Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices 4383 

significant analysis in the plan/EIS are 

likely to include, but may not be limited 

to, native species declines, including 

effects of invasive species; degraded and 

lost habitat and prevention of future 

losses of habitat and resources; loss of 

ecosystem function including an altered 

hydrograph and reduced sediment load; 

statutory responsibilities, such as 

complying with the Endangered Species 

Act; criteria, goals and objectives and 

priorities for restoration; program, 

authority, and data gaps, including 

identification of new strategies for 

mitigation, recovery, and restoration 

efforts; and cumulative impacts. The 

plan/EIS will also include identification 

and analysis of the social, economic, 

and cultural impacts of the various 

alternatives, as well as important 

ecosystem functions. 

5. Cooperating Agencies. Federal 

agencies, Tribes, and state governments 

are being invited to participate in the 

planning process as cooperating 

agencies under the NEPA. 

6. Additional Review and 

Consultation. Additional public, 

scientific, and statutory review and 

consultation, which will be 

incorporated into the preparation of this 

EIS, will include, but shall not be 

limited to: Section 401 of Clean Water 

Act, Fish and Wildlife Coordination 

Act, the Magnuson-Stevens Fishery 

Conservation and Management Act, the 

National Environmental Policy Act, the 

National Historic Preservation Act; the 

Endangered Species Act, and the Clean 

Air Act. In addition, as directed by 

WRDA 2007, the development of this 

plan will be done in consultation with 

the Missouri River Recovery 

Implementation Committee. 

7. Availability of the Draft 

Environmental Impact Statement. The 

Draft Environmental Impact Statement 

(DEIS) is anticipated to be available as 

early as November of 2013 or, no later 

than January of 2014. A series of public 

meetings will be conducted following 

the release of the DEIS. 

Brenda S. Bowen, 

Army Federal Register Liaison Officer. 

[FR Doc. E9–1629 Filed 1–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3720–58–P 

DEPARTMENT OF DEFENSE 

Department of the Army; Corps of 

Engineers 

Flood Control, Mississippi River & 

Tributaries, Yazoo River Basin, Yazoo 

Headwaters Project, Mississippi 

Tributaries Unit 

AGENCY: Department of the Army, U.S. 

Army Corps of Engineers, DOD. 

ACTION: Notice of intent. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Vicksburg District, in 

conjunction with the Yazoo-Mississippi 

Delta Levee District, the non-Federal 

sponsor, is undertaking studies to 

evaluate the authorized Yazoo 

Headwaters Project. As part of this 

work, a Supplemental Environmental 

Impact Statement (SEIS) is being 

prepared to update existing National 

Environmental Policy Act 

documentation. 

DATES: Initiate SEIS, February 2, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Correspondence may be 

sent to Mr. Matthew Mallard, U.S. Army 

Engineer District, Vicksburg, CEMVK– 

PP–PQ, 4155 Clay Street, Vicksburg, MS 

39183–3435. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. 

Matthew Mallard at U.S. Army Corps of 

Engineers, Vicksburg District, telephone 

(601) 631–5960, fax (601) 631–5115, or 

e-mail at 

matthew.s.mallard@usace.army.mil. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Proposed Action. An SEIS will 

identify and evaluate impacts associated 

with construction in the remaining 

authorized Yazoo Tributaries subbasins, 

including channel improvement, levee 

construction and enlargement, 

associated water control structures, 

bank stabilization, grade control 

measures, and environmental design 

features. 

Alternatives. Alternative urban and 

agricultural flood protection measures 

will be identified to meet existing and 

future flood protection needs and 

evaluated in cooperation with state and 

Federal agencies, local government, and 

the public. 

Scoping. Scoping is the process for 

determining the range of the alternatives 

and significant issues to be addressed in 

the SEIS. For this analysis, a letter will 

be sent to all parties believed to have an 

interest in the analysis, requesting their 

input on alternatives and issues to be 

evaluated. The letter will also notify 

interested parties of the public scoping 

meeting that will be held in the local 

area. A notice will be sent to the local 

news media. All interested parties are 

invited to comment at this time, and 

anyone interested in the study should 

request to be included on the mailing 

list. 

