August 1, 2008

Dear Chief State School Officers:

This pilot will provide states the flexibility to more  precisely focus interventions (under section 1116 of ESEA) on schools with the  greatest need, thereby promoting meaningful reform in schools, providing  increased options for parents and students, and improving teacher  effectiveness.  The pilot will not,  however, allow states to diminish their focus on having all students achieve  grade-level proficiency in reading and mathematics by 2013-14 nor will it allow  states to circumvent the requirements to fix struggling schools.  Under the pilot, participating states must  determine adequate yearly progress (AYP) consistent with section 1111 of ESEA  and with any measures of student growth that have been approved by this  Department.

I will continue to place a priority on the following: (1)  states that have at least 20 percent of their Title I schools identified for  improvement; (2) proposals to implement differentiated accountability models that  include significant and comprehensive interventions for the lowest-performing  schools earlier in the improvement timeline; and (3) proposals for innovative  models of differentiation and interventions.   Within the bounds of the core principles, we are interested in selecting  a broad array of models for the pilot and will look for innovation, enhanced  parental options, and strong accountability, combined with a rigorous approach  toward reform.

States wishing to submit proposals for the differentiated accountability  pilot must do so no later than September 17, 2008.  All proposals must be consistent with the ten core principles  that I laid out last March.  These core  principles are outlined in the differentiated accountability peer review  guidance (http://www.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/daguidance.doc).  I understand that these principles and  priorities set a high bar that not every state will be able to meet.  However, this rigorous approach is the only  way to balance the proposed flexibility of the pilot with a continued focus on  the "bright-line principles" of NCLB and the goal of universal proficiency by  2014.  In addition to satisfying the ten  core principles, the proposal must successfully explain how the model would  ensure meaningful reform for schools (individually and as a system) and would  lead to all students being proficient in reading and mathematics by 2014.  States may propose a differentiated  accountability system for schools, districts, or both.

To be eligible to participate in the differentiated  accountability pilot, a state must meet the following criteria:

1. The state's standards and assessment system must be fully approved as  administered in the 2008-09 school year.
2. The state may have no significant outstanding monitoring findings  related either to NCLB or the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act  (IDEA) requirements.
3. The state must have a plan for meeting the requirements in NCLB for  highly qualified teachers that has been approved by the Department.
4. The state must provide timely and transparent AYP information to the  public.  States that have more than one  unapproved occurrence of late AYP notification in the past two years are not  eligible.
5. For any state that proposes either to reverse the order in which it  offers public school choice and supplemental educational services (SES) to  eligible students or to offer both public school choice and SES to eligible  students in schools in the first year of improvement, the state must also be  conducting an evaluation of the extent to which its SES providers are  contributing to student achievement and must have, at a minimum, started the  process of collecting data for the evaluation.

Enclosed with this letter is a description of the process  for states to submit proposals for this pilot.   Before a proposal is approved by the Department, it will be reviewed by  a panel of external experts and evaluated against the ten core principles.  The  peers will evaluate how the proposal meets each of the core principles,  including the educational and technical soundness of the model, how the state  uses data to support the differentiated accountability model, and the rigor of  the state's approach to differentiated accountability.  If you are unsure of your state's  eligibility status, please contact Dr. Kerri Briggs, Assistant Secretary for  Elementary and Secondary Education, prior to submitting your proposal.

The Department will rigorously evaluate this pilot to  determine its effectiveness in improving student achievement, will annually  review information on how it is working in each state, and will share the  results with other states, policymakers, and the public to further inform the  reauthorization of NCLB and school improvement practices in general.  To that end, each approved state must  participate in the Department's evaluation of its model and must provide data  to the Department comparing its model with its current accountability system  and describing the interventions applied to schools and the effects of  differentiated accountability on student achievement and school reform.  Each approved state whose model reverses the  order in which public school choice and SES are offered to eligible students  may need to satisfy other conditions as well.

We learned a great deal in reviewing the first round of  differentiated accountability proposals, and the Department will be taking into  account feedback from the peers when reviewing new proposals.  Following the review, the peers created a  summary document of crosscutting themes they identified across the 17 state  proposals they reviewed.  For example,  the peers noted that not all of the proposed interventions were tied to the  specific reasons a school or local educational agency (LEA) is in improvement,  as they should be.  The peers also  raised concerns that states did not put in place a process to revisit and  refine the methods of differentiation.   Other issues identified by the peers related to states' evaluation  processes, states' use of data to make decisions on differentiation and  interventions, and states' failure to focus on the role of the LEA in the  school improvement process.  I recommend  that any state interested in submitting a proposal review the peers' summary  document, which can be found on our Web site at: http://www.ed.gov/admins/lead/account/differentiatedaccountability/prsummary.doc.

