[Federal Register: November 12, 2009 (Volume 74, Number 217)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 58435-58525]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr12no09-14]
[[Page 58435]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part III
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
34 CFR Chapter II
State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program; Final Rule
[[Page 58436]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Subtitle B, Chapter II
[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: Final requirements, definitions, and approval criteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education (Secretary) establishes
requirements, definitions, and approval criteria for the State Fiscal
Stabilization Fund (Stabilization or SFSF) 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.
These requirements, definitions, and approval criteria 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 publicly report with respect to those
assurances and to help ensure grantees' ability to collect and publicly
report the required data and information.
DATES: These requirements, definitions, and approval criteria are
effective January 11, 2010.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Butler, State Fiscal
Stabilization Fund Program, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland
Ave., SW., Room 3E108, Washington, DC 20202. Telephone: (202) 260-2274
or by e-mail: phase2comments@ed.gov.
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:
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.
Background: Section 14005(d) of Division A of the American Recovery
and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) requires a State receiving funds
under the SFSF 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 actions that the State must assure that it
will implement. In addition, section 14005(a) of the ARRA requires a
State that seeks 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 establish specific
data and information requirements (the assurance indicators and
descriptors) that a State receiving funds under the SFSF program must
meet with respect to the statutory assurances. We also establish
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 SFSF program, describing its ability to collect and publicly
report the required data and other information. Together, these two
sets of requirements will provide transparency on the extent to which a
State is implementing the actions for which it has provided assurances.
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 publicly 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 SFSF program funds in two phases.
In the first phase, the Department awarded 67 percent of a State's
Education Stabilization Fund allocation, unless the State
demonstrated that additional funds were required to restore FY 2009
State support for education, in which case the Department awarded
the State up to 90 percent of that allocation. In addition, the
Department awarded 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 SFSF
program is available at: http://www.ed.gov/programs/
statestabilization/funding.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As discussed elsewhere in this notice, an 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 establish 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 will confirm
and publicly report.
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 SFSF, Race to the
Top, School Improvement Grants (SIG), and Statewide Longitudinal Data
Systems Grant programs. Accordingly, the Department has evaluated the
requirements and definitions for this program in context with those
other programs.
Section 14005(d)(2) of the ARRA requires a State receiving funds
under the SFSF 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(b)(8)(C)), 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. The indicators the Department
has established will measure the extent to which a State is taking such
actions and will provide data and other information on: (1) Student
access to highly qualified teachers in high- and low-poverty schools,
(2) current strategies and efforts to address inequities in the
distribution of inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers,
(3) how teacher and principal performance is evaluated and how the
results of these evaluations are used, and (4) the distribution of
performance evaluation ratings or levels among teachers and principals.
Section 14005(d)(3) requires each State to assure that it will
establish a longitudinal data system that includes the 12 elements
described in section 6401(e)(2)(D) of the America COMPETES Act. The
Department has established an indicator that will measure the extent to
which States have implemented statewide longitudinal data systems that
include all of the required elements. These elements constitute the
minimum requirements of a modern statewide longitudinal data system.
Such a system will enable States, local educational agencies (LEAs),
and schools to, among other things: Follow student academic progress as
a student moves from grade to grade; identify persistently lowest-
achieving schools; and evaluate the effectiveness of specific programs.
The Department has established additional indicators identifying
[[Page 58437]]
whether a State provides teachers in grades and subjects in which it
administers assessments with student growth data and with reports of
individual teacher impact on student achievement. We believe that
teachers' receipt of these data and reports should be a natural product
of a statewide longitudinal data system that includes the required
elements, particularly the requirements that such a system includes
unique statewide student identifiers and a teacher identifier system
with the ability to match teachers to students. Moreover, we believe
that these are key examples of how reliable, high-quality data from a
State's system can drive education reform in general and improvements
in instructional programs in particular.