A public scoping meeting will be held 

March 2, 2009, from 7 to 9 p.m. at the 

Leflore County Civic Center, 200 

Highway 7 North, Greenwood, MS 

38930, and March 3, 2009, from 7 to 9 

p.m. at the Marks Community House, 

Pecan Street, Marks, MS 38646. 

Significant Issues. The tentative list of 

resources and issues to be evaluated in 

the SEIS includes aquatic resources, 

recreational and commercial fisheries, 

wildlife resources, water quality, air 

quality, threatened or endangered 

species, recreation resources, and 

cultural resources. Tentative 

socioeconomic items to be evaluated in 

the SEIS include business and industrial 

activity, tax revenues, population, 

community and regional growth, 

transportation, housing, community 

cohesion, and navigation. 

Environmental Consultation and 

Review. The U.S. Fish and Wildlife 

Service (FWS) will be asked to assist in 

the documentation of existing 

conditions, impact analysis of 

alternatives, and overall study review 

through the Fish and Wildlife 

Coordination Act (FWCA) consultation 

procedures. The FWS would provide an 

FWCA report to be incorporated into the 

SEIS. The draft SEIS or a Notice of 

Availability will be distributed to all 

interested agencies, organizations, and 

individuals. 

Estimated Date of Availability. The 

earliest that the draft SEIS is expected 

to be available is September 2012. 

Dated: January 13, 2009. 

Douglas J. Kamien, 

Chief, Planning, Programs, and Project 

Management Division. 

[FR Doc. E9–1627 Filed 1–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 3720–58–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Compliance Agreement 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

ACTION: Notice of written findings and 

compliance agreement with the Nevada 

Department of Education. 

SUMMARY: This notice is being published 

in the Federal Register consistent with 

section 457(b)(2) of the General 

Education Provisions Act (GEPA). 

Section 457 of GEPA authorizes the U.S. 

Department of Education (the 

Department) to enter into a compliance 

agreement with a recipient that is failing 

to comply substantially with Federal 

program requirements. In order to enter 

4384 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices 

into a compliance agreement, the 

Department must determine, in written 

findings, that the recipient cannot 

comply with the applicable program 

requirements until a future date. 

On December 4, 2008, the Department 

entered into a compliance agreement 

with the Nevada Department of 

Education (NDE). Section 457(b)(2) of 

GEPA requires the Department to 

publish written findings leading to a 

compliance agreement, with a copy of 

the compliance agreement, in the 

Federal Register. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sharon Hall, U.S. Department of 

Education, Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, 400 Maryland 

Avenue, SW., room 3W214, 

Washington, DC 20202–6132. 

Telephone: (202) 260–0998. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), you may call 

the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1– 

800–877–8339. 

Individuals with disabilities may 

obtain this document in an accessible 

format (e.g., braille, large print, 

audiotape, or computer diskette) on 

request to the contact person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Title I of 

the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965 (Title I), as 

amended by the No Child Left Behind 

Act of 2001, requires each State 

receiving Title I funds to satisfy certain 

requirements. 

Under Title I, each State is required 

to adopt academic content and student 

academic achievement standards in at 

least mathematics, reading or language 

arts, and science. These standards must 

include the same knowledge and levels 

of achievement expected of all public 

school students in the State. Content 

standards must specify what all 

students are expected to know and be 

able to do; contain coherent and 

rigorous content; and encourage the 

teaching of advanced skills. 

Achievement standards must be aligned 

with the State’s academic content 

standards and must describe at least 

three levels of proficiency to determine 

how well students in each grade are 

mastering the content standards. A State 

must provide descriptions of the 

competencies associated with each 

student’s academic achievement level 

and must determine the assessment 

scores (‘‘cut scores’’) that differentiate 

among the achievement levels. 

Title I also requires each State to 

implement a student assessment system 

to evaluate whether students are 

mastering the subject material reflected 

in the State’s academic content 

standards. By the 2005–2006 school 

year, States were required to administer 

mathematics and reading or language 

arts assessments yearly during grades 3– 

8 and once during grades 10–12. 

