June 26, 2006

The Honorable Steve Paine
State Superintendent of Schools
West Virginia Department of Education
Building 6, 1900 Kanawha Blvd. E.
Charleston, West Virginia 25305-0330

Dear Superintendent Paine:

I am pleased to approve West Virginia’s standards and assessment system 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). I congratulate you on meeting this important NCLB requirement.

My decision is based on input from peer reviewers external to the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) and Department staff who reviewed and carefully considered the evidence submitted by West Virginia. I have concluded that the evidence demonstrates that West Virginia’s standards and assessment system satisfies the NCLB requirements. Specifically, West Virginia’s system includes academic content and student achievement standards in reading/language arts, mathematics, and science; alternate achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities in reading/language arts and mathematics; assessments in each of grades 3 through 8 and grade 10 in reading/language arts, mathematics, and science; and alternate assessments for reading/language arts and mathematics. Accordingly, West Virginia’s system warrants Full Approval. This status means that West Virginia’s standards and assessment system meets all statutory and regulatory requirements. West Virginia should plan to submit its alternate assessment in science for peer review by the 2007-08 school year.

Please be aware that approval of West Virginia’s assessment system under NCLB is not a determination that the system complies with Federal civil rights requirements, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Finally, please remember that, if West Virginia makes significant changes in its assessment system, the State must submit information about those changes to the Department for review and approval.

We have found it a pleasure working with your staff on this review. Please accept my congratulations for your State’s approved standards and assessment system under NCLB. I wish you well in your continued efforts to improve student achievement in West Virginia.

Sincerely,

Henry L. Johnson

cc: Governor Joe Manchin III
Jan Barth
Keith Butcher

Return to state-by-state listing

June 17, 2005

Honorable David Stewart
State Superintendent of Schools
West Virginia Department of Education
1900 Kanawha Boulevard, East
Building 6, Room B-358
Charleston, WV 25305

Dear Superintendent Stewart:

Thank you for submitting West Virginia’s assessment materials for review under the standards and assessment requirements of the Elementary and Secondary Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). We appreciate the efforts required to prepare for the peer review and hope that the process yields useful feedback that will support your State’s efforts to monitor student progress toward challenging standards. West Virginia is to be commended for being among the first five States submitting evidence of compliance with the NCLB standards and assessment requirements.

External peer reviewers and the U.S. Department of Education staff evaluated West Virginia’s submission and found that, except for the critical elements noted below, West Virginia’s assessment system meets the ESEA’s standards and assessment requirements.

To receive Full Approval for 2005-2006, additional evidence is needed to show how West Virginia meets the following critical elements of the NCLB standards and assessment peer review guidance:

• 2.0 – the formal adoption/approval of the West Virginia alternate academic achievement standards including technical and stakeholder participation documentation.
• 4.0 – the technical quality of the West Virginia alternate assessments.
• 5.0 – the alignment/linkages of the West Virginia alternate assessments to the State’s academic content and student academic achievement standards.

To receive Full Approval for science by 2007-2008, additional evidence is needed to show how West Virginia meets the following critical element of the NCLB standards and assessment peer review guidance:

• 5.0 – the alignment of the West Virginia science assessments to the State’s academic content and student academic achievement standards.

Because West Virginia’s standards and assessment system meet most, but not all, of ESEA’s statutory and regulatory requirements and because, after conferring with your staff, ED believes that West Virginia can take the necessary steps to come into full compliance, I am granting Deferred Approval of your assessment system. To receive Deferred Approval status, a state must clearly articulate to ED how it will meet the remaining requirements and be able to fully implement its standards and assessment system by the end of the 2005 – 2006 school year.

West Virginia must submit to ED as soon as possible its plan for coming into full compliance and the timeframe for submitting additional evidence of compliance. When the required additional evidence has been submitted, it will be subject peer and/or ED staff review. Enclosed with this letter are detailed comments from the peer review team that evaluated the West Virginia assessment materials. I hope you will find the reviewers’ comments and suggestions helpful.

We look forward to working with West Virginia to support a high quality assessment system. If you would like to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to call David J. Harmon (202-205-3554) or Meredith Miller (202-401-8368) of my staff.

Sincerely,

Raymond Simon
Deputy Secretary

Enclosure

Cc: Dr. Jan Barth
Mr. Keith Butcher

Return to state-by-state listing

June 4, 2008

The Honorable Elizabeth Burmaster
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
P. O. Box 7841
125 South Webster Street
Madison, Wisconsin 53707

Dear Superintendent Burmaster:

Thank you for submitting Wisconsin’s assessment materials for peer review under the standards and assessment requirements of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). We appreciate the efforts required to prepare for the latest peer review that occurred in April 2008.

