September 28, 2006
The Honorable Bob Corkins
Commissioner of Education
Kansas State Department of Education
120 SE 10th Avenue
Topeka, Kansas 66612-1182
Dear Commissioner Corkins:
I am writing in response to the letter from Deputy Commissioner Tom Foster on August 1, 2006, providing additional assessment materials for review by the Department under the standards and assessment requirements of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB).
In my letter to Kansas on June 27, 2006, I enumerated the fundamental components as well as a number of additional technical issues that had not met the standards and assessment requirements of the ESEA after the second peer review in May 2006. Specifically, the Department could not approve Kansas' standards and assessment system due to outstanding concerns with the academic achievement standards for mathematics on the general assessment; the comparability of test formats (e.g., computer-based and paper-and-pencil); the lack of evidence regarding the challenging content of the reading assessment; and whether English language learners (ELLs) are being assessed on grade-level expectations in reading and mathematics. Due to the number of fundamental components that had not been met, my letter signaled an intent to withhold 10 percent of Kansas' fiscal year 2006 Title I, Part A administrative funds.
My staff evaluated Kansas' August submission and found that it does not resolve all outstanding issues and, thus, Kansas' standards and assessment system still does not meet all the statutory and regulatory requirements of Section 1111(b)(1) and (3) of the ESEA. Specifically, there remain fundamental concerns regarding the comparability of test formats (e.g., computer-based and paper-and-pencil) and the lack of evidence regarding the challenging content of the reading assessment. However, Kansas' new evidence is sufficient to address concerns with the academic achievement standards for mathematics on the general assessment and that ELLs are being assessed on grade-level expectations in reading and mathematics. Please note that this initial review did not include the evidence submitted related to the development of the Kansas Alternate Assessment (KAA). Evidence of the standard setting, technical quality, and alignment of the KAA, while necessary for full compliance with the ESEA, was not cited as a fundamental concern in my letter on June 27; therefore, these materials will be considered as part of the next peer review of the Kansas standards and assessment system.
Because Kansas' additional submission of evidence does not resolve all outstanding issues, the status of Kansas' standards and assessment system remains Approval Pending. However, due to the fact that Kansas was able to show cause that it had satisfactorily addressed two of the four fundamental components listed in my letter on June 27, 2006, the Department will not withhold Title I, Part A administrative funds for fiscal year 2006. Please note, however, that Kansas must address all remaining issues in order to have a fully compliant standards and assessment system under the ESEA by the end of the 2006-07 school year. Please refer to the enclosure for a revised list of the evidence Kansas must submit to meet the requirements for an approved standards and assessment system.
Because the status of Kansas' standards and assessment system is still Approval Pending, Kansas continues to be under Mandatory Oversight, as authorized under 34 C.F.R. ยง80.12. Under this status, we placed specific conditions on Kansas' fiscal year 2006 Title I, Part A grant award. In addition, Kansas must provide, not later than 20 business days from receipt of this letter, any changes to the plan and detailed timeline submitted on August 8, 2006, for how it will meet the remaining requirements to come into full compliance by the end of the 2006-07 school year. Beginning in November 2006, Kansas must also provide bi-monthly reports on its progress implementing the plan. If, at any time, Kansas does not meet the timeline set forth in its plan, the Department will initiate proceedings, pursuant to Section 1111(g)(2) of the ESEA, to withhold 15 percent of Kansas' fiscal year 2006 Title I, Part A administrative funds, which will then revert to local educational agencies in Kansas.
I appreciate the steps Kansas has taken toward meeting the requirements of the ESEA and I know you are anxious to receive full approval of your standards and assessment system. We are committed to helping you get there. I appreciate your willingness to join the LEP Partnership; we believe that this is the first step in providing Kansas, and all States, assistance in improving the assessment of ELLs. We also remain available to provide technical assistance regarding other issues that you identify. We will schedule an additional peer review when you have evidence available to further evaluate your system. If you have any questions or would like to discuss this further, please do not hesitate to contact Sue Rigney (Sue.Rigney@ed.gov) or Patrick Rooney (Patrick.Rooney@ed.gov) of my staff.
Sincerely,
Henry L. Johnson
Enclosure
cc: Governor Kathleen Sebelius
Tom Foster
Scott Smith
Last Modified: 10/04/2006
|