Further, beginning with the 2007–2008 

school year, each State was required to 

administer a science assessment in at 

least one grade in each of the following 

grade spans: 3–5, 6–9, and 10–12. 

In addition to a general assessment, 

Title I requires States to develop and 

administer at least one alternate 

assessment for students with disabilities 

who cannot participate in the general 

assessment, with or without 

accommodations. An alternate 

assessment may be based on grade-level 

academic achievement standards, 

alternate academic achievement 

standards, or modified academic 

achievement standards. Like the general 

assessment, any alternate assessment 

must satisfy the requirements for high 

technical quality, including validity, 

reliability, accessibility, objectivity, and 

consistency with nationally recognized 

professional and technical standards. 

In June 2007, NDE submitted 

evidence of its standards and 

assessment system. The Assistant 

Secretary for Elementary and Secondary 

Education (Assistant Secretary) 

submitted that evidence to a panel of 

experts for peer review. Following that 

review, the Assistant Secretary 

concluded that NDE’s standards and 

assessment system did not meet a 

number of the Title I requirements. 

Section 454 of GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1234c, 

sets out the remedies available to the 

Department when it determines that a 

recipient ‘‘is failing to comply 

substantially with any requirement of 

law’’ applicable to Federal program 

funds the Department administers. 

Specifically, the Department is 

authorized to— 

(1) Withhold funds; 

(2) Compel compliance through a 

cease and desist order; 

(3) Enter into a compliance agreement 

with the recipient; or 

(4) Take any other action authorized 

by law. 20 U.S.C. 1234c(a). 

In a letter dated September 21, 2007, 

to Keith W. Rheault, Nevada’s 

Superintendent of Public Instruction, 

the Assistant Secretary notified NDE 

that, in order to remain eligible to 

receive Title I funds, it would have to 

enter into a compliance agreement with 

the Department. The purpose of a 

compliance agreement is ‘‘to bring the 

recipient into full compliance with the 

applicable requirements of law as soon 

as feasible and not to excuse or remedy 

past violations of such requirements.’’ 

20 U.S.C. 1234f (a). In order to enter into 

a compliance agreement with a 

recipient, the Department must 

determine, in written findings, that the 

recipient cannot comply until a future 

date with the applicable program 

requirements. 

In accordance with the requirements 

of section 457(b) of GEPA, 20 U.S.C 

1234f (b), on June 23, 2008, Department 

officials conducted a public hearing in 

Nevada to assess whether a compliance 

agreement with NDE might be 

appropriate. Keith W. Rheault, Nevada’s 

Superintendent of Public Instruction, 

testified at this hearing on behalf of 

NDE. The Department considered the 

testimony provided at the June 2008 

public hearing and all other relevant 

information and materials and 

concluded that NDE would not be able 

to correct its non-compliance with Title 

I standards and assessment 

requirements immediately. 

On January 12, 2009, the Assistant 

Secretary issued written findings 

holding that compliance by NDE with 

the Title I standards and assessment 

requirements is genuinely not feasible 

until a future date. Under Title I, NDE 

was required to implement its final 

assessment system no later than the 

2005–2006 school year. The evidence 

that NDE submitted in June 2007 

indicated that, well after the statutory 

deadline had passed, its standards and 

assessment system still did not fully 

meet Title I requirements. In addition, 

the compliance agreement sets out the 

action plan that NDE must implement to 

come into compliance with Title I 

requirements. Due to the enormity and 

complexity of the work that is needed 

to bring NDE’s standards and 

assessment system into full compliance, 

NDE cannot immediately comply with 

all of the Title I requirements. 

Nevada’s Superintendent of Public 

Instruction, Keith W. Rheault, signed 

the compliance agreement on December 

1, 2008, and the Assistant Secretary 

signed the compliance agreement on 

December 4, 2008. 

As required by section 457(b)(2) of 

GEPA, 20 U.S.C. 1234f (b)(2), the text of 

the Assistant Secretary’s written 

findings is set forth as Appendix A and 

the compliance agreement is set forth as 

Appendix B of this notice. 

