[Federal Register Volume 74, Number 144 (Wednesday, July 29, 2009)]
[Notices]
[Pages 37837-37872]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E9-17906]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
[Docket ID ED-2009-OESE-0007]
RIN 1810-AB04
State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Numbers: 84.394
(Education Stabilization Fund) and 84.397 (Government Services
Fund).
AGENCY: Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed requirements, definitions, and approval
criteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education (Secretary) proposes requirements,
definitions, and approval criteria for the State Fiscal Stabilization
Fund (Stabilization) program. The Secretary may use one or more of
these requirements, definitions, and approval criteria in awarding
funds under this program in fiscal year (FY) 2010. The requirements,
definitions, and approval criteria proposed in this notice are based on
the assurances regarding education reform that grantees are required to
provide in exchange for receiving funds under the Stabilization
program. We take this action to specify the data and information that
grantees must collect and report with respect to those assurances and
to help ensure grantees' ability to collect and report the required
data and information.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before August 28, 2009.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not
accept comments by fax or by e-mail. Please submit your comments only
one time in order to ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies. In
addition, please include the Docket ID and the term ``State Fiscal
Stabilization Fund'' at the top of your comments.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov to submit your comments electronically. Information
on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency
documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on
the site under ``How To Use This Site.''
Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery. If you
mail or deliver your comments about these proposed requirements,
definitions, and approval criteria, address them to Office of
Elementary and Secondary Education (Attention: State Fiscal
Stabilization Fund Comments), U.S. Department of Education, 400
Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 3E108, Washington, DC 20202-6200.
Privacy Note: The Department's policy for comments
received from members of the public (including those comments submitted
by mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery) is to make these
submissions available for public viewing in their entirety on the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore,
commenters should be careful to include in their comments only
information that they wish to make publicly available on the Internet.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Butler. Telephone: (202) 260-
2274 or by e-mail: [email protected].
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the
Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding
this notice. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in
developing the notice of final requirements, definitions, and approval
criteria, we urge you to identify clearly the specific proposed
requirements, definitions, and approval criteria that each comment
addresses.
We invite you also to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of
reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed
requirements, definitions, and approval criteria. Please let us know of
any further ways we could reduce potential costs or increase potential
benefits while preserving the effective and efficient administration of
this program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about this notice by accessing Regulations.gov. You may also
inspect the public comments in person in Room 3E108, 400 Maryland
Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00
p.m., Washington, DC, time, Monday through Friday of each week except
Federal holidays.
Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the
public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Purpose of Program: The State Fiscal Stabilization Fund program
provides approximately $48.6 billion in formula grants to States to
help stabilize State and local budgets in order to minimize and avoid
reductions in education and other essential services, in exchange for a
State's commitment to advance essential education reform in key areas.
Program Authority: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009,
Division A, Title XIV--State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, Public Law 111-
5.
Proposed Requirements
Note: The proposed requirements are listed following the
background for this section.
Background: Section 14005(d) of Division A of the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) requires a State receiving funds
under the Stabilization program to provide assurances in four key areas
of education reform: (a) Achieving equity in teacher distribution, (b)
improving collection and use of data, (c) standards and assessments,
and (d) supporting struggling schools. For each area of reform, the
ARRA prescribes specific action(s) that the State must assure that it
will implement. In addition, section 14005(a) of the ARRA requires a
State that receives funds under the Stabilization program to submit an
application to the Department containing such information as the
Secretary may reasonably require. In this notice, we propose specific
data and information requirements (the assurance indicators and
descriptors) that a State receiving funds under the Stabilization
program must meet with respect to the statutory assurances. We also
propose specific requirements for a plan that a State must submit (the
State plan), as part of its application for the second phase \1\ of
funding under the Stabilization program, describing its ability to
collect and report the required
[[Page 37838]]
data and other information. Together, these two sets of proposed
requirements aim to provide transparency on the extent to which a State
is implementing the actions for which it has provided assurance.
Increased access to and focus on this information will better enable
States and other stakeholders to identify strengths and weaknesses in
education systems and determine where concentrated reform effort is
warranted. We also intend to use the data and information that States
collect and report in assessing whether a State is qualified to
participate in and receive funds under other reform-oriented programs
administered by the Department.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Department is awarding Stabilization program funds in
two phases. In the first phase, the Department is awarding 67
percent of a State's Education Stabilization Fund allocation, unless
the State can demonstrate that additional funds are required to
restore fiscal year 2009 State support for education, in which case
the Department will award the State up to 90 percent of that
allocation. In addition, the Department will award 100 percent of
each State's Government Services Fund allocation in Phase I. The
Department will award the remainder of a State's Education
Stabilization Fund allocation in the second phase. A table listing
the allocations to States under the Stabilization program is
available at: http://www.ed.gov/programs/statestabilization/funding.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed elsewhere in this notice, a proposed assurance
indicator or descriptor may relate to data or other information that
States currently collect and report to the Department, or to data or
other information for which the Department is itself the source. In
those cases, we do not propose any new data or information collection
requirements for a State; rather, the Department will provide the State
with the relevant data or other information that the State would be
required to confirm and make publicly available. (In confirming the
data or information, the State would not be required to perform any
additional analysis or verification.) In the other cases, the proposed
requirement would constitute new data or information collection and
reporting responsibilities for the State, to the extent the State does
not currently collect and report such data or information for other
purposes.
Following is a description of the proposed indicators and
descriptors in each education reform area and the proposed State plan
requirements. The Department recognizes that requests for data and
information should reflect an integrated and coordinated approach among
the various programs supported with ARRA funds, particularly the
Stabilization, Race to the Top, School Improvement Grants, and
Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems programs. Accordingly, the
Department will continue to evaluate the proposed requirements for this
program in context with those other programs.
Achieving Equity in Teacher Distribution
Regarding education reform area (a) (achieving equity in teacher
distribution), section 14005(d)(2) of the ARRA requires a State
receiving funds under the Stabilization program to assure that it will
take actions to improve teacher effectiveness and comply with section
1111(b)(8)(C) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
amended (ESEA) (20 U.S.C. 6311), in order to address inequities in the
distribution of highly qualified teachers between high- and low-poverty
schools and to ensure that low-income and minority children are not
taught at higher rates than other children by inexperienced,
unqualified, or out-of-field teachers. In order to provide indicators
of the extent to which a State is taking such actions, we propose to
require that the State provide data and other information on student
access to highly qualified teachers in high- and low-poverty schools,
on how teacher and principal performance is evaluated, and on the
distribution of performance evaluation ratings or levels among teachers
and principals.
With respect to student access to highly qualified teachers in
high- and low-poverty schools, States are currently required to collect
and report data to the Department, through the EDFacts system, on the
extent to which core academic courses in such schools are taught by
highly qualified teachers. Because such data are currently available,
we do not propose to require any new data or information collection by
a State in this area; rather, the Department would provide the State
with the data it most recently submitted, which the State would be
required to confirm and make publicly available.
With respect to evaluation of teacher performance, we propose to
require that a State provide descriptive information on the teacher
performance evaluation systems used in local educational agencies
(LEAs) in the State, including an indication of whether any official
systems used to evaluate teacher performance include student
achievement outcomes as an evaluation criterion. With respect to
teacher performance ratings or levels, we propose to require that a
State provide data on the distribution of performance ratings or levels
in its LEAs as well as an indication of whether such ratings or levels
are available to the public by school for each LEA. When properly
developed and implemented, local evaluation systems perform a principal
role in measuring teacher effectiveness. We also believe that student
achievement outcomes are a central factor in evaluation systems that
yield fair and reliable assessments of teacher performance. The data
and information on teacher performance ratings or levels, together with
the descriptive information on teacher performance evaluation systems,
will provide greater transparency on the design and usage of teacher
evaluation systems and will serve as an important indicator of the
extent to which effective teachers are equitably distributed within
LEAs and States.\2\ Moreover, this information will help States and
other stakeholders correct inequities in the distribution of effective
teachers as well as shortcomings in the design and usage of teacher
performance evaluation systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ We note that descriptions of the teacher performance
evaluation systems used in LEAs also provide necessary context for
data on teacher performance ratings or levels. When viewed in
isolation, data on teacher performance ratings or levels are open to
interpretation and may ultimately not be meaningful.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding evaluation of principal performance, we propose
requirements similar to those proposed for evaluation of teacher
performance, except that we do not propose to require a State to
indicate whether principal performance ratings or levels are available
to the public by school in each LEA, as such information may be
personally identifiable. Although the ARRA does not explicitly mention
principals with respect to the assurance in this reform area, we
believe that effective school administration is a key factor in
effective teaching and learning. Studies show that school leadership is
a major contributing factor to what students learn at school. Studies
also show that strong teachers are more likely to teach in schools with
strong principals.\3\ Information on principal performance will provide
another useful snapshot of the steps being taken to ensure that
effective school personnel are distributed equitably within LEAs and
States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., and
Walhstrom, K., (2004). How leadership influences student learning.
Minneapolis, MN: University of Minnesota.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In order to meet the proposed requirements to describe the teacher
and principal performance evaluation systems used in LEAs in the State,
a State would not be required itself to develop such descriptions; it
would be sufficient for the State to maintain a Web site that contains
electronic links to descriptions developed by its LEAs.\4\ On such a
Web site, the State could also include, by LEA, the data and
information the State collects in order to meet the other proposed
requirements that relate to evaluation of teacher and principal
performance (i.e., the requirements to indicate whether official
teacher and principal evaluations systems include student achievement
outcomes as an evaluation criterion, to provide the number and
percentage of teachers and principals rated at each performance rating
or level
[[Page 37839]]
in official evaluation systems, and to indicate whether the number and
percentage of teachers rated at each performance rating or level in
official evaluations systems are publicly available for each school).
In such a case, however, the State would be responsible for ensuring,
through appropriate guidance or technical assistance, that the
descriptions of teacher and principal performance evaluation systems
maintained by LEAs contain the required information and are provided in
an easily understandable format.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ If, however, the State requires the use of specific teacher
and principal evaluation systems by its LEAs, it could directly
provide descriptions of those systems in lieu of individual system
descriptions by its LEAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To view a summary of the proposed requirements in this education
reform area, please visit: http://www.ed.gov/programs/statestabilization/applicant.html.
Improving Collection and Use of Data
Regarding education reform area (b) (improving collection and use
of data), section 14005(d)(3) of the ARRA requires a State receiving
funds under the Stabilization program to provide an assurance that it
will establish a statewide longitudinal data system that includes the
elements described in section 6401(e)(2)(D) of the America COMPETES Act
(20 U.S.C. 9871). To provide indicators of the extent to which a State
is meeting that requirement, we propose that the State provide
information on the elements of its statewide longitudinal data system
and on whether the State provides teachers with data on student
performance that include estimates of individual teacher impact on
student achievement in a manner that is timely and informs instruction.
