June 30, 2011

The Honorable Randy Dorn
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Washington Department of Public Instruction
Old Capitol Building
PO Box 47200
Olympia, Washington 98504

Dear Superintendent Dorn:

I am writing in response to Washington’s request 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, Washington has requested a one-time waiver to permit it to administer two different high school end-of-course (EOC) assessments in mathematics in 2010-2011 and to use the results of those assessments in determining adequate yearly progress (AYP) for 2010-2011 through 2014-2015. Washington also requested, with respect to its high schools, a waiver of the statutory and regulatory provisions related to the timing of AYP determinations and notification of school choice options to parents of eligible students. After several discussions with your staff, and in consideration of the unique circumstances forming the basis of the request, I am pleased to grant the following waivers:

• Assessing all students on the same academic assessments. I am granting a one-time waiver of the requirements to assess all students on the same academic assessments used to measure the achievement of all children (ESEA section 1111(b)(3)(C)(i) and 34 C.F.R. § 200.2(b)(1)). More specifically, this waiver authorizes Washington to administer EOC assessments in Algebra I or Geometry in 2010-2011 and use the results from either of those assessments for AYP determinations. Washington may apply the results of the 2010-2011 high school EOC assessments to AYP determinations for 2010-2011 through 2014-2015 unless the ESEA is reauthorized in the interim and the provisions no longer apply.
• Identifying schools for improvement no later than the beginning of the school year. I am granting a one-time waiver of the requirement to identify schools for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring no later than the beginning of the school year following the failure to make AYP (ESEA section 1116(b)(1)(B) and 34 C.F.R. § 200.32(a)(2)). This waiver applies only to high schools.
• Providing parents of eligible students with school choice options 14 days prior to the start of the school year. I am granting a one-time waiver of the requirements for a local educational agency (LEA) to notify parents of their public school choice options at least 14 days before the start of the school year. This waiver applies only with respect to students in high schools that could be newly identified for improvement for the 2011–2012 school year, or that could possibly exit improvement, corrective action, or restructuring for the 2011–2012 school year but do not.

I am granting Washington waivers of these provisions due to the fact that it is transitioning to an EOC assessment in mathematics (Algebra I) for use for federal accountability purposes. The test will first be administered in late spring 2011 and used for AYP determinations based on the 2010-2011 assessment results. With respect to the first provisions I am waiving, some students in grades six through ten have already taking Algebra I and are currently taking Geometry. Thus, absent a waiver, these students would have to take the Algebra I EOC assessment one year removed from when they actually took the Algebra I course. In addition, these students would have to take both the Algebra I and Geometry EOCs. Therefore, for this particular group of students, I am granting this one-time waiver to allow Washington to use either the Algebra I or the Geometry EOC for federal accountability purposes. With respect to the provisions I am waiving related to the timing of AYP determinations and notification of school choice options, because Washington must set standards on its EOCs this summer, it will not be able to comply with the statutory and regulatory timeline requirements.

These waivers are granted on the condition that Washington will satisfy the conditions detailed in the enclosure to this letter.

I appreciate the work you are doing to improve your schools and provide a high-quality education for your students. If you have any questions, please contact Sharon Hall of my staff at 202-260-0998.

Sincerely,

Michael Yudin
Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Policy and Strategic Initiatives

Enclosure

cc: Governor Chris Gregoire
Bob Harmon
Robin Munson

CONDITIONS ON TITLE I, PART A WAIVERS

Waiver of requirements to provide timely adequate yearly progress determinations and timely notice to parents of public school choice options (ESEA sections 1116(b)(1)(B), 1116(b)(1)(E)(i), 34 C.F.R. §§ 200.32(a)(2), 200.37(b)(4)(iv))

This waiver is granted on the condition that Washington will:

• Ensure that each local educational agency (LEA) taking advantage of the waiver provides notice of public school choice to parents of students attending schools that cannot exit improvement, corrective action, or restructuring for the 2011–2012 school year at least 14 days prior to the start of the 2011–2012 school year;