Electronic Access to This Document 

You may view this document, as well 

as all other Department of Education 

documents published in the Federal 

Register, in text or Adobe Portable 

Document Format (PDF) on the Internet 

at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/ 

news/fedregister. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices 4385 

To use PDF, you must have the Adobe 

Acrobat Reader, which is available free 

at this site. If you have questions about 

using PDF, call the U.S. Government 

Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1– 

888–293–6498; or in the Washington, 

DC area at (202) 512–1530. 

Note: The official version of this document 

is the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the Code 

of Federal Regulations is available on GPO 

Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ 

index.html. 

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1234c, 1234f. 

Dated: January 16, 2009. 

Kerri L. Briggs, 

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education. 

Appendix A 

Written Findings of the Assistant Secretary 

for Elementary and Secondary Education 

Regarding the Compliance Agreement 

Between the United States Department of 

Education and the Nevada Department of 

Education 

I. Introduction 

The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education (Assistant Secretary) of 

the U.S. Department of Education 

(Department) has determined, pursuant to 20 

U.S.C. 1234c and 1234f, that the Nevada 

Department of Education (NVDOE) has failed 

to comply substantially with certain 

requirements of Title I, Part A of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 

1965 (Title I), as amended by the No Child 

Left Behind Act of 2001, 20 U.S.C. 6301 et 

seq., and that it is not feasible for NVDOE to 

achieve full compliance immediately. 

Specifically, the Assistant Secretary has 

determined that NVDOE did not meet, within 

the statutory timeframe, a number of the Title 

I requirements concerning the alignment of 

Nevada’s High School Proficiency 

Examination (HSPE) to grade-level content 

standards as well as requirements concerning 

the academic achievement standards and 

alignment of the Nevada Alternate Scales of 

Academic Achievement (NASAA), Nevada’s 

alternate assessment based on alternate 

academic achievement standards for students 

with the most significant cognitive 

disabilities. 

For the following reasons, the Assistant 

Secretary has concluded that it would be 

appropriate to enter into a compliance 

agreement with NVDOE to bring it into full 

compliance as soon as feasible. During the 

effective period of the compliance agreement, 

which ends December 4, 2011, NVDOE will 

be eligible to receive Title I funds as long as 

it complies with the terms and conditions of 

the agreement as well as the provisions of 

Title I and other applicable Federal statutory 

and regulatory requirements. 

II. Relevant Statutory and Regulatory 

Provisions 

A. Title I, Part A of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 

Amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 

2001 

Title I provides financial assistance, 

through State educational agencies, to local 

educational agencies to provide services in 

high-poverty schools to students who are 

failing or at risk of failing to meet the State’s 

student academic achievement standards. 

Under Title I, each State, including the 

District of Columbia and Puerto Rico, was 

required to adopt academic content and 

student academic achievement standards in 

at least mathematics, reading or language 

arts, and science. These standards must 

include the same knowledge and levels of 

achievement expected of all public school 

students in the State. Content standards must 

specify what all students are expected to 

know and be able to do; contain coherent and 

rigorous content; and encourage the teaching 

of advanced skills. Achievement standards 

must be aligned with the State’s academic 

content standards and must describe at least 

three levels of proficiency to determine how 

well students in each grade are mastering the 

content standards. A State must provide 

descriptions of the competencies associated 

with each student’s academic achievement 

level and must determine the assessment 

scores (‘‘cut scores’’) that differentiate among 

the achievement levels. 