With respect to the elements of statewide longitudinal data
systems, we propose to require, consistent with the ARRA, that a State
indicate whether its data system contains each of the 12 elements
described in section 6401(e)(2)(D) of the America COMPETES Act \5\. For
pre-school through postsecondary education, these elements include: (1)
A unique statewide student identifier that does not permit a student to
be individually identified by users of the system; (2) student-level
enrollment, demographic, and program participation information; (3)
student-level information about the points at which students exit,
transfer in, transfer out, drop out, or complete P-16 education
programs; (4) the capacity to communicate with higher education data
systems; and (5) an audit system assessing data quality, validity, and
reliability. For preschool through grade 12 education, these elements
include: (6) yearly State assessment records of individual students;
(7) information on students not tested, by grade and subject; (8) a
teacher identifier system with the ability to match teachers to
students; (9) student-level transcript information, including on
courses completed and grades earned; and (10) student-level college
readiness test scores. Finally, for postsecondary education, the
elements include: (11) information regarding the extent to which
students transition successfully from secondary school to postsecondary
education, including whether students enroll in remedial coursework;
and (12) other information determined necessary to address alignment
and adequate preparation for success in postsecondary education. These
elements constitute the minimum requirements of a modern statewide
longitudinal data system. To measure the progress of students and
schools effectively and efficiently, it is imperative that the State's
data system contains these elements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ The Department is developing guidance to assist States in
developing and implementing statewide longitudinal data systems that
are consistent with the provisions of the America COMPETES Act and
that comply with applicable student privacy requirements, including
applicable requirements of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy
Act. We expect to issue preliminary guidance in this area in the
near future. During the time this guidance is being developed, we
expect that States will continue to work toward fully developing and
implementing statewide longitudinal data systems.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to teachers' receipt of data on student performance
that include estimates of individual teacher impact on student
achievement, we propose to require a State to indicate whether it
provides such data to teachers in grades in which the State administers
reading/language arts and mathematics assessments. We believe that
teachers' receipt of these data should be a natural product of a
statewide longitudinal data system that includes elements (1), (6), and
(8) referenced in the preceding paragraph. Moreover, we believe that
this is a key example of how reliable, high-quality data from the
State's system can drive education reform in general and improvements
in the classroom in particular.
To view a summary of the proposed requirements in this education
reform area, please visit: http://www.ed.gov/programs/statestabilization/applicant.html.
Standards and Assessments
Regarding education reform area (c) (standards and assessments),
section 14005(d)(4) of the ARRA requires a State receiving funds under
the Stabilization program to assure that it will: (A) Enhance the
quality of the academic assessments it administers pursuant to section
1111(b)(3) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6311) through activities such as
those described in section 6112(a) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7301a); (B)
comply with the requirements of paragraphs (3)(C)(ix) and (6) of
section 1111(b) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6311) and section 612(a)(16) of
the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1412)
related to the inclusion of children with disabilities and limited
English proficient students in State assessments, the development of
valid and reliable assessments for those students, and the provision of
accommodations that enable their participation in State assessments;
and (C) take steps to improve State academic content standards and
student academic achievement standards for secondary schools consistent
with section 6401(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the America COMPETES Act (20 U.S.C.
9871). To provide indicators of the extent to which a State is taking
these actions, we propose that the State provide data and other
information in the following areas:
Whether students are provided high-quality State
assessments.
Whether the State is engaged in activities to enhance its
assessments (with respect to paragraph (A) of the statutory assurance).
Whether students with disabilities and limited English
proficient students are included in State assessment systems (with
respect to paragraph (B) of the statutory assurance).
Whether the State makes available information regarding
student academic performance compared to student academic performance
in other States.
The extent to which students graduate from high school in
four years with a regular high school diploma and continue on to pursue
a college education or technical training (with respect to paragraph
(C) of the statutory assurance).
As States prepare to significantly improve the rigor and
effectiveness of their standards and assessment systems, we believe
this information will, in general, provide stakeholders with vital
transparency on the current status of those systems and on the efforts
to improve them that are currently underway.
For two of the areas described above, namely, whether students are
provided high-quality State assessments and whether students with
disabilities and limited English proficient students are included in
State assessment systems, States are currently required to collect and
report data or other information to the Department. For instance,
regarding whether students with disabilities and
[[Page 37840]]
limited English proficient students are included in State assessment
systems, States are currently required to report, through the EDFacts
system (for the annual ESEA Consolidated State Performance Report), the
number and percentage of such students who are included in State
reading/language arts and mathematics assessments. Similarly, regarding
whether students are provided high-quality State assessments, a State
must currently submit information to the Department on its assessment
system, which the Department reviews for compliance with the
requirements of the ESEA and on the basis of which the Department
issues an approval status. We propose to use these and other data and
information currently available to the Department \6\ as indicators of
a State's progress in these two areas; in these cases, the Department
would provide the State with the data it most recently submitted, or
the most recent determinations of the Department, which the State would
be required to confirm and publicly report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See below for the proposed requirements in these areas
regarding standards and assessments that use other data and
information currently available to the Department; these include
Indicators (c)(3), (c)(4), and (c)(8).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Regarding the extent to which the State is engaged in activities to
enhance its assessments, we propose to require, consistent with the
statutory assurance, that a State indicate whether it is pursuing any
of the activities described in section 6112(a) of the ESEA.\7\ These
activities include: (1) Working in collaboration or consortia with
other States or organizations to improve the quality, validity, and
reliability of State academic assessments; (2) measuring student
academic achievement using multiple measures of academic achievement
from multiple sources; (3) charting student progress over time; and (4)
evaluating student academic achievement using comprehensive
instruments, such as performance and technology-based assessments. If a
State indicates that it is engaged in any such activities, it would be
required to briefly describe the nature of that activity.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ These activities are supported by the Grants for Enhanced
Assessment Instruments program. See http://www.ed.gov/programs/eag/index.html for more information on this program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As a supplement to the data and information currently available to
the Department regarding whether students with disabilities and limited
English proficient students are included in State assessment systems
(as discussed above), we propose to require a State to indicate whether
it has completed, within the last two years, an analysis of the
appropriateness and effectiveness of the accommodations it provides
students with disabilities and limited English proficient students to
ensure their meaningful participation in State assessments. This
additional information will help provide a comprehensive picture of the
effort a State is making to include these students in a valid and
reliable assessment system consistent with the statutory assurance.
Moreover, we note that States conducting such analyses can use results
from those analyses to target resources and identify areas where
improvements in the services provided to these students are needed.
Regarding whether the State makes available information on student
performance compared to performance of students in other States,
Federal regulations require States to include in the annual State
report cards required under section 1111(h)(1)(A) of the ESEA (20
U.S.C. 6311), beginning with report cards issued for the 2009-2010
school year, the most recent available student achievement results for
the State from the National Assessment of Educational Progress (NAEP)
administered by the Department (34 CFR 200.11(c)). Because of this
regulatory requirement, we do not propose to require any new data
collection by a State in this area; rather, in this case, the State
would be required to confirm that its annual State report card contains
this information. We believe that, when compared with student
achievement results from State assessments (which a State is required
by statute also to include in its annual State report card), student
achievement results from NAEP provide a perspective on the extent to
which a State has developed and is implementing high-quality academic
content and student achievement standards.
Regarding the extent to which students graduate from high school
and continue on to pursue a college education or technical training, we
propose to require that a State provide data on the following topics:
The number and percentage of students, by subgroup, who graduate from
high school using a four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate as
required by 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(i); the number of high school graduates
(by subgroup) \8\ who subsequently enroll in institutions of higher
education (IHEs) as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education
Act of 1965, as amended (HEA); and, of the high school graduates who
enroll in public IHEs, the number (by subgroup) who complete at least
one year's worth of college credit applicable to a degree. These data
will act as key indicators of the extent to which a State has developed
and is implementing secondary school academic content and achievement
standards that contribute effectively to student preparation for
college without the need for remediation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ States must disaggregate these data by student subgroup
consistent with the requirements of section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of
the ESEA. The student subgroups discussed in that section include:
economically disadvantaged students, students from major racial and
ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and students with limited
English proficiency.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
To view a summary of the proposed requirements in this education
reform area, please visit: http://www.ed.gov/programs/statestabilization/applicant.html.
Supporting Struggling Schools
Regarding education reform area (d) (supporting struggling
schools), section 14005(d)(5) of the ARRA requires a State receiving
funds under the Stabilization program to provide an assurance that it
will ensure compliance with the requirements of section
1116(b)(7)(C)(iv) and section 1116(b)(8)(B) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C.
6316) with respect to Title I schools identified for corrective action
and restructuring. In order to provide indicators of the extent to
which a State is implementing the statutory assurance, we propose that
the State provide data on the extent to which dramatic reforms to
improve student academic achievement are implemented in Title I schools
in improvement under section 1116(b)(1)(A) of the ESEA,\9\ in
corrective action, or in restructuring, and on the extent to which
charter schools are operating in the State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Although the statutory assurance concerns only Title I
schools in corrective action and restructuring, we propose to
require that States include Title I schools in improvement as well
when providing data on the extent to which dramatic reforms to
improve student academic achievement are being implemented. Making
this addition would be consistent with the school reform strategies
that States are implementing using funds available under section
1003(g) of the ESEA (School Improvement Grants), which are intended
to be applied to schools in improvement as well as to schools in
corrective action or restructuring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to reforms implemented in Title I schools in
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring, we propose to require
that a State provide data on the academic progress of such schools as
well as on certain kinds of reform actions taken regarding those
schools. We believe that these data, a supplement to existing data and
information on Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring, will serve as useful indicators of the extent to which
[[Page 37841]]
effective reforms are being implemented in these schools consistent
with the intent of the ESEA and ARRA.
Regarding the operation of charter schools in the State, we propose
to require that a State provide data and other information on the
number of charter schools that are permitted to operate in the State,
the number that are currently operating, the number and identity of
charter schools that have closed within the last five years, and the
reason(s) (including financial, enrollment, academic, or other reasons)
for the closure of any such school.
Under section 1116(b)(8)(B) of the ESEA, LEAs must select and
implement an alternative governance arrangement for a school in
restructuring, and one allowable alternative is reopening the school as
a charter school. Possessing greater autonomy in exchange for greater
accountability, charter schools can become engines of innovation and
serve as models for school reform. We believe these data will be useful
in determining the extent to which opening charter schools is a viable
reform option for LEAs with schools in restructuring and other
struggling schools, and the extent to which charter schools are held
accountable for their performance so that only high-performing options
remain available.
With respect to the number of charter schools that are currently
operating, States are currently required to collect and report data on
this topic to the Department through the EDFacts system. Because these
data are currently available, we do not propose to require a new data
collection by a State; rather, in this case, the Department would
provide the State with the data it most recently submitted, which the
State would be required to confirm and make publicly available.
To view a summary of the proposed requirements in this education
reform area, please visit: http://www.ed.gov/programs/statestabilization/applicant.html.