• Encourage all LEAs within the state to provide notice of public school choice as early as possible and, ideally, at least 30 days before the start of the school year to parents of eligible students in schools not affected by the waiver;
• Ensure that its assessment schedule and test vendor contract for the 2011–2012 school year (and all subsequent school years) will permit LEAs within the state to provide notice of public school choice sufficiently in advance of, but no later than 14 days before, the start of the 2012–2013 school year (and all subsequent school years);
• Ensure that its LEAs that offer public school choice earlier to students in some schools than to students in other schools reserve a portion of the available transportation slots for students who receive the later notice (see Question D-7 in the Department’s Public School Choice Non-Regulatory Guidance, available at: http://www.ed.govhttps://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/schoolchoiceguid.pdf and

Submit to the Department by September 30, 2012 a report that provides:

• The total number of LEAs within the state that had schools that could have possibly entered or exited improvement, corrective action, or restructuring for the 2011-2012 school year; and

• The total number of LEAs within the state that took advantage of the waiver and provided some parents notice of public school choice less than 14 days before the start of the 2011–2012 school year.

August 5, 2011

Charlotte N. Hughes
Director
Federal Program Monitoring
Department of Public Instruction
Public Schools of North Carolina
6351 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699

Dear Ms. Hughes:

I am writing in response to North Carolina’s request 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, North Carolina requested to extend the flexibility to continue its participation in the Department’s “flip pilot” to allow local educational agencies (LEA) in North Carolina to offer supplemental educational services (SES) to eligible students in Title I schools in year one of improvement instead of public school choice. After reviewing North Carolina’s request, I am pleased to grant the following waiver:

• Allowing LEAs to offer SES to eligible Title I schools in year one of improvement instead of public school choice and to count the costs of providing SES to these students toward the local educational agency’s (LEA) 20 percent obligation. I am granting a one-year extension of the waiver of ESEA section 1116(b)(10) and 34 C.F.R. § 200.48 to allow LEAs in the first year of school improvement to offer SES in lieu of, or in addition to, public school choice to eligible students in the first year of school improvement and to count the costs of providing SES to these students toward the LEA’s 20 percent obligation.

This waiver is granted on the condition that North Carolina will satisfy the conditions detailed in the enclosure to this letter. Please be sure to review the enclosure carefully.

I appreciate the work you are doing to improve your schools and provide a high-quality education for your students. If you have any questions, please contact Sharon Hall of my staff at sharon.hall@ed.gov or (202) 260-0998.

Sincerely,

Michael Yudin
Acting Assistant Secretary
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

cc: Donna Brown, Section Chief for Federal Program Monitoring

Enclosure

Offering supplemental educational services (SES) instead of public school choice in the first year of improvement and counting the costs of providing SES toward the 20 percent obligation (ESEA section 1116(b)(10); 34 C.F.R. § 200.48)
This waiver is granted on the condition that North Carolina and its local educational agencies (LEAs) meet the following conditions:

Goals

• Increased student participation in SES and public school choice. Participating LEAs must take all reasonable steps, including the actions set forth in 34 C.F.R. § 200.48(d)(2)(i), to increase the number of students receiving SES and public school choice under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended, from prior years.

Principles

Availability of SES providers. The state must:

• Maintain a comprehensive list of approved SES providers that may include non-profit, for-profit, faith- and community-based, and online providers;
• Ensure that there are at least two providers available in each participating LEA from which parents may choose.

Effective parent notification and outreach. The state must ensure that participating LEAs:

• Provide timely, clear, accurate notice to parents about the identification of their child’s school as in need of improvement and their parental involvement opportunities, including the availability of the SES and public school choice options, in simple language that parents can understand;
• Notify parents of eligible students about SES prior to the start of the 2011-2012 school year, or within the first few weeks of the school year, and provide SES shortly thereafter;
• Offer continuous enrollment in SES or multiple SES enrollment periods throughout the 2011-2012 school year until each pilot LEA spends the 20 percent required by Title I or until all students who request SES and public school choice are served.

