March 20, 2008

Letter to Chief State School Officers (individually addressed)

Dear (name):

In January 2007, I put forward a plan for reauthorizing the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act (ESEA) as amended by the *No Child Left Behind Act* (NCLB). 
This plan, *Building on Results*, is designed to improve accountability 
by providing additional flexibility for innovation while working toward grade-level 
proficiency for all students in reading and mathematics by 2014. While the discussion 
to reauthorize NCLB continues, I know from my conversations with state and local 
leaders and policymakers across the country that some commonsense changes are 
needed to build upon those that have been implemented since my speech at Mount 
Vernon in 2005. One change would provide states with flexibility to create a more 
nuanced way of distinguishing between schools in need of intensive intervention, 
and those that are closer to meeting their goals so that they can direct limited 
resources to the schools that need them the most. This concept has been widely 
discussed in Congress and among the states.

On March 18, I announced a pilot project that provides an opportunity for states 
  to propose their own methods for categorizing identified schools and determining 
  the interventions required for each category. To participate in the pilot, states 
  must commit to build their own capacity for school reform, take the most significant 
  actions for the lowest-performing schools, and use data to determine the method 
  of differentiation. My hope is that this "differentiated accountability" 
  pilot will lead to a variety of approaches to differentiation, which can add 
  to the conversations on reauthorization and inform school improvement practices 
  in general.

In short, this pilot will allow states the flexibility to focus more precisely 
  their technical assistance and interventions (under section 1116 of ESEA) on 
  schools with the greatest need. The states' proposals should promote meaningful 
  reform in schools, provide options for parents and students, and improve teacher 
  effectiveness. The pilot will not allow states to lessen the focus on all students 
  reaching grade-level proficiency in reading and mathematics or circumvent the 
  requirements to fix struggling schools. It will require a state's current measurement 
  of adequate yearly progress (AYP) (under section 1111 of ESEA) to be retained 
  or made more rigorous and would not allow it to be diluted through this process.

Allowing states to experiment with differentiated accountability makes sense 
  for several reasons. First, not all schools identified for improvement are the 
  same. For example, of the schools identified for improvement in 2005-06, 56 
  percent were identified as in need of improvement due to the low achievement 
  of the "all students" group, indicating a widespread problem in the 
  school, while 14 percent of schools were identified because of the low achievement 
  of a single subgroup.1 Under a differentiated accountability 
  approach, as the extent of the problems leading to a school's identification 
  differs, so should the type of interventions. Second, some states and districts 
  have a large percentage of their schools identified for improvement, corrective 
  action, and restructuring, which affects their capacity to provide meaningful 
  reforms. This is particularly true for states and districts with a large number 
  of schools in the restructuring phase of the improvement timeline. Differentiated 
  accountability will assist those states by allowing them to target resources 
  and interventions to those schools most in need of intensive interventions and 
  significant reform.

States that wish to use differentiated accountability as part of their NCLB 
  accountability system must submit a proposal that demonstrates that they are 
  meeting the "bright line principles" of NCLB: improving achievement 
  and narrowing achievement gaps by holding schools and districts accountable 
  for results using annual assessments; providing real choice for parents; ensuring 
  that parents have accurate and meaningful information about their children's 
  schools; and improving teacher quality. To that end, a state must describe how 
  it meets the state eligibility criteria and the ten core principles listed below. 
  The proposal must successfully explain how the model ensures 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.

***State Eligibility Criteria***
  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 2007-08 school year. 
  2. The state must have no significant outstanding monitoring findings related 
  to NCLB requirements. We will also take into consideration significant outstanding 
  monitoring findings related to the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act 
  (IDEA). 
  3. The state must have a plan for meeting the requirements in NCLB for highly 
  qualified teachers that has been approved by the Department of Education (Department). 
  
  4. 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.

***Core Principles of Differentiated Accountability Models***
  A state's proposal must address each of the ten core principles listed below. 
  The principles are organized in four categories: accountability, differentiation, 
  interventions, and restructuring.

**Accountability:** *The state maintains its current practice 
  for determining AYP and identifying schools as in need of improvement.*
  1. AYP determinations are made for all public schools in the state, as required 
  by NCLB and as described in the state's accountability plan. The state's accountability 
  system continues to hold schools accountable and ensure that all students are 
  proficient by 2013-14. 
  2. The state provides the public with clear and understandable explanations 
  of how AYP is calculated for its schools and districts, and how it ensures that 
  all students are included in its accountability system. 
  3. Title I schools in the state continue to be identified for improvement as 
  required by NCLB and as outlined in the state's accountability plan. However, 
  the identification labels (i.e., schools in need of improvement, corrective 
  action, restructuring) may be changed to reflect how interventions for schools 
  are differentiated.