Based on the recommendations of the peer reviewers and the evidence you have provided to date, the status of Wisconsin’s standards and assessment system is Approval Expected. This status indicates that the evidence submitted to date suggests that Wisconsin has administered a reading, mathematics and science assessment system in grades 3-8 and high school in 2007-08 that is fully compliant with the applicable statutory and regulatory requirements, but that, due to the nature of assessment development, certain elements of Wisconsin’s system are not yet complete.

Wisconsin must provide the Department with all of the evidence needed to satisfy the remaining requirements, as indicated in the enclosure to this letter, before administering its assessments for the 2008-09 school year. Please note that, because there are elements of Wisconsin’s system that are not yet complete, a condition on Wisconsin’s Title I, Part A grant award will continue until Wisconsin submits the required evidence and receives full approval of its standards and assessment system.

The Department remains committed to working with Wisconsin to help it meet the requirements of NCLB. Toward that end, let me reiterate my earlier offer of technical assistance to you. If you have any additional questions, would like to discuss this further, or want to request technical assistance, please do not hesitate to contact Sue Rigney (Sue.Rigney@ed.gov) or Abigail Potts (Abigail.Potts@ed.gov) of my staff.

Sincerely,

Kerri L. Briggs, Ph.D.

Enclosure

cc: Governor Jim Doyle
Lynette Russell

SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT WISCONSIN MUST SUBMIT TO MEET ESEA REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WISCONSIN ASSESSMENT SYSTEM

2.0 – ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT STANDARDS

1. Documentation of the final cut scores for the alternate academic achievement standards and formal approval/adoption by the state.
2. Documentation showing participation of diverse stakeholders in the final standards-setting activity for the alternate academic achievement standards.

4.0 – TECHNICAL QUALITY

1. Evidence related to Section 4.1 of the Peer Review Guidance for the alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards, including documentation of validity as described in the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA/APA/NCME, 1999).
2. Documentation of the standards-setting process for the alternate academic achievement standards.
3. Evidence of the reliability of the alternate assessment.
4. Clear criteria for the administration, scoring, analysis and reporting of the alternate assessment.
5. A description of the state system for monitoring and improving the alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards over time.

5.0 – ALIGNMENT

1. A post-alignment study, including a description of the process the state will use to maintain alignment of the alternate assessment over time.

7.0 – REPORTING

1. An actual individual student report for the alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards.

Return to state-by-state listing

June 21, 2007

The Honorable Elizabeth Burmaster
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
P. O. Box 7841
125 South Webster Street
Madison, WI 53707

Dear Superintendent Burmaster:

Thank you for your participation in the U.S. Department of Education’s (Department) standards and assessment peer review process under Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB).

In the letter to you on February 12, 2006, the Department enumerated one fundamental component as well as a number of additional technical issues that had not met the standards and assessment requirements of the ESEA. Specifically, the Department could not approve Wisconsin’s standards and assessment system due to outstanding concerns regarding the technical quality and link to grade-level content standards of the Wisconsin Alternate Assessment for Students with Disabilities (WAA-SwD). The evidence Wisconsin submitted for peer review on May 21-25, 2007, demonstrated that Wisconsin’s regular assessment meets all NCLB standards and assessment requirements. However, there remain concerns regarding the technical quality and link to grade-level content standards of the Wisconsin Alternate Assessment for Students with Disabilities (WAA-SwD) as administered in the 2006-07 school year. The plan Wisconsin submitted on April 11, 2007, demonstrates Wisconsin’s commitment to address these concerns for the administration of the WAA-SwD in the 2007-08 school year. As indicated in the submitted plan, Wisconsin has already begun to develop a new alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards that will be used to assess students with the most significant cognitive disabilities in the 2007-08 school year.

Because Wisconsin was not able to address the deficiencies for the administration of the WAA-SwD for the 2006-07 school year, Wisconsin cannot demonstrate that the full standards and assessment system it administered in 2006-07 meets NCLB requirements. As a result, Wisconsin’s system remains Approval Pending and Wisconsin remains in Mandatory Oversight, as authorized under 34 C.F.R. §80.12. Under this status, we will place a condition on Wisconsin’s fiscal year 2007 Title I, Part A grant award. Wisconsin may include the results of the alternate assessment based on alternate achievement standards in adequate yearly progress (AYP) determinations for the 2006-07 school year, so long as the percentage of proficient and advanced scores on that assessment does not exceed 1.0 percent of all students in the grades assessed at the district or State level.