Level playing field for all providers. The state must ensure that participating LEAs:

• Provide fair and equitable treatment of non-LEA providers by giving providers access to school facilities at a reasonable price and dividing space among providers in a fair manner;
• Allow providers to market their services to parents and work with community and business partners to reach out to parents and provide them with information on their options.

Effective implementation of public school choice. The state must ensure that its LEAs implement public school choice in accordance with all statutory and regulatory requirements.

Reporting. The state must:

• Submit complete and accurate public school choice and SES data for all its LEAs to the Department via the Education Data Exchange Network (EDEN) for the 2011-2012 school year by the end of October 2012;
• Submit reports to the Department on how the conditions of the flexibility agreement were met, including an explanation of trends in participation in SES and public school choice within the participating LEAs, by January 1, 2012, and again by June 30, 2012.

June 13, 2011

The Honorable Chris L. Nicastro
Commissioner of Education
Missouri Department of Elementary & Secondary Education
205 Jefferson Street, 6th Floor
Jefferson City, Missouri 65102-0480

Dear Commissioner Nicastro:

I am writing in response to the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s (MDESE) request to waive certain statutory and regulatory requirements of Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended. In particular, MDESE requested a waiver of several statutory and regulatory provisions related to standards, assessments, and accountability to allow five elementary schools in the Kansas City 33 School District (KCSD) to assess students “out-of-level” (i.e., at their instructional level rather than at their grade level) and to use the results of such out-of-level testing to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) determinations. The request was for a period of four years beginning with assessments administered in school year 2010-2011.

Specifically, MDESE has requested this waiver to enable KCSD to pilot in five schools a student-centered system focused on instructing and assessing students based on standards appropriate to their instructional level. As explained in your waiver request, KCSD would determine each student’s baseline instructional level and establish a unique growth trajectory leading to proficiency by 2013-14 depending on the grade level at which a student’s baseline score is determined. KCSD would then develop an individualized educational plan for each student. For determining AYP, the percent proficient at the school and district levels will include the results of students tested at their instructional level. MDESE asserts that the pilot would provide students with more individualized attention, focus on the specific educational needs of each child, and ensure that each student masters concepts as he/she progresses through the learning program.

I understand and fully appreciate KCSD’s intent that the five pilot schools individualize instruction, focusing on the specific educational needs of each child. A school can and should differentiate instruction based on information from multiple sources, including the state assessments and other assessments that provide diagnostic, progress monitoring, and summative information. Nothing in the ESEA prevents KCSD or the pilot schools from pursuing these strategies. At the same time, I strongly support the ESEA requirement that instruction for all students must be based on grade-level academic content standards. To determine proficiency on grade-level content, students must be assessed on such content against grade-level academic achievement standards.

By using out of level assessments, KCSD would not be measuring all students in the pilot schools against grade-level achievement standards or holding those schools accountable for all students reaching grade-level proficiency. Accordingly, after reviewing and giving careful consideration to MDESE’s request, I am declining to exercise my waiver authority and am not granting your request.

If you have any questions, please contact Sharon Hall of my staff at 202-260-0998.

Sincerely,

Michael Yudin
Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Policy and Strategic Initiatives

cc: John Covington, Ed.D.
Margie Vandeven

May 17, 2011

David Dennis
Chairman, Kansas State Board of Education
Kansas State education Building
120 S.E. 10th Avenue
Topeka, Kansas 66612-1182

Dear Mr. Dennis:

I am writing in response to the Kansas State Board of Education’s request to waive certain statutory and regulatory requirements of Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended. In particular, the Kansas State Board of Education requested a waiver of statutory and regulatory provisions related to accountability to allow Kansas’ annual yearly progress (AYP) targets to he held at the 2009-2010 levels until the Kansas Common Core Standards and the new SMARTER Balanced assessment can be fully implemented, which is anticipated by the 2014-2015 school year. We are also aware that the Kansas State Board of Education requested an accountability workbook amendment for this.

