Tag Archives: State Agencies

Puerto Rico Implementation Letter

The Honorable Rafael Román Meléndez
Secretary of Education
Department of Education
P.O. Box 190759
San Juan, PR 00919

Dear Secretary Román Meléndez:

Congratulations on receiving approval of Puerto Rico’s request for ESEA flexibility. Submitting a request that meets the four ESEA flexibility principles is a significant accomplishment; you and your staff should be proud of the work you have done and that you plan to do to improve educational outcomes for all students, close achievement gaps, increase equity, and improve the quality of instruction in Puerto Rico. Full and effective implementation of your request for ESEA flexibility will be critically important to accomplishing these goals. The U.S. Department of Education (ED) is committed to working with Puerto Rico to ensure full and effective implementation, to include providing technical assistance and monitoring the progress of implementation toward the goals set for your schools and students.

The purpose of this letter is to provide some additional information about how to implement your approved request and how to meet certain obligations related to the approval of your request.

Conditions on Approval

Puerto Rico’s ESEA flexibility request was approved subject to four conditions. To request approval to implement these waivers beyond the 2013–2014 school year, Puerto Rico must meet the following conditions:

resolve all outstanding compliance findings for the School Improvement Grants (SIG) program and Title III of the ESEA by June 1, 2014
submit a high-quality plan (as defined in ESEA Flexibility Guidance for Renewal Process), which must be approved by ED, for resolving all monitoring and audit findings of all other ED programs for which Puerto Rico currently has outstanding monitoring or audit findings , and include in the plan interim goals for the 2013–2014 school year by December 31, 2013
submit to ED for review and approval an amended request incorporating final guidelines for teacher and principal evaluation and support systems that meet the requirements of ESEA flexibility by December 31, 2013
Puerto Rico must also confer with ED on a quarterly basis (every three months from date of approval) regarding its implementation of ESEA flexibility and progress toward the above conditions.

In addition, for Puerto Rico to satisfy the second condition, the plan it submits must include a reasonable timeline for resolution of all outstanding findings, which must be approved by ED. If Puerto Rico fails to meet any of these conditions, or if ED determines that Puerto Rico has not implemented its approved ESEA flexibility request with fidelity, the waivers being granted to Puerto Rico will expire at the end of the 2013–2014 school year, and Puerto Rico will be required to immediately resume complying with all waived ESEA requirements. Please note, that if ED determines after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, that Puerto Rico’s performance under the waivers has been inadequate to justify a continuance of the waivers, including if ED determines that any one or more of the conditions are not met, ED may terminate the waivers prior to the end of the 2013–2014 school year and require Puerto Rico to resume complying with all waived ESEA requirements at that time. ED may also designate Puerto Rico as a “high-risk grantee” or take other enforcement action that, among other things, may potentially hamper its ability to receive federal discretionary funds for which Puerto Rico would have been otherwise able to apply in the future.

Waivers in ESEA Flexibility

The waivers that comprise ESEA flexibility have been granted pursuant to the Secretary’s authority under section 9401 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). Consistent with that authority, only the statutory requirements listed in the table enclosed with Secretary Duncan’s letter approving your request, and their implementing regulations, have been waived through ESEA flexibility. Puerto Rico, in its capacity as a State educational agency (SEA) and a local educational agency, remains obligated to comply with all other requirements of the ESEA, including, for example, the fiscal requirements in ESEA section 1120A, the report card requirements, the regulatory requirements for calculating graduation rates, the caps on the number of proficient and advanced scores of students with disabilities who take an alternate assessment based on alternate or modified academic achievement standards that may be included in accountability determinations, and the requirements related to equitable services.

In addition, the waivers that are included in the table enclosed with Secretary Duncan’s letter include waivers that permit Puerto Rico to: operate a schoolwide program in a priority or focus school that does not meet the 40 percent poverty threshold, provide funds reserved under ESEA section 1003(a) to any priority or focus school, provide funds reserved under ESEA section 1117(c)(2)(A) to any reward school, and provide funds under ESEA section 1003(g) to any priority school that will implement one of the four SIG school intervention models. Please note that these waivers apply only to schools that meet the ESEA flexibility definitions of priority, focus, and reward schools, as applicable. To clarify, if Puerto Rico identifies other schools as reward, priority, or focus schools that do not meet those definitions, these waivers would not be relevant to those additional schools. The approval of your request for ESEA flexibility does not waive any other requirements related to schoolwide programs, the reservation under ESEA section 1003(a), the provision of funds under ESEA section 1117(c)(2)(A), or the allocation of SIG funds, respectively; they merely modify the universe of schools to which those respective provisions apply.