In addition, Wisconsin must enter into an agreement with the Department demonstrating its commitment and investment of resources to be able to administer a fully approved standards and assessment system in the 2007-08 school year. Specifically, Wisconsin must submit a mutually acceptable timeline for how and when the remaining work will be completed and evidence submitted for peer review. In addition, Wisconsin must submit quarterly of its progress along this timeline. If, at any point, Wisconsin does not submit the evidence required or does not administer an approved standards and assessment system in 2007-08 that meets all NCLB requirements, the Department will initiate proceedings, pursuant to Section 1111(g)(2) of the ESEA, to withhold all or a portion of Wisconsin’s Title I, Part A administrative funds, which will then revert to local educational agencies in Wisconsin.

I appreciate the steps Wisconsin has taken toward meeting the requirements of the ESEA, and I know you are anxious to receive full approval of your standards and assessment system. We are committed to helping you get there and remain available to provide technical assistance. We will schedule an additional peer review when you have evidence available to further evaluate your system. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to contact Valeria Ford (valeria.ford@ed.gov) or Abigail Potts (abigail.potts@ed.gov) of my staff.

Sincerely,

Kerri L. Briggs, Ph.D.
Acting Assistant Secretary

Enclosure

cc: Governor Jim Doyle
Mike Thompson
Margaret Planner
Lynette Russell

SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT WISCONSIN MUST SUBMIT TO MEET ESEA REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WISCONSIN STANDARDS AND ASSESSMENT SYSTEM

2.0 – ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT STANDARDS

1. Evidence of approved/adopted alternate academic achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities in reading/language arts and mathematics for each of grades 3 through 8 and high school.
2. Evidence that the alternate academic achievement standards include for each content area:
   1. At least three levels of achievement, including two levels of high achievement (e.g., proficient and advanced) that determine how well students are mastering a State’s academic content standards and a third level of achievement (e.g., basic) to provide information about the progress of lower-achieving students toward mastering the proficient and advanced levels of achievement;
   2. Descriptions of the competencies associated with each achievement level; and
   3. Assessment scores (“cut scores”) that differentiate among the achievement levels
3. Evidence that the Board or other authority has adopted all alternate academic achievement standards.
4. Documentation that the State has reported separately the number and percent of those students with disabilities assessed against alternate academic achievement standards, those assessed on an alternate assessment against grade-level standards, and those included in the regular assessment (including those administered with appropriate accommodations).
5. Evidence that the State has documented the involvement of diverse stakeholders in the development of its alternate academic achievement standards.

4.0 – TECHNICAL QUALITY

1. Evidence that the State has documented validity (in addition to the alignment of the alternate assessment with the content standards), as described in the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA/APA/NCME, 1999).
2. For the alternate assessments, evidence that the State has provided documentation of the standard setting process including a description of the selection of judges, methodology employed, and final results.
3. For the alternate assessments, evidence that the State has considered the issue of reliability, as described in the Standards for Educational and Psychological Testing (AERA/APA/NCME, 1999).
4. Evidence that the State has ensured that its alternate assessment system is fair and accessible to all eligible students, including students with limited English proficiency.
5. Evidence that the State has taken steps, such as bias review of items, to ensure fairness in the development of the alternate assessment.
6. When different test forms or formats are used for the alternate assessment, evidence that the State has ensured that the meaning and interpretation of results are consistent.
7. Evidence that the State has established:
   1. Clear criteria for the administration, scoring, analysis, and reporting components of its alternate assessment; and
   2. That the State has a system for monitoring and improving the on-going quality of its alternate assessment.

5.0 – ALIGNMENT

1. Evidence that the State has taken steps to ensure alignment between its alternate assessment and the State’s academic content and alternate academic achievement standards.
2. Evidence that the State has developed ongoing procedures to maintain and improve alignment between the alternate assessment and standards over time, particularly if gaps have been noted.

6.0 – INCLUSION

1. Evidence that the State has implemented alternate assessments for students whose disabilities do not permit them to participate in the regular assessment even with accommodations
2. Evidence of guidelines and training that the State has in place to ensure that all students with disabilities taking the alternate are included appropriately in the State assessment system.
3. Evidence that the State has developed clear guidelines for Individualized Educational Program (IEP) Teams to apply in determining which assessment is most appropriate for a student.
4. Regarding the alternate achievement standards:
   1. Evidence that the State has developed clear guidelines for IEP Teams to apply in determining when a child’s cognitive disability justifies assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards; and
   2. Evidence of the steps the State has taken to help regular and special education teachers and other appropriate staff know how to administer assessments, including making use of accommodations, for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities.