After reviewing and giving careful consideration to the Kansas State Board of Education’s request, I am declining to exercise my waiver authority. I understand the technical difficulties raised during the transition to a new assessment system, as well as the challenges involved with aligning curriculum and instruction to the new Common Core State Standards; however, upon careful consideration, I believe the reauthorization of the ESEA is the best place to address these important transition issues and we are hopeful that this will soon occur.

Thank you for working to improve student performance. If you should have questions, please contact Sharon Hall of my staff at 202-260-0998 or sharon.hall@ed.gov

Sincerely,

/S/

Thelma Melendez de Santa Ana, Ph.D.

cc: Dr. Diane M. DeBacker
Kathy J. Toelkes

May 17, 2011

Dr. Naccaman Williams
Chairman, Arkansas State Board of Education
Arkansas Department of Education
4 Capitol Mall
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1019

Dear Dr. Williams:

I am writing in response to the Arkansas State Board of Education’s request to waive certain statutory and regulatory requirements of Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended. In particular, the Arkansas State Board of Education requested a waiver of statutory and regulatory provisions related to accountability to allow Arkansas’ annual yearly progress (AYP) targets to be held at the 2011-2012 levels until the Arkansas Common Core Standards and the new Partnership for Assessment of Readiness tor College and Careers’ (PARCC) assessment can be fully implemented, which is anticipated by the 2014-2015 school year.

After reviewing and giving careful consideration to the Arkansas State Board of Education’s request, I am declining to exercise my waiver authority. I understand the technical difficulties raised during the transition to a new assessment system, as well as the challenges involved with aligning curriculum and instruction to the new Common Core State Standards; however, upon careful consideration, I believe the reauthorization of the ESEA is the best place to address these important transition issues and we are hopeful that this will soon occur.

Thank you for working to improve student performance. If you should have questions, please contact of my staff at 202-260-0998 or Sharon.Hall@ed.gov.

Sincerely,

/S/

Thelma Melendez de Santa Ana, Ph.D.

cc: Governor Mike Beebe

June 30, 2011

The Honorable Randy Dorn
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Washington Department of Public Instruction
Old Capitol Building
PO Box 47200
Olympia, Washington 98504

Dear Superintendent Dorn:

I am writing in response to Washington’s request 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, Washington has requested a one-time waiver to permit it to administer two different high school end-of-course (EOC) assessments in mathematics in 2010-2011 and to use the results of those assessments in determining adequate yearly progress (AYP) for 2010-2011 through 2014-2015. Washington also requested, with respect to its high schools, a waiver of the statutory and regulatory provisions related to the timing of AYP determinations and notification of school choice options to parents of eligible students. After several discussions with your staff, and in consideration of the unique circumstances forming the basis of the request, I am pleased to grant the following waivers:

• Assessing all students on the same academic assessments. I am granting a one-time waiver of the requirements to assess all students on the same academic assessments used to measure the achievement of all children (ESEA section 1111(b)(3)(C)(i) and 34 C.F.R. § 200.2(b)(1)). More specifically, this waiver authorizes Washington to administer EOC assessments in Algebra I or Geometry in 2010-2011 and use the results from either of those assessments for AYP determinations. Washington may apply the results of the 2010-2011 high school EOC assessments to AYP determinations for 2010-2011 through 2014-2015 unless the ESEA is reauthorized in the interim and the provisions no longer apply.
• Identifying schools for improvement no later than the beginning of the school year. I am granting a one-time waiver of the requirement to identify schools for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring no later than the beginning of the school year following the failure to make AYP (ESEA section 1116(b)(1)(B) and 34 C.F.R. § 200.32(a)(2)). This waiver applies only to high schools.
• Providing parents of eligible students with school choice options 14 days prior to the start of the school year. I am granting a one-time waiver of the requirements for a local educational agency (LEA) to notify parents of their public school choice options at least 14 days before the start of the school year. This waiver applies only with respect to students in high schools that could be newly identified for improvement for the 2011–2012 school year, or that could possibly exit improvement, corrective action, or restructuring for the 2011–2012 school year but do not.

