UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

THE UNDER SECRETARY

July 1, 2003

The Honorable Thomas D. Watkins

Dear Superintendent Watkins:

I am writing to follow up on Secretary Paige’s letter of June 9, 2003, in which he approved the
basic elements of Michigan’s state accountability plan under Title I of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act, as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB). I join
Secretary Paige in congratulating you on Michigan’s commitment to holding schools and
districts accountable for the achievement of all students.
I appreciate Michigan’s efforts to meet the Title I requirements and your responsiveness to
making changes as a result of the external peer review of Michigan’s accountability plan. The
purpose of this letter is to document the one issue related to Michigan’s plan for which
information is still needed.

 Michigan indicated in its accountability plan its intent to compare the current year
assessment results with an average of the most recent two or three years’ results
(including the current year) and to use the most favorable results to make adequate yearly
progress (AYP) determinations for schools. While Michigan may use this application of
uniform averaging this year, it must provide the Department information on the impact
and implications of this approach. The Department will contact Michigan to discuss the
data to be submitted and a timeline for the submission of those data to:

Darla Marburger
Deputy Assistant Secretary
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education
U.S. Department of Education
400 Maryland Avenue, S.W.
Washington, D.C. 20202

Provided Michigan meets the condition above, subject to the Department’s review and
consideration, we will fully approve Michigan’s accountability plan.
The Honorable Tom Watkins – Page 2

With regard to one issue in Michigan’s accountability plan, the Secretary has exercised his
authority to permit the orderly transition from requirements under the Improving America’s
Schools Act (IASA) to NCLB. Michigan proposed in its plan to include students with the most
severe cognitive disabilities in its accountability system based on their performance on an
alternate assessment (MI-Access). All students with disabilities must be included in a State’s
accountability system. Moreover, §200.1 of the final Title I regulations requires that all students
be held to the same grade level achievement standards. In addition, §200.6(a)(2)(ii) of those
regulations states that “[a]lternate assessments must yield results for the grade in which the
student is enrolled.”

We have issued new proposed regulations that would permit a State to use alternate achievement
standards to measure the achievement of students with the most significant cognitive disabilities
(see the Federal Register announcement dated March 20, 2003). For this transition year only,
while the proposed regulation is being finalized, Michigan may use alternate achievement
standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who take an alternate
assessment to calculate AYP for schools and districts. Those alternate achievement standards
must be aligned with Michigan’s academic content standards and reflect professional judgment
of the highest learning standards possible for those students. Moreover, the percentage of
students held to alternate achievement standards at the district and State levels may not exceed
1.0 percent of all students in the grades assessed.

We note that this transition policy is not intended to preempt the rulemaking process or the
standards and assessment review process, and that the final regulations may reflect a different
policy and/or a different percent.

Approval of Michigan's accountability plan is not also an approval of Michigan's standards and
assessment system. Since Michigan had a timeline waiver to complete its assessment system
under IASA, the State must submit evidence of its final assessment system. In particular, under
that waiver, Michigan administered to some limited English proficient (LEP) students during the
2002-2003 school year the Stanford Diagnostic Reading and Mathematics Tests augmented with
additional items based on Michigan’s standards. Michigan must submit to the Department
evidence that these tests meet the requirements of Title I. The Department will review that
evidence through the standards and assessment peer review process. That evidence must
demonstrate that these augmented Stanford Diagnostic Tests are aligned with Michigan’s content
standards in reading/language arts and mathematics, that their achievement standards are
comparable to those against which all other students are measured, and that they are valid and
reliable. As a reminder, Title I requires that all students, including LEP students, participate in the
statewide assessment system regardless of length of time in U.S. schools or level of English
language proficiency, and their results must be included in AYP decisions if they have been
ienrolled in a school or district for a full academic year.

As required by section 1111(b)(2) of Title I, Michigan must implement its accountability plan to
identify schools and school districts in need of improvement and to implement section 1116 of
Title I for the 2003-2004 school year, including arranging for public school choice and
supplemental educational services. If, over time, Michigan makes changes to the accountability
The Honorable Tom Watkins – Page 3

plan that has been approved, you must submit information about those changes to the
Department for approval, as required by section 1111(f)(2) of Title I.

Approval of Michigan’s accountability plan is not also an approval of Michigan’s standards and
assessment system for meeting the requirements for standards and assessments under IASA.
Further, as Michigan makes changes in its standards and assessments to meet NCLB
requirements, Michigan must likewise submit information about those changes to the
Department for peer review through the standards and assessment process.

Please also be aware that approval of Michigan’s accountability plan for Title I does not indicate
that the system complies with Federal civil rights requirements, including Title VI of the Civil
Rights Act of 1964, Title IX of the Education Amendments of 1972, Section 504 of the
Rehabilitation Act of 1973, Title II of the Americans with Disabilities Act, and requirements
under the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act.

I am confident that Michigan will continue to advance its efforts to hold schools and school
districts accountable for the achievement of all students. I wish you well in your efforts to leave
no child behind.

Sincerely,

/s/

Eugene Hickok

cc: Governor Jennifer M. Granholm