7.0 – REPORTS

1. Evidence that the State’s reporting system facilitates appropriate, credible, and defensible interpretation and use of its alternate assessment data.
2. Evidence that the State has provided for the production of individual interpretive, descriptive, and [non-clinical] diagnostic reports that indicate relative strengths and instructional needs:
   1. Evidence that these individual student reports express results in terms of the State’s alternate academic achievement standards rather than numerical values such as scale scores or percentiles;
   2. Evidence that these individual student reports provide information for parents, teachers, and principals to help them understand and address a student’s specific academic needs. This information must be displayed in a format and language that is understandable to parents, teachers, and principals, for example through the use of descriptors that describe what students know and can do at different performance levels. The reports must be accompanied by interpretive guidance for these audiences; and
3. Evidence that the State ensures that these individual student reports will be delivered to parents, teachers, and principals as soon as possible after the alternate assessment is administered.

Return to state-by-state listing

February 12, 2007

The Honorable Elizabeth Burmaster
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
P. O. Box 7841
125 South Webster Street
Madison, Wisconsin 53707

Dear Superintendent Burmaster:

Thank you for your participation in the U.S. Department of Education’s (Department) standards and assessment peer review process 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). I appreciate the efforts required to prepare for the peer review. As you know, with the implementation of NCLB’s accountability provisions, each school, district, and State is held accountable for making adequate yearly progress (AYP) towards having all students proficient by 2013-14. An assessment system that produces valid and reliable results is fundamental to a State’s accountability system.

I am writing to follow up on the second peer review of Wisconsin’s standards and assessments, which occurred November 15, 2006. The results of this peer review process indicate that additional evidence is still necessary for Wisconsin to meet the statutory and regulatory requirements of Section 1111(b)(1) and (3) of the ESEA.

As indicated in former Assistant Secretary Henry Johnson’s letter on June 29, 2006, the initial status of Wisconsin’s standards and assessment system was Approval Pending with two fundamental components missing or not meeting requirements. Specifically, the Department could not approve Wisconsin’s standards and assessment system due to outstanding concerns with the alternate assessments, including the alternate assessment for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities (the Wisconsin Alternate Assessment for Students with Disabilities, or WAA-SwD) and the Wisconsin Alternate Assessment for English Language Learners (WAA-ELL), and the technical quality, including validity and reliability, of the regular assessment.

The evidence Wisconsin submitted for the November 15, 2006, peer review was able to resolve several of the concerns regarding the technical quality of the regular assessment and the assessment of limited English proficient (LEP) students. However, the evidence Wisconsin provided was not sufficient to address the outstanding concerns regarding the technical quality and link to grade-level content standards for the WAA-SwD. Therefore, Wisconsin’s system remains Approval Pending, but with only one fundamental component not meeting requirements. Please refer to the enclosure for a list of the evidence Wisconsin must submit to meet the requirements for an approved standards and assessment system.

Because Wisconsin’s standards and assessment system is still Approval Pending, Wisconsin remains under Mandatory Oversight, pursuant to 34 C.F.R. §80.12. Under this status, specific conditions were placed on Wisconsin’s fiscal year 2006 Title I, Part A grant award. If, at any time, Wisconsin does not meet the timelines set forth in its approved plan the Department will initiate proceedings, pursuant to Section 1111(g)(2) of the ESEA, to withhold 10 percent of Wisconsin’s fiscal year 2006 Title I, Part A administrative funds, which will then revert to local educational agencies in Wisconsin.

I know you are anxious to receive full approval of your standards and assessment system and we are committed to helping you get there. Toward that end, let me reiterate my earlier offer of technical assistance. We remain available to assist you however necessary to ensure you administer a fully approved system in 2006-07. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to contact Abigail Potts (bigail.potts@ed.gov) or Valeria Ford (valeria.ford@ed.gov) of my staff.

Sincerely,

Raymond Simon
Deputy Secretary

cc: Governor Jim Doyle
Mike Thompson
Margaret Planner
Lynette Russell
Maxine Hough

SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT WISCONSIN MUST SUBMIT TO MEET ESEA REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WISCONSIN ASSESSMENT SYSTEM

2.0 – ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT STANDARDS

1. Detailed standard setting report, including what items and data were used to produce the bookmark booklets, and the relation between cut scores and the performance level descriptors (PLDs) for the WAA-SwD.
2. Documentation on how the new grade-cluster PLDs for the WAA-SwD accurately describe the performance levels determined by the 2004 standard setting where only general PLDs were used to determine cuts scores.
3. Clarify the standards-setting process, academic achievement levels, and PLDs used for the 2006-07 administration of the WAA-SwD.
4. Documentation of formal approval of the decision to use the 2004 alternate achievement standards for the WAA assessments administered in 3-8 and 10 starting in 2005-06.