Each State was also required to implement 

a student assessment system used to evaluate 

whether students are mastering the subject 

material reflected in the State’s academic 

content standards. By the 2005–2006 school 

year, States were required to administer 

mathematics and reading or language arts 

assessments yearly during grades 3–8 and 

once during grades 10–12. Further, beginning 

with the 2007–2008 school year, each State 

was required to administer a science 

assessment in at least one grade in each of 

the following grade spans: 3–5, 6–9, and 10– 

12. A State’s assessment system must: 

• Be the same assessment system used to 

measure the achievement of all public school 

students in the State; 

• Be designed to provide coherent 

information about student attainment of State 

academic content standards across grades 

and subjects; 

• Provide for the inclusion of all students 

in the grades assessed, including students 

with disabilities and limited English 

proficient (LEP) students; 

• Be aligned with the State’s academic 

content and student academic achievement 

standards; 

• Express student results in terms of the 

State’s student academic achievement 

standards; 

• Be valid, reliable, and of adequate 

technical quality for the purposes for which 

they are used and be consistent with 

nationally recognized professional and 

technical standards; 

• Involve multiple measures of student 

academic achievement, including measures 

that assess higher order thinking skills and 

understanding of challenging content; 

• Objectively measure academic 

achievement, knowledge, and skills without 

evaluating or assessing personal family 

beliefs and attitudes; 

• Enable results to be disaggregated by 

gender, each major racial and ethnic group, 

migrant status, students with disabilities, 

English proficiency status, and economically 

disadvantaged students; 

• Provide individual student reports; and 

• Enable itemized score analyses. 

20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(3); 34 CFR 200.2. 

In addition to a general assessment, States 

were required to develop and administer at 

least one alternate assessment for students 

with disabilities who cannot participate in 

the general assessment, with or without 

accommodations. 34 CFR 200.6(a)(2). An 

alternate assessment may be based on gradelevel academic achievement standards, 

alternate academic achievement standards, or 

modified academic achievement standards. 

Like the general assessment, any alternate 

assessment must satisfy the requirements for 

high technical quality, including validity, 

reliability, accessibility, objectivity, and 

consistency with nationally recognized 

professional and technical standards. 

B. The General Education Provisions Act 

The General Education Provisions Act 

(GEPA) provides a number of options when 

the Assistant Secretary determines a 

recipient of Department funds is ‘‘failing to 

comply substantially with any requirement of 

law applicable to such funds.’’ 20 U.S.C. 

1234c. In such a case, the Assistant Secretary 

is authorized to: 

(1) Withhold funds; 

(2) Compel compliance through a cease 

and desist order; 

(3) Enter into a compliance agreement with 

the recipient; or 

(4) Take any other action authorized by 

law. 

20 U.S.C. 1234c(a). 

Under section 457 of GEPA, the Assistant 

Secretary may enter into a compliance 

agreement with a recipient that is failing to 

comply substantially with specific program 

requirements. 20 U.S.C. 1234f. The purpose 

of a compliance agreement is ‘‘to bring the 

recipient into full compliance with the 

applicable requirements of law as soon as 

feasible and not to excuse or remedy past 

violations of such requirements.’’ 20 U.S.C. 

1234f(a). Before entering into a compliance 

agreement with a recipient, the Assistant 

Secretary must hold a hearing at which the 

recipient, affected students and parents or 

their representatives, and other interested 

parties are invited to participate. At that 

hearing, the recipient has the burden of 

persuading the Assistant Secretary that full 

compliance with applicable requirements of 

law is not feasible until a future date. 20 

U.S.C. 1234f(b)(1). If, on the basis of all the 

evidence presented, the Assistant Secretary 

determines that full compliance is genuinely 

not feasible until a future date, the Assistant 

Secretary must make written findings to that 

effect and must publish those findings, 

together with the substance of any 

compliance agreement, in the Federal 

Register. 20 U.S.C. 1234f(b)(2). 

A compliance agreement must set forth an 

expiration date, not later than three years 

4386 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices 

from the date of the written findings, by 

which time the recipient must be in full 

compliance with all program requirements. 

20 U.S.C. 1234f(c)(1). In addition, a 

compliance agreement must contain the 

terms and conditions with which the 

recipient must comply during the period that 

agreement is in effect. 20 U.S.C. 1234f(c)(2). 

If the recipient fails to comply with any of 

the terms and conditions of the compliance 

agreement, the Assistant Secretary may 

consider the agreement to be no longer in 

effect, and may take any of the compliance 

actions set forth above. 20 U.S.C. 1234f(d). 