The ARRA also requires a State receiving funds under the SFSF
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(b)(3)) through activities such as those described in
section 6112(a) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7301a(a)); (B) comply with the
requirements of paragraphs (3)(C)(ix) and (6) of section 1111(b) of the
ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6311(b)) and section 612(a)(16) of the Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 1412(a)(16)) related to the
inclusion of children with disabilities and limited English proficient
students \2\ 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(e)(1)(A)(ii)). To assess the extent to which a State is taking
these actions, we are requiring that the State collect and publicly
report data and other information regarding State assessment systems,
including on the assessment of students with disabilities and limited
English proficient students; State National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) data; and data on the number of students who graduate
from high school using a four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate,
enroll in an institution of higher education (IHE) within 16 months of
receiving a regular high school diploma, and complete at least one year
of college credit (towards a degree) within two years of enrollment.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ The Department recognizes that stakeholders often use terms
such as ``English language learners'' rather than ``limited English
proficient students'' when referring to students who are acquiring
basic English proficiency and developing academic English skills.
However, because the ESEA defines the term ``limited English
proficient,'' and both the statute and the implementing regulations
use this term, as well as the phrase ``students with limited English
proficiency,'' we will continue to use the latter terms in this
notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
As many States prepare to significantly improve the rigor and
effectiveness of their standards and assessment systems, we believe
this information will provide stakeholders with vital transparency on
the current status of those systems and inform efforts that are
currently underway to improve them. The Department continues to
encourage States to work together to develop and implement common
internationally benchmarked standards and assessments aligned to those
standards in order to ensure that students are college- and career-
ready. However, until those standards and assessments are complete,
States need to continue to ensure both the quality of their current
standards and assessments, and that students are provided
accommodations as necessary.
Section 14005(d)(5) of the ARRA requires a State receiving funds
under the SFSF program to provide an assurance that it will comply with
the requirements of section 1116(b)(7)(C)(iv) and section 1116(b)(8)(B)
of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6316(b)(7)(C)(iv) and 6316(b)(8)(B)) 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 this statutory assurance, we are requiring 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,\3\ in
corrective action, or in restructuring and secondary schools that are
eligible for, but not receiving, Title I funds. Additionally, a State
must provide data on the operation and performance of its charter
schools. SFSF definitions and requirements for these indicators and
descriptors will, where appropriate, be consistent with those in the
Department's Race to the Top Fund and SIG notices to encourage and
enable States to plan effectively and use diverse funding sources to
accomplish consistent goals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Although the statutory assurance concerns only Title I
schools in corrective action and restructuring, we are requiring
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 (20 U.S.C. 6303(g)) (School Improvement Grants), which
are intended to be applied to schools in improvement as well as to
schools in corrective action or restructuring.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition to the specific data and information requirements
relating to the four ARRA education reform assurances, we also
establish 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
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 publicly report the
required data or other information at least annually, the State must
provide the most recent data or information with its plan. If a State
is not currently able to collect or publicly report the data or other
information at least annually, 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 States must obligate funds received under the SFSF program
consistent with section 421 of the General Education Provisions Act
(GEPA) (20 U.S.C. 1225(b)). The State plan must describe the State's
collection and public reporting abilities with respect to each
individual indicator or descriptor.
As discussed previously, 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; accordingly, 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 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) and new Indicators
(c)(10) and (c)(11) (proposed Indicators (c)(11) and (c)(12)), for
which we establish slightly different plan requirements. For example,
for Indicator (b)(1) we require that a State describe in its 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
[[Page 58438]]
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 publicly 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 publicly 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 publicly report the data
required by certain other indicators (e.g., the indicators on student
enrollment and credit completion in IHEs after graduation from high
school).
In the case of new Indicators (c)(11) and (c)(12), regarding the
data States will collect from IHEs on student enrollment and credit
completion, the State is required to, at a minimum, possess the ability
to collect and publicly report the data by September 30, 2011. As a
result, a State plan need only address the development of capacity, and
not implementation and public reporting for these indicators.
In addition to requirements relating to a State's ability to
collect and publicly report data or other information for the
respective assurance indicators and descriptors, we establish 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 budget for implementing the
plan, and the processes the State employs to ensure data and
information quality and student privacy.