4.0 – TECHNICAL QUALITY

1. A plan with a timeline for implementation of monitoring the availability of assessment accommodations.
2. The policy and/or procedures for handling assessments where accommodations not on the “allowed list” are used.
3. The completed technical manual for the WAA-SwD, specifically related to the reliability (not just inter-rater reliability) and validity of the assessment and academic achievement standards.

5.0 – ALIGNMENT

1. Information from the September 2006 meeting with Dr. Norm Webb concerning alignment areas identified in the science assessments. Provide a plan, with a timeline, on how the information provided in the alignment study will be used.
2. Design and timeline for an appropriate alignment study for the WAA-SwD for the 2006-07 school year.

6.0 – INCLUSION

1. Additional information related to the assessment of students coded “504,” specifically the definition of code “F” for these students and how it is used when calculating participation and proficiency rates.

7.0 – REPORTS

1. Refined 2007 reports in accordance with the newest assessment frameworks for the WAA-SwD and academic achievement standards.

Return to state-by-state listing

June 29, 2006

The Honorable Elizabeth Burmaster
Superintendent of Public Instruction
Wisconsin Department of Public Instruction
P. O. Box 7841
125 South Webster Street
Madison, WI 53707

Dear Superintendent Burmaster:

Thank you for your participation in the U.S. Department of Education’s (Department) standards and assessment peer review process 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). I appreciate the efforts required to prepare for the peer review. As you know, with the implementation of NCLB’s accountability provisions, each school, district, and State is held accountable for making adequate yearly progress (AYP) towards having all students proficient by 2013–14. An assessment system that produces valid and reliable results is fundamental to a State’s accountability system.

I am writing to follow up on the peer review of Wisconsin’s standards and assessments, which occurred February 15-16, 2006. The results of this peer review process indicated that additional evidence was necessary for Wisconsin to meet the statutory and regulatory requirements of Section 1111(b)(1) and (3) of the ESEA. At this time, the need for that evidence remains.

As you will recall, the Department laid out new approval categories in the letter to the Chief State School Officers on April 24, 2006. These categories better reflect where States collectively are in the process of meeting the statutory standards and assessment requirements and where each State individually stands. Based on these new categories, the current status of the Wisconsin standards and assessment system is Approval Pending. This status indicates that Wisconsin’s standards and assessment system administered in the 2005–06 school year has at least two fundamental components that are missing or that do not meet the statutory and regulatory requirements, in addition to other outstanding issues that can be addressed more immediately. These deficiencies must be resolved in a timely manner so that the standards and assessment system administered next year meets all requirements. The Department believes that Wisconsin can address the outstanding issues by the next administration of its assessment system – that is, by the end of the 2006–07 school year.

Wisconsin’s system has a number of fundamental components that warrant the designation of Approval Pending. Specifically, the Department cannot approve Wisconsin’s standards and assessment system due to outstanding concerns with the alternate assessments including the alternate assessment for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities (the Wisconsin Alternate Assessment for Students with Disabilities, or WAA-SwD) and the Wisconsin Alternate Assessment for English Language Learners (WAA-ELL), and the technical quality, including validity and reliability. Please refer to the enclosure for a detailed list of the evidence Wisconsin must submit to meet the requirements for an approved standards and assessment system.

Accordingly, Wisconsin is placed under Mandatory Oversight, pursuant to 34 C.F.R. §80.12. Under this status, there will be specific conditions placed on Wisconsin’s fiscal year 2006 Title I, Part A grant award. Wisconsin must provide, not later than 25 business days from receipt of this letter, a plan and detailed timeline for how it will meet the remaining requirements to come into full compliance by the end of the 2006–07 school year. Beginning in September 2006, Wisconsin must also provide bi-monthly reports on its progress implementing the plan. If, at any time, Wisconsin does not meet the timeline set forth in its plan, the Department will initiate proceedings, pursuant to Section 1111(g)(2) of the ESEA, to withhold 15 percent of Wisconsin’s fiscal year 2006 Title I, Part A administrative funds, which will then revert to local educational agencies in Wisconsin.

