Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices 4403 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Compliance Agreement 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

ACTION: Notice of written findings and 

compliance agreement with the 

Vermont 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 

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 January 6, 2009, the Department 

entered into a compliance agreement 

with the Vermont Department of 

Education (VTDOE). 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 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. 

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 May 2007, VTDOE 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 VTDOE’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 December 19, 2007, 

to Richard H. Cate, Vermont’s former 

Commissioner of Education, the 

Assistant Secretary notified VTDOE 

that, 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 5, 2008, Department 

officials conducted a public hearing in 

Vermont to assess whether a compliance 

agreement with VTDOE might be 

appropriate. Dr. Michael Hock testified 

at this hearing on behalf of VTDOE. The 

Department considered the testimony 

provided at the June 2008 public 

hearing and all other relevant 

information and materials and 

concluded that VTDOE 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 VTDOE 

with the Title I standards and 

assessment requirements is genuinely 

not feasible until a future date. Under 

Title I, VTDOE was required to 

implement its final assessment system 

no later than the 2005–2006 school year. 

The evidence that VTDOE submitted in 

May 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 VTDOE 

must implement to come into 

compliance with Title I requirements. 

Due to the enormity and complexity of 

the work that is needed to bring 

VTDOE’s standards and assessment 

system into full compliance, VTDOE 

cannot immediately comply with all of 

the Title I requirements. 

4404 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices 

Vermont’s Acting Commissioner of 

Education, Bill Talbott, and the 

Assistant Secretary signed the 

compliance agreement on January 6, 

2009. 

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. 

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 a 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 U.S. Department of Education 

and the Vermont 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 Vermont 

Department of Education (VTDOE) 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 VTDOE to 

achieve full compliance immediately. 

Specifically, the Assistant Secretary has 

determined that VTDOE did not meet, within 

the statutory timeframe, a number of the Title 

I requirements concerning the academic 

achievement standards, technical quality, 

alignment, and reporting of results for 

Vermont’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 VTDOE to bring it into full 

compliance as soon as feasible. During the 

effective period of the compliance agreement, 

which ends January 6, 2011, VTDOE 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. Academic 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 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. 

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 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices 4405 

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 

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 VTDOE is appropriate, the Assistant 

Secretary must determine whether 

compliance by VTDOE with the Title I 

standards and assessment requirements is 

genuinely not feasible until a future date. 20 

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

A. VTDOE Has Failed to Comply 

Substantially With Title I Standards and 

Assessment Requirements 

In May 2007, VTDOE 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 VTDOE’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, VTDOE had to submit the 

following evidence: 

Academic Achievement Standards 

1. Evidence of approved/adopted alternate 

academic achievement standards for students 

with the most significant cognitive 

disabilities in reading/language arts and 

mathematics for each of grades 3 through 8 

and at least one grade in the 10–12 grade 

span. 

2. Documentation of the development of 

academic achievement descriptors for the 

alternate assessment in the content area of 

science. 

3. Evidence that the alternate academic 

achievement standards include for each 

content area: 

a. At least three levels of achievement, 

including two levels of high achievement 

(e.g., proficient and advanced) that determine 

how well students are mastering a State’s 

academic content standards, and a third level 

of achievement (e.g., basic) to provide 

information about the progress of lowerachieving students toward mastering the 

proficient and advanced levels of 

achievement; 

b. Descriptions of the competencies 

associated with each achievement level; and 

c. Assessment scores (‘‘cut scores’’) that 

differentiate among the achievement levels. 

4. Evidence that the Board or other 

authority has adopted all alternate 

achievement standards. 

5. Documentation that the State has 

reported separately the number and percent 

of those students with disabilities assessed 

on the alternate assessment based on 

alternate achievement standards, those 

assessed on an alternate assessment based on 

grade-level standards, and those included in 

the regular assessment (including those 

administered that assessment with 

appropriate accommodations). 

6. Evidence that the State has documented 

the involvement of diverse stakeholders in 

the development of its alternate academic 

achievement standards. 

Technical Quality 

1. Evidence that the State has documented 

validity (in addition to the alignment of the 

alternate assessment with the content 

standards), as described in the Standards for 

Educational and Psychological Testing 

(AERA/APA/NCME, 1999). 

2. For the alternate assessment, evidence 

that the State has provided documentation of 

the standard setting process, including a 

description the selection of judges, 

methodology employed, and final results. 