For the purposes of this program, the data and information are
largely intended for public use, rather than for Federal reporting.
Individual States and communities have the greatest power to hold their
LEAs and schools accountable for the reforms that are in the best
interest of their students. Rather than the Department collecting and
warehousing this information, it is our intention that States and LEAs
will make the information available to the public in a manner that is
useful for stakeholders in understanding key information about
education in each State and community. The Department believes that the
most effective and expeditious way for States to share information with
the public is via the Internet. Accordingly, any State that receives
SFSF funding in Phase II must maintain a public Web site that provides
the data and information that are responsive to the indicator and
descriptor requirements. If a State does not currently provide the
required data and information, it must provide on this Web site its
plan with respect to the indicator or descriptor and its reports on its
progress in implementing that plan.
In developing a plan as required in this notice, the State is
encouraged to consult with key stakeholders, such as superintendents,
educators, content experts, and parents as well as teachers' union,
business, community, and civil rights leaders. Such consultation would
ensure that these stakeholders are aware of the State's current ability
to meet the 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.
Program Authority: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009, Division A, Title XIV--State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, Public
Law No. 111-5.
We published a notice of proposed requirements, definitions, and
approval criteria (NPR) for this program in the Federal Register on
July 29, 2009 (74 FR 37837-37872). That notice contained background
information and our reasons for proposing the particular requirements,
definitions, and approval criteria. In addition to some minor editorial
changes, there are several substantive differences between the NPR and
this notice of final requirements, definitions, and approval criteria
(NFR). These changes are summarized in the next section and described
in greater detail in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section
elsewhere in this notice.
Major Changes in the Final Requirements, Definitions, and Approved
Criteria
The following is a summary of the major substantive changes in
these final requirements from the requirements proposed in the NPR.
(The rationale for each of these changes is discussed in the Analysis
of Comments and Changes section elsewhere in this preamble.)
The NFR makes several changes to the requirements for
Achieving equity in teacher distribution. The specific changes are:
--The Department is adding a new Indicator (a)(2) that requires each
State to confirm whether the State's Teacher Equity Plan (part of the
State's Highly Qualified Teacher Plan) fully reflects the steps the
State is currently taking to ensure that students from low-income
families and minority students are not taught at higher rates than
other students by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers
(as required in section 1111(b)(8)(C) of the ESEA).
--Descriptors (a)(1) and (a)(2) have been revised to require States
also to describe the use of results from teacher and principal
evaluation systems in decisions regarding teacher and principal
development, compensation, promotion, retention, and removal.
--New Indicator (a)(3) (proposed Indicator (a)(2)) and new Indicator
(a)(5) (proposed Indicator (a)(4)) have been revised to have States
indicate whether the systems used to evaluate the performance of
teachers include student achievement outcomes or student growth data as
an evaluation criterion.
The NFR makes the following changes to the requirements
for Improving collection and use of data:
--New Indicator (b)(2) requires that each State indicate whether it
provides student growth data on their current students and the students
they taught in the previous year to, at a minimum, teachers of reading/
language arts and mathematics in the grades in which the State
administers assessments in those subjects, in a manner that is timely
and informs instructional programs.
--New Indicator (b)(3) (proposed Indicator (b)(2)) has been revised to
require each State to indicate whether it provides teachers of reading/
language arts and mathematics in grades in which the State administers
assessments in those subjects with reports of individual teacher impact
on student achievement on those assessments. Under proposed Indicator
(b)(2), a State would have been required to indicate whether it
provides such teachers 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 final requirements make several changes to the
indicators for Standards and assessments. The specific changes are:
--Proposed Indicator (c)(2), which required each State to indicate
whether it was engaged in activities to enhance the quality of its
assessments, and Proposed Descriptor (c)(1), which required States to
describe those activities, have been removed from the final
requirements.