III. Analysis 

In deciding whether a compliance 

agreement between the Assistant Secretary 

and NVDOE is appropriate, the Assistant 

Secretary must determine whether 

compliance by NVDOE with the Title I 

standards and assessment requirements is 

genuinely not feasible until a future date. 20 

U.S.C. 1234f(b)(2). 

A. NVDOE Has Failed To Comply 

Substantially With Title I Standards and 

Assessment Requirements 

In June 2007, NVDOE submitted evidence 

of its standards and assessment system. The 

Assistant Secretary submitted that evidence 

to a panel of experts for peer review. 

Following that review, the Assistant 

Secretary concluded that NVDOE’s standards 

and assessment system did not meet a 

number of the Title I requirements. 

Specifically, the Assistant Secretary 

determined that, to demonstrate its 

compliance, NVDOE had to submit the 

following evidence regarding its alternate 

assessment based on alternate academic 

achievement standards: 

Academic Achievement Standards 

1. A clear and complete description of the 

process and decisions made in the 

development of the Nevada Alternate Scales 

of Academic Achievement (NASAA) 

standards for reading and mathematics, 

including the qualifications of participants in 

the standards-setting activity. 

2. Documentation confirming Board 

approval of the revised cut scores that were 

applied to the 2007 results of the NASAA. 

Technical Quality 

1. Data that supports the current policy 

that accommodations yield valid scores and 

modifications do not. 

Alignment 

1. A detailed explanation of the actions 

that will be taken to ensure improved 

alignment between assessments and revised 

content standards as the basis for test 

validity. 

2. Evidence of alignment of the High 

School Proficiency Examination (HSPE) with 

Nevada’s academic content standards. 

3. A plan for using alignment study results 

to guide future development activities to 

improve alignment of the tests to standards. 

4. Documentation of alignment between 

the NASAA tasks administered by teachers 

and grade-level content standards. 

B. NVDOE Cannot Correct Immediately Its 

Noncompliance With the Title I Standards 

and Assessment Requirements 

Under Title I, NVDOE was required to 

implement its final assessment system no 

later than the 2005–2006 school year. 20 

U.S.C. 6311(b)(3). The evidence that NVDOE 

submitted in June 2007 indicated that, well 

after the statutory deadline had passed, its 

standards and assessment system still did not 

fully meet Title I requirements. In addition, 

substantial work is required to bring NVDOE 

into compliance with the Title I 

requirements. 

At the public hearing, which was held on 

June 23, 2008, NVDOE presented evidence 

that compliance is not feasible until a future 

date, particularly in light of the work 

necessary to come into full compliance with 

the Title I standards and assessment 

requirements. In particular, Dr. Keith W. 

Rheault, Nevada’s Superintendent of Public 

Instruction, testified that NVDOE is 

committed to resolving all outstanding issues 

related to the State’s high school proficiency 

assessment (HSPE) and its alternate 

assessment based on alternate academic 

achievement standards (NASAA) within 

three years, but that it would not be possible 

for Nevada to come into compliance with all 

applicable requirements sooner than the 

2010–11 school year. Dr. Rheault stated that, 

during the period the compliance agreement 

is in effect, NVDOE plans to align the HSPE 

to the State’s new reading and mathematics 

content standards and to field test both the 

reading and mathematics assessments. Dr. 

Rheault also testified that NVDOE remains 

committed to assessing student performance 

on the NASAA through a portfolio of student 

work, but that NVDOE needs time to ensure 

that districts and teachers receive all training 

necessary to implement the changes being 

made to the NASAA. Dr. Rheault’s testimony 

is consistent with the comprehensive action 

plan that NVDOE developed and that is 

incorporated into the compliance agreement. 

That action plan sets out a very specific 

schedule that NVDOE has agreed to meet 

during the next three years for completing all 

of the work necessary to attain compliance 

with the Title I standards and assessment 

requirements. 

Due to the enormity and complexity of the 

work that is needed to bring NVDOE’s 

standards and assessment system into full 

compliance, NVDOE cannot immediately 

comply with all of the Title I requirements. 

As a result, the Assistant Secretary finds that 

it is not genuinely feasible for NVDOE to 

come into compliance until a future date. 