I am granting Washington waivers of these provisions due to the fact that it is transitioning to an EOC assessment in mathematics (Algebra I) for use for federal accountability purposes. The test will first be administered in late spring 2011 and used for AYP determinations based on the 2010-2011 assessment results. With respect to the first provisions I am waiving, some students in grades six through ten have already taking Algebra I and are currently taking Geometry. Thus, absent a waiver, these students would have to take the Algebra I EOC assessment one year removed from when they actually took the Algebra I course. In addition, these students would have to take both the Algebra I and Geometry EOCs. Therefore, for this particular group of students, I am granting this one-time waiver to allow Washington to use either the Algebra I or the Geometry EOC for federal accountability purposes. With respect to the provisions I am waiving related to the timing of AYP determinations and notification of school choice options, because Washington must set standards on its EOCs this summer, it will not be able to comply with the statutory and regulatory timeline requirements.

These waivers are granted on the condition that Washington will satisfy the conditions detailed in the enclosure to this letter.

I appreciate the work you are doing to improve your schools and provide a high-quality education for your students. If you have any questions, please contact Sharon Hall of my staff at 202-260-0998.

Sincerely,

Michael Yudin
Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Policy and Strategic Initiatives

Enclosure

cc: Governor Chris Gregoire
Bob Harmon
Robin Munson

CONDITIONS ON TITLE I, PART A WAIVERS

Waiver of requirements to provide timely adequate yearly progress determinations and timely notice to parents of public school choice options (ESEA sections 1116(b)(1)(B), 1116(b)(1)(E)(i), 34 C.F.R. §§ 200.32(a)(2), 200.37(b)(4)(iv))

This waiver is granted on the condition that Washington will:

• Ensure that each local educational agency (LEA) taking advantage of the waiver provides notice of public school choice to parents of students attending schools that cannot exit improvement, corrective action, or restructuring for the 2011–2012 school year at least 14 days prior to the start of the 2011–2012 school year;

• Encourage all LEAs within the state to provide notice of public school choice as early as possible and, ideally, at least 30 days before the start of the school year to parents of eligible students in schools not affected by the waiver;
• Ensure that its assessment schedule and test vendor contract for the 2011–2012 school year (and all subsequent school years) will permit LEAs within the state to provide notice of public school choice sufficiently in advance of, but no later than 14 days before, the start of the 2012–2013 school year (and all subsequent school years);
• Ensure that its LEAs that offer public school choice earlier to students in some schools than to students in other schools reserve a portion of the available transportation slots for students who receive the later notice (see Question D-7 in the Department’s Public School Choice Non-Regulatory Guidance, available at: http://www.ed.govhttps://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/schoolchoiceguid.pdf and

Submit to the Department by September 30, 2012 a report that provides:

• The total number of LEAs within the state that had schools that could have possibly entered or exited improvement, corrective action, or restructuring for the 2011-2012 school year; and

• The total number of LEAs within the state that took advantage of the waiver and provided some parents notice of public school choice less than 14 days before the start of the 2011–2012 school year.

August 5, 2011

Charlotte N. Hughes
Director
Federal Program Monitoring
Department of Public Instruction
Public Schools of North Carolina
6351 Mail Service Center
Raleigh, North Carolina 27699

Dear Ms. Hughes:

I am writing in response to North Carolina’s request 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, North Carolina requested to extend the flexibility to continue its participation in the Department’s “flip pilot” to allow local educational agencies (LEA) in North Carolina to offer supplemental educational services (SES) to eligible students in Title I schools in year one of improvement instead of public school choice. After reviewing North Carolina’s request, I am pleased to grant the following waiver:

• Allowing LEAs to offer SES to eligible Title I schools in year one of improvement instead of public school choice and to count the costs of providing SES to these students toward the local educational agency’s (LEA) 20 percent obligation. I am granting a one-year extension of the waiver of ESEA section 1116(b)(10) and 34 C.F.R. § 200.48 to allow LEAs in the first year of school improvement to offer SES in lieu of, or in addition to, public school choice to eligible students in the first year of school improvement and to count the costs of providing SES to these students toward the LEA’s 20 percent obligation.