--New Indicator (c)(11) (proposed Indicator (c)(12)) has been modified
to require a State to provide data on student enrollment for students
who enroll in an IHE within 16 months of
[[Page 58439]]
receiving a regular high school diploma. Proposed Indicator (c)(12) did
not include a timeframe for this data element.
--New Indicator (c)(12) (proposed Indicator (c)(13)) now requires that
a State collect data on progress toward a postsecondary degree only for
students who attend a public IHE in the State. Under proposed Indicator
(c)(13), a State would have provided these data for students who
attended public IHEs both in State and out of State.
The NFR makes several changes to the requirements for
Supporting struggling schools. The specific changes are:
--Indicator (d)(1) and Indicator (d)(2) now require that a State also
publicly report on average statewide school gains in the ``all
students'' category and for each student subgroup (as defined under
section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the ESEA).
--New Descriptor (d)(1) requires each State to provide its definition
of persistently lowest-achieving schools.
--Indicator (d)(3) now requires a State to provide the number and
identity of Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring that are persistently lowest-achieving schools.
--Indicator (d)(4) now requires a State to provide, of the persistently
lowest-achieving Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring, the number and identity of schools that have been turned
around, restarted, closed, or transformed in the last year.
--Indicator (d)(5) now requires a State to provide the number and
identity of secondary schools that are eligible for, but do not
receive, Title I funds that are persistently lowest-achieving schools.
--Indicator (d)(6) now requires a State to provide, of the persistently
lowest-achieving secondary schools that are eligible for, but do not
receive, Title I funds, the number and identity of schools that have
been turned around, restarted, closed, or transformed in the last year.
--New Indicator (d)(9) requires a State to provide the number and
percentage of charter schools that have made progress on State
assessments in reading/language arts in the last year.
--New Indicator (d)(10) requires a State to provide the number and
percentage of charter schools that have made progress on State
assessments in mathematics in the last year.
--New Indicators (d)(11) and (d)(12) (proposed Indicators (d)(8) and
(d)(9)) require States to provide data and information on charter
schools that have been closed within each of the last five years
instead of over the last five years.
The NFR makes several changes to the requirements under
State Plans. The specific changes are:
--The NFR adds requirements regarding new Indicator (b)(2). For new
Indicator (b)(2), the State must provide student growth data on their
current students and students they taught in the previous year to, at a
minimum, teachers of reading/language arts and mathematics in grades in
which the State administers assessments in those subjects, in a manner
that is timely and informs instructional programs. A State must
indicate whether the State provides teachers with such data; if the
State does not provide teachers with such data, it must submit a plan
for developing and implementing, as soon as possible but no later than
September 30, 2011, the means to provide teachers with such data.
--The NFR revises the requirements for new Indicator (b)(3) (proposed
Indicator (b)(2)). For new Indicator (b)(3) (proposed Indicator
(b)(2)), a State must indicate whether it provides teachers of reading/
language arts and mathematics in grades in which the State administers
assessments in those subjects with reports of individual teacher impact
on student achievement on those assessments. If the State does not
provide those teachers with such reports, it must submit a plan for how
it will develop and implement the means to do so. Under the NPR, the
State would have been required to provide those teachers with such
reports (consistent with the indicator); if the State did not provide
those teachers with such reports, it would have been required to submit
a plan for how it would develop and implement the means to do so as
soon as possible but no later than September 30, 2011.
--The NFR revises the requirements for new Indicators (c)(11) and
(c)(12). For new Indicators (c)(11) and (c)(12) (proposed Indicators
(c)(12) and (c)(13)), if a State will develop but not implement the
means to collect and publicly report the data by September 30, 2011, it
must submit a plan for how it will develop the means to collect and
publicly report the data and provide evidence, by September 30, 2011,
to demonstrate that it has developed the means to collect and publicly
report that data. If a State will develop and implement those means
(i.e., the State will collect and publicly report those data) by
September 30, 2011, the State must submit a plan for how it will
collect and publicly report the data by the established deadline.
The NFR includes definitions for publicly report, student
growth, persistently lowest-achieving schools, turnaround model,
restart model, school closure, transformation model, and increased
learning time.