I know you are anxious to receive full approval of your standards and assessment system and we are committed to helping you get there. Toward that end, let me reiterate my earlier offer of technical assistance. We remain available to assist you however necessary to ensure you administer a fully approved standards and assessment system. We will schedule an additional peer review when you have evidence available to further evaluate your system. If you have any questions or would like to request reconsideration of the conditions, please do not hesitate to call Abigail Potts (abigail.potts@ed.gov) or Valeria Ford (valeria.ford@ed.gov)of my staff.

Sincerely,

Henry L. Johnson

Enclosure

cc: Governor Jim Doyle
Mike Thompson
Margaret Planner
Lynette Russell
Maxine Hough

Summary of Additional Evidence that Wisconsin Must Submit to Meet ESEA Requirements for the Wisconsin Assessment System

1.0 ACADEMIC CONTENT STANDARDS

1. Documentation of final adoption of science assessment framework once approved by the State superintendent.

2.0 ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT STANDARDS

1. Final documentation that describes procedures used for the standard setting, the qualifications of the panelists and formal approval of the final performance level descriptors for the WKCE-CRT;
2. Clarification that the cut scores and performance level descriptors were defined for each grade level (3-8, and 10) or grade clusters for the WAA-SwD;
3. Clarification related to the WAA-SwD regarding what data were used to produce the bookmark booklets for the 2004 standard setting since fall 2005 was the first administration of assessments at all grades;
4. Clarification as to what science assessment (NRT or CRT) was administered in fall 2005 and whether or not that assessment was based on a new scale;
5. Formally approved academic achievement standards for the science general assessment once completed in spring 2006;
6. Performance level descriptors for reading, mathematics and science for each academic achievement level for the WAA-SwD, not just for the proficient level; and
7. Documentation of the process and approval of the academic achievement standards for the WAA-ELL.

3.0 FULL ASSESSMENT SYSTEM

1. Documentation that the ELL-API’s are equivalent to the grade level achievement standards for the WKCE-CRT in order to demonstrate that the WAA-ELL is comparable to the WKCE-CRT;
2. Description of how the WAA-SwD is administered and scored;
3. Description of how the WAA-ELL is administered and scored to ensure standardization of the assessment and validity of the results; and
4. Clarification of the use of Spanish or any other native language alternate assessment in Wisconsin’s assessment system.

4.0 TECHNICAL QUALITY

1. Appropriateness of the decisions based on the results of the WAA-ELL and evidence that the assessment system produces the intended consequences;
2. Scoring and reporting structures of the WKCE-CRT consistent with the sub-domains in the WMAS;
3. Report of validity evidence once it is completed;
4. Results from standard setting once it is complete for the fall 2005 WKCE-CRT and WAA-SwD assessments;
5. Documentation on the validity of the scores resulting from accommodated administrations of the WKCE-CRT;
6. Documentation describing how Wisconsin uses DIF when reviewing items, how sensitivity reviewers were trained to review items, and what is done with their recommendations. Also, Wisconsin needs to provide evidence of ways it collects and uses information/data to improve validity of its assessments;
7. Reliability information for the WKCE-CRT and the WAA-SwD;
8. Updated Technical Manuals for the WKCE-CRT and WAA-SwD;
9. Scoring guidelines for the WKCE-CRT if a student uses an accommodation that invalidates the score, how to handle multiple marks, and other scoring irregularities; and
10. Statute or policy regarding local control that prevents State staff from monitoring test administrations.

5.0 ALIGNMENT

1. Documentation of alignment between WMAS and WKCE-CRT;
2. Documentation that the grades 3-8 and 10 WAA-SwD assessments are aligned to the assessment framework. The new alignment study will also need to address all the critical elements in Section 5; and
3. Documentation regarding the WAA-ELL’s alignment to grade-level content.

6.0 INCLUSION

1. Documentation, such as agendas and participation lists, to show that the accommodation workshops took place;
2. Criteria used to determine if a translator is “qualified” and guidelines provided for translation;
3. Documentation to demonstrate the State does not have a policy to allow assessment in a language other than English longer than the three years; and
4. Policies related to the inclusion of migrant students.

7.0 REPORTS

1. Final reports for the 2005/2006 assessments;
2. Revised interpretation guide for the 2005-2006 WKCE-CRT;
3. Inclusion of specific strands or domains of the API on student reports and an interpretive guide for these reports;
4. Number of students tested in each achievement category for each subgroup and for each assessment; and
5. Innstructions provided to districts as to when and how parent reports are to be disseminated.