**Differentiation:** *The state clearly defines its process 
  for categorizing and differentiating among schools.*
  4. The method for differentiation of identified schools is technically and educationally 
  sound, based upon robust data analysis, and uniform across the state. The differentiation 
  of schools is based primarily on proficiency in reading and mathematics.
  5. When transitioning to the differentiated accountability model, the state 
  considers the current status of schools, including interventions previously 
  implemented in schools and services provided to students.
  6. The process for differentiation and the resulting interventions for schools 
  in different categories or phases of differentiation are data-driven, understandable, 
  and transparent to the public.

**Interventions:** *The state clearly defines its system of 
  interventions.* 
  7. All identified schools receiving Title I funds are subject to interventions, 
  and they progress through an intervention timeline with interventions increasing 
  in intensity over time. The state describes its comprehensive system of interventions, 
  including, if applicable, how its proposal aligns with its state accountability 
  system. 
  8. Interventions are educationally sound. The state provides a rationale, including 
  evidence of effectiveness, for each intervention proposed. The state explains 
  how it will leverage state and local resources along with federal resources 
  (e.g., Title I school improvement funds, Title II funds) to promote meaningful 
  reform in schools, provide options for parents and students, and improve teacher 
  effectiveness. 
  9. The differentiated accountability model is designed to result in an increased 
  number of students participating, in the aggregate, in public school choice 
  and supplemental educational services (SES) at the state level, even if the 
  number of students eligible for these options decreases. If a state proposes 
  to change the eligibility requirements for SES, these services are offered, 
  at a minimum, to low-income non-proficient students in all Title I schools identified 
  for improvement (no later than the timeline required by NCLB).

**Restructuring (or alternate label):** *The state clearly 
  defines the interventions for the lowest-performing schools.*
  10. There must be a category of differentiation for at least a subset of the 
  lowest-performing schools that have not met annual achievement targets for five 
  years (currently the restructuring category). This category of schools must 
  be subject to the most significant and comprehensive interventions.

***Priorities***
  Priority for participating in the pilot will be given to the following:
  • States that have at least 20 percent of their Title I schools identified 
  as in need of improvement in the 2007-08 school year and that demonstrate a 
  challenge in providing meaningful, intensive reform to all their identified 
  Title I schools. States that do not meet this 20 percent threshold and wish 
  to apply must provide a justification for why there is a need for differentiated 
  accountability.
  • States that propose to take significant and comprehensive interventions, 
  such as those used in the restructuring phase, for the lowest-performing schools 
  earlier in the improvement timeline (i.e., earlier than after five years of 
  missing annual achievement targets).
  • States that propose an innovative model of differentiation and system 
  of interventions. Within the bounds of the core principles above, we are interested 
  in selecting a broad array of models for the pilot and will be looking for innovation, 
  enhanced parental options, and strong accountability, combined with a rigorous 
  approach to reform.

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 program with a continued focus 
  on the "bright-line principles" of NCLB and the goal of universal 
  proficiency by 2014.

Enclosed with this letter is a description of the process for states to submit 
  proposals for this pilot along with details on the evidence that states must 
  provide to demonstrate that their proposals meet each of the core principles. 
  Given that our goal is to review each proposal and make a determination of which 
  states can be approved to participate before the start of the 2008-09 school 
  year, **the submission deadline is May 2**. The review process will closely resemble 
  the process used for the growth model pilot. Proposals from states that meet 
  the eligibility criteria will be reviewed by a panel of external experts and 
  evaluated against the ten core principles. If you are unsure of your state's 
  eligibility status, please contact Assistant Secretary Kerri Briggs prior to 
  submitting your proposal.

Taking the peers' comments into consideration, I will approve up to ten states 
  to enter into flexibility agreements under section 9401 of ESEA, which will 
  permit them to implement their model of differentiated accountability for AYP 
  determinations based on assessments administered in the 2007-08 school year 
  and for interventions to be implemented in the 2008-09 school year. States will 
  be approved to implement their models for up to four years (for example, in 
  the case of a four-year pilot, the 2008-09 through 2011-12 school years) unless 
  reauthorization of NCLB changes the requirements on which those models are based.