Analysis of Comments and Changes
In response to the Secretary's invitation in the NPR, 60 parties
submitted comments on the proposed requirements, definitions, and
approval criteria. An analysis of the comments and changes to the
requirements, definitions, and approval criteria since publication of
the NPR follows.
We discuss substantive issues under the sections of the
requirements to which they pertain. Generally, we do not address
technical or minor changes, or suggested changes that we are not
authorized to make under applicable law.
Indicator and Descriptor Requirements in General
Comment: A few commenters asserted that the proposed data and
information requirements do not reflect Congressional intent that the
SFSF program relieve the economic crisis in schools and districts
nationwide. Commenters stated that SFSF funds are intended to help
maintain support for education, not to support new programs or
initiatives. One commenter noted that requirements for new programs or
initiatives may be appropriate for competitive programs such as the
Race to the Top Fund, but not for the SFSF program. In contrast,
another commenter asserted that States should use SFSF funds for more
than simply maintaining support for current education programs.
Discussion: The Department believes that SFSF funds should be used
both to help restore support for education and to advance education
reform. When States received funds under Phase I of the SFSF program,
they provided assurances that they would take steps to address the key
reform areas required under the ARRA. The data collected will provide
information on the status of States' efforts to comply with these
assurances.
Changes: None.
Comment: A number of commenters supported the Department's emphasis
on the four reform areas and noted that focus on those four areas will
improve
[[Page 58440]]
educational outcomes for students. Several commenters also expressed
support specifically for the focus on data systems and improving
teacher quality. One commenter supported linking student data to
teachers. Some commenters stated that the requirements outlined in the
notice were well-aligned with the reform areas of ARRA. Another
commenter believed that the Department should have worked to ensure
greater alignment among the four reform areas. A few commenters
believed the proposed requirements went beyond the intention of the
ARRA, and a few commenters stated that they did not believe the ARRA
provided the Department with the statutory authority to require States
to collect and publicly report the data and information as proposed in
the NPR. One commenter stated that the proposed requirements would be
an intrusion by the Federal Government into State and local control of
education.
Discussion: In its application for initial funding under the SFSF
program, each State was required, consistent with the statute, to
provide an assurance that it would take steps to advance reforms in
achieving equity in teacher distribution, enhancing standards and
assessments, and supporting struggling schools. Each State also
provided an assurance that it would establish a statewide longitudinal
data system. The Department believes the requirements as proposed in
the NPR and established in final in this notice are consistent with the
statutory intent and requirements of the ARRA and will provide
comprehensive information on a State's progress in the four assurance
areas. The data and information that States will publicly report under
the indicators and descriptors will inform State and local reform
efforts and enable the Department to verify that a State is fulfilling
the commitments it made in order to receive ARRA funds.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters supported the Department's emphasis on
making the data and information collected under the SFSF program
publicly available. Commenters also noted that increased access to the
data and information would help inform decision-making and increase
transparency around education reform.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters' support and
agrees that the indicator and descriptor requirements will provide the
public with valuable information on the status of education reform in
their State.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters requested that the Department provide
States with a template for publicly reporting the data and information
collected under the SFSF program. One commenter asserted that the
Department must provide guidance to ensure that States fully understand
the public reporting requirements. As an example, the commenter
questioned what constitutes making the data ``easily accessible'' for
parents and the general public. Another commenter questioned whether
the lack of specific guidance from the Department on how to publicly
report the information collected meant that we would allow States to
use a variety of methods to meet their reporting obligation. The
commenter encouraged the Department to provide States with flexibility
in meeting these requirements. One commenter noted that the Department
would need to consider the unique demographics of States when
evaluating applications.
Discussion: The Department agrees that it is important to have
clear guidance on the public reporting that is required under this
notice. Accordingly, we have added a definition of publicly report to
provide additional specificity and direction. We will also provide
guidance on how States may meet the public reporting requirements for
this program, and will be available to provide technical assistance to
States throughout the application and reporting process.