3. For the alternate assessment(s), evidence 

that the State has considered the issue of 

reliability, as described in the Standards for 

Educational and Psychological Testing 

(AERA/APA/NCME, 1999). 

4. Evidence that the State has established: 

a. Clear criteria for the administration, 

scoring, analysis, and reporting components 

of its alternate assessment; and 

b. A system for monitoring and improving 

the ongoing quality of its alternate 

assessment. 

Alignment 

1. Evidence that the Alternate Grade-Level 

Expectations (AGEs) and all associated tasks 

across grade spans submitted for the Portfolio 

Assessment of Alternate Grade Expectations 

are aligned with State academic content 

standards in reading and mathematics. 

2. Evidence that the State has developed 

ongoing procedures to maintain and improve 

alignment between the alternate assessment 

and standards over time, particularly if gaps 

have been noted. 

Reports 

1. Evidence that the State will produce 

individual student alternate assessment 

reports in terms of the State’s revised 

alternate achievement standards. With 

respect to such individual student reports: 

a. Evidence that these individual student 

reports provide information for parents, 

teachers, and principals to help them 

understand and address a student’s specific 

academic needs. This information must be 

displayed in a format and language that is 

understandable to parents, teachers, and 

principals, for example, through the use of 

descriptors that describe what students know 

and can do at different performance levels. 

The reports must be accompanied by 

interpretive guidance for these audiences; 

and 

b. Evidence that the State ensures that 

these individual student reports will be 

delivered to parents, teachers, and principals 

as soon as possible after the alternate 

assessment is administered. 

B. VTDOE Cannot Correct Immediately Its 

Noncompliance With the Title I Standards 

and Assessment Requirements 

Under Title I, VTDOE 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 VTDOE 

submitted in May 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 VTDOE 

into compliance with the Title I 

requirements. 

At the public hearing, which was held on 

June 5, 2008, VTDOE 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. Michael Hock, Vermont’s 

Director of Educational Assessment, testified 

that, to bring Vermont’s standards and 

assessment system into compliance, Vermont 

must document the successful completion of 

a number of tasks, including: Revising the 

State’s alternate academic achievement 

standards for reading and mathematics to 

reflect an increased emphasis on academic 

content; using a validated standard-setting 

process that includes direct input from 

teachers or other individuals with specific 

expertise in the academic content areas; 

revising the guidelines for the collection, 

scoring, and reporting of student 

performance relative to the alternate 

academic achievement standards; and 

revising the scoring materials and procedures 

for the alternate assessment based on 

alternate academic achievement standards. 

Dr. Hock further testified that VTDOE 

intended to hold extensive training sessions 

for teachers on the revised frameworks for 

the alternate academic achievement 

standards. Dr. Hock stated that VTDOE needs 

the time afforded by a compliance agreement 

to bring its standards and assessment system 

into compliance to ensure that its alternate 

assessment remains an appropriate 

assessment for students with disabilities and 

that teachers are knowledgeable about the 

changes in the types of skills assessed as well 

as the types of evidence to be submitted for 

the portfolio assessment. Dr. Hock’s 

testimony is consistent with the 

comprehensive action plan that VTDOE has 

4406 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices 

developed and that is incorporated into the 

compliance agreement. That action plan sets 

out a very specific schedule that VTDOE has 

agreed to meet during the next two 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 VTDOE’s 

standards and assessment system into full 

compliance, VTDOE cannot immediately 

comply with all of the Title I requirements. 

As a result, the Assistant Secretary finds that 

it is not genuinely feasible for VTDOE to 

come into compliance until a future date. 

IV. Conclusion 

For the foregoing reasons, the Assistant 

Secretary finds that full compliance by 

VTDOE 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 VTDOE. 

Dated: Jan. 12, 2009. 

lll /s/ lll 

Kerri L. Briggs, PhD 

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 Vermont 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, 

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 Vermont Department of Education 

(VTDOE) 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, Richard Cate, Commissioner of 

Education, indicated VTDOE’s interest in 

entering into a compliance agreement with 

the United States Department of Education 

(Department). On June 5, 2008, the 

Department conducted a public hearing 

regarding: (1) Whether VTDOE’s full 

compliance with Title I is not feasible until 

a future date; and (2) whether VTDOE 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, VTDOE 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, VTDOE must submit the 

following evidence: 

Academic Achievement Standards 

1. Evidence of approved/adopted alternate 

academic achievement standards for students 

with the most significant cognitive 

disabilities in reading/language arts and 

mathematics for each of grades 3 through 8 

and at least one grade in the 10–12 grade 

span. 

