January 30, 2003

Dr. Paul F. Ezen
Deputy Commissioner
New Hampshire Department of Education
101 Pleasant Street
State Office Park South
Concord, NH 03301

Dear Dr. Ezen:

This is in response to your inquiry as to whether New Hampshire may allocate Title I funds reserved under section 1003 of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act for school improvement to approximately 19 schools not formally identified for school improvement, but which failed to meet adequate yearly progress targets during the 2001-2002 school year for the second consecutive year. New Hampshire has taken advantage of the one-time flexibility offered through §200.32(e) of the Title I regulations to not identify such schools for improvement in the 2002-2003 school year. However, it would like to allocate a portion of the funds it has reserved under section 1003 to these schools.

The Secretary has determined that, under the transition authority in section 4(c) of the No Child Left Behind Act, New Hampshire may allocate section 1003 funds in the 2002-03 school year to schools that otherwise would have been designated for improvement if the State had not exercised its authority under section 200.32(e)(1) of the Title I regulations to not identify them for school improvement. Please note that this permission is for one school year only and will not be granted for any subsequent year. It is based on our understanding that these schools would have been identified for improvement if New Hampshire had not exercised the flexibility afforded by the regulations and that New Hampshire will first address the needs of Title 1 schools actually in improvement before using section 1003 funds in Title I schools that otherwise would have been designated for improvement if the State had not exercised its authority under 200.32(e)(1).

I hope this information is useful to you.

Sincerely,
Jacquelyn C. Jackson, Ed.D.
Acting Director
Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

Policy Letters to States

February 13, 2004

Honorable Nicholas Donohue
Commissioner of Education
New Hampshire Department of Education
101 Pleasant Street
Concord, New Hampshire 03301

Dear Commissioner Donohue:

This letter is in response to email communication received on January 13, 2004 from Lorraine Patusky regarding the use of Section 6111 funds of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA). Thank you for the information about the efforts you are taking to implement the assessment provisions of the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). Over the course of several months, you have provided information and had several conversations with both Ron Tomalis, Counselor to the Secretary, and Gene Hickok, Acting Deputy Secretary, about the use of federal money for State assessments. I want to offer clarification on the federal monies made available to New Hampshire for meeting both the standards and assessments requirements and other NCLB goals.

New Hampshire has received approximately $3.9 million in each of fiscal years 2002 and 2003 to assist New Hampshire in developing the standards and assessments required under NCLB. The primary purpose of these assessment funds (Section 6111 of NCLB) is for States to develop their assessments for grades 3-8 and high school in reading/language arts and mathematics (required by 2005-06), and in each of three grade spans for science (required by 2007-08). A State must allocate the maximum amount of Section 6111 needed for the development of the required standards and assessments before using these funds for test administration costs. As we have explained to other States, any funds not needed for development of assessments required by Section 1111(b)(3) may be used to refine or develop new items for existing reading/language arts, mathematics, or science assessments, or other uses as outlined in Section 6111(2). New Hampshire should have a timeline and budget in place explaining how it will meet these targets and how it will spend its federal funds for development purposes. Please send this information to my office as soon as possible.

As you know, federal funds are subject to the statutory provisions outlining the use of those funds, and States and recipients are subject to audit and program review regarding their proper use. This letter addresses only the proper use of funds under Section 6111 of ESEA.

If I can be of any additional assistance, please let me know.

Sincerely

Raymond Simon
Assistant Secretary

Policy Letters to States

January 15, 2003

Laurie Matzke, State Director
Title I
Department of Public Instruction
600 E Boulevard Avenue, Dept. 201
Bismarck, North Dakota 58505

Dear Ms. Matzke:

This is in response to your letter asking about allowable uses of Title I funds set aside for professional development activities to help teachers become highly-qualified by the end of the 2005-2006 school year. Specifically, you asked if these funds could be used to help non-Title I teachers in Title I targeted assistance schools become highly qualified.

Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB) requires States to ensure that all teachers teaching core academic subjects be highly qualified by the end of the 2005-06 school year. The statute further requires that local educational agencies that receive Title I funds to reserve a specified amount of Title I funds to ensure that teachers who are not highly qualified become highly qualified by the statutory deadline. You indicate that in North Dakota most Title I teachers who are not new to the profession are highly qualified as required by NCLB. However, there are other teachers of core academic subjects in targeted assistance schools who do not meet the definition of highly qualified.

Title I funds may be used to help teachers of core academic subjects who teach in targeted assistance schools but do not work in the Title I program become highly qualified under the following conditions:

1. All Title I teachers in the targeted assistance schools are “highly qualified” or given first priority in obtaining professional development services paid for with set aside funds;
2. The funds are used only to help teachers of core academic subjects in the targeted assistance school become highly qualified; and
3. The funds will not be used to help teachers of core academic subjects in
   non-Title I schools.

I hope this clarification is helpful to you.

Sincerely,
Jacquelyn C. Jackson, Ed.D.
Acting Director
Student Achievement and School Accountability Programs
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education

OF/RF/SWILHELM/JK/1/16/2003

SEA Policy Letters