Dear Chief State School Officer:

Thank you for your leadership and dedication in working toward the *No
Child Left Behind Act (NCLB)* goal of all students achieving
proficiency. The hard work you and the educators in your state put forth
daily to achieve this goal has resulted in meaningful improvements in
student achievement. I write you at this time to provide important
information regarding the process for submitting 200809 amendments to
your accountability workbooks.

As you know, the U.S. Department of Education (Department) permits
states to revise their accountability workbooks to reflect changes in
the strategies and programs they employ to improve student achievement.
Prior to implementing any revisions, a state must submit its proposed
amendments to the Department for review and approval. This year, states
may once again submit revisions to their accountability workbooks.
However, since the Department will conduct a full peer review of each
state's accountability workbook in summer and fall 2009 as required by
the October 2008 Title I regulations, the Department will not consider
significant changes to accountability workbooks for the 200809 school
year. I encourage you to consider submitting only amendments necessary
to (1) bring your state's accountability workbook into compliance with
current law and regulations or (2) accurately reflect current practice
in your state's assessment and accountability systems. Requests for
amendments for the 200809 school year are due to the Department no later
than **January 15, 2009**. This deadline will enable the Department to
make timely decisions and allow states to meet their timelines for
accountability determinations under Title I while adhering to the
requirement that states not make accountability determinations using a
plan that is not fully approved.

The Department posts on its website each state's accountability workbook
for the explicit purpose of making the state's accountability system
under Title I transparent to all stakeholders and the public. Therefore,
I encourage you to review and, if necessary, amend your state's
accountability workbook to ensure that it accurately reflects actual
practice in your state, particularly as follows:

-   Explain any changes resulting from your state's implementation of
    the Limited English Proficient (LEP) 2006 regulations (see
    [[http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2006-3/091306a.html]{.underline}](http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/finrule/2006-3/091306a.html)),
    including whether your state (1) exempts recently arrived LEP
    students from one administration of the reading/language arts
    assessment during those students' first 12 months attending schools
    in the United States and (2) includes formerly LEP students in the
    LEP subgroup in making adequate yearly progress (AYP) determinations
    for up to two years after the students no longer meet the state's
    definition for LEP.

-   Describe any changes resulting from your state's implementation of
    alternate assessments based on modified academic achievement
    standards. Please also note whether your state includes the scores
    of students who were formerly categorized as students with
    disabilities in AYP calculations for the students with disabilities
    subgroup. (*See* Part C of the Department's guidance on *Additional
    Title I Provisions Included in the Regulations Package on Modified
    Academic Achievement Standards* at
    <http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/040907-regs.doc>.)

## Flexibility for a Limited Group of Students with Disabilities 

> The Department published the final regulations on alternate
> assessments based on modified academic achievement standards (AA-MAAS)
> in April 2007. As these regulations are relatively new, your state may
> not yet have developed modified academic achievement standards or
> alternate assessments based on them. Therefore, consistent with 34
> C.F.R. §200.20(g), the Department is offering transition flexibility
> for states currently developing modified academic achievement
> standards and alternate assessments based on them. In order to receive
> Department approval for this flexibility in 2008--09, your state must
> meet the eligibility requirements described in the enclosed document.
> The document also describes the flexibility options available to you
> at this time. If your state would like to apply for this transition
> flexibility in the 2008--09 school year, you must submit an amendment
> to your accountability workbook providing recent data in support of
> the request, even if you were previously approved to implement this
> transition flexibility.

Please note that if your state has already developed an AA-MAAS, you
must submit evidence of the development of the assessment, consistent
with our peer review guidance
([*http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/saaprguidance.pdf*](http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/saaprguidance.pdf))
before scores from it may be included in AYP determinations. If you are
submitting evidence prior to the first administration of your state's
AA-MAAS, consult item 3 in the enclosed document, which describes the
types of evidence we expect a state to submit for peer review.

Once again, I commend you for the work you have done and continue to do
on behalf of our nation's students. The Department looks forward to
continuing to work closely with you as we implement the new Title I
regulations published on October 29 and Title III final interpretations
published on October 17, as well as those issued in the last few years.
Details on implementing the new Title I regulations will be available
soon. Please contact Patrick Rooney (<Patrick.Rooney@ed.gov> or
202-205-8831) of my staff if you have any questions or concerns.