State Plans
In addition to the specific data and information requirements
relating to the four ARRA education reform assurances discussed above,
we also propose requirements for a plan that a State must submit to the
Department. In general, the State plan must describe the State's
current ability to collect the data or other information needed for the
proposed assurance indicators and descriptors as well as the State's
current ability to make the data or information easily available to the
public. If the State is currently able to fully collect and report the
required data or other information, the State must provide the most
recent data or information with its plan. If a State is not currently
able to collect or report the data or other information, the plan must
describe the State's process and timeline for developing and
implementing the means to do so as soon as possible but no later than
September 30, 2011, the date by which funds received under the
Stabilization program must be obligated. The State plan must describe
the State's collection and reporting abilities with respect to each
individual indicator or descriptor.
As discussed above, the data or information needed for an assurance
indicator or descriptor is in some cases already reported to the
Department by the State, or is provided by the Department. In those
cases, it is understood that the State is currently able to collect the
data or information; the State's plan need only address the State's
ability to publicly report the data or information, and the State need
not include the data or information with its plan.
The proposed State plan requirements apply generally across the
education reform areas discussed above with the exception of education
reform area (b) (improving collection and use of data), for which we
propose to apply slightly different plan requirements. Specifically, we
propose to require that the State describe in the State plan whether
the State's data system includes the required elements of a statewide
longitudinal data system and, if the data system does not, the State's
process and timeline for developing and implementing a system that
meets all requirements as soon as possible but no later than September
30, 2011. As this indicator relates to a State's ability to collect and
report data, however, these requirements do not in effect differ
substantially from the generally applicable State plan requirements
(i.e., the requirements that the State describe its abilities to
collect and report data or other information for a given indicator or
descriptor). Moreover, the development and implementation of such a
statewide longitudinal data system is intrinsic to a State's ability to
collect and report the data required by certain other indicators (e.g.,
the indicators on student enrollment and credit completion in
institutions of higher education after graduation from high school).
Such a statewide longitudinal data system can also produce and manage
other data that States may use in developing and improving programs;
targeting services; developing better linkages between preschool,
elementary and secondary, and postsecondary systems, agencies, and
institutions; and holding schools, LEAs, and institutions accountable
for their performance. Most importantly, we believe these State plan
requirements are supported by the statutory assurance for this
education reform area which, as stated above, requires the State to
assure that it will develop such a system.
Similarly, regarding teachers' receipt of data on student
performance that includes estimates of individual teacher impact on
student achievement, we propose to require that the State describe in
the State plan whether the State provides teachers with such data and,
if the State does not, the State's process and timeline for developing
and implementing the means to do so as soon as possible but no later
than September 30, 2011. We believe this requirement is likewise
supported by the statutory assurance insofar as it provides an
illustration of the ways in which data from the State's statewide
longitudinal data system can be used to drive education reform. School
and LEA leaders can use these data, in particular, in developing and
providing professional development opportunities, assigning teachers,
and implementing compensation and other human capital policies.
In addition to requirements relating to a State's ability to
collect and report data or other information for the respective
assurance indicators and descriptors, we propose other general
requirements for the State plan relating to the State's institutional
infrastructure and capacity, the nature of any technical assistance or
other support provided, the plan budget, and the processes the State
employs for data and information quality assurance purposes.
Our experience with data collections has shown that the development
of a plan by the agency responsible for a collection is highly
beneficial to all parties. For the Department and the public, a plan
provides transparency on the agency's abilities to collect and report
the data and other information, as well as a framework for holding the
agency accountable for meeting the respective collection and reporting
requirements. For the agency (in this case, the State), the plan
presents an opportunity to assess its capacity and resources with
respect to the requirements and to develop and implement any processes
needed in order to comply with those requirements.
In developing a plan as proposed in this notice, the State is
encouraged to consult with key stakeholders such as superintendents,
educators, and parents as well as teacher union, business,
[[Page 37842]]
community, and civil rights leaders. Such consultation would ensure
that these stakeholders are aware of the State's current ability to
meet the proposed requirements, can provide input on the means the
State will develop to comply with the requirements, and can prepare to
assist the State in implementing those means.
Proposed Requirements
The Secretary proposes the following requirements for the
Stabilization program. We may apply these requirements in any year in
which this program is in effect.
I. Assurance Indicators and Descriptors: A State must collect and
report data and other information for the following indicators and
descriptors regarding the assurances that the State has provided in
order to receive funds under the Stabilization program.
(a) Achieving equity in teacher distribution. A State must collect
and report data and other information on the extent to which students
in high- and low-poverty schools in the State have access to highly
qualified teachers, on how teacher and principal performance is
evaluated, and on the distribution of performance evaluation ratings or
levels among teachers and principals. Specifically, a State must--
Indicator (a)(1). Confirm, for the State and for each LEA in the
State, the number and percentage (including numerator and denominator)
of core academic courses taught, in the highest-poverty and lowest-
poverty schools, by teachers who are highly qualified consistent with
section 9101(23) of the ESEA;
Descriptor (a)(1). Describe, for each LEA in the State, the systems
used to evaluate the performance of teachers;
Indicator (a)(2). Indicate, for each LEA in the State, whether the
systems used to evaluate the performance of teachers include student
achievement outcomes as an evaluation criterion;
Indicator (a)(3). Provide, for each LEA in the State whose teachers
receive performance ratings or levels through an evaluation system, the
number and percentage (including numerator and denominator) of teachers
rated at each performance rating or level;
Indicator (a)(4). Indicate, for each LEA in the State whose
teachers receive performance ratings or levels through an evaluation
system, whether the number and percentage (including numerator and
denominator) of teachers rated at each performance rating or level are
available for each school in the LEA in a manner easily accessible and
a format easily understandable by the public;
Descriptor (a)(2). Describe, for each LEA in the State, the systems
used to evaluate the performance of principals;
Indicator (a)(5). Indicate, for each LEA in the State, whether the
systems used to evaluate the performance of principals include student
achievement outcomes as an evaluation criterion; and
Indicator (a)(6). Provide, for each LEA in the State whose
principals receive performance ratings or levels through an evaluation
system, the number and percentage (including numerator and denominator)
of principals rated at each performance rating or level.
(b) Improving collection and use of data. A State must collect and
report information on the elements of its statewide longitudinal data
system and on whether teachers receive data on student performance in a
manner that is timely and informs instruction. Specifically, a State
must--
Indicator (b)(1). Indicate which of the 12 elements described in
section 6401(e)(2)(D) of the America COMPETES Act are included in the
State's statewide longitudinal data system; and
Indicator (b)(2). Indicate whether the State provides teachers of
reading/language arts and mathematics in grades in which the State
administers assessments in those subjects with data on the performance
of their students on those assessments that include estimates of
individual teacher impact on student achievement, in a manner that is
timely and informs instruction.
(c) Standards and assessments. A State must collect and report data
and other information on whether students are provided high-quality
State assessments, on whether the State is engaged in activities to
enhance its assessments, on whether students with disabilities and
limited English proficient students are included in State assessment
systems, on whether the State makes information available regarding
student academic performance in the State compared to the academic
performance of students in other States, and on the extent to which
students graduate from high school in four years with a regular high
school diploma and continue on to pursue a college education or
technical training. Specifically, a State must--
Indicator (c)(1). Confirm the approval status, as determined by the
Department, of the State's assessment system under section 1111(b)(3)
of the ESEA with respect to reading/language arts, mathematics, and
science assessments;
Indicator (c)(2). Indicate whether the State is engaged in
activities consistent with section 6112(a) of the ESEA to enhance the
quality of its academic assessments;
Descriptor (c)(1). Briefly describe the nature of any activities
indicated in Indicator (c)(2);
Indicator (c)(3). Confirm whether the State has developed and
implemented valid and reliable alternate assessments for students with
disabilities that are approved by the Department;
Indicator (c)(4). Confirm whether the State's alternate assessments
for students with disabilities, if approved by the Department, are
based on grade-level, modified, or alternate academic achievement
standards;
Indicator (c)(5). Indicate whether the State has completed, within
the last two years, an analysis of the appropriateness and
effectiveness of the accommodations it provides students with
disabilities to ensure their meaningful participation in State
assessments;
Indicator (c)(6). Confirm the number and percentage (including
numerator and denominator) of students with disabilities who are
included in State reading/language arts and mathematics assessments;
Indicator (c)(7). Indicate whether the State has completed, within
the last two years, an analysis of the appropriateness and
effectiveness of the accommodations it provides limited English
proficient students to ensure their meaningful participation in State
assessments;
Indicator (c)(8). Confirm whether the State provides native
language versions of State assessments for limited English proficient
students that are approved by the Department;
Indicator (c)(9). Confirm the number and percentage (including
numerator and denominator) of limited English proficient students who
are included in State reading/language arts and mathematics
assessments;
Indicator (c)(10). Confirm that the State's annual State Report
Card (under ESEA section 1111(h)(1)) contains the most recent available
State reading and mathematics NAEP results as required by 34 CFR
200.11(c);
Indicator (c)(11). Provide, for the State, for each LEA in the
State, for each high school in the State and, at each of these levels,
by student subgroup (consistent with section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of
the ESEA), the number and percentage (including numerator and
denominator) of students who graduate from high school using a four-
year adjusted cohort graduation rate as required by 34 CFR
200.19(b)(1)(i);
Indicator (c)(12). Provide, for the State, for each LEA in the
State, for each
[[Page 37843]]
high school in the State and, at each of these levels, by student
subgroup (consistent with section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA), of
the students who graduate from high school consistent with 34 CFR
200.19(b)(1)(i), the number who enroll in an IHE as defined in section
101(a) of the HEA; and
Indicator (c)(13). Provide, for the State, for each LEA in the
State, for each high school in the State and, at each of these levels,
by student subgroup (consistent with section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of
the ESEA), of the students who graduate from high school consistent
with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(i) who enroll in a public IHE, the number who
complete at least one year's worth of college credit (applicable to a
degree) within two years.
(d) Supporting struggling schools. A State must collect and report
data and other information on the extent to which reforms to improve
student academic achievement are implemented in the State's Title I
schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring under
section 1116(b) of the ESEA, and on the extent to which charter schools
are operating in the State. Specifically, a State must--
Indicator (d)(1). Provide, for the State and for each LEA in the
State, the number and percentage (including numerator and denominator)
of schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that
have made progress on State assessments in reading/language arts in the
last year;
Indicator (d)(2). Provide, for the State and for each LEA in the
State, the number and percentage (including numerator and denominator)
of schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that
have made progress on State assessments in mathematics in the last
year;
Indicator (d)(3). Provide, for the State and for each LEA in the
State, the number and percentage (including numerator and denominator)
of schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that
have been turned around, consolidated, or closed in the last year;
Indicator (d)(4). Provide, for the State, of the schools in
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring, the number and
identity of schools in the lowest-achieving five percent that have been
turned around, consolidated, or closed in the last year;
Indicator (d)(5). Provide, for the State, of the schools in the
lowest-achieving five percent of schools in improvement, corrective
action, or restructuring that have been turned around, consolidated, or
closed in the last year, the number that are secondary schools;
Indicator (d)(6). Provide, for the State and, if applicable, for
each LEA in the State, the number of charter schools that are currently
permitted to operate;
Indicator (d)(7). Confirm, for the State and for each LEA in the
State that operates charter schools, the number of charter schools
currently operating;
Indicator (d)(8). Provide, for the State and for each LEA in the
State that operates charter schools, the number and identity of charter
schools that have closed (including schools that were not reauthorized
to operate) within the last five years; and
Indicator (d)(9). Indicate, for each charter school that has closed
within the last five years, whether the closure of the school was for
financial, enrollment, academic, or other reasons.