Waivers of Requirements to Provide Supplemental Educational Services (SES) and Transportation for Public School Choice

Under ESEA flexibility, Puerto Rico will no longer be required by Federal law to offer SES or public school choice. Accordingly, Puerto Rico should ensure that it provides parents with information to explain why SES and transportation for public school choice will no longer be offered beginning in the 2013–2014 school year, while explaining the interventions, incentives, and supports that will replace those options, and provide other relevant details regarding the termination of the existing services. This information should be provided as early as feasible so that parents may plan accordingly, and should be provided in a language and format that is understandable to parents. Puerto Rico should also provide similar information about the status of SES to all SES providers on the island.

Please note that, although Puerto Rico will no longer be obligated by Federal law to provide transportation for public school choice, a student who is already taking advantage of public school choice must be permitted to remain at his or her school of choice until he or she has completed the highest grade in that school because ESEA flexibility does not waive ESEA section 1116(b)(13). This right should be clearly explained to parents in the information that is provided regarding the changes being made with respect to the provision of SES and public school choice. To enable parents to exercise this right, ED encourages Puerto Rico to consider providing transportation to these schools of choice beyond the end of the 2012–2013 school year.

Accountability Workbooks

ED recognizes that, in light of Puerto Rico’s approved ESEA flexibility request, some elements of Puerto Rico’s Accountability Workbook do not reflect Puerto Rico’s new system of differentiated recognition, accountability, and support. The Accountability Workbook will be replaced by an Accountability Addendum that will be posted with Puerto Rico’s approved ESEA flexibility request. Details regarding the preparation of the Accountability Addendum are available on the “Support for States” section of ED’s ESEA flexibility webpage.

Amendments to Puerto Rico’s ESEA Flexibility Request

ED encourages Puerto Rico to continuously evaluate the effectiveness of the plans and other elements of its ESEA flexibility request as it proceeds with implementation, and to make necessary changes to address any challenges that it identifies. As a result of this process of continuous improvement, ED anticipates that Puerto Rico might want or need to make changes to its ESEA flexibility request.

If Puerto Rico wishes to make changes to its ESEA flexibility request, Puerto Rico must submit those changes to ED as early as feasible for review and approval. Upon receipt of the proposed changes, ED will determine whether the changes require additional peer review. Puerto Rico may not implement any changes to its approved request until those changes have been approved by ED. Additional information regarding the format and process for an SEA to submit a request to amend its ESEA flexibility request is available on the “Support for States” section of ED’s ESEA flexibility webpage at: http://www.ed.gov/esea/flexibility/support-for-states Please note that ED does not anticipate approving any amendment that would result in Puerto Rico’s no longer meeting the required timelines for implementation of ESEA flexibility.

Continuing Consultation

Meaningfully engaging and soliciting input from teachers and their representatives, and other diverse stakeholders, was an important part of developing Puerto Rico’s ESEA flexibility request. Such consultation will be equally important as you proceed with implementing your ESEA flexibility request.

Submission of Reports, Data, and Evidence

ESEA section 9401(e)(2) requires an SEA receiving a waiver under section 9401 to report such information as the Secretary may require. In accordance with that provision and as it assured in its request, Puerto Rico must provide ED certain reports, data, and evidence regarding its progress in implementing the plans and other elements of its approved request. ED anticipates that an SEA will be able to meet this requirement primarily by providing information to ED through EDFacts/Consolidated State Performance Report (much of which is part of current collections), and by providing information required for ED’s monitoring of Puerto Rico’s ESEA flexibility implementation.

Monitoring

ED is monitoring SEAs to ensure full and effective implementation of approved ESEA flexibility requests. ED will track Puerto Rico’s progress and success in implementing the plans and other elements of its approved ESEA flexibility request, including alignment with the four principles and the required timelines listed in the document titled ESEA Flexibility. In addition, ED will closely monitor to ensure that Puerto Rico is 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. ED expects to begin monitoring of Puerto Rico’s implementation of ESEA flexibility soon and will provide additional information on its monitoring plans in the coming weeks.