IV. Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, the Assistant 

Secretary finds that full compliance by 

NVDOE with the standards and assessment 

requirements of Title I is genuinely not 

feasible until a future date. Therefore, the 

Assistant Secretary has determined that it is 

appropriate to enter into a compliance 

agreement with NVDOE. 

Dated: Jan. 12, 2009. 

/s/ lllllllllllllllllll

Kerri L. Briggs, Ph.D., 

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education. 

Appendix B 

Compliance Agreement Under Title I of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act 

Between the United States Department of 

Education and the Nevada Department of 

Education 

Title I of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965 (Title I), as amended 

by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001, 

requires each State receiving Title I funds to 

satisfy certain requirements. 

Each State was required to adopt academic 

content and achievement standards in at least 

mathematics, reading/language arts, and, 

beginning in the 2005–2006 school year, 

science. These standards must include the 

same knowledge and levels of achievement 

expected of all public school students in the 

State. Content standards must specify what 

all students are expected to know and be able 

to do; contain coherent and rigorous content; 

and encourage the teaching of advanced 

skills. Achievement standards must be 

aligned with the State’s content standards 

and must describe at least three levels of 

proficiency to determine how well students 

in each grade are mastering the content 

standards. A State must provide descriptions 

of the competencies associated with each 

achievement level and must determine the 

assessment scores (‘‘cut scores’’) that 

differentiate among the achievement levels. 

Each State was also required to implement 

a student assessment system used to evaluate 

whether students are mastering the subject 

material reflected in the State’s academic 

standards. By the 2005–2006 school year, 

States were required to administer 

mathematics and reading/language arts 

assessments yearly during grades 3–8 and 

once during grades 10–12. Further, beginning 

with the 2007–2008 school year, each State 

was required to administer a science 

assessment in at least one grade in each of 

the following grade spans: 3–5, 6–9, and 10– 

12. A State’s assessment system must: 

• Be the same assessment system used to 

measure the achievement of all public school 

students in the State; 

• Be designed to provide coherent 

information about student attainment of State 

standards across grades and subjects; 

• Provide for the inclusion of all students 

in the grades assessed, including students 

with disabilities and limited-Englishproficient students; 

• Be aligned with the State’s content and 

achievement standards; 

• Express student results in terms of the 

State’s student achievement standards; 

• Be valid, reliable, and of adequate 

technical quality for the purpose for which 

they are used and be consistent with 

nationally recognized professional and 

technical standards; 

• Involve multiple measures of student 

academic achievement, including measures 

that assess higher order thinking skills and 

understanding of challenging content; 

• Objectively measure academic 

achievement, knowledge, and skills without 

evaluating or assessing personal family 

beliefs and attitudes; 

• Enable results to be disaggregated by 

gender, each major racial and ethnic group, 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices 4387 

migrant status, students with disabilities, 

LEP students, and economically 

disadvantaged students; 

• Provide individual student reports; and 

• Enable itemized score analyses. 

In addition to a general assessment, States 

were required to develop at least one 

alternate assessment for students with 

disabilities who cannot participate in the 

general assessment, with or without 

accommodations. An alternate assessment 

may be based on grade-level achievement 

standards, alternate achievement standards, 

or modified achievement standards. Like the 

general assessment, any alternate assessment 

must satisfy the requirements for high 

technical quality, including validity, 

reliability, accessibility, objectivity, and 

consistency with nationally recognized 

professional and technical standards. 

The Nevada Department of Education 

(NVDOE) failed to timely meet certain of the 

statutory and regulatory requirements for its 

standards and assessment system. In order to 

be eligible to continue to receive Title I funds 

while working to comply with the 

requirements, Keith Rheault, Superintendent 

of Education, indicated NVDOE’s interest in 

entering into a compliance agreement with 

the United States Department of Education 

(Department). On June 23, 2008, the 

Department conducted a public hearing 

regarding: (1) whether NVDOE’s full 

compliance with Title I is not feasible until 

a future date; and (2) whether NVDOE is able 

to come into compliance with the Title I 

standards and assessment requirements 

within three years. 