II. State Plans: A State receiving funds under the Stabilization
program must develop and submit to the Department a comprehensive plan
that includes the following information.
(a) Indicator and descriptor requirements. Except as discussed in
paragraph (c) of this section, the State must be able to collect and
report the data or other information required by an assurance indicator
or descriptor. To this end, the State must describe, for each assurance
indicator or descriptor--
(1) The State's current ability to fully collect the required data
or other information at least annually;
(2) The State's ability to fully report the required data or other
information, at least annually through September 30, 2011, in a manner
easily accessible and a format easily understandable by the public;
(3) If the State is not currently able to fully collect, at least
annually, the data or other information required by the indicator or
descriptor--
(A) The State's process and timeline for developing and
implementing, as soon as possible but no later than September 30, 2011,
the means to fully collect the data or information, including--
(i) The milestones that the State establishes toward developing and
implementing those means;
(ii) The date by which the State expects to reach each milestone;
and
(iii) Any obstacles that may prevent the State from developing and
implementing those means by September 30, 2011, including but not
limited to requirements and prohibitions of State law and policy;
(B) The nature and frequency of reports that the State will provide
to the public regarding its progress in developing and implementing
those means; and
(C) The amount of funds the State is using or will use to develop
and implement those means, and whether the funds are or will be
Federal, State, or local funds;
(4) If the State is not able to fully report, at least annually
through September 30, 2011, in a manner easily accessible and a format
easily understandable by the public, the data or other information
required by the indicator or descriptor--
(A) The State's process and timeline for developing and
implementing, as soon as possible but no later than September 30, 2011,
the means to fully report the data or information, including--
(i) The milestones that the State establishes toward developing and
implementing those means;
(ii) The date by which the State expects to reach each milestone;
and
(iii) Any obstacles that may prevent the State from developing and
implementing those means by September 30, 2011, including but not
limited to requirements and prohibitions of State law and policy;
(B) The nature and frequency of reports that the State will provide
to the public regarding its progress in developing and implementing
those means; and
(C) The amount of funds the State is using or will use to develop
and implement those means, and whether the funds are or will be
Federal, State, or local funds.
(b) Data or other information. If the State is currently able to
fully collect and report the data or other information required by the
indicator or descriptor, the State must provide the most recent data or
information with its plan.
(c) Requirements for indicators in reform area (b) (improving
collection and use of data).
(1) With respect to Indicator (b)(1), the State must develop and
implement a statewide longitudinal data system that includes each of
the 12 elements described in section 6401(e)(2)(D) of the America
COMPETES Act. To this end, the State must, in its plan--
(A) Indicate which of the 12 elements are currently included in the
State's statewide longitudinal data system;
(B) If the State's statewide longitudinal data system does not
currently include all 12 elements, describe--
(i) The State's process and timeline for developing and
implementing, as soon as possible but no later than September 30, 2011,
a statewide longitudinal data system that fully
[[Page 37844]]
includes all 12 elements, including the milestones that the State
establishes toward developing and implementing such a system, the date
by which the State expects to reach each milestone, and any obstacles
that may prevent the State from developing and implementing such a
system by September 30, 2011 (including but not limited to requirements
and prohibitions of State law and policy);
(ii) The nature and frequency of reports that the State will
provide to the public regarding its progress in developing and
implementing such a system; and
(iii) The amount of funds the State is using or will use to develop
and implement such a system, and whether the funds are or will be
Federal, State, or local funds.
(2) With respect to Indicator (b)(2), the State must provide
teachers with data on the performance of their students that include
estimates of individual teacher impact on student achievement
consistent with the indicator. To this end, the State must--
(A) Indicate whether the State provides teachers with such data;
(B) If the State does not provide teachers with such data,
describe--
(i) The State's process and timeline for developing and
implementing, as soon as possible but no later than September 30, 2011,
the means to provide teachers with such data, including the milestones
that the State establishes toward developing and implementing those
means, the date by which the State expects to reach each milestone, and
any obstacles that may prevent the State from developing and
implementing those means by September 30, 2011 (including but not
limited to requirements and prohibitions of State law and policy);
(ii) The nature and frequency of reports that the State will
provide to the public regarding its progress in developing and
implementing those means; and
(iii) The amount of funds the State is using or will use to develop
and implement those means, and whether the funds are or will be
Federal, State, or local funds.
(d) General requirements. The State must describe--
(1) The agency or agencies in the State responsible for the
development, execution, and oversight of the plan, including the
institutional infrastructure and capacity of the agency or agencies as
they relate to each of those tasks;
(2) The agency or agencies, institutions, or organizations, if any,
providing technical assistance or other support in the development,
execution, and oversight of the plan, and the nature of such technical
assistance or other support;
(3) The overall budget for the development, execution, and
oversight of the plan;
(4) The processes the State employs to review and verify the
required data and other information; and
(5) The processes the State employs to ensure that, consistent with
34 CFR 99.31(b), the required data and other information are not made
publicly available in a manner that personally identifies students,
where applicable.
Proposed Definitions
Background
The ARRA contains definitions for several key terms applicable to
the Stabilization program. The ARRA does not, however, define all terms
relevant to the assurances that States must provide in order to receive
funds under the program. In this notice, we propose definitions of key
terms not defined in the ARRA (or, by reference, in the ESEA or the
HEA) to prevent confusion regarding the assurance indicators and
descriptors and to ensure that grantees develop plans that are
consistent with the purposes of the ARRA and the Department's
requirements and intentions for the program.
Proposed Definitions
The Secretary proposes the following definitions for Stabilization
program terms not defined in the ARRA (or, by reference, in the ESEA or
the HEA). We may apply these definitions in any year in which this
program is in effect.
With respect to the requirement that a State collect and report on
the extent to which students in high- and low-poverty schools in the
State have access to highly qualified teachers, highest-poverty school
means, consistent with section 1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) of the ESEA, a
school in the highest quartile of schools (at the State and LEA levels,
respectively) using a measure of poverty determined by the State.
Similarly, lowest-poverty school means, consistent with section
1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) of the ESEA, a school in the lowest quartile of
schools (at the State and LEA levels, respectively) using a measure of
poverty determined by the State.
With respect to the requirements that a State indicate whether the
official systems used to evaluate the performance of teachers and
principals include student achievement outcomes as an evaluation
criterion, student achievement outcomes means outcomes including, at a
minimum, one of the following: student performance on summative
assessments, or on assessments predictive of student performance on
summative assessments, in terms of absolute performance, gains, or
growth; student grades; and rates at which students are on track to
graduate from high school.
With respect to the requirement that a State collect and report the
number of high school graduates who enrolled in a public IHE who
complete at least one year's worth of college credit (applicable to a
degree) within two years, college credit (applicable to a degree) is
used as that term is defined by the IHE granting such credit.
With respect to the requirements that a State collect and report
the numbers of Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring that have made progress on State assessments in reading/
language arts and in mathematics in the last year, school that has made
progress means a school whose gains on the assessment, in the ``all
students'' category (as under section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(I) of the ESEA),
are equal to or greater than the average gains of schools in the State
on that assessment.
With respect to the requirements that a State collect and report
the number of Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring that have been turned around, consolidated, or closed in
the last year, school that has been turned around means a school that
has had a governance change (which must include a change in the
school's principal and other school leadership changes), implemented a
new instructional focus, and replaced at least 50 percent of its staff
as part of a planned intervention; school that has been consolidated
means a school that has merged with another school so that students
from both schools are educated together; and school that has been
closed includes but is not limited to a school that has been closed and
reopened under the management of a charter management organization or
an educational management organization.
With respect to the requirement that a State collect and report, of
the Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring, the number and identity of schools in the lowest-
achieving five percent that have been turned around, consolidated, or
closed in the last year, lowest-achieving five percent is used as that
term is defined by the State, except that in defining the term the
State must consider both the absolute performance of schools on State
assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics and whether
schools have made progress on those assessments (see definition of
school
[[Page 37845]]
that has made progress above), and except that, if a State has fewer
than 100 schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring,
the State must include at least five such schools.
Proposed Approval Criteria
Background
Our experience with administering grant competitions and with
reviewing proposals from States regarding their compliance with certain
requirements of the ESEA (particularly the requirements in Title I of
the ESEA relating to standards, assessments, and accountability)
recommends the use of explicit criteria for approving the plans we
propose to require of States receiving funds under this program. In
addition to specifying the areas of focus in the review of these plans,
such criteria also usefully indicate to States the qualities in a plan
that make it approvable.
In this notice we propose approval criteria relating to the quality
and adequacy of the State plans. We intend to make determinations
regarding the approval of a State's plan based on the recommendations
of a peer review using these criteria. We will issue guidance to peer
reviewers providing more specific information on the final criteria as
they relate to the respective final requirements.
As noted above, a State must submit its plan as part of its
application for the second phase of funding under the Stabilization
program, through which the Department will award the remaining portion
of a State's total Stabilization allocation. A State that submits a
plan that is determined to be sufficiently responsive to each
requirement will immediately receive 75 percent of the remainder of its
total allocation of funds under the program. A State will receive the
remaining 25 percent of its remainder of funds only after its plan is
approved in its entirety.
Proposed Approval Criteria
The Secretary proposes the following criteria for approving the
plan of a State receiving funds under the Stabilization program. We may
apply one or more of these criteria in any year in which this program
is in effect.
(a) Quality of the State plan. Except as described in paragraph
(b), in determining the quality of the plan submitted by a State, we
consider the following:
(1) Whether the plan clearly and accurately describes the State's
abilities to collect and to report the data or other information
required by an assurance indicator and descriptor; and
(2) If the State is not currently able to fully collect and report
the data or information required by an indicator or descriptor--
(i) Whether the timeline and process for developing and
implementing the means to fully collect and report the data or
information are reasonable and sufficient to comply with the
requirement;
(ii) Whether any obstacles identified by the State as preventing it
from developing and implementing the means to fully collect and report
the data or information by September 30, 2011 are sufficient to justify
a delay in complying with the requirement; and
(iii) Whether the reports that the State will provide to the public
will be appropriately accessible and will sufficiently indicate the
State's progress in developing and implementing the means to comply
with the requirement.