Please note that, as States’ implementation of ESEA flexibility proceeds, ED may adjust the reports, data, and evidence it needs to track implementation, as appropriate. ED will keep you apprised of any modifications.

Secretary’s Right to Terminate Waivers

Under ESEA section 9401(f), the Secretary must terminate a waiver if he determines, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, that the performance of the entity affected by the waiver has been inadequate to justify a continuation of the waiver or if the waiver is no longer necessary to achieve its original purpose. Accordingly, the Secretary may terminate the waivers granted through ESEA flexibility if Puerto Rico does not implement its request as approved by ED, if Puerto Rico fails to submit in a timely manner the required reports, data, and evidence, or if Puerto Rico does not receive approval of its guidelines for teacher and principal evaluation and support systems. As noted above, Puerto Rico’s waivers will expire at the end of the 2013–2014 school year if it does not meet the four conditions listed above. If the waivers are terminated or expire by their own terms at the end of the 2013–2014 school year, Puerto Rico must immediately resume complying with the requirements of current law.

I hope you find this information helpful. Congratulations again on receiving approval of Puerto Rico’s request for ESEA flexibility. I look forward to working with you and your staff as you implement this flexibility and as you continue working to improve education in Puerto Rico.

Sincerely,

/s/

Deborah S. Delisle
Assistant Secretary

Enclosure

cc: Ramón L. De Azúa, Director of Federal Affairs

Alaska Implementation Letter

Date: August 1, 2013

The Honorable Michael Hanley
Commissioner
Department of Education and Early Development
PO Box 110500
Juneau, AK 99811

Dear Commissioner Hanley:

The U.S. Department of Education (ED) is committed to working with Alaska to ensure full and effective implementation of your approved request for ESEA flexibility, including by providing technical assistance and monitoring the progress of implementation toward the goals set for your schools and students. Toward that end, the purpose of this letter is to provide some additional information about how to implement your approved request and how to meet certain obligations related to your request.

Waivers in ESEA Flexibility

The waivers that comprise ESEA flexibility have been granted pursuant to the Secretary’s authority under section 9401 of the ESEA. Consistent with that authority, only the statutory requirements listed in the table enclosed with Secretary Duncan’s letter approving your request, and the related regulatory requirements, have been waived through ESEA flexibility. Alaska and its local educational agencies (LEAs) remain obligated to comply with all other requirements of the ESEA, including the fiscal requirements in ESEA section 1120A, the report card requirements, the regulatory requirements for calculating graduation rates, the caps on the number of proficient and advanced scores of students with disabilities who take an alternate assessment based on alternate or modified academic achievement standards that may be included in accountability determinations, and the requirements related to equitable services.

In addition, the waivers that are included in the table enclosed with Secretary Duncan’s letter include waivers that permit Alaska or LEAs in Alaska to: operate a schoolwide program in a priority or focus school that does not meet the 40 percent poverty threshold; provide funds reserved under ESEA section 1003(a) to any priority or focus school; provide funds reserved under ESEA section 1117(c)(2)(A) to any reward school; and provide funds under ESEA section 1003(g) to any priority school that will implement one of the four School Improvement Grants (SIG) school intervention models. Please note that these waivers apply only to schools that meet the ESEA flexibility definitions of priority, focus, and reward schools, as applicable. Essentially, if Alaska identifies other schools as reward, priority, or focus schools that do not meet those definitions, these waivers would not be relevant to those additional schools. Moreover, approval of your request for ESEA flexibility does not waive any other requirements related to schoolwide programs, the reservation under ESEA section 1003(a), the provision of funds under ESEA section 1117(c)(2)(A), or the allocation of SIG funds, respectively; they merely modify the universe of schools to which those respective provisions apply.

Waivers of Requirements to Provide Supplemental Educational Services (SES) and Transportation for Public School Choice

Under ESEA flexibility, LEAs in Alaska are no longer required by Federal law to offer SES or transportation for public school choice. Alaska should have taken steps to ensure, as appropriate, that its LEAs provided parents with information regarding the termination of SES and transportation for public school choice, including an explanation of the interventions, incentives, and supports that have replaced those options.

Please note that, although LEAs are no longer obligated by Federal law to provide transportation for public school choice, a student who is already taking advantage of public school choice must be permitted to remain at his or her school of choice until he or she has completed the highest grade in that school because ESEA flexibility does not waive ESEA section 1116(b)(13). This right should have been clearly explained to parents in the information that was provided regarding the changes being made with respect to the provision of SES and public school choice.