The Department will rigorously evaluate this pilot to determine its effectiveness 
  in improving student achievement, annually review information on how it is working 
  in each state, and share 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 provide data to the Department 
  comparing its model with its current accountability system, and describing the 
  interventions applied to schools and the effects of differentiating accountability 
  on student achievement and school reform.

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

1 Source: U.S. Department of Education, Policy and 
  Program Studies Service, unpublished data from the Study of State Implementation 
  of Accountability and Teacher Quality Under No Child Left Behind.

---

Enclosure

**PROPOSALS FOR THE DIFFERENTIATED ACCOUNTABILITY 
  PILOT PROGRAM**

**I. Process to Submit Proposals**

*When should a state submit its proposal?* A state that wishes to incorporate 
  differentiated accountability into its *No Child Left Behind* (NCLB) 
  accountability system should submit its proposal by May 2, 2008. States submitting 
  a proposal should send it electronically to applications@ed.gov with attention 
  to Assistant Secretary Kerri Briggs.

*What is the approval process?* Similar to the growth model review process, 
  the Department of Education (Department) will review whether a state is eligible 
  to participate in the pilot. Proposals from eligible states then will be reviewed 
  by a panel of outside experts and evaluated against the ten core principles 
  below, 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 2007-08 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). Additionally, in the 2007-08 
  school year, a state administers science assessments (including alternate assessments) 
  once in each grade span (3-5, 6-9 and 10-12), includes all students in the assessments, 
  and reports the results.

2. **No significant outstanding monitoring findings.** The state 
  must have no significant outstanding monitoring findings related to NCLB requirements. 
  We will also take into consideration significant outstanding monitoring findings 
  related to the *Individuals with Disabilities Education Act* (IDEA).

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.

*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 (ESEA) as amended 
  by NCLB. The flexibility agreement will be part of the Department's official 
  approval letter. 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 with notice of the flexibility 
  agreement and a reasonable opportunity to comment, submit any comments to the 
  Secretary, and provide notice and information to the public about the differentiated 
  accountability model in the manner in which it customarily provides similar 
  public notice.

*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 2008-09 through 2011-12 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 first be notified by the 
  Department in an approval letter before it implements its proposed differentiated 
  accountability model.

**II. Contents of Proposal**

*What should a state include in its proposal?* A state's proposal should 
  explain how it will incorporate differentiated accountability into its NCLB 
  accountability system. The state should clearly and concisely describe its proposal, 
  explaining how the proposal meets each of the ten core principles listed below. 
  We will pay particular attention to how the state applies the most rigorous 
  and comprehensive interventions to the lowest-performing schools. The state 
  should also include evidence that illustrates how the proposal would be implemented, 
  including how schools currently in the school improvement timeline would be 
  affected by the proposed differentiated accountability model. Please limit the 
  contents of your proposal to 30 pages (not including appendices) and the executive 
  summary to five pages.

**Accountability:** *The state maintains its current practice 
  for determining AYP and identifying schools as in need of improvement.*

**Core Principle 1: AYP determinations are made for all public schools 
  in the state, as required by NCLB and as described in the state's accountability 
  plan. The state's accountability system continues to hold schools accountable 
  and ensure that all students are proficient by 2013-14.** The proposal 
  must provide an assurance and a description about how this core principle is 
  met. Note: this pilot does not allow for any of the requirements in section 
  1111 of ESEA to be waived.

**Core Principle 2: The state provides the public with clear and understandable 
  explanations of how AYP is calculated for its schools and districts, and how 
  it ensures that all students are included in its accountability system.** 
  The proposal must describe the following:
  • The components of the state's AYP definition (e.g., full academic year 
  definition, minimum "n" size) and any statistical adjustments used 
  in calculating AYP (e.g., multiyear averaging, the use of a performance index, 
  confidence intervals, standard error of measurement). 
  • How the state provides transparent and easily accessible information 
  to the public about how AYP is calculated.

**Core Principle 3: Title I schools in the state continue to be identified 
  for improvement as required by NCLB and as outlined in the state's accountability 
  plan. However, the identification labels (i.e., schools in need of improvement, 
  corrective action, restructuring) may be changed to reflect how interventions 
  for schools are differentiated.** The proposal must give an assurance 
  and a description about how this core principle is met. Note: schools and districts 
  identified for improvement may *not* be limited to only those schools 
  and districts that did not make AYP because the same subgroup did not meet the 
  annual measurable objective in the same subject or the same other academic indicator 
  for two consecutive years.