(b) Quality of the State plan with respect to indicators in reform
area (b) (improving collection and use of data). In determining the
quality of the plan submitted by a State as it relates to the
indicators in reform area (b), we consider the following:
(1) Whether the plan clearly and accurately describes the State's
ability to meet the plan requirement for the indicator (i.e., in the
case of Indicator (b)(1), the requirement to develop and implement a
statewide longitudinal data system that includes each of the 12
elements described in section 6401(e)(2)(D) of the America COMPETES
Act; and in the case of Indicator (b)(2), the requirement to provide
teachers with data on the performance of their students that include
estimates of individual teacher impact on student achievement); and
(2) If the State does not currently meet the plan requirement for
the indicator--
(i) Whether the timeline and process for developing and
implementing the means to meet the requirement are reasonable and
sufficient to comply with the requirement;
(ii) Whether any obstacles identified by the State as preventing it
from developing and implementing the means to meet the requirement by
September 30, 2011 are sufficient to justify a delay in complying with
the requirement; and
(iii) Whether the reports that the State will provide to the public
will be appropriately accessible and will sufficiently indicate the
State's progress in developing and implementing the means to comply
with the requirement.
(c) Adequacy of the State plan. In determining the adequacy of the
plan submitted by a State, we consider the following:
(1) Whether the institutional infrastructure and capacity of the
agency or agencies responsible for the development, implementation, and
oversight of the plan, together with any technical assistance or other
support provided by other agencies, institutions, or organizations, are
adequate to comply with the indicator and descriptor requirements
individually and as a whole;
(2) Whether the funds the State is using or will use are adequate
to comply with the indicator and descriptor requirements both
individually and as a whole;
(3) Whether the processes the State employs to review and verify
the required data and information are adequate to ensure that the data
and information are accurate and of high quality; and
(4) Whether the processes the State employs are adequate to ensure
that, where applicable, the required data and other information are not
made publicly available in a manner that personally identifies
students.
Final Requirements, Definitions, and Approval Criteria
We will announce the final requirements, definitions, and approval
criteria for the Stabilization program in a notice in the Federal
Register. We will determine the final requirements, definitions, and
approval criteria after considering any comments submitted in response
to this notice and other information available to the Department. This
notice does not preclude us from proposing additional requirements,
definitions, and approval criteria, subject to meeting applicable
rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use one or more of these requirements,
definitions, and approval criteria, we invite applications through a
notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Order 12866
The proposed costs have been reviewed in accordance with Executive
Order 12866. Under the terms of the order, the Department has assessed
the costs and benefits of this regulatory action.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative
and qualitative--of these proposed requirements, the Department has
determined that the benefits of the proposed requirements exceed the
costs. The Department also has determined that this regulatory action
does not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in
the exercise of their governmental functions.
[[Page 37846]]
To assist the Department in complying with the requirements of
Executive Order 12866, the Secretary invites comments on whether there
may be further opportunities to reduce any potential costs or increase
potential benefits resulting from these proposed requirements without
impeding the effective and efficient administration of the
Stabilization program.
Need for Federal Regulatory Action
These proposed requirements, definitions, and approval criteria are
needed to implement the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund program in a
manner that the Secretary believes will best enable the program to
achieve its objectives of supporting meaningful education reforms in
the States while helping to stabilize State and local budgets and
minimize reductions in education and other essential services. In
particular, the proposals included in this notice are necessary to
advance the four key educational reforms listed in the ARRA,
particularly by ensuring better reporting and more public availability
of information on the progress of implementation in each of the four
reform areas. The proposed requirement for each State to establish a
longitudinal data system that includes the elements specified in the
America COMPETES Act will have an especially significant impact on the
availability of data that can be used in developing and improving
programs; targeting services; developing better linkages between
preschool, elementary and secondary schools, and postsecondary systems,
agencies, and institutions; and holding schools, LEAs, and institutions
accountable for their performance. Establishment of such a system by
each participating State is also required under the ARRA.
Further, the proposed requirement for each State to commit to
developing procedures for providing teachers of reading/language arts
and mathematics with data on the performance of their students that
includes estimates of individual teacher impact reflects a need to
ensure that teachers have better data on how well they are educating
their students and that school and LEA leaders have valuable
information that they can use in developing and providing professional
development opportunities, assigning teachers, and implementing
compensation and other human capital policies.
The proposed definitions included in this notice are necessary to
give clearer meaning to some of the terms used in the descriptions of
the requirements and approval criteria. The proposed approval criteria
themselves are needed in order to provide for a clear and objective set
of standards that the Secretary would use in ensuring that each State,
before receiving the remainder of its Stabilization program allocation,
has in place a plan for collecting and reporting the required data and
meeting the other requirements proposed in this notice.
Regulatory Alternatives Considered
A likely alternative to promulgation of the types of requirements,
definitions, and approval criteria proposed in this notice would be for
the Secretary to release the remaining Stabilization program funds
without establishing specific reporting or other requirements. Under
such a scenario, participating States would still be required to meet
the statutory requirements (that is, to take actions to improve teacher
effectiveness and the equitable distribution of highly qualified
teachers, to establish longitudinal data systems that include the
elements specified in the America COMPETES Act, to enhance the quality
of their standards and assessments, to ensure the inclusion of students
with disabilities and limited English proficient students in their
assessments, and to take steps to improve consistently low-performing
schools), but there would be no assurance of consistent and complete
reporting of States' progress and no uniform mechanism for measuring
and comparing States' performance. Additionally, the need for teachers
to obtain better information on their students' educational progress
would likely be unfulfilled. While the Department is interested in
public comment on the feasibility and advisability of the various
requirements proposed herein, the Secretary regards disbursement of the
remaining Stabilization program funds without implementation of the
reporting and other proposed requirements as a missed opportunity for
bringing about needed educational reforms at a critical time.
Summary of Costs and Benefits
The Department has analyzed the costs of complying with the
proposed requirements. Some of the costs will be very minimal and
others more significant. As an example of a requirement that will
result in minimal burden and cost, States are currently required to
report annually, through EDFacts (the Department's centralized data
collection and warehousing system), for the State as a whole and for
each LEA, the number and percentage of core academic courses taught, in
the highest-poverty and lowest-poverty schools, by teachers who are
highly qualified. Proposed indicator (a)(1) would require that they
confirm the data they have reported, which should not be a time-
consuming responsibility. As a second example, the proposed requirement
to confirm the approval status of the State's assessment system under
section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA, as determined by the Department, should
also require minimal effort.
Other proposed requirements will impose significant new costs, but
the Department believes that the benefits resulting from the
requirements will exceed those costs. The major benefit of these
requirements, taken in their totality, is better and more publicly
available information on the status of activities related to the reform
areas identified in the authorizing statute for the Stabilization
program. As described in detail below, research indicates or suggests
that progress on each of the reforms will contribute to improved
student outcomes. The provision of better information (on teacher
qualifications, teacher and principal evaluation systems, State student
longitudinal data systems, State standards and assessment systems,
student success in high school and postsecondary education, efforts to
turn around low-performing schools, and charter school reforms) to
policymakers, educators, parents, and other stakeholders will assist in
their efforts to further the reforms. In addition, State reporting of
these data will help the Department determine the impact of the
unprecedented level of funding made available by the ARRA. Further, the
data and plans that States submit will inform Federal education policy,
including the upcoming reauthorization of the ESEA.
States will be able to draw on Federal resources in meeting some of
the requirements. The proposed requirements that would result in the
most significant costs are related to the implementation of a State
data system that can track individual student transitions from high
school to college. To support these efforts, States may receive Federal
funds from the Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems program, through
which the Department has made over $187 million available since fiscal
year 2005. The ARRA provided an additional $250 million for that
program, and the Administration's budget request for fiscal year 2010
includes an additional $65 million. In addition, it is important to
note that States may use funds available through the Stabilization
program's Government Services Fund (over $8.8 billion) to develop and
implement the systems
[[Page 37847]]
necessary to report on these performance indicators.
The following is a detailed analysis of the estimated costs of
implementing the specific proposed requirements, followed by a
discussion of the anticipated benefits. The costs of implementing
specific paperwork-related requirements are also shown in the tables in
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 section of this notice.
Distribution of Highly Qualified Teachers
Section 14005(d)(2) of the ARRA requires a State receiving funds
under the Stabilization program to assure, in the Stabilization program
application, that it will address inequities in the distribution of
highly qualified teachers. In response to this requirement, the
Department is proposing to require States to confirm, for the State and
for each LEA in the State, the number and percentage of core academic
courses taught, in the highest-poverty and lowest-poverty schools, by
teachers who are highly qualified. Because States will have previously
submitted this information to the Department through the EDFacts
system, we anticipate that the costs of complying with this requirement
would be minimal. A State likely would need only to ensure that it had
correctly aggregated and reported data received from its LEAs. The
Department expects that each State would require one hour of staff time
to complete this effort, at a cost of $30 per hour. For the 50 States,
the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, the total estimated level of
effort would be 52 hours at a cost of $1,560.
Teacher and Principal Evaluation Systems
Section 14005(d)(2) also requires States to take actions to improve
teacher effectiveness. To accomplish that goal, States must first have
a means of assessing teacher success. A limited number of States have
implemented statewide teacher and principal evaluation systems, while
in the other States the responsibility for evaluating teachers and
principals rests with the LEAs or schools. Little is known about the
design of these systems across the Nation, but the collection and
reporting of additional information would create a resource that
additional States and LEAs can draw on in building their own systems.
The Department, therefore, proposes to require States to collect and
publicly report information about these evaluation systems.
Specifically, the Department is proposing to require that States
describe, for each LEA in the State, the systems used to evaluate the
performance of teachers and principals. Further, the Department
proposes to require States to indicate, for each LEA in the State,
whether the systems used to evaluate the performance of teachers and
principals include student achievement outcomes as an evaluation
criterion.
The level of effort required to respond to these proposed
requirements would likely vary depending on the types of teacher and
principal evaluation systems in place in a given State or LEA. The
Department believes that, if a system is in place at the State level,
the response burden would be low, because the State will have the
required information readily available. According to the National
Council on Teacher Quality, 12 States require LEAs to use a State-
developed instrument to evaluate teachers or to develop an equivalent
instrument that must be approved by the State.\10\ For these 12 States,
the Department estimates that a total of 72 hours (6 hours per State)
would be required to respond to these proposed requirements, for a
total cost, at $30 per hour, of $2,160. The 2,632 LEAs located in these
States would not be involved in the response to these proposed
requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ State Teacher Policy Yearbook: 2008, page 68. http://www.nctq.org/stpy08/reports/stpy_national.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 40 States that do not have statewide teacher and principal
evaluation systems in place, the level of effort required would likely
be significantly higher. For each of these States, the Department
estimates that 360 hours would be required at the State level to
develop and administer a survey of LEAs (including designing the survey
instrument, disseminating it, providing training or other technical
assistance to LEAs on completing the survey, collecting the data and
other information, checking accuracy, and public reporting), which
would amount to a total of 14,400 hours and a total estimated State
cost of $432,000 (assuming, again, a cost per hour of $30). The 12,368
LEAs located in these States would bear the cost of collecting and
reporting the data to their States. For the purpose of the burden
estimates in this section, the Department estimates that 75 percent of
these LEAs (9,276) have official teacher and principal evaluation
systems in place. For those LEAs, we estimate that 3 hours would be
required to respond to these proposed requirements. For the estimated
3,092 LEAs that do not have an official evaluation system in place, we
estimate that 2 hours would be required. The Department, thus,
estimates that LEAs would need to spend a total of 34,012 hours to
respond to these proposed requirements at a total cost of $850,300.