Sincerely,

Zollie Stevenson, Jr., Ph.D.

> Director, Student Achievement and School
>
> Accountability

Enclosure

cc: Governors

State Accountability/Assessment/Title I directors

# ATTACHMENT: 200809 Transition Flexibility Options and Eligibility Criteria 

To give states sufficient time to develop modified academic achievement
standards and implement approved alternate assessments based on them,
the Department, consistent with 34 C.F.R. §200.20(g), will offer
transition flexibility for the 2008--09 school year. States wishing to
take advantage of this flexibility may choose either of the following
two options.

**[Transition Flexibility Options]{.underline}**

**Option 1:** This option applies only to schools and districts that did
not make AYP based solely on the students with disabilities subgroup
scores. This option allows states to make a mathematical adjustment to
the proficiency rate of that subgroup in order to provide additional
credit to these schools or districts.

In general, eligible states may calculate a proxy to determine the
percentage of special education students (as defined in the Individuals
with Disabilities Education Act) that is equivalent to 2.0 percent of
all students assessed. This proxy will then be added to the percentage
of students with disabilities who are proficient and advanced. This
adjusted percent proficient is what a state may use to reexamine if the
school made AYP for the 2008--09 school year. A step-by-step explanation
and an example follow.

1.  Calculate what 2.0 percent of the total number of students assessed
    within the state equates to solely within the students with
    disabilities subgroup by dividing 2.0 by the percentage of students
    who have disabilities. This number, which will be a constant for
    every school, will be the basis for flexibility in school AYP
    determinations.

2.  Identify all schools that did not make AYP solely on the basis of
    the students with disabilities subgroup and the proficiency rate of
    those students in each school.

3.  Calculate the adjusted percent proficient for each school's students
    with disabilities subgroup. This adjustment is equal to the sum of
    the actual percent of proficient scores of this subgroup plus the
    proxy percent calculated in step 1 above.

4.  Compare this adjusted percent proficient for each school identified
    in step 2 to the state's annual measurable objective (AMO). This
    comparison must be conducted without the use of confidence intervals
    or other statistical treatments.

    a.  If the adjusted proficiency rate for the school's students with
        disabilities subgroup meets or exceeds the state's AMO, the
        school may be considered to have made AYP for the 2008--09
        school year.

    b.  If the adjusted proficiency rate for the school's students with
        disabilities subgroup does not meet or exceed the state's AMO,
        the school did not make AYP for the 2008--09 school year.

5.  This process should be followed for reading and mathematics
    separately and also repeated at the district level, as needed.

6.  The actual percentage of students proficient must be reported to
    parents and the public; the state may also report the adjusted
    percentage of students proficient.

#### Example

Assume that the state identifies 12 percent of its students as those
with disabilities; 2.0 percent of the total number of students assessed
equates to 16.67 percent of students with disabilities (2 percent
divided by 12 percent). Using traditional rounding rules, the state may
round this proxy to the nearest whole number; in this instance the proxy
would be 17 percent. The state's AMO for reading/language arts is 65
percent.

1.  Five schools did not make AYP solely on the basis of their students
    with disabilities subgroups in reading (Column 1). Actual
    proficiency rates are in Column 2.

2.  Assign to each school's proficiency rate for its students with
    disabilities subgroup the 17 percent proxy amount (Column 3).

3.  Calculate the adjusted percent proficient for each school's students
    with disabilities subgroup (Column 4).

4.  Compare this adjusted proficiency rate to the state's AMO (Column
    5). This comparison must be conducted without the use of confidence
    intervals or other statistical treatments.

    -   Roosevelt and Washington made AYP for the 2008--09 school year.

    -   Lincoln, Adams, and Coolidge Schools did not make AYP for this
        school year.

5.  School report cards should reflect the unadjusted proficiency rate
    (Column 2), but may also note the adjusted AYP decision (Column 5).