Accountability Addendum

ED recognizes that, in light of Alaska’s approved ESEA flexibility request, some elements of Alaska’s current accountability workbook do not reflect Alaska’s new system of differentiated recognition, accountability, and support. To help ensure transparency and consistency of information while at the same time minimizing the burden on an SEA, ED has developed an accountability addendum, which replaces the accountability workbook of a State approved for ESEA flexibility. Together, an SEA’s approved ESEA flexibility request and its accountability addendum contain the elements of the State’s system of differentiated recognition, accountability and support. Information about the accountability addendum and a sample addendum are available on ED’s ESEA flexibility web page at: http://www2.ed.govhttps://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/index.html. Your State contact will be in touch with you to discuss the process for completing and submitting your accountability addendum for ED’s review.

Amendments to Alaska’s ESEA Flexibility Request

ED encourages Alaska to continuously evaluate the effectiveness of the plans and other elements of its ESEA flexibility request as it proceeds with implementation, and to make necessary changes to address any challenges that it identifies. As a result of this process of continuous improvement, ED anticipates that Alaska might want or need to make other changes to its ESEA flexibility request.

If Alaska wishes to make changes to its ESEA flexibility request, Alaska must submit those changes to ED as early as possible for ED’s review and approval. Upon receipt of the proposed changes, ED will determine whether the changes require additional peer review. Alaska may not implement any changes to its approved request until those changes have been approved by ED. Additional information regarding the format and process for an SEA to submit a request to amend its ESEA flexibility request is available on the “Support and Technical Assistance for States” section of the ESEA flexibility webpage at: http://www2.ed.govhttps://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/index.html. With the exception of the flexibilities announced in Secretary Duncan’s June 18, 2013 letter, please note that ED does not anticipate approving any amendment that would result in a State’s no longer meeting the required timelines for implementation of ESEA flexibility.

Principle 3 Review

Alaska must submit for peer review its guidelines for its teacher and principal evaluation and support systems, in accordance with Principle 3 of ESEA flexibility, once they are developed and adopted. ED will provide you with information regarding the schedule for this submission and peer review shortly.

Continuing Consultation

Meaningful engagement and soliciting input from teachers and their representatives, and other diverse stakeholders, was an important part of developing Alaska’s ESEA flexibility request. Such consultation will be equally important as you continue to implement your ESEA flexibility request.

Submission of Reports, Data, and Evidence

ESEA section 9401(e)(2) requires an SEA receiving a waiver under section 9401 to report such information as the Secretary may require. In accordance with that provision and as it assured in its request, Alaska must provide ED certain reports, data, and evidence regarding its progress in implementing the plans and other elements of its approved request. Generally, SEAs are meeting this requirement primarily by providing information to ED through EDFacts/Consolidated State Performance Report, and by providing information required for ED’s monitoring of ESEA flexibility implementation.

Monitoring

ED has begun monitoring SEAs to ensure full and effective implementation of approved ESEA flexibility requests. ED will track Alaska’s progress and success in implementing the plans and other elements of its approved ESEA flexibility request, including alignment with the four principles and the required timelines listed in the document titled ESEA Flexibility. In particular, ED will monitor the impact of Alaska’s new accountability system to ensure that Alaska continues to provide full and specific information with respect to the performance of individual ESEA subgroups and to ensure that schools and LEAs with continued low subgroup performance are identified for appropriate interventions and supports. ED expects to begin Part A monitoring of Alaska’s implementation of ESEA flexibility at the start of the 2013–2014 school year and will provide additional information on its monitoring plans in the coming weeks.

Please note that as States’ implementation of ESEA flexibility proceeds, ED may adjust the reports, data, and evidence it needs to track implementation, as appropriate. ED will keep you apprised of any modifications.

Secretary’s Right to Terminate Waivers

Under ESEA section 9401(f), the Secretary must terminate a waiver if he determines, after notice and an opportunity for a hearing, that the performance of the entity affected by the waiver has been inadequate to justify a continuation of the waiver or if the waiver is no longer necessary to achieve its original purpose. Accordingly, the Secretary may terminate the waivers granted through ESEA flexibility if Alaska or a significant number of its LEAs do not implement Alaska’s request as approved by ED, if Alaska fails to submit in a timely manner the required reports and data, or if Alaska does not receive approval of its guidelines for teacher and principal evaluation and support systems. If the waivers are terminated, Alaska and its LEAs must immediately resume complying with the requirements of current law. Similarly, if the Secretary determines not to extend or renew the waivers granted to Alaska beyond the end of the 2014–2015 school year, Alaska and its LEAs would be required to immediately resume complying with the requirements of current law in that instance, as well.