This estimate is speculative because the Department was unable to find
information about the prevalence of teacher and principal evaluation
systems in LEAs. We invite comments that provide information on the
prevalence of these systems in LEAs (so that we may further refine our
estimates) and on the potential costs of meeting the requirements for
LEAs that have or do not have such a system.
The Department is also proposing to require States to provide, for
each LEA in the State whose teachers and principals receive performance
ratings or levels through an evaluation system, the number and
percentage of teachers and principals rated at each performance rating
or level. Finally, the Department proposes to require States to
indicate, for each LEA in the State whose teachers receive performance
ratings or levels through an official evaluation system, whether the
number and percentage of teachers rated at each performance rating or
level is publicly available for each school in the LEA in a manner that
is easily accessible and in a format easily understandable by the
public. We were unable to find information on whether LEAs will have
this information readily available in a centralized data system and,
therefore, invite comment on this issue. For the purpose of this
estimate, we assume that 60 percent of LEAs will have the necessary
information in their central office or will be so small that collecting
this information will be a simple process. Applying this percentage to
the estimated 11,908 LEAs that have in place an official system to
evaluate teacher and principal performance (which includes the 2,632
LEAs in States with statewide systems, as well as the estimated 9,276
LEAs in other States that have their own local systems), the Department
estimates that the total burden of responding to these proposed
requirements would be 59,540 hours (5 hours per affected LEA) and
$1,488,500. We estimate that each of the other 4,763 LEAs will need to
spend 40 hours to respond. The Department, therefore, estimates the
total LEA burden for these requirements to be 260,264 hours across the
Nation at an estimated total cost of $6,506,600 (assuming a cost per
hour of $25).
States would then need to collect these data, most likely by
including these items in the survey instrument that they will develop
to respond to the other proposed requirements in this section, and will
then need to aggregate
[[Page 37848]]
and publicly report the data. We estimate that this will require 8
hours of effort per State, for a total burden of 416 hours at a cost of
$12,480. For more detailed estimates of costs for these proposed
requirements, please see the tables in the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 section of this notice.
State Data Systems
Section 14005(d)(3) requires States to assure that they will
establish a longitudinal data system that includes the elements
described in section 6401(e)(2)(D) of the America COMPETES Act. To
track State progress in this reform area, the Department proposes to
require each State to indicate which of the 12 elements are included in
the State's statewide longitudinal data system. The costs of reporting
this information should be minimal. Moreover, most States are already
reporting information on ten of the 12 elements to the Data Quality
Campaign, a national effort to encourage State policymakers to use
high-quality education data to improve student achievement. The
Department expects that States will be able to readily provide
information on whether the two remaining elements are included in their
data systems and that it should take little time for the States that
have not been reporting to the Data Quality Campaign to provide
information on their data systems. We, therefore, estimate that States
would need only 2 hours to respond to this requirement, for a total
level of effort of 104 hours at an estimated cost of $3,120.
The Department also proposes to require that States report, for
each LEA in the State, whether the State provides teachers of reading/
language arts and mathematics in the grades in which the State
administers assessments in those subjects with data on the performance
of their students on those assessments that include estimates of
individual teacher impact on student achievement, in a manner that is
timely and informs instruction. The Department believes that making
such information available would help improve the quality of
instruction and the quality of teacher evaluation and compensation
systems. Under the State Plan section, we discuss the costs of
developing systems for the provision of such information in all States.
The costs of merely reporting on whether a State currently provides
this information to teachers should be minimal. We estimate that each
State would spend one hour to report this information, for a total
level of effort of 52 hours at a cost of $1,560.
State Assessments
In response to the section 14005(d)(4)(A) requirement that States
enhance the quality of their student assessments, the Department
proposes to require that the States confirm certain existing data and
other information and submit some new information about their
assessment systems. Specifically, the Department proposes to require
each State to confirm the approval status, as determined by the
Department, of the State's assessment system (with respect to reading/
language arts, mathematics, and science assessments) and indicate
whether and how the State is engaged in activities authorized under the
Grants for Enhanced Assessment Instruments program that would enhance
the quality of the State's academic assessments. In addition, States
would be required to confirm that their annual State Report Card
(issued pursuant to the requirements of ESEA section 1111(h)) contains
the most recent available State reading and mathematics NAEP results.
The Department estimates that each State would require six hours to
respond to these proposed requirements, for a total cost of $9,360.
Section 14005(d)(4)(B) requires States to assure that they will
administer valid and reliable assessments for children with
disabilities and limited English proficient students. To measure State
progress on this assurance, the Department proposes to require States
to: Confirm whether the State has developed and implemented valid and
reliable alternate assessments for students with disabilities that have
been approved by the Department; confirm whether the State's
alternative assessments for students with disabilities, if approved by
the Department, are based on grade-level, modified, or alternate
academic achievement standards; indicate whether the State has
completed, within the last two years, an analysis of the
appropriateness and effectiveness of the accommodations it provides
students with disabilities to ensure their meaningful participation in
State assessments; indicate whether the State has completed, within the
last two years, an analysis of the appropriateness and effectiveness of
the accommodations it provides limited English proficient students to
ensure their meaningful participation in State assessments; and confirm
whether the State provides native language versions of State
assessments for limited English proficient students. To respond to
these five proposed indicators, the Department estimates that the 50
States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico would each require
five hours, for a total cost of $7,800.
In addition, the Department proposes to require that States confirm
the number and percentage of students with disabilities and limited
English proficient students who are included in State reading/language
arts and mathematics assessments. The Department expects that each
State would, on average, require one hour of staff time to complete
this effort, at a cost of $30 per hour. The burden estimated for this
requirement is minimal because the States will have already submitted
this information to the Department through the EDFacts system. For the
50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, the total
estimated level of effort would be 52 hours at cost of $1,560.
High School and Postsecondary Success
Section 14005 (d)(4)(C) requires States to assure, in their
Stabilization Fund applications, that they take steps to improve their
State academic content standards and student academic achievement
standards consistent with section 6401(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the American
COMPETES Act, which calls for States to identify and make any necessary
changes to their secondary school graduation requirements, academic
content standards, academic achievement standards, and the assessments
students take preceding graduation from secondary school in order to
align those requirements, standards, and assessments with the knowledge
and skills necessary for success in academic credit-bearing coursework
in postsecondary education, in the 21st century workforce, and in the
Armed Forces without the need for remediation. Several of the
indicators and descriptors proposed in this notice are aligned with
this provision of the America COMPETES Act.
First, the Department proposes to require each State to report, for
the State and each LEA and high school in the State and, at each of
these levels, by student subgroup,\11\ the number and percentage of
students who graduate from high school as determined using the four-
year adjusted cohort graduation rate. The Department believes that
State efforts to comply with the Department's October 29, 2008
regulation requiring the use of a four-year adjusted cohort graduation
rate in the determination of adequate yearly progress under Title I of
the ESEA are now underway (see 34
[[Page 37849]]
CFR 200.19(b)(1)(i)). Some additional effort would be required to
collect and report these data for all schools as the current
regulations apply only to Title I schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ As noted earlier in this notice, the student subgroups
include: economically disadvantaged students, students from major
racial and ethnic groups, students with limited English proficiency,
and students with disabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the Data Quality Campaign's 2008 survey of the 50 States
and the District of Columbia, which found that 42 States have the
capacity to calculate the National Governors Association longitudinal
graduation rate,\12\ the Department believes that most States are well-
situated to collect and report these data, or have the processes
underway to make such reporting possible by September 30, 2011. In
fulfillment of the proposed requirement, the Department estimates that
States would need to distribute to non-Title I LEAs the survey
instrument they are using to collect this information from Title I LEAs
and to input the data from these surveys, which would require an
estimated 8 hours per State. The new LEA burden to respond to this
indicator would be limited to the approximately 976 LEAs that do not
receive Title I funds.\13\ The Department estimates that these LEAs
would spend an average of 40 hours to respond to this indicator for a
total LEA effort of 39,040 hours. The total estimated cost is,
therefore, $976,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey.
\13\ According to data States submitted to the Department
through the Consolidated State Performance Report 2007-08, there are
a total of 15,016 LEAs across the Nation, 14,040 of which receive
Title I, Part A funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the Department is proposing that States report, for
the State, for each LEA in the State, for each high school in the State
and, at each of these levels, by student subgroup, the number of
students who graduate from high school consistent with 34 CFR
200.19(b)(1)(i) who enroll in an IHE and, of those students who enroll
in a public IHE, the number who complete at least one year's worth of
college credit (applicable to a degree) within two years. The proposed
requirements would entail considerable coordination among high schools,
LEAs, SEAs, and IHEs. The Department expects that SEAs would have to
develop a system to make this data collection and sharing possible,
which they could at least partially achieve by establishing a
longitudinal data system that includes the elements described in
section 6401(e)(2)(D) of the America COMPETES Act. As discussed above,
section 14005(d)(3) of the ARRA requires States to assure, in their
Stabilization Fund application, that they will establish such a data
system. Because the requirement to establish such a system flows from
the statute, not from these proposed requirements, the Department does
not include the costs of establishing such a system in the costs of
these proposed requirements.\14\ In addition, States will be able to
use Government Services funds that they receive as part of their
Stabilization allocation to support these efforts, and may compete for
funds from the Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems program. Further,
the efforts of the National Student Clearinghouse, a non-profit
organization that provides student enrollment and degree verification
services, demonstrate that there is significant interest in information
sharing between IHEs and LEAs; more than 3,300 colleges that enroll
over 92 percent of US college students and hundreds of LEAs participate
in the Clearinghouse's efforts. The Department expects that LEAs and
IHEs that currently provide data to this system may require less effort
to respond to this proposed requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ We do acknowledge, however, that although the statute does
not set a deadline for State establishment of the required data
systems, item (c)(ii)(A) under State Plans in this notice would
require States to have in place State longitudinal data systems that
fully include all 12 elements described in the America COMPETES Act
by September 30, 2011. Putting a full system in place by that date
might increase costs to States or, alternatively, might reduce costs
(if the more rapid establishment of a system results in
efficiencies). The Department invites comments on the cost
implications of the proposed deadline.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
With respect to the proposed requirement on reporting postsecondary
enrollments, the Department expects that LEAs would need to enter, into
their State's statewide longitudinal data system, data on each high
school graduate's plans after high school, including the IHE where the
student intends to enroll, if applicable. According to the Digest of
Education Statistics, approximately 2,492,000 students who graduated
from public high schools enrolled in IHEs as first-time freshmen in
fall 2007.\15\ Holding that number constant, the Department estimates
that LEAs would be able to enter data for these students at a pace of
20 students per hour, which would result in a total level of LEA effort
of 124,600 hours at a cost of $3,115,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\15\ According to the Digest of Education Statistics, 2008,
almost 2.8 million first-time freshmen enrolled in IHEs in fall
2007. See http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/dt08_198.asp. Also according to the Digest, in fall 2005, 6,073,240
students were enrolled in private elementary and secondary schools.