**Differentiation:** *The state clearly defines its process 
  for categorizing and differentiating among schools.*

**Core Principle 4: The method of differentiation of identified schools 
  is technically and educationally sound, based upon robust data analysis, and 
  uniform across the state. The differentiation of schools is based primarily 
  on proficiency in reading and mathematics.** In describing the method 
  that the State proposes to use to differentiate the identified schools and districts 
  that need interventions, the proposal must include:
  • The criteria that will be used to distinguish between different categories 
  (e.g., between "targeted" and "comprehensive") or phases 
  (e.g., from "improvement" to "restructuring") of intervention 
  and what these different categories or phases would be called.
  • A description and a detailed example of how a school would move between 
  different categories of intervention. 
  • A description and detailed example of how a school would move from one 
  phase of intervention to another, including how a school would exit each phase 
  of intervention. 
  • A description of how the state considers or reviews student achievement 
  in reading and mathematics when determining a school's category or phase of 
  intervention.
  • An explanation of how the state's method of differentiation does not 
  systematically allow for a particular subgroup that repeatedly misses targets 
  over time to be in the least rigorous category of differentiation.
  • If the model would apply additional academic indicators1 
  (e.g., science assessments or academic improvement over time) to differentiate 
  among schools, evidence that the indicators: 
  (1) Are valid, reliable, uniform statewide, and applicable to all students within 
  a particular grade span (note that the indicators may differ for high schools, 
  middle schools, and elementary schools); and 
  (2) Are used only to refine distinctions between schools with similar performance 
  in reading and mathematics. 
  • A description of the criteria the state will use to evaluate the implementation 
  and effectiveness of the proposed model.

**Data analyses for Core Principle 4**
  • Provide the data analyses that were used to determine the state's proposed 
  method of differentiation. 
  • Provide an analysis, using prior-year data as necessary, on the academic 
  achievement of schools in each category and phase of improvement including data 
  disaggregated by subgroups, the number and percent of schools in urban versus 
  rural localities, large versus small student enrollments, and other key demographic 
  variables based on the state's model of differentiation.
  • Provide evidence, including any available statistical modeling, to support 
  the rationale for the proposed method. Provide any available empirical evidence 
  in the form of research or case studies to provide a justification for the method 
  and need for differentiated accountability.

**Core Principle 5: When transitioning to the differentiated accountability 
  model, the state considers the current status of schools, including interventions 
  previously implemented in schools and services provided to students.** 
  Describe the state's plan to transition to the proposed differentiated accountability 
  model. Include information on the following: 
  • How the proposed plan considers the current status of a school (e.g., 
  how a school will transition from corrective action in 2007-08 to a new phase 
  under the differentiated accountability model in 2008-09 without starting over 
  in the intervention timeline). 
  • How the state will ensure that students participating in public school 
  choice (PSC) and supplemental educational services (SES) during the 2007-08 
  school year will continue to have those options available to them during the 
  transition, even if they would not be eligible under the state's proposed differentiated 
  accountability model.

**Core Principle 6: The process for differentiation and the resulting 
  interventions for schools in different categories or phases of differentiation 
  are data-driven, understandable, and transparent to the public.** Describe 
  how the proposed model ensures that: 
  • The process for differentiation and the resulting interventions are 
  data-driven and understandable. 
  • Schools are identified and their status is reported publicly, as required 
  by NCLB and as outlined in the state's accountability plan.

**Interventions:** *The state clearly defines its system of 
  interventions.*

**Core Principle 7: All identified schools receiving Title I funds are 
  subject to interventions, and they progress through an intervention timeline 
  with interventions increasing in intensity over time. The state describes its 
  comprehensive system of interventions, including, if applicable, how its proposal 
  aligns with its state accountability system.** Provide descriptions of:
  • The interventions that will be implemented in each category and phase 
  of improvement.
  • How the state's comprehensive system of interventions being proposed 
  aligns with and builds on its own system of interventions if applicable.
  • The intervention timeline (i.e., how and when the interventions applied 
  will increase in rigor).
  • How the interventions reflect the academic achievement of the schools 
  and how schools that do not increase achievement in reading/language arts and 
  mathematics will progress through the intervention timeline.
  • How the state's comprehensive system of interventions does not systematically 
  apply the least rigorous interventions to a particular subgroup that repeatedly 
  misses targets over time.
  • How the state would ensure that effective teachers are in the schools 
  needing the most significant interventions and how the state would target resources 
  to improve the effectiveness of teachers.