I hope you find this information helpful. Congratulations again on receiving approval of Alaska’s request for ESEA flexibility. I look forward to working with you and your staff as you implement this flexibility and as you continue working to improve education in Alaska.

Sincerely,

/s/

Deborah S. Delisle
Assistant Secretary

cc: Margaret MacKinnon, Department of Education and Early Development
Susan McCauley, Department of Education and Early Development

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

July 27, 2006

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

Dear Commissioner Cate:

I am writing in response to Vermont’s request to amend its State accountability plan under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). Following our discussions with your staff, the requested changes that are aligned with NCLB are now included in an amended State accountability plan that Vermont submitted to the Department on July 25th, 2006. The revised and fully approved plan will be posted on the Department’s website. A summary of the approved amendment is enclosed with this letter.

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

Please also be aware that approval of Vermont’s accountability plan for Title I, including the amendment approved above, does not indicate that the plan complies with Federal civil rights requirements, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

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

Sincerely,

Henry L. Johnson

Enclosure

Governor Jim Douglas
Gail Taylor

Amendments to the Vermont Accountability Plan

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

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

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

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

Accountability system incorporates the academic achievement standards (Element 1.3)

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

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

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

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

Accountability system includes rewards and sanctions (Element 1.6)

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

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

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

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

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

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

Accountability system establishes intermediate goals (Element 3.2)

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

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

Return to state-by-state listing

Top

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

August 16, 2005

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

Dear Commissioner Cate:

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

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

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

Sincerely,

Henry L. Johnson

cc: Governor Jim Douglas

Decision Letters on State Accountability Plans

Decision Letter on Request to Amend Rhode Island State Accountability Plan

May 12, 2009

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

Dear Commissioner McWalters:

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

I am writing in response to Rhode Island’s request to amend its state accountability plan under Title I of the ESEA. Following discussions between the Department and your staff, Rhode Island made a change to its accountability plan, which is now included in the amended state accountability plan that Rhode Island submitted to the Department on January 15, 2009. I am pleased to approve Rhode Island’s amended plan, which we will post on the Department’s website. A summary of Rhode Island’s requested amendment is enclosed with this letter. As you know, any further requests to amend Rhode Island’s accountability plan must be submitted to the Department for review and approval as required by section 1111(f)(2) of Title I of the ESEA.

Please also be aware that approval of Rhode Island’s accountability plan for Title I, including the amendment approved herein, does not indicate that the plan complies with Federal civil rights requirements, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

I am confident that Rhode Island will continue to advance its efforts to hold schools and school districts accountable for the achievement of all students. If you need any additional assistance to implement the standards, assessment, and accountability provisions of the ESEA, please do not hesitate to contact (Patrick.Rooney@ed.gov) or (Sue.Rigney@ed.gov) of my staff.

Sincerely,

Joseph C. Conaty

Enclosure
cc: Governor Donald L. Carcieri
Mary Ann Snider

Amendment to Rhode Island’s Accountability Plan

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

Acceptable amendment

The following amendment is aligned with the statute and regulations.

Graduation rate (Element 7.1)

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

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

Decision Letters on State Accountability Plans

Top

Decision Letter on Request to Amend Rhode Island State Accountability Plan

June 11, 2008

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

Dear Commissioner McWalters:

I am writing in response to Rhode Island’s request to amend its state accountability plan under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). Following discussions between the Department and your staff, you made certain changes to your state accountability plan, which are now included in the amended state accountability plan that Rhode Island submitted to the Department on June 10, 2008. I am pleased to fully approve Rhode Island’s amended plan, which we will post on the Department’s website. A summary of the amendments submitted for the 2007-08 school year is enclosed with this letter. As you know, any further requests to amend Rhode Island’s accountability plan must be submitted to the Department for review and approval as required by section 1111(f)(2) of Title I of the ESEA.