Pursuant to this Compliance Agreement 

under 20 U.S.C. Section 1234f, NVDOE must 

be in full compliance with the outstanding 

requirements of Title I no later than three 

years from the date of the Assistant 

Secretary’s written findings, a copy of which 

is attached to, and incorporated by reference 

into, this Agreement. To achieve compliance 

with the standards and assessment 

requirements, NVDOE must submit the 

following evidence: 

2.0—Academic Achievement Standards 

1. A clear and complete description of the 

process and decisions made in the 

development of the Nevada Alternate Scales 

of Academic Achievement (NASAA) 

standards for reading and mathematics, 

including the qualifications of participants in 

the standards-setting activity. 

2. Documentation confirming Board 

approval of the revised cut scores that were 

applied to the 2007 results of the NASAA. 

4.0—Technical Quality 

1. Data that supports the current policy 

that accommodations yield valid scores and 

modifications do not. 

5.0—Alignment 

2. A detailed explanation of the actions 

that will be taken to ensure improved 

alignment between assessments and revised 

content standards as the basis for test 

validity. 

3. Evidence of alignment of the High 

School Proficiency Examination (HSPE) with 

Nevada’s academic content standards. 

4. A plan for using alignment study results 

to guide future development activities to 

improve alignment of the tests to standards. 

5. Documentation of alignment between 

the NASAA tasks administered by teachers 

and grade-level content standards. 

During the period that this Compliance 

Agreement is in effect, NVDOE is eligible to 

receive Title I, Part A funds if it complies 

with the terms and conditions of this 

Agreement, as well as the provisions of Title 

I, Part A and other applicable Federal 

statutory and regulatory requirements that 

are not specifically addressed by this 

Agreement. The attached action steps 

constitute a detailed plan and specific 

timeline for how NVDOE will come into 

compliance with the Title I standards and 

assessment requirements. The action steps 

are incorporated by reference into this 

Compliance Agreement as though fully set 

forth herein and may be amended by joint 

agreement of the parties, provided full 

compliance is still feasible by the expiration 

of the Agreement. 

In addition to all of the terms and 

conditions set forth above, NVDOE agrees 

that its continued eligibility to receive Title 

I, Part A funds is predicated upon its 

compliance with all statutory and regulatory 

requirements of that program, including 

those that are not specifically addressed by 

this Agreement, including any amendments 

to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. 

If NVDOE fails to comply with any of the 

terms and conditions of this Compliance 

Agreement, including the action steps 

attached hereto, the Department may 

consider the Agreement no longer in effect 

and may take any action authorized by law, 

including the withholding of funds or the 

issuance of a cease and desist order. 20 

U.S.C. 1234f(d). 

It is so agreed. 

For the Nevada Department of Education: 

/s/ lllllllllllllllllll

Keith Rheault, 

Superintendent of Education. 

Date: Dec. 1, 2008. 

For the United States Department of 

Education: 

/s/ lllllllllllllllllll

Kerri L. Briggs, Ph.D., 

Assistant Secretary, Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education. 

Date: Dec. 4, 2008. 

Date this Compliance Agreement becomes 

effective: Dec. 4, 2008. 

Expiration Date of this Agreement: Dec. 4, 

2011. 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

4388 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices 


EN26JA09.005</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices 4389 


EN26JA09.006</GPH>
4390 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices 


EN26JA09.007</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices 4391 


EN26JA09.008</GPH>
4392 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices 


EN26JA09.009</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices 4393 


EN26JA09.010</GPH>
4394 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices 


EN26JA09.011</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices 4395 


EN26JA09.012</GPH>
4396 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices 


EN26JA09.013</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices 4397 


EN26JA09.014</GPH>
4398 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices 


EN26JA09.015</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices 4399 


EN26JA09.016</GPH>
4400 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices 


EN26JA09.017</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices 4401 


EN26JA09.018</GPH>
4402 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices 

[FR Doc. E9–1552 Filed 1–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–C 


EN26JA09.019</GPH>