6.  Repeat the process for mathematics, and also at the district level
    as needed.

## Table 1. Example of Transition Flexibility, Option 1, State AMO = 65%

+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| \(1\)      | \(2\)       | \(3\)       | \(4\)       | \(5\)       |
|            |             |             |             |             |
| School     | Actual      | Statewide   | Adjusted    | Adjusted    |
|            | students    | adjustment  | proficiency | AYP         |
|            | with        | as %        | %           | decision    |
|            | d           | students    |             |             |
|            | isabilities | with        | (Col 2 +    |             |
|            | %           | d           | Col 3)      |             |
|            | proficient  | isabilities |             |             |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Roosevelt  | 54          | 17          | 71          | Yes         |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Washington | 49          | 17          | 66          | Yes         |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Lincoln    | 45          | 17          | 62          | No          |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Adams      | 37          | 17          | 54          | No          |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+
| Coolidge   | 16          | 17          | 33          | No          |
+------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+-------------+

**Option 2**. States may offer their own ideas for the Secretary's
consideration.

States may also offer their own ideas for the Department's
consideration. When the Secretary offered this transition flexibility
for the 2004--05 AYP determinations, several states developed a
different idea and were approved to use that proposal (Colorado,
Maryland, and Massachusetts). In the intervening years, Maryland and
Massachusetts have continued to implement this option. You may wish to
review these proposals to see if any are appropriate for your state. See
Element 5.3 of the states' accountability workbooks at
[www.ed.gov/admins/lead/
account/stateplans03/index.html](http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/stateplans03/index.html).

**[Eligibility Criteria]{.underline}**

The Secretary will make determinations about a state's eligibility for
transition flexibility on a year-by-year basis. To qualify for the
flexibility in 2008--09, a state must:

1.  **Meet the following eligibility requirements**:

    A.  **95 percent participation rate for students with
        disabilities**. Statewide assessment participation rates for
        students with disabilities, for purposes of measuring AYP, must
        be at or above 95 percent.

    B.  **Compliance with IDEA**. States with IDEA Special Conditions
        may not be eligible if such conditions cannot be resolved by
        July 1, 2009.

    C.  **Appropriate accommodations**. Appropriate accommodations must
        be available for students with disabilities.

    D.  **Improving student achievement**. Each state must provide
        information on actions it has taken to raise achievement for
        students with disabilities or narrow the achievement gap and
        evidence that such efforts are improving student achievement.

2.  **Have an approved assessment system**. The state's reading/language
    arts and mathematics assessments, including all alternate
    assessments based on alternate academic achievement standards, must
    meet all statutory and regulatory requirements.

3.  **Provide a timeline of activities for** **200708**. The timeline
    should illustrate significant progress toward development and
    implementation of an AA-MAAS. This timeline should reflect
    completion of key activities and milestones that would indicate such
    progress has been made and include dates for and evidence of the
    following:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
A.  The Request for Proposals to which contractors responded to bid on
    development of the AA-MAAS (include information on how many
    contractors responded, the process for selecting the contractor, and
    the start date for the contract);

B.  A signed contract that includes a detailed work scope and list of
    deliverables;

C.  Documentation that describes the process by which the modified
    academic achievement standards were developed and illustrates the
    alignment of the modified academic achievement standards with the
    content standards;

D.  Evidence of the development of test blueprints that show (a) the
    relationship between the general assessment and assessment based on
    modified academic achievement standards and (b) the extent that test
    items on the AA-MAAS align with and assess the full range of content
    contained in the state's academic content standards;

E.  A detailed outline or rough draft of the technical manual that will
    be developed based on both pilot and full administration of the
    alternate assessment; and

F.  Evidence of the development of manuals that provide guidance and
    training for Individualized Education Program (IEP) teams, including
    information on guidelines for determining which students are
    eligible for an AA-MAAS and standards-based IEP goals.

    4.  **Provide a timeline of activities** **for** **200809**. The
        timeline should delineate steps toward completion and
        implementation of an AA-MAAS. This timeline should be continuous
        with the 200708 timeline and illustrate clearly the steps being
        taken in 2008--09 and when the AA-MAAS will be fully
        operational.