Please also be aware that approval of Rhode Island’s accountability plan for Title I, including the amendments approved herein, does not indicate that the plan complies with Federal civil rights requirements, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

I am confident that Rhode Island will continue to hold schools and school districts accountable for the achievement of all students. I wish you well in your school improvement efforts. If you need any additional assistance in implementing the standards, assessment and accountability provisions of NCLB, please do not hesitate to contact Abigail Potts (Abigail.Potts@ed.gov) or Sue Rigney (Sue.Rigney@ed.gov) of my staff.

Sincerely,

Kerri L. Briggs, Ph.D.

Enclosure

cc: Governor Donald L. Carcieri
Mary Ann Snider

Amendments to Rhode Island’s Accountability Plan

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

Acceptable amendments

The following amendments are aligned with the statute and regulations.

Annual Measurable Objectives (Element 3.2)

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

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

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

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

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

Assessments used in AYP (Element 3.2)

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

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

Graduation rate (Element 7.1)

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

Unacceptable amendment

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

Appeals process (Element 3.1)

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

Decision Letters on State Accountability Plans

Top

Decision Letter on Request to Amend Rhode Island State Accountability Plan

July 26, 2006

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

Dear Commissioner McWalters:

I am writing in response to Rhode Island’s request to amend its State accountability plan under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). Following our discussions with your staff, the changes that are aligned with NCLB are now included in an amended State accountability plan that Rhode Island submitted to the Department on June 22, 2006. A summary of the approved amendments is attached to this letter. I am pleased to fully approve Rhode Island’s amended plan, which we will post on the Department’s website.

Please also be aware that approval of Rhode Island’s accountability plan for Title I, including the amendments approved above, does not indicate that the plan complies with Federal civil rights requirements, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

I am confident that Rhode Island will continue to hold schools and school districts accountable for the achievement of all students. I wish you well in your school improvement efforts. If you need any additional assistance in implementing the standards, assessments and accountability provisions of NCLB, please do not hesitate to contact Abigail Potts (abigail.potts@ed.gov) or Sue Rigney (sue.rigney@ed.gov) of my staff.

Sincerely,

Henry L. Johnson

Enclosure

cc: Governor Donald Carcieri

Amendments to the Rhode Island Accountability Plan

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

School Accountability (Element 1.2)

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

Method of AYP Determination (Element 3.1)

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

Performance Index (3.2)

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

Uniform Averaging (3.2)

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

Method of AYP Determination (3.2)

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

Decision Letters on State Accountability Plans

Top

Decision Letter on Request to Amend Rhode Island State Accountability Plan

August 27, 2004

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

Dear Commissioner McWalters:

I am writing in response to Rhode Island’s request to amend its State accountability plan under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). Following our discussions with your staff, those changes that are aligned with NCLB are now included in an amended State accountability plan that Rhode Island submitted to the Department on July 22, 2004. A list of the changes is enclosed with this letter. I am pleased to fully approve Rhode Island’s amended plan, which we will post on the Department’s website.

If, over time, Rhode Island makes changes to the accountability plan that has been approved, Rhode Island must submit information about those changes to the Department for review and approval, as required by section 1111(f)(2) of Title I. Approval of Rhode Island’s accountability plan is not also an approval of Rhode Island’s standards and assessment system. As Rhode Island makes changes in its standards and assessments to meet requirements under NCLB, Rhode Island must submit information about those changes to the Department for peer review through the standards and assessment process.

I hope that you have found the accountability plan amendment process effective for implementing a State accountability system that best serves the needs of Rhode Island’s students and schools and that will lead to improving the academic achievement of all students. As evidenced by the diversity among State accountability plans and State consolidated applications, States have great flexibility in the design of their systems and implementation of particular NCLB provisions. If, as you implement your accountability plan, you find additional elements of your plan that you believe should be refined or amended for next school year to best serve the needs of your students and schools, I encourage you to explore all the areas of flexibility available to your State.

In addition to the flexibility available to States in the design and implementation of their accountability plans, I also encourage you and your districts to utilize the additional flexibility available for the administration and operation of NCLB programs. NCLB continued the flexibility available to States and districts under the 1994 reauthorization of the ESEA, including the ability to consolidate State and local administrative funds (sections 9201 and 9203), to operate schoolwide programs (section 1114), and to participate in the Education Flexibility Partnership Program (“Ed-Flex”). Additionally, NCLB created several new flexibility options for States and districts for the operation of federal programs. These new flexibility provisions include the State Flexibility Authority (sections 6141 through 6144), the Local Flexibility Demonstration program (sections 6151 through 6156), Transferability (sections 6121 through 6123), and the Rural Education Achievement program (sections 6201 through 6234). These flexibilities truly offer States and districts the ability to target federal resources to their unique and individual needs.

