June 27, 2003

Dear Chief State School Officers:

As you know, the Department has been working with each State since  January to review and approve State accountability plans under Title  I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as amended by the No  Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). I am exceedingly grateful for  the cooperation you and your staff have demonstrated throughout this  process. It is truly historic that, for the first time, each State has  an accountability plan to hold all public schools accountable  for the achievement of all students.

During our review of State accountability plans, one of the most challenging  issues with which we have had to grapple is the appropriate inclusion  of students with disabilities. President George W. Bush and I strongly  believe in the principle that no child should be left behind,  including students with disabilities. As a result, I continue to support  vigorously the Title I requirements that all students, including  students with disabilities, be held to the same challenging content  and achievement standards. Similarly, State assessment systems must  provide for the participation of all students, including students  with disabilities. For students with disabilities, these systems must  provide appropriate accommodations and include one or more alternate  assessments for any student who cannot participate in the State assessment,  even with accommodations. In regulations issued in December 2002, we  made clear that these alternate assessments must yield results for the  grade in which the student is enrolled.

At the same time, we recognize that, even with the best instruction,  there is a small percentage of students - those with the most significant  cognitive disabilities - who face unique challenges meeting grade-level  expectations. To ensure that these students are credited for growth  and achievement, we published, in March 2003, a notice of proposed rulemaking  (NPRM) that would permit States to establish alternate achievement standards  to measure the achievement of students with the most significant cognitive  disabilities. We have received more than 95 comments on this NPRM and  hope to issue a final regulation later this summer.

It is important that States work to develop universally designed assessments  that better measure whether students with disabilities are meeting each  State's challenging standards. At the same time, I am mindful that such  state-of-the-art assessments are still emerging; regulations and submission  of accountability plans presented timing issues; and, as a result, some  States administered ILAs during the 2002-2003 school year. For these  reasons, I am authorizing the following transition policies that States  may implement for making AYP determinations for the 2003-2004 school  year, based on data from assessments administered during the 2002-03  school year:

|1. | To calculate AYP for schools  and districts a State may use alternate achievement standards for  students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who take  an alternate assessment. Those alternate achievement standards must  be aligned with State academic content standards and reflect professional  judgment of the highest learning standards possible for those students.  Moreover, in order to calculate AYP, the percentage of students  held to alternate achievement standards at the district and the  State levels may not exceed 1.0 percent of all students in the grades  assessed. For assessment data from the 2002-03 school year, States  may determine which students have the most significant cognitive  disabilities. This is the same transition policy that was communicated  to States through the State accountability system approval process.
|-- | ----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
|2. | In addition, if a State permitted the  use of ILAs during the 2002-2003 school year to measure the progress  of other students with disabilities based on their IEPs, the State  may hold schools and districts accountable for the achievement of  these students against instructional-level standards rather than  grade-level standards. This policy only applies to assessments  that were administered during the 2002-2003 school year, which will  be used to make AYP determinations for the 2003-2004 school year.  The 1.0 percent limit discussed above does not apply to these test  scores.                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                                               

In response to the comments we received on the NPRM, we are working  on a comprehensive policy that better defines the group of students  with disabilities for whom alternate achievement standards may be appropriate.  Until that policy is final, I believe the flexibility I am offering  strikes the proper balance between ensuring that all students  are included in States' accountability systems and recognizing the unique  assessment issues that students with disabilities raise. Once the regulation  is finalized we intend to work with States so that they will be able  to meet the new requirements and ensure that all students are appropriately  assessed and held to high standards. Together, we can work to ensure  that no child, including one with a disability, is left behind.

Sincerely,

/s/

Rod Paige

|Last Modified: 08/23/2003
|-------------------------