This waiver is granted on the condition that North Carolina will satisfy the conditions detailed in the enclosure to this letter. Please be sure to review the enclosure carefully.

I appreciate the work you are doing to improve your schools and provide a high-quality education for your students. If you have any questions, please contact Sharon Hall of my staff at sharon.hall@ed.gov or (202) 260-0998.

Sincerely,

Michael Yudin
Acting Assistant Secretary
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

cc: Donna Brown, Section Chief for Federal Program Monitoring

Enclosure

Offering supplemental educational services (SES) instead of public school choice in the first year of improvement and counting the costs of providing SES toward the 20 percent obligation (ESEA section 1116(b)(10); 34 C.F.R. § 200.48)
This waiver is granted on the condition that North Carolina and its local educational agencies (LEAs) meet the following conditions:

Goals

• Increased student participation in SES and public school choice. Participating LEAs must take all reasonable steps, including the actions set forth in 34 C.F.R. § 200.48(d)(2)(i), to increase the number of students receiving SES and public school choice under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended, from prior years.

Principles

Availability of SES providers. The state must:

• Maintain a comprehensive list of approved SES providers that may include non-profit, for-profit, faith- and community-based, and online providers;
• Ensure that there are at least two providers available in each participating LEA from which parents may choose.

Effective parent notification and outreach. The state must ensure that participating LEAs:

• Provide timely, clear, accurate notice to parents about the identification of their child’s school as in need of improvement and their parental involvement opportunities, including the availability of the SES and public school choice options, in simple language that parents can understand;
• Notify parents of eligible students about SES prior to the start of the 2011-2012 school year, or within the first few weeks of the school year, and provide SES shortly thereafter;
• Offer continuous enrollment in SES or multiple SES enrollment periods throughout the 2011-2012 school year until each pilot LEA spends the 20 percent required by Title I or until all students who request SES and public school choice are served.

Level playing field for all providers. The state must ensure that participating LEAs:

• Provide fair and equitable treatment of non-LEA providers by giving providers access to school facilities at a reasonable price and dividing space among providers in a fair manner;
• Allow providers to market their services to parents and work with community and business partners to reach out to parents and provide them with information on their options.

Effective implementation of public school choice. The state must ensure that its LEAs implement public school choice in accordance with all statutory and regulatory requirements.

Reporting. The state must:

• Submit complete and accurate public school choice and SES data for all its LEAs to the Department via the Education Data Exchange Network (EDEN) for the 2011-2012 school year by the end of October 2012;
• Submit reports to the Department on how the conditions of the flexibility agreement were met, including an explanation of trends in participation in SES and public school choice within the participating LEAs, by January 1, 2012, and again by June 30, 2012.

June 13, 2011

The Honorable Chris L. Nicastro
Commissioner of Education
Missouri Department of Elementary & Secondary Education
205 Jefferson Street, 6th Floor
Jefferson City, Missouri 65102-0480

Dear Commissioner Nicastro:

I am writing in response to the Missouri Department of Elementary and Secondary Education’s (MDESE) request to waive certain statutory and regulatory requirements of Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended. In particular, MDESE requested a waiver of several statutory and regulatory provisions related to standards, assessments, and accountability to allow five elementary schools in the Kansas City 33 School District (KCSD) to assess students “out-of-level” (i.e., at their instructional level rather than at their grade level) and to use the results of such out-of-level testing to make adequate yearly progress (AYP) determinations. The request was for a period of four years beginning with assessments administered in school year 2010-2011.

Specifically, MDESE has requested this waiver to enable KCSD to pilot in five schools a student-centered system focused on instructing and assessing students based on standards appropriate to their instructional level. As explained in your waiver request, KCSD would determine each student’s baseline instructional level and establish a unique growth trajectory leading to proficiency by 2013-14 depending on the grade level at which a student’s baseline score is determined. KCSD would then develop an individualized educational plan for each student. For determining AYP, the percent proficient at the school and district levels will include the results of students tested at their instructional level. MDESE asserts that the pilot would provide students with more individualized attention, focus on the specific educational needs of each child, and ensure that each student masters concepts as he/she progresses through the learning program.

