test have been notified of the school’s participation, including by ensuring that the notification to parents includes a discussion of the implications of the school’s participation in the field test and a notification of whether the parents’ child will participate in the field test.
• In the 2014–2015 school year, OSPI will administer the new reading/language arts and mathematics assessments aligned to college- and career-ready standards, as well as its State science assessments, to all students in the grades required to be tested in accordance with the ESEA.

Please be aware that this waiver of Washington’s standards and assessment system under the ESEA 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. This waiver also does not apply to statutory and regulatory requirements regarding science assessments under Title I, Part A of the ESEA.

I hope you find this flexibility helpful. I look forward to working with you and your staff as you implement this flexibility and as you continue working to improve education in Washington.

Sincerely,

/s/

Deborah S. Delisle
Assistant Secretary

cc: Gil Mendoza, Ed.D., Assistant Superintendent Special Programs and Federal Accountability

January 30, 2014

The Honorable Rebecca Holcombe
Secretary of Education
State of Vermont, Agency of Education
120 State Street
Montpelier, VT 05620

Dear Secretary Holcombe:

I am writing in response to the Vermont Agency of Education’s (VAE’s) request on behalf of selected schools to waiver to allow the district to field test in 2013–2014 assessments in mathematics and reading/language arts aligned to college- and career-ready standards developed by the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) and alternate assessments for students with the most severe cognitive disabilities developed by Dynamic Learning Maps (DLM), in lieu of the State’s assessments in grades 3 through 8 and high school. VAE also requested flexibility in making accountability determinations.

I am pleased to grant, pursuant to my authority under section 9401 of the ESEA, a one-year waiver of the following statutory and regulatory requirements under Title I, Part A of the ESEA, as amended, and their associated regulatory provisions:

• ESEA sections 1111(b)(1)(B) and 1111(b)(3)(C)(i), which require a State educational agency (SEA) to apply the same academic achievement standards, and to use the same academic assessments, for all public school children in the State. VAE requested these waivers so that any individual student within Vermont will be permitted to take only one assessment in each content area in 2013–2014 — either the current State assessment or the full form of the field test of the new assessments aligned to college- and career-ready standards.
• ESEA section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xii), which requires the provision of individual student interpretive, descriptive, and diagnostic reports that include information regarding achievement on State assessments to parents, teachers, and principals as soon as is practically possible after an assessment is given. VAE requested this waiver to permit VAE and its local educational agencies (LEAs) to refrain from producing or providing these reports for a student’s performance on a field test.
• ESEA sections 1111(h)(1)(C)(ii) and 1111(h)(2)(B), which require an SEA and LEA to report on performance against annual measurable objectives (AMOs). VAE requested these waivers to permit VAE and its LEAs to refrain from reporting performance against AMOs for any school, or single-school LEA that participates in the field test of the new assessments aligned to college- and career-ready standards.
• ESEA sections 1116(a)(1)(A) and 1116(c)(1)(A), which require an LEA and an SEA, respectively, to use the State’s academic assessments and other academic indicators to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) determinations for schools and LEAs. VAE requested this waiver to permit an LEA within Vermont that has one or more schools participating in the field test to refrain from making AYP determinations for each of those schools and to permit VAE to refrain from making AYP determinations for a single-school LEA participating in the field test.

This waiver is granted to the VAE on the condition that it will implement the following assurances:

• The VAE and its LEAs will ensure that all students in the tested grades who do not take a field test in a particular subject will take the current State assessment in that subject, as required by the ESEA.
• The VAE and its LEAs will make AYP determinations for all schools that do not participate in the field test and for all LEAs except single-school LEAs that participate in the field test based on current State assessments administered in 2013-2014 school year.
• The VAE and its LEAs will report performance against AMOs for a subject that is not being field tested in a school that participates in the field test, for all schools that do not participate in the field test, and for all LEAs (except single-school LEAs that participate in the field test of a tested subject)
• The VAE and its LEAs will meet all reporting obligations with respect to reporting the actual achievement of students who take the current State assessments.
• The VAE has properly notified all LEAs and schools that will participate in the field test of that participation.
• The VAE has ensured that parents of students in each school participating in the field test have been notified of the school’s participation, including by ensuring that the notification to parents includes a discussion of the implications of the school’s participation in the field test and a notification of whether the parents’ individual child will participate in the field test.
• In 2014–2015, the VAE will administer the new reading/language arts and mathematics assessments aligned to college- and career-ready standards, as well as its State science assessments, to all students in the grades required to be tested in accordance with the ESEA.
• The VAE will resume making AYP determinations for all schools and all single-school LEAs based on assessments administered in the 2014–2015 school year.

Please be aware that this waiver of Vermont’s standards and assessment system under the ESEA 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. This waiver also does not apply to statutory and regulatory requirements regarding science assessments under Title I, Part A of the ESEA.

I hope you find this flexibility helpful. I look forward to working with you and your staff as you implement this flexibility and as you continue working to improve education in Vermont.

Sincerely,

/s/

Deborah S. Delisle

cc: Michael Hock

Date: March 5, 2013

The Honorable Patricia I. Wright
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Virginia Department of Education
P.O. Box 2120
Richmond, VA 23218

Dear Superintendent Wright:

I am writing in response to the Virginia Department of Education (VDOE) request to amend its approved ESEA flexibility request. On June 29, 2012, the U.S. Department of Education (ED) approved VDOE’s ESEA flexibility request. On October 26, 2012, VDOE submitted a request to make one amendment to its request. On January 11, 2013, VDOE submitted an updated version of its request, showing the requested change.