To assist states in their proposal writing efforts, we will  be hosting a roundtable at the Department on Monday, August 18, 2008, to  discuss methods of differentiation and evaluation.  Several peer reviewers and staff from the states that submitted  proposals will join Department staff for this roundtable.  I encourage any state interested in  submitting a proposal to send a delegate to participate in this  discussion.  If you are interested in  participating, please send an e-mail to applications@ed.gov by August 4, 2008, with the name and contact  information for your state's delegate.   To make the most of this roundtable, states should come prepared to  discuss specific ideas and plans.

Finally, I would like to take this opportunity to mention  that the Department is planning to convene another peer review of state growth  model proposals this fall.  We will  release updated guidance soon and anticipate setting a submission deadline of  mid-October.  More information will be  forthcoming.  Please do not hesitate to  contact Assistant Secretary Briggs with any additional questions or  concerns.  We look forward to working  with you to implement innovative and effective methods to improve school  accountability and raise student achievement.



| | Sincerely,        
| | ------------------
| | /s/               
| | Margaret Spellings

Enclosure

cc:  Governors

---

Enclosure

**PROPOSALS  FOR THE DIFFERENTIATED ACCOUNTABILITY PILOT PROGRAM**

**

*When should a  state submit its proposal?* 
  A state that wishes to incorporate differentiated  accountability into its *No Child  Left Behind* (NCLB) accountability system in the 2009-10 school year should submit its proposal by  September 17, 2008.  A state submitting  a proposal should send it electronically to applications@ed.gov with attention  to Assistant Secretary Kerri Briggs.

*What is the  approval process?*  
  The Department of Education (Department) will review whether  a state is eligible to participate in the pilot.  Before a proposal is  approved by the Department, it will be reviewed by a panel of outside  experts and evaluated against the ten core principles, and the panel will make  recommendations to the Secretary.  If a  state's proposal is approved by the Secretary, the final proposal must be  electronically submitted to the Department as part of the state’s amended  accountability workbook.  The Department  will post each approved state's differentiated accountability plan on the  Department's Web site so that it is readily accessible to the general  public.

*What are the  eligibility criteria?*
  To be eligible to participate in the differentiated accountability pilot, a  state must meet the following criteria:

1. **Approved standards and assessment       system.**  The       state's standards and assessment system must be fully approved by the       Department as administered in the 2008-09 school year.  The state's standards and assessment       system includes annual assessments in each of grades 3-8 and high school       in both reading and mathematics (including alternate assessments), and       science assessments (including alternate assessments) in at least one       grade in each of three grade spans (3-5, 6-9 and 10-12).
2. **No significant outstanding monitoring       findings.**  The       state may have no significant outstanding monitoring findings related       either to NCLB or the *Individuals       with Disabilities Education Act* (IDEA) requirements.
3. **Approved highly qualified teacher plan.**  The state must have a plan for meeting       the requirements in NCLB for highly qualified teachers that has been       approved by the Department.
4. **Timely AYP determinations.**  The state must provide timely and       transparent adequate yearly progress (AYP) information to the public.  States that have more than one       unapproved occurrence of late AYP notification in the past two years are       not eligible.
5. **Evaluation of SES providers.**  For any state that       proposes either to reverse the order in which it offers public school       choice and supplemental educational services (SES) to eligible students or       to offer both public school choice and SES to eligible students in schools       in the first year of improvement, the state must also be conducting an       evaluation of the extent to which its SES providers are contributing to       student achievement and must have, at a minimum, started the process of       collecting data for the evaluation.

*What is the  flexibility agreement?* 
  A state that is approved to participate in the pilot program  must enter into a flexibility agreement with the Department under section 9401  of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by  NCLB.  In the flexibility agreement, the  Department may place reasonable conditions on the state in exchange for the  flexibility granted to the state through the differentiated accountability  pilot.  As required by section  9401(b)(3)(A) of ESEA, within 30 days of being approved to participate in the  pilot, the state must provide all interested school districts in the state with  notice of the flexibility agreement in the manner in which it customarily  provides similar notice to the public and a reasonable opportunity to  comment.  Within 30 days thereafter, the  state must submit any comments to the Secretary.

*How long does  the flexibility agreement last?* 
  States will be approved to implement their models for up to  four years (for example, in the case of a four-year pilot, the 2009-10 through  2012-13 school years), unless reauthorization of NCLB changes the requirements  on which those models are based.  States  will be required to report annually on their progress, which the Department  will review to determine that the state's differentiated accountability plan is  implemented as proposed.  The Department  may terminate the flexibility agreement at any time for noncompliance with the  agreement.

*When can  implementation begin?* 
  A state must be notified by the Department through a formal  approval letter that its proposal has been approved before it implements its  proposed differentiated accountability model.



|Last Modified: 08/04/2008
|-------------------------