At that time, enrollment in public elementary and secondary schools
was 49,113,298. Extrapolating from those data, the Department
estimates that 11 percent of all first-time postsecondary students
graduated from private schools. See http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/dt08_058.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State would then likely need to request that each IHE in the
State confirm a student's enrollment, using the statewide longitudinal
data system to obtain data on students who intended to enroll within
the State. Based on data from the 2006 Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 2007,\16\ the Department
estimates that 2,043,440 first-time freshmen (82 percent of all first-
time freshmen who graduated from public high schools) enroll in IHEs in
their home State. The Department estimates that IHEs will be able to
confirm enrollment for 20 students per hour, for a total of 102,172
hours of IHE effort at a total cost of $2,554,300 (assuming a cost of
$25 per hour).\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/dt08_223.asp.
\17\ Note that a table in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
section of this notice provides the burden estimates by IHE, but
that this narrative provides national estimates using the total
number of students included in the data requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States would also likely need to request that IHEs outside the
State confirm the enrollment of students who indicated that they would
enroll in those institutions. Again, based on data from the 2006 IPEDS,
Spring 2007, the Department estimates that 448,560 students who
graduate from public high schools each year enroll in IHEs in States
outside their home State. The Department estimates that it will take
States 30 minutes per student to complete this process, including
contacting out-of-State IHEs, obtaining the necessary information from
them, and including data on those students in their public reports.
This element of the proposed requirement, therefore, would result in a
national total of 224,280 hours of State effort at a total cost of
$6,726,840. As with students who enroll in IHEs in their home State,
the Department estimates that IHEs will be able to confirm enrollment
for 20 students per hour, for a total of 22,428 hours of IHE effort at
a total cost of $560,700.
Finally, to meet the proposed requirement that they publicly report
the number of students who enroll in IHEs, States would need to
aggregate the data received from all IHEs and would then need to run
analyses and publicly post the data for the State, for each LEA, for
each high school and, at each of these levels, by student subgroup. The
Department estimates that each State would need 40 hours to conduct
these analyses and post these data, for a total State burden of 2,080
hours at a cost of $62,400.
The proposed requirement that States report the number of students
enrolling in a public IHE who complete at least one year's worth of
college credit
[[Page 37850]]
applicable toward a degree within two years would also entail a
collaborative process between SEAs and IHEs. Again, based on data from
the Digest of Education Statistics, the Department estimates that
2,492,000 first-time freshmen enroll in public IHEs. Further, the
Department estimates that, once a State has established a system for
the collection and reporting of these data, IHEs will be able to enter
data for 20 students an hour; thus, the total estimated level of effort
to respond to this proposed requirement would be approximately 124,600
hours of IHE effort at an estimated cost of $3,115,000, assuming a cost
of $25 per hour.
As with the previous indicator, States would likely need to request
that IHEs outside the State report whether the students enrolled in
those institutions have completed at least one year's worth of college
credit. Again, the Department estimates that 448,560 students who
graduate from public high schools each year enroll in IHEs in States
outside their home State. The Department estimates that it will take
States 30 minutes per student to complete this process, including
contacting out-of-State IHEs, obtaining the necessary information from
them, and including data on those students in their public reports.
This element of the proposed requirement, therefore, would result in a
national total of 224,280 hours of State effort at a total cost of
$6,726,840. As with students who enroll in IHEs in their home State,
the Department estimates that IHEs will be able to report whether
students obtained a year or more of college credit for 20 students per
hour, for a total of 22,428 hours of IHE effort at a total cost of
$560,700.
Finally, as with the previous indicator, States would need to
aggregate the data received from all IHEs and would then need to run
analyses and publicly post the data for at the State, LEA, and school
levels and at each of these levels, by student subgroup. The Department
estimates that each State would need 40 hours to conduct these analyses
and post these data, for a total State burden of 2,080 hours at a cost
of $62,400.
Supporting Struggling Schools
A key goal of the ARRA is to ensure that States and LEAs provide
targeted, intensive support and effective interventions to turn around
schools identified for corrective action and restructuring under Title
I of the ESEA. Section 14005(d)(5) requires States to ensure compliance
with the Title I requirements in this area. To track State progress,
the Department proposes to require States to provide, for each LEA in
the State and aggregated at the State level, the number and percentage
of schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that
have made progress on State assessments in reading/language arts and
mathematics in the last year, and the number and percentage of schools
in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that have been
turned around, consolidated, or closed in the last year. States would
also be required to report the number and identity of schools in the
lowest-achieving five percent of the schools in improvement, corrective
action, or restructuring that have been turned around, consolidated, or
closed in the last year, as well as the number of those schools (i.e.,
the schools in the lowest-achieving five percent of the schools in
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that have been turned
around, consolidated, or closed in the last year) that are secondary
schools.
The Department believes that States will already have available the
data needed to report on the indicators related to the total number and
percentage of schools in improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring that have made progress on State assessments, although
they might need to run new analyses of the data. However, the
Department expects that States would have to collect new data on the
schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring (in general
and in the lowest-achieving five percent) that have been turned around,
consolidated, or closed. In addition, the State will need to define the
schools in the lowest-achieving five percent. We estimate that this
data collection will entail two hours of effort in each of the 1,173
LEAs (the number of LEAs that, according to data reported to EDFacts,
had at least one school in improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring in the 2007-08 school year). As a result, the Department
estimates that the total LEA burden for this proposed requirement would
be 2,346 hours at a cost of $58,650. States would then need to
aggregate these data, in addition to the effort they will spend
responding to the other indicators that relate to struggling schools.
The Department estimates that each State would require 16 hours of
effort to respond, for a total cost of $83,610.
Charter Schools
The Department believes that the creation and maintenance of high-
quality charter schools is a key strategy for promoting successful
models of school reform. To determine the level of State effort in this
area, the Department proposes to require States to provide, at the
State level and, if applicable, for each LEA in the State, the number
of charter schools that are currently permitted to operate and the
number that are currently operating. We expect that this information
will be readily available, and that States will need only one hour to
respond to this proposed requirement.
In addition, the Department proposes to require States to report,
at the State and, if applicable, LEA levels, the number and identity of
charter schools that have closed within the last five years and to
indicate, for each such school, whether the closure was for financial,
enrollment, academic, or other reasons. The Department estimates that
SEAs would likely also have this information readily available
(although some may need to obtain additional information from their
LEAs) and would need five hours to report it. The Department assumes
that the effort to respond to these proposed requirements would be
limited to the 42 States (including the District of Columbia and Puerto
Rico) that allow charter schools. The Department thus estimates that
the State effort required to respond to these indicators would total
210 hours at a cost of $6,300.
State Plans
This notice proposes to require States, as a condition of receiving
their remaining funding for the Stabilization program, to submit a plan
to the Department that describes the State's current ability to fully
collect and report data for the proposed indicators and descriptors at
least annually and in a manner easily accessible and a format easily
understandable by the public. If the State is currently able to fully
collect and report the data or other information required by the
indicator or descriptor, the State must provide the most recent data or
information with its plan. If a State is not currently able to fully
collect and report the required data or other information, the plan
must describe the process that the State will undertake in order to
have the means to fully collect and report such data or information as
soon as possible but no later than September 30, 2011.
As a part of this plan, the State would be required to establish
milestones and a date by which the State expects to reach each
milestone, describe the nature and frequency of publicly available
reports that the State will publish on its progress, and identify the
amount and source (i.e., whether Federal, State or local) of funds that
will support the efforts necessary to collect and report the data or
information. The level of effort involved in preparing
[[Page 37851]]
these elements of the plan will vary from State to State based on
individual State progress in each reform area. For example, according
to the Data Quality Campaign's 2008 survey of the 50 States and the
District of Columbia, 48 States have ``a unique statewide student
identifier that connects student data across key databases across
years,'' 28 States have the ``[a]bility to match student-level p-12 and
higher education data,'' and 21 States have a ``statewide teacher
identifier with a teacher-student match.'' States that have taken these
steps have built a foundation for the efforts that would be necessary
to meet some of the proposed requirements, and will likely need to
spend less time completing these elements of their plans. The
Department estimates that, in total, each State will need an average of
396 hours to prepare these sections of the plan; thus, the total hours
that would be necessary to meet this proposed requirement for the 50
States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico would be 20,592
hours, for a total cost of $617,760. For more detailed estimates of
costs for each specific proposed requirement, please see the tables in
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 section of this notice.
As part of the planning requirements, the Department proposes to
require each State to indicate whether it provides teachers of reading/
language arts and mathematics with data on the performance of their
students that includes estimates of individual teacher impact on
student achievement and, if the State does not do so, to describe a
process and timeline for doing so by September 30, 2011. The Department
understands that only a small number of States (approximately three)
currently provide this type of information to their teachers. However,
most other States that are developing State longitudinal data systems
have included teacher identifiers in those systems and, thus, have part
of the infrastructure to produce and report these data. The Department
also understands that there are currently only a limited number of
providers with which States can contract for the development of
``value-added'' or other mechanisms for using information from the
State data systems to produce estimates of individual teacher impact.
This limited capacity may make the costs of acquiring this assistance
higher than they would be otherwise. However, the Department assumes
that as the market grows, more providers will enter the field and costs
will come down.
The Department further estimates that 30 percent of all K-12 public
school teachers are teaching reading/language arts or mathematics in
the grades in which the State administers assessments. Based on this
assumption, the Department estimates that the State assessment results
for approximately 14,790,000 students (30 percent of all students
enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools) would be included
in the calculations necessary for States to meet this proposed
requirement.\18\ The Department estimates that the State cost of
analyzing the data, verifying with teachers that the correct teacher-
subject-student connection is made in the system, and publishing the
information online in a user-friendly format would be 2 dollars per
student, for a total State cost of $29,940,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ According to the Digest of Education Statistics, 49,298,945
students were enrolled in public elementary and secondary schools in
fall 2006. See http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/dt08_033.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department also understands that an important element of State
efforts to inform teachers of the estimated impact of their teaching on
student achievement is providing professional development for
principals and teachers on the interpretation and use of those data in
raising student achievement. However, since the proposed planning
requirements would not require States to provide this professional
development, we have not included its cost in the estimated costs of
these proposed requirements.