Changes: The Department has added a definition of publicly report,
which provides that the data or information required for an indicator
or descriptor are made available to anyone with access to an Internet
connection without having to submit a request to the entity that
maintains the data and information in order to access that data and
information. Under this definition, States are required to maintain a
public Web site that provides the data and information that are
responsive to the indicator and descriptor requirements. If a State
does not currently provide the required data or information, it must
provide on this Web site its plan with respect to the indicator or
descriptor and its reports on its progress in implementing that plan.
In light of our addition of the definition of publicly report, we
have modified the indicators, descriptors, plan requirements,
definitions, and approval criteria, as appropriate, to substitute the
term ``publicly report'' for ``report.''
Comment: Some commenters supported our intent to ensure consistency
in collection and reporting requirements across the various programs
funded under the ARRA. One commenter requested that the Department
review the reporting requirements across all ARRA programs and use
single data-element definitions for all programs in order to reduce
redundant reporting and maintain transparency. A few commenters
expressed concern that applications submitted for programs under the
ARRA will be duplicative.
Discussion: The Department is coordinating the implementation of
the programs under the ARRA in order to support a comprehensive
approach to education reform and to minimize the burden on States to
the extent possible. To that end, where appropriate, the Department is
developing consistent requirements and definitions for SFSF, the Race
to the Top Fund, SIG, the Investing in Innovation Fund, the Teacher
Incentive Fund, and other ARRA programs; those changes are discussed
later in this notice. The Department will evaluate applications based
on the specific approval criteria we have announced for each program,
and recognizes that, in certain instances, States will provide similar
information across applications.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that the Department did not propose
requirements that comprehensively address the four education reform
areas. Specifically, the commenter believed more indicators are needed
in areas addressing the closing of achievement gaps, improving overall
student performance, and achieving equity between high- and low-
performing schools.
Discussion: While we agree that additional information in the four
reform areas could be valuable to the public, educators, and policy-
makers, we believe that adding the suggested indicators would be overly
burdensome to States and LEAs. We believe the indicators and
descriptors established in this notice generally provide sufficient
data and information to measure State progress in the four reform areas
for the purposes of the SFSF program. Additionally, the Department
believes that meeting the requirement for each State to include all 12
elements described in the America COMPETES Act in its statewide
longitudinal data system will provide a State with the capability to
collect, analyze, and report meaningful information on the
effectiveness of its programs in closing the achievement gap and
improving student outcomes.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that the Department is missing a
major
[[Page 58441]]
opportunity to learn more about the role of professional development in
school reform. The commenter encouraged the Department to collect data
on how States are using and improving professional development to
increase the performance levels of educators and their students.
Discussion: The Department agrees that professional development is
an important factor in developing and supporting educators in improving
their practices and encourages States and LEAs to collect and share
data on professional development, but we do not believe that we should
add an indicator requiring a State to report on professional
development. However, we note that we have added a new indicator
requiring States to make publicly available their Teacher Equity Plans,
which include information on teacher professional development, and
indicate if they have updated those plans. In addition, we have revised
Descriptors (a)(1) and (a)(2) to require States to describe the use of
results from teacher and principal evaluation systems in decisions
regarding, among other things, professional development.
Changes: The Department has added new Indicator (a)(2) and has also
revised Descriptors (a)(1) and (a)(2); these changes are described in
more detail in the section of this notice entitled Education Reform
Area (a)--Achieving Equity in Teacher Distribution.
Comment: One commenter stated that the Department should require
each State to indicate whether the information it publicly reports
includes information from charter schools and, if such information is
not currently available, require the State to provide information in
its State plan on the steps it will take to collect information on
charter schools.
Discussion: Under the requirements as established in this notice,
States will publicly report information on charter schools that are
LEAs in the same manner that they provide information on any LEA.
Further, information on public charter schools that are not LEAs will
be provided in the same manner as for other public elementary and
secondary schools.