Return to state-by-state listing

August 6, 2008

The Honorable Terry Bergeson
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Washington Department of Public Instruction
P.O. Box 47200
Olympia, Washington 98504-7200

Dear Superintendent Bergeson:

I am pleased to approve Washington’s standards and assessment system 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). I congratulate you on meeting this important NCLB requirement; an assessment system that produces valid and reliable results is fundamental to a state’s accountability system.

My decision is based on input from peer reviewers external to the U.S. Department of Education (the Department) and Department staff who reviewed and carefully considered the evidence submitted by Washington. I have concluded that the evidence demonstrates that Washington’s standards and assessment system satisfies the ESEA requirements. Specifically, Washington’s system includes academic content and student academic achievement standards in reading/language arts, mathematics, and science; alternate academic achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities in those subjects; assessments in each of grades 3 through 8 and grade 10 in reading/language arts and mathematics; and alternate assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics.

Accordingly, Washington’s system warrants Full Approval with Recommendations. This status means that Washington’s standards and assessment system meets all statutory and regulatory requirements for reading/language arts and mathematics. There is, however, one component of the Washington assessment system that we believe could be strengthened. We recommend that Washington develop and implement a plan to continue the progress made and further improve the alignment of the alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards, the WAAS-Portfolio, with Washington’s content standards, the Essential Academic Learning Requirements (EALRs), and Grade-Level Expectations (GLEs) through continued training of participating teachers and periodic reviews of alignment evidence.

Please be aware that approval of Washington’s standards and assessment system under the ESEA is not a determination that the system complies with Federal civil rights requirements, including Title VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and requirements under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Please remember that, if Washington makes significant changes to its assessment system, the state must submit information about those changes to the Department for review and approval. Finally, I know that Washington recently submitted evidence of its science assessments. The Department recently conducted a technical assistance peer review of that evidence and we will be in touch shortly with the results from that review.

We have found it a pleasure working with your staff on this review. Please accept my congratulations on your state’s approved standards and assessment system under the ESEA. I wish you well in your continued efforts to improve student achievement in Washington.

Sincerely,

Kerri L. Briggs, Ph.D.

cc: Governor Christine Gregoire
Bob Harmon
Joe Willhoft

Return to state-by-state listing

August 24, 2007

The Honorable Terry Bergeson
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Washington Department of Public Instruction
P.O. Box 47200
Olympia, Washington 98504-7200

Dear Superintendent Bergeson:

Thank you for submitting Washington’s assessment materials for peer review under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). We appreciate the hard work you and your staff have undertaken to address many of the Department’s previous concerns with Washington’s assessment system, and the efforts required to prepare for the latest peer review that occurred in July 2007.

External peer reviewers and Department staff evaluated Washington’s submission and concluded, based on the evidence received, that it addresses all but one of the outstanding concerns regarding Washington’s system. I know that my staff has discussed the results of this latest review with your staff and that we had a chance to discuss them earlier this week. However, I want to take this opportunity to enumerate the piece of evidence that Washington must still provide in order to have a fully compliant system. Specifically, we did not find sufficient evidence of alignment regarding Washington’s alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities (WAAS-Portfolio). The evidence needed to address this concern is on the last page of this letter.

As noted in a letter from Assistant Superintendent Willhoft to the Department on June 30, 2007, we know that Washington has plans in place to improve the quality and alignment of the WAAS-Portfolio, including efforts to help teachers better identify work samples on academic skills linked to Washington’s Grade Level Expectations. We believe this is a good first draft of a plan to ensure improved alignment on the WAAS-Portfolio, but request that Washington work with Department staff to create a mutually acceptable timeline for how and when the work will completed. Because Washington could not demonstrate that the full standards and assessment system it administered in 2006-07 met the ESEA requirements, Washington’s system remains Approval Pending and Washington remains in Mandatory Oversight, as authorized under 34 C.F.R. §80.12. Under this status, the condition on Washington’s fiscal year 2007 Title I, Part A grant award will continue.

If, at any point, Washington does not submit the evidence required or does not administer an approved standards and assessment system in 2007-08 that meets all ESEA requirements, the Department will initiate proceedings, pursuant to Section 1111(g)(2) of the ESEA, to withhold all or a portion of Washington’s Title I, Part A administrative funds, which will then revert to local educational agencies in Washington.