In addition, the Department proposes to require States to describe
in their plans the following: the entities responsible for the
development, execution, and oversight of the plan; the agencies or
organizations that will provide any technical assistance or other
support that is necessary; the overall budget for the development,
execution, and oversight of the plan; the processes that the State
employs to review and verify the required data and other information;
and the processes the State employs to ensure that, consistent with 34
CFR 99.31(b), the required data and other information are not made
publicly available in a manner that personally identifies students,
where applicable. The Department estimates that this management and
oversight section of the plan will require 80 hours per State, for a
total national estimate of 4,160 hours at a cost of $124,800. The total
estimated cost to States of preparing the plans is, thus, $742,560.
Total Estimated Costs
The Department estimates that the total burden of responding to
these proposed requirements would be 494,650 hours and $44,779,500 for
SEAs, 426,250 hours and $10,656,250 for LEAs, and 249,200 hours and
$6,230,000 for IHEs, for a total burden of 1,170,100 hours at a cost of
$61,665,750.
Benefits
The principal benefits of the proposed requirements are those
resulting from the reporting and public availability of information on
each State's progress in the four reform areas described in the ARRA.
The Department believes that the information gathered and reported as a
result of these requirements will improve public accountability for
performance, help States, LEAs, and schools learn from one another and
make improvements in what they are doing, and inform the ESEA
reauthorization process.
A second major benefit is that better public information on State
and local progress in the four reform areas will likely spur more rapid
progress on those reforms, because States and LEAs that appear to be
lagging in one or more areas may see a need to redouble their efforts.
The Department believes that more rapid progress on the essential
educational reforms will have major benefits nationally, and that these
reforms have the potential to drive dramatic improvements in student
outcomes.
For example, statewide longitudinal data systems are essential
tools in advancing education reform. With these systems in place,
States can assess the effectiveness of specific interventions, schools,
principals, and teachers by tracking individual student achievement,
high school graduation, and postsecondary enrollment and credit. They
can, for example, track the academic achievement of individual students
over time, even if those students change schools during the course of
their education. By analyzing this information, decision-makers can
determine if a student's ``achievement trajectory'' will result in his
or her being college- or career-ready, and can better target services
based on the student's academic needs.\19\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ For example, see http://dataqualitycampaign.org/files/publications-dqc_academic_growth-100908.pdf and http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/files/Meetings-DQC_Quarterly_Issue_Brief_092506.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department also believes that States' implementation of these
requirements will lead to more widespread development and
implementation of better teacher and principal evaluation systems. In
particular, the availability of accurate, complete, and valid
achievement data is essential to implementing better systems
[[Page 37852]]
of teacher and principal evaluation. Value-added models, for example,
can provide an objective estimate of the impact of teachers on student
learning and achievement.\20\ Further, they can be used by schools,
LEAs, or States to reward excellence in teaching or school leadership,
as a component of performance-based compensation systems, or to
identify schools in need of improvement or teachers who may require
additional training or professional development.\21\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\20\ See: Braun, Henry I. Using Student Progress To Evaluate
Teachers: A Primer on Value-Added Models. Educational Testing
Service, Policy Information Center, 2005; Marsh, Julie A.; Pane,
John F.; Hamilton, Laura S. Making Sense of Data-Driven Decision
Making in Education: Evidence from Recent RAND Research. Santa
Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2006; and Sanders, William L. ``Value-
Added Assessment from Student Achievement Data: Opportunities and
Hurdles.'' Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, Vol. 14,
No. 4, p. 329-339, 2000.
\21\ Center for Educator Compensation Reform: http://cecr.ed.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The proposed requirements will have additional benefits to the
extent that they provide States with incentives to address inequities
in the distribution of effective teachers, improve the quality of State
assessments, and undergo intensive efforts to improve struggling
schools. Numerous studies document the substantial impact of improved
teaching on educational outcomes and the need to take action to turn
around the lowest-performing schools, including high schools (and their
feeder middle schools) that enroll a disproportionate number of the
students who fail to complete a high school education and receive a
regular high school diploma. The Department believes that more
widespread adoption of these reforms would have a significant, positive
impact on student achievement.
Although these benefits are not easily quantified, the Department
believes they will exceed the projected costs.
Accounting Statement: As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at
http://www.Whitehouse.gov/omb/Circulars/a004/a-4.pdf), in the following
table, we have prepared an accounting statement showing the
classification of the expenditures associated with the provisions of
this proposed regulatory action. This table provides our best estimate
of the Federal payments to be made to States under this program as a
result of this proposed regulatory action. Expenditures are classified
as transfers to States.
Table--Accounting Statement Classification of Estimated Expenditures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Transfers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual monetized transfers................ $12,621,790,599.
From Whom to Whom......................... Federal Government to
States.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Stabilization program provides approximately $48.6 billion in
formula grants to States.\22\ As previously noted, the Department is
awarding Stabilization program funds in two phases. In the first phase,
the Department is awarding 67 percent of a State's Education
Stabilization Fund allocation, unless the State can demonstrate that
additional funds are required to restore fiscal year 2009 State support
for education, in which case the Department will award the State up to
90 percent of that allocation. In addition, the Department will award
100 percent of each State's Government Services Fund allocation in
Phase I. The Department will award the remainder of a State's Education
Stabilization Fund allocation in the second phase. Thus, depending on
the total amount of funds States receive in the first phase, up to
$12.6 billion may be available in the second phase.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ A table listing the allocations to States under the
Stabilization program is available at: http://www.ed.gov/programs/statestabilization/funding.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This notice contains information collection requirements that are
subject to review by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). It is our
plan to offer a comment period for the information collection at the
time of the final notice. At that time, the Department will submit the
information collection to OMB for its review and provide the burden
hours associated with each requirement for comment. However, because it
is likely that the information collection will be reviewed under
emergency OMB processing, the Department encourages the public to
comment on the burden hours associated with each requirement in this
notice.
A description of the specific proposed information collection
requirements is provided in the following tables along with preliminary
estimates of the annual recordkeeping burden for these requirements.
Included in a preliminary estimate is the time for collecting and
tracking data, maintaining records, calculations, and reporting. The
first table presents the estimated indicators burden for SEAs, the
second table presents the estimated indicators burden for LEAs, the
third table presents the estimated indicators burden for IHEs, and the
fourth table presents the estimated State plan burden for SEAs.
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
[[Page 37853]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JY09.037
[[Page 37854]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JY09.038
[[Page 37855]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JY09.039
[[Page 37856]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JY09.040
[[Page 37857]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JY09.041
[[Page 37858]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JY09.042
[[Page 37859]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JY09.043
[[Page 37860]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JY09.044
[[Page 37861]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JY09.045
[[Page 37862]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JY09.046
[[Page 37863]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JY09.047
[[Page 37864]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JY09.048
[[Page 37865]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JY09.049
[[Page 37866]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JY09.050
[[Page 37867]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JY09.051
[[Page 37868]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JY09.052
[[Page 37869]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JY09.053
[[Page 37870]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JY09.054
[[Page 37871]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TN29JY09.055
[[Page 37872]]
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification:
The Secretary certifies that this proposed regulatory action will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The small entities that this proposed regulatory action will
affect are small LEAs receiving funds under this program and small
IHEs.
This proposed regulatory action will not have a significant
economic impact on small LEAs because they will be able to meet the
costs of compliance with this regulatory action using the funds
provided under this program.
With respect to small IHEs, the U.S. Small Business Administration
Size Standards define these institutions as ``small entities'' if they
are for-profit or nonprofit institutions with total annual revenue
below $5,000,000 or if they are institutions controlled by small
governmental jurisdictions, which are comprised of cities, counties,
towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts,
with a population of less than 50,000. Based on data from the
Department's Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), up
to 532 small IHEs with revenues of less than $5 million may be affected
by this proposed requirement. These small IHEs represent only 15
percent of degree-granting IHEs. In addition, only 161,155 students
(0.7 percent) enrolled in degree-granting IHEs in fall 2007 attended
these small institutions. As the burden for indicators (c)(12) and
(c)(13) is driven by the number of students for whom IHEs would be
required to submit data, small IHEs will require significantly less
effort to adhere to these proposed regulations than would be the case
for larger IHEs. Based on IPEDS data, the Department estimates that
18,050 of these students are first-time freshmen. As stated earlier in
the Summary of Costs and Benefits section of this notice, the
Department estimates that, as required by proposed indicator (c)(12),
IHEs will be able confirm the enrollment of 20 first-time freshmen per
hour. Applying this estimate to the estimated number of first-time
freshmen at small IHEs, the Department estimates that these IHEs would
need to spend 8,058 hours to respond to this proposed requirement at a
total cost of $201,450 (assuming a cost of $25 per hour).
The effort involved in reporting the number of students enrolling
in a public IHE who complete at least one year's worth of college
credit applicable toward a degree within two years as required by
indicator (c)(13) would also apply to small IHEs. For this proposed
requirement, the Department also estimates that IHEs will be able to
report the credit completion status of 20 first-time freshmen per hour.
Again applying this data entry rate to the estimated number of first-
time freshmen at small IHEs, the Department estimates that these IHEs
would need to spend 8,058 hours to respond to this proposed requirement
at a total cost of $201,450. The total cost of these proposed
requirements for small IHEs is, therefore, $402,900, and the estimated
cost per small IHE is $757. The Department has, therefore, determined
that the regulations would not represent a significant burden on small
not-for-profit IHEs.
It is also important to note that States may use their Government
Services Fund allocations to help small IHEs meet the costs of
complying with the requirements that affect them, and public IHEs may
use Education Stabilization Fund dollars they receive for that purpose.
In addition, the Department believes the benefits provided under
this proposed regulatory action will outweigh the burdens on these
institutions of complying with the proposed requirements. One of these
benefits will be the provision of better information on student success
in postsecondary education to policymakers, educators, parents, and
other stakeholders. The Department believes that the information
gathered and reported as a result of these requirements will improve
public accountability for performance; help States, LEAs, and schools
learn from one another and improve their decision-making; and inform
Federal policymaking.
A second major benefit is that better public information on State
and local progress in the four reform areas will likely spur more rapid
progress on those reforms, because States and LEAs that appear to be
lagging in one area or another may see a need to redouble their
efforts. The Department believes that more rapid progress on the
essential educational reforms will have major benefits nationally, and
that these reforms have the potential to drive dramatic improvements in
student outcomes. The proposed requirements that apply to IHEs should,
in particular, spur more rapid implementation of P-16 State
longitudinal data systems.
The Secretary invites comments from small IHEs and small LEAs as to
whether they believe this proposed regulatory action would have a
significant economic impact on them and, if so, requests evidence to
support that belief.
Assessment of Educational Impact:
In accordance with section 411 of the General Education Provisions
Act, 20 U.S.C. 1221e-4, the Department invites comment on whether these
requirements do not require transmission of information that any other
agency or authority of the United States gathers or makes available.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the
objectives of the Executive Order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive Order relies
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or computer diskette) on request to the program contact
person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document: You can view this document, as
well as all other documents of this Department 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 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: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.
Dated: July 22, 2009.
Arne Duncan,
Secretary of Education.
[FR Doc. E9-17906 Filed 7-24-09; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-C