I understand and fully appreciate KCSD’s intent that the five pilot schools individualize instruction, focusing on the specific educational needs of each child. A school can and should differentiate instruction based on information from multiple sources, including the state assessments and other assessments that provide diagnostic, progress monitoring, and summative information. Nothing in the ESEA prevents KCSD or the pilot schools from pursuing these strategies. At the same time, I strongly support the ESEA requirement that instruction for all students must be based on grade-level academic content standards. To determine proficiency on grade-level content, students must be assessed on such content against grade-level academic achievement standards.

By using out of level assessments, KCSD would not be measuring all students in the pilot schools against grade-level achievement standards or holding those schools accountable for all students reaching grade-level proficiency. Accordingly, after reviewing and giving careful consideration to MDESE’s request, I am declining to exercise my waiver authority and am not granting your request.

If you have any questions, please contact Sharon Hall of my staff at 202-260-0998.

Sincerely,

Michael Yudin
Deputy Assistant Secretary
for Policy and Strategic Initiatives

cc: John Covington, Ed.D.
Margie Vandeven

May 17, 2011

David Dennis
Chairman, Kansas State Board of Education
Kansas State education Building
120 S.E. 10th Avenue
Topeka, Kansas 66612-1182

Dear Mr. Dennis:

I am writing in response to the Kansas State Board of Education’s request to waive certain statutory and regulatory requirements of Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended. In particular, the Kansas State Board of Education requested a waiver of statutory and regulatory provisions related to accountability to allow Kansas’ annual yearly progress (AYP) targets to he held at the 2009-2010 levels until the Kansas Common Core Standards and the new SMARTER Balanced assessment can be fully implemented, which is anticipated by the 2014-2015 school year. We are also aware that the Kansas State Board of Education requested an accountability workbook amendment for this.

After reviewing and giving careful consideration to the Kansas State Board of Education’s request, I am declining to exercise my waiver authority. I understand the technical difficulties raised during the transition to a new assessment system, as well as the challenges involved with aligning curriculum and instruction to the new Common Core State Standards; however, upon careful consideration, I believe the reauthorization of the ESEA is the best place to address these important transition issues and we are hopeful that this will soon occur.

Thank you for working to improve student performance. If you should have questions, please contact Sharon Hall of my staff at 202-260-0998 or sharon.hall@ed.gov

Sincerely,

/S/

Thelma Melendez de Santa Ana, Ph.D.

cc: Dr. Diane M. DeBacker
Kathy J. Toelkes

May 17, 2011

Dr. Naccaman Williams
Chairman, Arkansas State Board of Education
Arkansas Department of Education
4 Capitol Mall
Little Rock, Arkansas 72201-1019

Dear Dr. Williams:

I am writing in response to the Arkansas State Board of Education’s request to waive certain statutory and regulatory requirements of Title I, Part A of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended. In particular, the Arkansas State Board of Education requested a waiver of statutory and regulatory provisions related to accountability to allow Arkansas’ annual yearly progress (AYP) targets to be held at the 2011-2012 levels until the Arkansas Common Core Standards and the new Partnership for Assessment of Readiness tor College and Careers’ (PARCC) assessment can be fully implemented, which is anticipated by the 2014-2015 school year.

After reviewing and giving careful consideration to the Arkansas State Board of Education’s request, I am declining to exercise my waiver authority. I understand the technical difficulties raised during the transition to a new assessment system, as well as the challenges involved with aligning curriculum and instruction to the new Common Core State Standards; however, upon careful consideration, I believe the reauthorization of the ESEA is the best place to address these important transition issues and we are hopeful that this will soon occur.

Thank you for working to improve student performance. If you should have questions, please contact of my staff at 202-260-0998 or Sharon.Hall@ed.gov.

Sincerely,

/S/

Thelma Melendez de Santa Ana, Ph.D.

cc: Governor Mike Beebe