Dear Colleague:

This is a follow-up to our letter 
  of December 17, 2002, in which we promised to provide guidance on the implementation 
  of the new requirements of Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education 
  Act (ESEA), as reauthorized by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB), by schools 
  that operate school lunch programs under Provision 2 and Provision 3 of the 
  National School Lunch Program.

As noted in our earlier 
  letter, States and local educational agencies (LEAs) receiving funding under 
  Title I, Part A of the ESEA must assess and report annually on the extent to 
  which students in schools operating Title I programs are making progress toward 
  meeting State academic proficiency standards in reading or language arts and 
  in mathematics. States and LEAs must also measure and report publicly on the 
  progress of all students, and of students in various population groups, including 
  students who are economically disadvantaged. If assessment results show that 
  any of the groups has not made adequate yearly progress toward meeting State 
  achievement standards for two consecutive years, the LEA must identify that 
  school as needing improvement. All students attending the school must be given 
  the opportunity to attend other public schools that have not been identified 
  as needing improvement, with priority given to the lowest-achieving students 
  from low-income families. Once a school has failed to make adequate yearly progress 
  for three years, the LEA must provide economically disadvantaged students who 
  attend that school the opportunity to obtain supplemental educational services 
  from a non-profit, for-profit, or public provider.

For many LEAs, information from the National School Lunch Program is likely 
  to be the best, and perhaps the only, source of data available to hold schools 
  accountable for the achievement of "economically disadvantaged" students, 
  and also to identify students as eligible to receive supplemental educational 
  services or to receive priority for public school choice. Moreover, in the case 
  of the priority for public school choice and eligibility for supplemental educational 
  services, the law specifically requires LEAs to use the same data they use for 
  making within-district Title I allocations; historically, most LEAs use school 
  lunch data for that purpose. As we outlined in our original 
  letter, school lunch data may be used for these purposes. However, using 
  school lunch data in schools that have implemented Provision 2 or 3 of the school 
  lunch program poses issues that require further explanation, because these schools 
  do not determine free and reduced price lunch eligibility on an annual basis.

The National School Lunch Act allows schools that offer students lunches at 
  no charge, regardless of individual students' economic status, to certify students 
  as eligible for free and reduced price lunches once every four years and longer 
  under certain conditions. These alternatives to the traditional requirements 
  for annual certification, known as "Provision 2" and "Provision 
  3," reduce local paperwork and administrative burden. The school lunch 
  regulations prohibit schools that make use of these alternatives from collecting 
  eligibility data and certifying students on an annual basis for other purposes. 
  This prohibition has raised issues about how such schools can obtain the data 
  they need to disaggregate Title I assessment data, identify students as eligible 
  for supplemental educational services, and determine which students receive 
  priority for public school choice, all of which Title I requires be done annually.

We have determined that, for purposes of disaggregating assessment data and 
  for identifying students as "economically disadvantaged" in implementing 
  supplemental educational services and the priority for public school choice, 
  school officials may deem all students in Provision 2 and 3 schools as "economically 
  disadvantaged." In addition, when determining Title I eligibility and allocations 
  for a Provision 2 or 3 school, LEA officials may assume that the school has 
  the same percentage of students eligible for free and reduced price lunches 
  as it had in the most recent year for which the school collected that information.

We hope this guidance clarifies this issue. For more detailed information about 
  public school choice and supplemental educational services please see http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/asst.html.

If we can be of further assistance, please contact one of our offices.

| |                                                                                                                      | Sincerely,                                                                    | 
| | -------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------- | 
| |                                                                                                                      |                                                                               | 
| | Eric M. Bost
      Under Secretary
      Food, Nutrition, and Consumer Services
      U.S. Department of Agriculture | Eugene W. Hickok
        Under Secretary
        U.S. Department of Education | 

|Last Modified: 09/16/2003
|-------------------------