Compliance Agreement, 4383-4402 [E9-1552]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:20 Jan 23, 2009
Jkt 217001
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.
Initiate SEIS, February 2, 2009.
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.
DATES:
ADDRESSES:
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
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
4383
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
Department of Education.
Notice of written findings and
compliance agreement with the Nevada
Department of Education.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
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
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:20 Jan 23, 2009
Jkt 217001
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.’’
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
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: https://www.ed.gov/
news/fedregister.
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices
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: https://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.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:20 Jan 23, 2009
Jkt 217001
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;
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
4385
• 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
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
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.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:20 Jan 23, 2009
Jkt 217001
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.
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;
IV. Conclusion
• Be valid, reliable, and of adequate
technical quality for the purpose for which
For the foregoing reasons, the Assistant
they are used and be consistent with
Secretary finds that full compliance by
nationally recognized professional and
NVDOE with the standards and assessment
technical standards;
requirements of Title I is genuinely not
• Involve multiple measures of student
feasible until a future date. Therefore, the
academic achievement, including measures
Assistant Secretary has determined that it is
that assess higher order thinking skills and
appropriate to enter into a compliance
understanding of challenging content;
agreement with NVDOE.
• Objectively measure academic
Dated: Jan. 12, 2009.
achievement, knowledge, and skills without
/s/ lllllllllllllllllll evaluating or assessing personal family
Kerri L. Briggs, Ph.D.,
beliefs and attitudes;
• Enable results to be disaggregated by
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and
Secondary Education.
gender, each major racial and ethnic group,
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices
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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:20 Jan 23, 2009
Jkt 217001
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
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
4387
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
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices
17:20 Jan 23, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
EN26JA09.005
4388
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:20 Jan 23, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
4389
EN26JA09.006
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices
17:20 Jan 23, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
EN26JA09.007
4390
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:20 Jan 23, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
4391
EN26JA09.008
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices
17:20 Jan 23, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
EN26JA09.009
4392
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:20 Jan 23, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
4393
EN26JA09.010
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices
17:20 Jan 23, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
EN26JA09.011
4394
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:20 Jan 23, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
4395
EN26JA09.012
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices
17:20 Jan 23, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
EN26JA09.013
4396
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:20 Jan 23, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00030
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
4397
EN26JA09.014
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices
17:20 Jan 23, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00031
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
EN26JA09.015
4398
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:20 Jan 23, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00032
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
4399
EN26JA09.016
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices
VerDate Nov<24>2008
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices
17:20 Jan 23, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00033
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
EN26JA09.017
4400
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:20 Jan 23, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00034
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4725
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
4401
EN26JA09.018
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices
4402
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 15 / Monday, January 26, 2009 / Notices
[FR Doc. E9–1552 Filed 1–23–09; 8:45 am]
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:20 Jan 23, 2009
Jkt 217001
PO 00000
Frm 00035
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
E:\FR\FM\26JAN1.SGM
26JAN1
EN26JA09.019
BILLING CODE 4000–01–C
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 15 (Monday, January 26, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 4383-4402]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-1552]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 4384]]
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:
https://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.
[[Page 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: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/
nara/.
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 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 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
[[Page 4386]]
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/--------------------------------------------------------------------
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-English-
proficient 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,
[[Page 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/--------------------------------------------------------------------
Keith Rheault,
Superintendent of Education.
Date: Dec. 1, 2008.
For the United States Department of Education:
/s/--------------------------------------------------------------------
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
[[Page 4388]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26JA09.005
[[Page 4389]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26JA09.006
[[Page 4390]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26JA09.007
[[Page 4391]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26JA09.008
[[Page 4392]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26JA09.009
[[Page 4393]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26JA09.010
[[Page 4394]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26JA09.011
[[Page 4395]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26JA09.012
[[Page 4396]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26JA09.013
[[Page 4397]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26JA09.014
[[Page 4398]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26JA09.015
[[Page 4399]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26JA09.016
[[Page 4400]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26JA09.017
[[Page 4401]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26JA09.018
[[Page 4402]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN26JA09.019
[FR Doc. E9-1552 Filed 1-23-09; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-C