I appreciate the steps Washington has taken toward meeting the requirements of the ESEA and the positive steps you have already begun taking to improve the alignment of the WAAS-Portfolio for 2007-08. I know you are anxious to receive full approval of your standards and assessment system. We are committed to helping you get there and remain available to provide technical assistance. We will schedule an additional peer review, if necessary, when you have evidence available to further evaluate your system. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to contact David Harmon (david.harmon@ed.gov) or Martha Snyder (martha.snyder@ed.gov) of my staff.

Sincerely,

Kerri L. Briggs, Ph.D.

Enclosure

cc: Governor Christine Gregoire
Bob Harmon
Joe Willhoft

SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT WASHINGTON MUST SUBMIT TO MEET ESEA REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WASHINGTON ASSESSMENT SYSTEM

5.0 – ALIGNMENT

1. Documentation of reading and mathematics WAAS-Portfolio alignment at grades 3-8 and 10 with Washington’s Essential Academic Learning Requirements (EALRs) and Grade Level Expectations (GLEs). This should include a detailed plan and timeline for conducting activities to improve reading and mathematics WAAS-Portfolio alignment at grades 3-8 and 10 with EALRs and GLEs and for collecting evidence that alignment has improved.

Return to state-by-state listing

June 29, 2007

Dr. Terry Bergeson
State Superintendent of Public Instruction
Washington Department of Public Instruction
P.O. Box 47200
Olympia, Washington 98504-7200

Dear Superintendent Bergeson:

Thank you for submitting Washington’s assessment materials for peer review under the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). We appreciate the efforts required to prepare for the latest peer review that occurred in May 2007.

External peer reviewers and Department staff evaluated Washington’s submission and concluded, based on the evidence received, that it addresses a number of the outstanding concerns regarding Washington’s system. However, Washington’s standards and assessment system still does not yet meet all the statutory and regulatory requirements of section 1111(b)(1) and (3) of the ESEA. I know that my staff has discussed the results of this review with your staff. However, I want to take this opportunity to enumerate the evidence that Washington must provide in order to have a fully compliant system. Specifically, we did not find sufficient evidence to address all required elements regarding Washington’s alternate assessment based on alternate academic achievement standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities (WAAS-Portfolio). The complete list of evidence needed to address these concerns is on the last page of this letter.

We know that Washington will submit evidence this week that may address many of these concerns. Therefore, we are not assigning an approval status to Washington’s system at this time. Because that system is not fully approved, however, we will place a condition on Washington’s fiscal year 2007 Title I, Part A grant award.

To ensure that all remaining work occurs in a timely manner, I request that, within two weeks of the date of this letter, you provide my staff with a detailed timeline for how and when Washington will satisfy the remaining requirements. As part of that timeline, please indicate when you will submit evidence as it becomes available. We will review that evidence and schedule an additional peer review, if necessary.

If Washington is unable to resolve the remaining issues with its assessment system by the agreed upon timeline, we will take appropriate enforcement actions as outlined in the Department’s May 10, 2007 fact sheet, including the possibility of continuing Mandatory Oversight pursuant to 34 C.F.R. §80.12. For your convenience, I am enclosing a copy of that fact sheet, which is also available on the Department’s website (http://www.ed.govhttps://www2.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/statesystems.html).

Also enclosed with this letter are detailed comments from the peer review team that evaluated Washington’s assessment materials. I hope you will find the reviewers’ comments and suggestions helpful.

We look forward to working with Washington to support a high-quality standards and assessment system. If you would like to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to call David Harmon (202-205-3554) or Martha Snyder (202-260-0941) of my staff.

Sincerely,

Kerri L. Briggs, Ph.D.

Enclosure

cc: Governor Christine Gregoire
Bob Harmon
Joe Wilhoft

SUMMARY OF ADDITIONAL EVIDENCE THAT WASHINGTON MUST SUBMIT TO MEET ESEA REQUIREMENTS FOR THE WASHINGTON ASSESSMENT SYSTEM

2.0 – ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT STANDARDS

1. Approved alternate academic achievement standards for the WAAS-Portfolio in reading and mathematics at grades 3-8 and 10 with documentation of diverse stakeholder participation.

4.0 – TECHNICAL QUALITY

1. Technical quality documentation for the WAAS-Portfolio standards setting in reading and mathematics at grades 3-8 and 10.

5.0 – ALIGNMENT

1. Documentation of reading and mathematics WAAS-Portfolio alignment at grades 3-8 and 10 with Washington’s Essential Academic Learning Requirements (EALRs) and Grade Level Expectations (GLEs).

7.0 – REPORTS

1. Documentation that performance descriptors are appropriately included on the WAAS- Portfolio student assessment reports.

Return to state-by-state listing