The proposed amendment changes VDOE’s approved methodology for setting annual measurable objectives (AMOs) because the approved methodology resulted in AMOs that did not require subgroups further behind to make greater rates of progress, and therefore did not meet the requirements of ESEA flexibility. Under Virginia’s proposed methodology, the starting point for each subgroup would still be the proficiency rate of the school at the 20th percentile of enrollment for that subgroup, but the ending point would be the same for all subgroups: halfway to the school at the 90th percentile of enrollment for the “all students” subgroup. To meet the AMOs, a school must meet the AMOs or the prior year’s pass rate, whichever is higher, up to 90 percent, for all students and every subgroup. Schools that do not meet the higher of the AMOs or the prior year’s pass rate may also be determined to have met the AMOs if:

1. The percent of students not proficient is reduced by at least 10 percent from the prior year.

2. The proficiency rate exceeds the AMO and is within five percent of the previous year’s rate.

I am pleased to approve Virginia’s amended request through the 2013-2014 school year. At that time, Virginia, like other States with approved requests, may request an additional extension of these waivers through the 2014–2015 school year. VDOE’s amended request will be posted on ED’s website. Any further requests to amend Virginia’s ESEA flexibility request must be submitted to ED for review and approval.

VDOE continues to have an affirmative responsibility to ensure that it and its districts are in compliance with Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, disability, and age in their implementation of ESEA flexibility as well as their implementation of all other Federal education programs. These laws include 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, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

I am confident that Virginia will continue to implement the reforms it proposed under its approved ESEA flexibility request and advance its efforts to hold schools and school districts accountable for the achievement of all students. If you need any additional assistance to implement your ESEA flexibility request, please do not hesitate to contact Elizabeth Witt of my staff at elizabeth.witt@ed.gov.

Sincerely,

/s/

Deborah S. Delisle

cc: Veronica Tate, Director
Office of Program Administration and Accountability
Virginia Department of Education

October 9, 2014

The Honorable Joel Coleman
Interim Superintendent of Schools
Utah State Office of Education
P.O. Box 144200
Salt Lake City, UT 84114

Dear Superintendent Coleman:

This letter is in response to Utah’s August 22, 2014 request for a one-year extension of flexibility under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA flexibility), so that Utah may continue to implement ESEA flexibility through the end of the 2014–2015 school year.

Our team has reviewed Utah’s request and, pursuant to section 9401(d)(2) of the ESEA, I am pleased to extend Utah’s ESEA flexibility request for one year, through the end of the 2014–2015 school year. My decision to extend Utah’s ESEA flexibility request is based on my determination that ESEA flexibility has been effective in enabling Utah to carry out important reforms to improve student achievement and that this extension is in the public interest. This letter also marks my approval of Utah’s proposed amendments to Principle 1 of its ESEA flexibility request. A summary of Utah’s approved amendments is enclosed with this letter, and Utah’s approved request will be posted on the U.S. Department of Education’s (ED) website.

This extension is subject to Utah’s commitment to continue working with ED on Utah’s requested amendments to its teacher and principal evaluation and support systems, which may require additional flexibility. Utah’s continued work with ED on its requested changes to Principle 3 will inform ED’s decision regarding renewal of Utah’s ESEA flexibility beyond the 2014–2015 school year.

Please note that ED has established a process whereby States may request to amend their approved ESEA flexibility requests. Information regarding that process can be found at: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/index.html. ED will review and approve those changes that continue to align with the principles of ESEA flexibility.

Utah continues to have an affirmative responsibility to ensure that it and its districts are in compliance with Federal civil rights laws that prohibit discrimination based on race, color, national origin, sex, disability, and age in their implementation of ESEA flexibility. These laws include 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, the Age Discrimination Act of 1975, and requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

I am confident that Utah will continue to implement the reforms described in its approved ESEA flexibility request and advance its efforts to hold schools and school districts accountable for the achievement of all students. If you need any additional assistance to implement your ESEA flexibility request, please do not hesitate to contact Victoria Hammer at victoria.hammer@ed.gov or Shevine Holeman at: shevine.holeman@ed.gov.

Thank you for your commitment and continued focus on enhancing education for all of Utah’s students.

Sincerely,

/s/

Deborah S. Delisle
Assistant Secretary

Enclosure

cc: Judy Park, Associate Superintendent

Approved Amendments to Utah’s ESEA Flexibility Request

The following is a summary of approved amendments to Utah’s ESEA flexibility request. The U.S. Department of Education (ED) approves these amendments because Utah’s ESEA flexibility request, as amended, continues to be aligned with the principles of ESEA flexibility. Please refer to ED’s website (http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/map/ut.html) for Utah’s complete ESEA flexibility request.

 Adopt College- and Career-Ready Standards (Element 1.A)

Revision: Utah changed the way that it will meet the college- and career-ready standards requirement under ESEA flexibility. See page 20 and Attachment 30 of Utah’s approved ESEA flexibility request.

 Develop and Administer Annual, Statewide, Aligned, High-Quality Assessments That Measure Student Growth (Element 1.C)

Revision: Utah changed the way that it will meet the high-quality assessment requirement under ESEA flexibility by indicating that it has developed and begun annually administering Statewide assessments that measure student growth in RLA and in mathematics in at least grades 3-8 and at least once in high school in all local educational agencies (LEAs) rather than administer the Smarter Balanced Assessment Consortium (SBAC) assessments. Please note that approval of this amendment does not constitute approval of the assessments that Utah intends to implement. Utah will need to submit the assessments for peer review when the new assessment peer-review process is available.