I am confident that Rhode Island will continue to advance its efforts to hold schools and school districts accountable for the achievement of all students. I wish you well in your school improvement efforts. If I can be of any additional assistance to Rhode Island in its efforts to implement other aspects of NCLB, please do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely,

Raymond Simon

Cc: Governor Donald L. Carcieri

Enclosure

Amendments to the Rhode Island’s Accountability Plan

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

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

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

Uniform Averaging (Elements 3.1, 4.1, and 9.2)

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

Assessment and accountability for LEP students (Element 5.4)

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

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

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

Participation Rate (Elements 10.1 and 10.2)

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

Decision Letters on State Accountability Plans

New Mexico Decision Letter for State Accountability Plans under the Consolidated State Application Process

January 4, 2005

Honorable Veronica C. Garcia
Secretary of Education
State of New Mexico Public Education Department
300 Don Gaspar
Santa Fe, New Mexico 87501

Dear Secretary Garcia:

I am writing in response to New Mexico’s request to amend its State accountability plan under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). Following our discussions with your staff, those changes that are aligned with NCLB are now included in an amended State accountability plan that New Mexico submitted to the Department in October 2004. I am pleased to approve New Mexico’s amendments. A list of the changes is attached to this letter. If, over time, New Mexico wishes to make additional changes to its accountability plan, New Mexico must submit information about those changes to the Department for review and approval, as required by section 1111(f)(2) of Title I.

We will post New Mexico’s amended plan on the Department’s website. Additionally, based on information you have provided us, regarding the actions taken by New Mexico to finalize certain elements in its accountability plan required under NCLB, New Mexico has met those conditions of approval that were detailed in Eugene W. Hickok’s July 1, 2003 letter to New Mexico.

As was the subject Secretary Rod Paige’s October 1, 2004 correspondence with you,
New Mexico’s use of the norm-referenced Supera assessment for some fourth and eighth grade students in calculating adequate yearly progress (AYP) for the 2003-2004 school year was not acceptable. Final approval of New Mexico’s accountability plan depends on the resolution of this issue and New Mexico’s full compliance with section 1111 of the ESEA as amended by NCLB.

I am confident that New Mexico will continue to advance its efforts to hold schools and school districts accountable for the achievement of all students. I wish you well in your school improvement efforts. If I can be of any additional assistance to New Mexico in its efforts to implement other aspects of NCLB, please do not hesitate to call.

Sincerely,

Raymond Simon

Attachment
cc: Bill Richardson

Enclosure

Amendments to the New Mexico Accountability Plan

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

Schools without Tested Grades (Elements 1.1 and 1.2)

Revision: For 2003-2004, New Mexico schools that contain some configuration of grades K-2 will be assigned the grade 4 data from the primary feeder schools "backwards" based on the New Mexico Standards Based Assessments for the determination of AYP. Beginning in 2004-2005, New Mexico schools that contain some configuration of grades K-2 will be assigned the grade 3 data from the primary feeder schools "backwards" based on the New Mexico Standards Based Assessments for the determination of AYP.

Academic Achievement Levels (Element 1.3)

Revision: New Mexico will set achievement standards for the State’s new criterion-referenced assessments in grades 3, 4, 5, 6, 7, 8, 9 and 11 during the 2004-2005 school year and prior to the release of the assessment results and the calculation of AYP in August 2005.

Full Academic Year (Element 2.2)

Revision: New Mexico will apply a definition of full academic year that is based on enrollment from test administration to test administration.

AYP Determinations, Starting Points, Annual Measurable Objectives, Intermediate Goals (Elements 3.1, 3.2, 3.2a, 3.2b, 3.2c, 4.1, 6.1)

Revision: For 2003-2004, AYP determinations will be calculated using results from grades 4, 8, and 11 standards-based assessments. Beginning with the 2004-2005 school year and the implementation of new standards-based assessments, AYP will be calculated using the results from the Standards Based Assessment in each of grades 3 through 9 and 11. In the Spring of 2005, New Mexico will implement new Standards Based Assessments in Grades 3 through 9 in the spring of 2005, and New Mexico will move its 11th grades Standards Based Assessment from the fall to the spring in the 2004-2005 school year. The addition of new assessments will necessitate a recalibration in the proficiency trajectories for reading/language arts and mathematics. New Mexico will apply the methodology prescribed in federal legislation for annual measurable objectives and intermediate goals, ensuring that all students are proficient by 2013-2014.