Additionally, as proposed in the NPR and as established in this
notice, the Department is requiring States to collect and publicly
report information on the number of charter schools that are permitted
to operate and that are actually operating in the State and each LEA
(new Indicators (d)(7) and (d)(8) (proposed Indicators (d)(6) and
(d)(7))). Moreover, and as discussed in greater detail later in this
notice, the Department agrees that it is important to collect
information on the academic achievement of students who attend charter
schools and has added new Indicators (d)(9) and (d)(10), which measure
the performance of charter school students on State assessments in
reading/language arts and mathematics.
Changes: The Department has added new Indicators (d)(9) and (d)(10)
to education reform area (d). These changes are described in greater
detail in the section of this notice entitled Education Reform Area
(d)--Supporting Struggling Schools.
Comment: A few commenters suggested that the Department create a
sequence of reform requirements instead of asking States to implement
simultaneous reforms in all areas. They specifically suggested the
Department include goals, targets, or benchmarks for improving
performance on the indicators and descriptors in order to move States
closer to the goal of college and career readiness for all students.
Discussion: Section 14005(d) of the ARRA requires States to take
action in each of the education reform areas and the Department
envisions that in order to achieve the reform goals States will address
each reform area simultaneously. We do not believe it is necessary to
establish goals, targets, or benchmarks for improving performance
because the purpose of the indicator and descriptor requirements is to
provide transparency on the extent to which a State is implementing the
actions for which it provided an assurance in its application for
initial SFSF funding.
Changes: None.
Burden and Costs
Comment: Many commenters expressed concern that States and LEAs do
not have the financial resources necessary to collect and publicly
report the data and information that the Department proposed to require
of States. One commenter noted that in order to comply with the
collection and public reporting requirements, LEAs would need to take
staff away from other essential functions. Another commenter stated
that the requirements should reflect the fact that the SFSF program
will not provide an ongoing source of funding for States.
Discussion: The Department acknowledges that there are costs
associated with the data collection and public reporting requirements
and encourages States to consider available sources of Federal funds to
support this reporting. For example, a State may use SFSF Government
Services funds to meet the Phase II application requirements. The
Department has also raised the statutory caps on State administration
under Title I, part A of the ESEA and part B, section 611 of the
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA) with respect to
funds available for those programs under the ARRA in order to make it
easier for States to meet ARRA reporting requirements.
Further, in response to comments, the Department is reducing the
burden on States. For example, the Department is not requiring States
to provide estimates of teacher impact on student achievement (new
Indicator (b)(3) (proposed Indicator (b)(2)) but is now requiring that
States provide student growth data to teachers (new Indicator
(b)(2)).\4\ In the NPR, the Department estimated that the total cost to
States, LEAs, and IHEs of meeting the proposed requirements was
approximately $61.7 million. Of that amount, approximately $30 million
was associated with the costs of providing estimates of teacher impact
on student achievement. The Department believes that providing teachers
of reading/language arts and mathematics in grades in which the State
administers assessments with student growth data will be much less
costly.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ States are still required, however, to indicate whether they
provide reports of individual teacher impact on student achievement
through new Indicator (b)(3) (proposed Indicator (b)(2)) and, if
they do not, to provide a plan for doing so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Furthermore, the Department believes that the potential benefits
from collecting and publicly reporting this information (e.g., greater
accountability, implementation of a statewide longitudinal data system
to inform instruction, and more effective teacher and principal
evaluation systems) outweigh the costs associated with the data
requirements. The estimated costs and benefits of these requirements
are described in greater detail in the Summary of Costs and Benefits
section of this notice.
Changes: The Department has revised the State Plan requirements for
new Indicator (b)(3) (proposed Indicator (b)(2)) to remove the
requirement that States provide estimates of teacher impact on student
achievement.
Comment: A few commenters claimed that the reporting requirements
may lead to unnecessary costs for States and LEAs that have already
invested time and effort in creating data systems or in implementing
school reform programs that are not directly aligned with the assurance
areas.