**Core Principle 8: Interventions must be educationally sound. The state 
  provides a rationale, including evidence of effectiveness, for each intervention 
  proposed. The state explains how it will leverage state and local resources 
  along with federal resources (e.g., Title I school improvement funds, Title 
  II funds) to promote meaningful reform in schools, provide options for parents 
  and students, and improve teacher effectiveness.** Include the following 
  information:
  • A rationale for each proposed intervention.
  • The research or evidence of effectiveness supporting the proposed interventions.
  • An explanation of how the state would leverage its resources to increase 
  state and local capacity to ensure rigorous support for consistently underperforming 
  schools. Explain how the proposed plan will leverage school improvement funds 
  received under section 1003(g) of ESEA, and Title II funds to provide targeted 
  assistance, particularly to those schools receiving the most intensive interventions.
  • Whether the state uses or proposes to use the transferability provision 
  (section 6123 of ESEA) to better target resources.
  • How the statewide system of support will be used or improved.
  • How the state would build its own capacity, as well as the capacity 
  of its districts, to work with low-performing schools.

**Core Principle 9: The differentiated accountability model is designed 
  to result in an increased number of students participating, in the aggregate, 
  in PSC and SES at the state level, even if the number of students eligible for 
  these options decreases. If a state proposes to change the eligibility requirements 
  for SES, these services are offered, at a minimum, to low-income non-proficient 
  students in all Title I schools identified for improvement (no later than the 
  timeline required by NCLB).** Provide information regarding the following:
  • The eligibility criteria for SES, if different from the requirements 
  in NCLB.
  • The steps the state plans to take to improve student participation in 
  SES and PSC.

**Restructuring (or alternate label):** *The state clearly 
  defines the interventions for the lowest-performing schools.*

**Core Principle 10: There must be a category of differentiation for 
  at least a subset of the lowest-performing schools that have not met annual 
  achievement targets for five years (currently the restructuring category). This 
  category of schools must be subject to the most significant and comprehensive 
  interventions.** Include information on the following: 
  • How the state ensures that interventions for the lowest-performing schools 
  are the most rigorous (i.e., the first four restructuring options listed in 
  section 1116(b)(8)(B) of ESEA - reopening the school as a public charter school, 
  replacing all or most of the school staff, entering into a contract with an 
  entity to operate the public school, turning the operation of the school over 
  to the State educational agency - or other options that are demonstrated to 
  be at least as rigorous as these four options). 
  • How the state ensures that the intervention timeline for the lowest 
  performing schools is at least as rigorous as outlined in NCLB (i.e., after 
  five years of missing annual achievement targets). 
  • How a school would move out of the group of schools receiving the most 
  significant and comprehensive interventions. 
  • If the state proposes to take significant and comprehensive interventions, 
  such as those in the restructuring phase, for the lowest-performing schools 
  *earlier* in the improvement timeline (i.e., earlier than after five 
  years of missing annual achievement targets), describe that timeline.
  • If the state proposes to limit the number of schools that receive the 
  most significant and comprehensive interventions, provide a justification for 
  that limit and describe the interventions for the other schools in restructuring. 
  
  • How the state has worked with its districts to ensure that the districts 
  can implement the interventions for the lowest-performing schools.

**III. Reporting and evaluation**

**Reporting:** The state must annually report to the Department 
  information about the implementation and outcomes of the proposed model. This 
  report must include data comparing its model to the existing accountability 
  system, the interventions applied to schools, and the effects of differentiating 
  accountability on student achievement and school reform. The Department will 
  annually determine whether the state's differentiated accountability plan is 
  implemented as proposed.

**Evaluation:** The Department will rigorously evaluate this pilot 
  to determine its effectiveness in improving student achievement, annually review 
  information on how it is working in each state, and share results with other 
  states, policymakers, and the public in an effort to further inform reauthorization 
  of NCLB and school improvement practices in general.

1 The additional academic indicators that 
  may be used to differentiate schools are not the same as the "other academic 
  indicators" used to determine AYP, as required in section 1111 of ESEA.

|Last Modified: 03/24/2008
|-------------------------