Use of an Index (Element 3.2b)

Revision: New Mexico will apply a weighted indices model to demonstrate a school’s improvement with students at all performance levels. This requires the ultimate achievement of 100% of all students proficient or advanced by 2014. However, it also recognizes schools as they move students out of the lowest performance categories to higher performance categories. The following criteria are applied to the weighted indices: 1) the index as applied does not give extra weight to students scoring above proficiency so as to mask performance in the lower achievement levels; 2) the index can be calculated separately for reading and mathematics and for each relevant student subgroup; 3) the index does not allow schools to make AYP without also increasing the percent of students who are proficient; and 4) the index is reflective of the annual measurable objectives and intermediate goals.

Students with Disabilities (Element 5.3)

Revision: New Mexico will implement the provisions of the final regulation in the Federal Register issued December 9, 2003, concerning the 1.0% cap for alternate assessments and alternate achievement standards.

Limited English Proficient Students (Element 5.4)

Revision: New Mexico will implement the flexibility that the Secretary’s letter of February 20, 2004 provides relative to limited English proficient students for assessment and accountability purposes.

Additional Academic Indicators (Element 7.2)

Revision: New Mexico will use only one additional academic indicator at the elementary, middle, and high school levels. Attendance rate will be used at the elementary and middle school levels as the additional academic indicator and graduation rate will be used at the high school level as the additional academic indicator.

Use of Confidence Interval (Element 9.2)

Revision: New Mexico will use a group size of 25 and a 99% confidence interval in making AYP reading/language arts and mathematics proficiency calculations. New Mexico will only apply a confidence interval to AYP status determinations and not to safe harbor calculations.

Participation rate (Elements 10.1 and 10.2)

Request: New Mexico will use a group size of 40 for calculating the participation rate. Additionally, beginning with 2004-2005 school year tests administrations, New Mexico will use the new flexibility regarding multi-year averaging of participation rates.

Policy Letters to States

Decision Letter on Request to Amend North Dakota State Accountability Plan

June 9, 2010

The Honorable Wayne G. Sanstead
State Superintendent
North Dakota Department of Public Instruction
600 East Boulevard Avenue
Bismark, North Dakota 58505-0440

Dear Superintendent Sanstead:

I am writing in response to North Dakota’s request to amend its state accountability plan under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act. Following discussions between the Department and your staff, you made changes to North Dakota’s accountability plan, which are now included in the amended state accountability plan that North Dakota submitted to the Department on February 15, 2010. I am pleased to approve North Dakota’s amended plan, which we will post on the Department’s website. A summary of North Dakota’s requested amendments is enclosed with this letter. As you know, any further requests to amend North Dakota’s accountability plan must be submitted to the Department for review and approval as required by section 1111(f)(2) of Title I of the ESEA.

Please also be aware that approval of North Dakota’s accountability plan for Title I, including the amendments approved herein, does not indicate that the plan complies with Federal civil rights requirements, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

I am confident that North Dakota will continue to advance its efforts to hold schools and school districts accountable for the achievement of all students. If you need any additional assistance to implement the standards, assessment, and accountability provisions of the ESEA, please do not hesitate to contact (Victoria.Hammer@ed.gov) or (Collette.Roney@ed.gov).

Sincerely,

Thelma Meléndez de Santa Ana, Ph.D.

Enclosure

cc: Governor John Hoeven
Greg Gallagher

Amendments to North Dakota’s Accountability Plan

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

Including students with disabilities in the state’s definition of adequate yearly progress (AYP) (Element 5.3)

Revision: North Dakota will continue to include results from its alternate assessment based on modified academic achievement standards (AAMAAS) for AYP determinations based on 2009–10 assessment results.

Change requiring no edits to North Dakota’s accountability workbook (related to identifying major racial and ethnic subgroups in AYP determinations in Elements 5.1 and 5.2)

Revision: North Dakota will no longer report the “Other” ethnic subgroup, which it did voluntarily on previous AYP annual reports (i.e., the state’s report card).

Approved State Accountability Plans