Bridges4Kids Logo

Home ] What's New ] Contact Us ] About Us ] Links ] Search ] Glossaries ] Contact Legislators ] Reviews ] Downloads ] Disabilities ] IDEA ] Special Education ] Medicaid/SSI ] Childcare/Respite ] Wraparound ] Insurance ] PAC/SEAC ] Ed Reform ] Literacy ] Community Schools ] Children At-Risk ] Section 504 ] School Climate/Bullying ] Parenting/Adoption ] Home Schooling ] Community Living ] Health & Safety ] Summer Camp ] Kids & Teens ] College/Financial Aid ] Non-Public & Other Schools ] Legal Research ] Court Cases ] Juvenile Justice ] Advocacy ] Child Protective Services ] Statistics ] Legislation ] Ask the Attorney ] Lead Poisoning ]
 Where to find help for a child in Michigan, Anywhere in the U.S., or Canada
Bridges4Kids is now on Facebook. Follow us today!
Last Updated: 02/23/2018

Article of Interest - Michigan Supplemental Educational Services Memo

Printer-friendly Version

Bridges4Kids LogoSupplemental Educational Services Memo from MDE

from Jeremy Hughes, Ph.D., Michigan Dept. of Education, June 5, 2003

For more articles like this visit


TO: LEA and ISD Superintendents
Public School Academies and Public School Authorizers

FROM: Jeremy M. Hughes, Ph.D.
Chief Academic Officer/Deputy Superintendent

DATE: June 5, 2003


If you have Title I schools in your district, one or more of them may be affected by a decision that has just been made regarding schools that made Adequate Yearly Progress (AYP) in 2001-02, but are still identified for improvement or corrective action because they did not make AYP in either 1999-2000 or 2000-01.

Since the release of AYP reports on April 14, we have, behind the scenes, been in intense negotiations with the U. S. Department of Education (USDOE) regarding an interpretation of the No Child Left Behind (NCLB) law. We have been interpreting Section 1116(b)(7)(D) of the law, dealing with “Delay,” as allowing “AYP-one-year-only” schools to delay implementing the consequences of NCLB for one year, until those schools learn whether they have made AYP for a second year.

The USDOE challenged our interpretation, stating that the “delay” provision of the law allows those schools not to have to move to the next level of consequences, BUT STILL REQUIRES THEM TO IMPLEMENT THE FEDERAL CONSEQUENCES OF THE LEVEL AT WHICH THEY ARE FROZEN FOR ONE YEAR. In negotiations that ended this week, the USDOE’s interpretation has prevailed.

It is obviously too late for these schools to offer choice and transportation, with the school year ending or already ended for some. The agreement therefore calls for the following steps to be taken.

For a Title I school in your district that was identified for improvement or corrective action on the 2000-01 AYP Report, made AYP in 2001-02, but was still identified because it did not make AYP in either 1999-2000 or 2000-01, one of the following must be done:

1. The district must offer supplemental educational services over this summer to the economically disadvantaged (free and reduced lunch) students enrolled in the school in 2002-03.


2. The district must carry over to next fall the Title I funds that were set aside in 2002-03, to be used in the event the school did not make AYP and had to offer choice, transportation, or supplemental educational services. If carried over, these funds must be added to the 2003-04 set-aside funds, resulting in a larger amount used to pay for choice, transportation, or supplemental educational services.

Note that, in either of the above cases, the funds for supplemental educational services are earmarked for “economically disadvantaged” (free and reduced lunch) students only, while funds for choice and transportation are available to all students in the school. If the number of students opting for supplemental educational services (this summer) or choice, transportation, and/or supplemental educational services (next fall) exceeds the amount of funds available (20% of Title I funds is the maximum required set-aside), then the students must be ordered from highest need (academically) to lowest, with the funding going to the highest need students first, until the funding runs out.

Verification of the Title I schools affected by this decision will be mailed to you within several days by the MDE Office of Field Services. In the meantime, you may discover this yourself by the following process:

1. Look at the 2001-02 AYP reports issued to your schools in April. (Title I schools only. This decision does not apply to non-Title I schools.)

2. In the top section of each report, note if the school made AYP in 2001-02 in both Reading/Language Arts and Mathematics.

3. If YES in both cases, note whether the school is still identified for improvement in 2001-02. This will be indicated by a “Yes” in the “Identified for Improvement?” box for 01-02.

4. If this is the case, this school is an “AYP-one-year-only” school and the options listed above apply to this school.

Note: If the district chooses to carry over its 2002-03 set-aside funds into 2003-04, and then learns (on this summer’s report) that it has made AYP for a second year, the school is free from all federal consequences next fall and “goes back to go” on the ladder of consequences. The Title I set-aside funds may then be used for other Title I activities.

If you have questions about this memo or the steps that must be taken, please call my office
(517-335-0011) or Linda Brown in the Office of Field Services (517-241-3147).

P.S. It seems that all my recent memos to you have had to end with an apology. I am sorry again for the great inconvenience this may cause you, coming at this particular time. Both Tom Watkins and I have tried mightily to represent and defend Michigan’s schools and students in the difficult implementation of NCLB. We have been successful in achieving flexibility in some areas, but have also learned there are some non-negotiables. This appears to be one of them. 


back to the top     ~     back to Breaking News     ~     back to What's New


Thank you for visiting

bridges4kids does not necessarily agree with the content or subject matter of all articles nor do we endorse any specific argument.  Direct any comments on articles to


© 2002-2018 Bridges4Kids