2. Documentation of the development of 

academic achievement descriptors for the 

alternate assessment in the content area of 

science. 

3. Evidence that the alternate academic 

achievement standards include for each 

content area: 

a. At least three levels of achievement, 

including two levels of high achievement 

(e.g., proficient and advanced) that determine 

how well students are mastering a State’s 

academic content standards, and a third level 

of achievement (e.g., basic) to provide 

information about the progress of lowerachieving students toward mastering the 

proficient and advanced levels of 

achievement; 

b. Descriptions of the competencies 

associated with each achievement level; and 

c. Assessment scores (‘‘cut scores’’) that 

differentiate among the achievement levels. 

4. Evidence that the Board or other 

authority has adopted all alternate 

achievement standards. 

5. Documentation that the State has 

reported separately the number and percent 

of those students with disabilities assessed 

on the alternate assessment based on 

alternate achievement standards, those 

assessed on an alternate assessment based on 

grade-level standards, and those included in 

the regular assessment (including those 

administered that assessment with 

appropriate accommodations). 

6. Evidence that the State has documented 

the involvement of diverse stakeholders in 

the development of its alternate academic 

achievement standards. 

Technical Quality 

1. Evidence that the State has documented 

validity (in addition to the alignment of the 

alternate assessment with the content 

standards), as described in the Standards for 

Educational and Psychological Testing 

(AERA/APA/NCME, 1999). 

2. For the alternate assessment, evidence 

that the State has provided documentation of 

the standard setting process, including a 

description of the selection of judges, 

methodology employed, and final results. 

3. For the alternate assessment(s), evidence 

that the State has considered the issue of 

reliability, as described in the Standards for 

Educational and Psychological Testing 

(AERA/APA/NCME, 1999). 

4. Evidence that the State has established: 

a. Clear criteria for the administration, 

scoring, analysis, and reporting components 

of its alternate assessment; and 

b. A system for monitoring and improving 

the ongoing quality of its alternate 

assessment. 

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices 4407 

Alignment 

1. Evidence that the Alternate Grade-Level 

Expectations (AGEs) and all associated tasks 

across grade spans submitted for the Portfolio 

Assessment of Alternate Grade Expectations 

are aligned with State academic content 

standards in reading and mathematics. 

2. Evidence that the State has developed 

ongoing procedures to maintain and improve 

alignment between the alternate assessment 

and standards over time, particularly if gaps 

have been noted. 

Reports 

1. Evidence that the State will produce 

individual student alternate assessment 

reports in terms of the State’s revised 

alternate achievement standards. With 

respect to such individual student reports: 

a. Evidence that these individual student 

reports provide information for parents, 

teachers, and principals to help them 

understand and address a student’s specific 

academic needs. This information must be 

displayed in a format and language that is 

understandable to parents, teachers, and 

principals, for example, through the use of 

descriptors that describe what students know 

and can do at different performance levels. 

The reports must be accompanied by 

interpretive guidance for these audiences; 

and 

b. Evidence that the State ensures that 

these individual student reports will be 

delivered to parents, teachers, and principals 

as soon as possible after the alternate 

assessment is administered. 

During the period that this Compliance 

Agreement is in effect, VTDOE 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 VTDOE 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, VTDOE 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 VTDOE 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 Vermont Department of Education. 

ll/s/lll 

Bill Talbott, 

Acting Commissioner of Education. 

Date: Jan. 6, 2009. 

For the United States Department of 

Education. 

ll/s/lll 

Kerri L. Briggs, PhD, 

Assistant Secretary, Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education. 

Date: Jan. 6, 2009. 

Date this Compliance Agreement becomes 

effective: Jan. 6, 2009. 

Expiration Date of this Agreement: Jan. 6, 

2011. 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

4408 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices 


EN26JA09.020</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices 4409 


EN26JA09.021</GPH>
4410 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices 


EN26JA09.022</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices 4411 


EN26JA09.023</GPH>
4412 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices 


EN26JA09.024</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices 4413 


EN26JA09.025</GPH>
4414 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices 


EN26JA09.026</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices 4415 


EN26JA09.027</GPH>
4416 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices 

[FR Doc. E9–1548 Filed 1–23–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–C 


EN26JA09.028</GPH>