![](media/image1.png){width="0.9402777777777778in"
height="0.9520833333333333in"}

UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

> OFFICE OF ELEMENTARY AND SECONDARY EDUCATION

THE ASSISTANT SECRETARY

January 19, 2005

Dear Chief State School Officer:

I want to thank you for sending your colleagues to the Department's
training session on November 8, 2004, regarding the requirements for
standards and assessments under the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). I trust
the meeting was informative for those in your State who are developing
standards and assessment systems.

One important piece of information that was delivered at this session
was the possible outcomes from a peer review of a State's standards and
assessment systems. I want to ensure you are aware of the Department's
plans as we undertake this important step in implementing NCLB. As you
know, under section 1111(e) of NCLB, the Department is required to peer
review and approve each State plan, including evidence of how the State
has met the NCLB standards and assessments requirements. Depending upon
the results of the peer review, a State's system of standards and
assessments would receive one of the following:

-   *Full Approval*. *Full Approval* will be granted if a State's
    standards and assessment system meets *all* statutory and regulatory
    requirements. No additional action is required.

-   *Full Approval with Recommendations*. *Full Approval with
    Recommendations* will be granted if a State's standards and
    assessment system meets *all* statutory and regulatory requirements,
    but some pieces of the system could be improved. In this case, we
    will approve the State's standards and assessment system but will
    recommend additional actions that the State may wish to take to
    improve pieces of its system.

-   *Deferred Approval***.** *Deferred Approval* will be granted if a
    State's standards and assessment system meets *most, but not all,*
    of the statutory and regulatory requirements. In this case, the
    State must take specific steps (such as producing a technical manual
    or taking board action) to come into full compliance and submit
    evidence of that compliance. To receive *Deferred Approval*, a State
    must be able to fully implement its standards and assessment system
    in the 2005-2006 school year. For States that participate in an
    early review, we may also grant *Deferred Approval* status in cases
    where:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   Nearly all requirements have been met;

-   The State can clearly articulate how it will meet remaining
    requirements; and

-   The State can achieve compliance and administer final assessments by
    Spring 2005-2006.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Final Review Pending.* This is the status of a State that seeks an
    early review but whose standards and assessment system does not meet
    a preponderance of the statutory and regulatory requirements. In
    this instance, the State would have time to resubmit evidence by the
    2005-2006 administration to show that its system meets those
    requirements, pending the outcome of an additional peer review.

-   *Not Approved System.* A *Not Approved System* is one that does not
    meet a preponderance of the statutory and regulatory requirements or
    is missing an essential component. In such cases, one or more of the
    following remedies will be applied:

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Withholding State Funds*. Section 1111(g)(2) authorizes the
    Secretary to withhold State administrative funds until he determines
    a State's standards and assessment system meets the Title I
    requirements. This remedy could be used alone or in conjunction with
    either *Mandatory Oversight Status* or a *Compliance Agreement*.

```{=html}
<!-- -->
```
-   *Compliance Agreement*. A *Compliance Agreement* is a statutory
    remedy authorized by §457 of the General Education Provisions Act.
    Its purpose is to bring a State into full compliance with applicable
    requirements as soon as feasible. A *Compliance Agreement* is
    jointly negotiated between the State and the Department. Full
    compliance must be achieved within three years.

-   *Mandatory Oversight Status*. This status could be conferred on a
    State whose standards and assessment system does not meet the
    requirements by 2005-2006 but can be revised to meet the
    requirements within the 2006-2007 school year. This remedy would
    place specific conditions on a State's grant award, such as
    requiring additional and more detailed reports or imposing other
    conditions related to the State's authority to draw down its Title I
    funds. In imposing such conditions, we will notify the State in
    writing regarding the reasons for the conditions and the steps that
    must be taken before they will be removed.

Please note that no timeline waivers will be granted with respect to the
NCLB standards and assessment requirements.

Further, if a State's standards and assessment system does not have
*Full Approval* or *Full Approval with Recommendations* by July 1, 2006,
we will place conditions on the receipt of fiscal year 2006 Title I
funding. These conditions will continue until *Full Approval* or *Full
Approval with Recommendations* is attained.

There will be several opportunities for your State to submit evidence of
its standards and assessment system for peer review. The first review
will occur February 2005. Subsequent reviews will occur during May,
September and November 2005 and during February, May and September
during 2006.

Please contact members of my staff, Dr. Kerri Briggs (202-401-0113) or
Dr. Zollie

Stevenson, Jr. (202-260-1824) if you have any specific questions
regarding the plans or process for peer review.

Sincerely,

/S/

Raymond Simon

cc: Governors

State Assessment Directors