Discussion: The Department does not believe States will need to
significantly reconfigure current State data systems in order to meet
the ARRA requirement to establish a statewide longitudinal
[[Page 58442]]
data system that includes the 12 elements identified in the America
COMPETES Act (although a State may need to expand its data system in
order to include all 12 data elements). The America COMPETES Act
predates enactment of the ARRA, and States are already designing data
systems that incorporate the America COMPETES Act elements. We note
that the elements have also been incorporated into the application
requirements and guidance for the Department's Statewide Longitudinal
Data Systems Grant program.
As part of the SFSF program, the Department is not requiring States
to implement new school reform programs, but to publicly report on the
current status of their programs and if they have implemented certain
reform models in their persistently lowest-achieving schools.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters supported our proposal to use data that
the Department currently collects from States through EDFacts to meet
the public reporting requirements of the program. Commenters noted that
the use of these data would minimize some of the burden associated with
the reporting requirements for this program.
Discussion: The Department agrees with the comments and has
attempted to reduce the reporting burden by using data from EDFacts and
other readily available data whenever possible.
Changes: None.
State Plan Requirements
Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department require States
to obtain the support of key stakeholders for the plan the State will
develop to meet the SFSF requirements. Another commenter suggested that
the Department require States to collaborate with youth-serving
organizations in their planning efforts so as to ensure the success of
every young person; the commenter recommended adding workforce
organizations, child welfare and juvenile/criminal justice agencies,
and child and youth-serving community-based organizations to the list
of stakeholders with whom a State must consult when developing the
State plan.
Discussion: The Department recognizes the importance of
collaboration and cooperation among educational agencies, community
stakeholders, policy-makers, and youth-serving organizations. While the
Department encourages States to consult with key stakeholders when
developing the State plan, we do not believe it is necessary to require
States to consult with stakeholders generally or with any specific
group because there will be great variation across States as to the
groups with whom it would be appropriate to consult.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters indicated that it is unrealistic to
require States to implement their plans by September 30, 2011. One
commenter characterized the deadline as arbitrary. Another commenter
noted that the deadline will not allow States to collect data
reflecting the potentially positive impact of SFSF funds on student
achievement. Commenters recommended reconsideration of this timeline.
One commenter suggested that the Department grant individual States
extensions of the deadline without requiring States to justify such
extensions.
Discussion: The Department believes that the requirements of the
State plan provide critical information that is more useful to
stakeholders if it is presented in a timely manner. Further, the
Department believes that two years is an appropriate amount of time to
implement a plan to collect and publicly report the required
information. However, in recognition of existing State work in
transitioning to the adjusted four-year cohort graduation rate, the
Department has modified the plan requirements applicable to new
Indicators (c)(11) and (c)(12) (proposed Indicators (c)(12) and
(c)(13)) so that a State is required only to provide evidence that it
has developed the means to collect and publicly report the data by the
deadline.
As discussed in more detail later in this notice, we are also
revising the State plan requirements for new Indicator (b)(3) (proposed
Indicator (b)(2)). For new Indicator (b)(3) (proposed Indicator
(b)(2)), a State must indicate whether it provides teachers of reading/
language arts and mathematics in grades in which the State administers
assessments in those subjects with reports of individual teacher impact
on student achievement on those assessments. If the State does not
provide those teachers with such reports, it must submit a plan for how
it will develop and implement the means to do so. Under the NPR, the
State would have been required to provide those teachers with such
reports (consistent with the indicator); if the State did not provide
those teachers with such reports, it would have been required to submit
a plan for how it would develop and implement the means to do so as
soon as possible but no later than September 30, 2011.
Changes: The Department has revised the State plan requirements for
new Indicator (b)(3) (proposed Indicator (b)(2)), new Indicator (c)(11)
(proposed Indicator (c)(12)), and new Indicator (c)(12) (proposed
Indicator (c)(13)). These revisions are discussed in greater detail
later in this notice.
Applications and Approval Criteria
Comment: Three commenters expressed concern regarding the timeline
for submission of the SFSF Phase II application, given the extensive
information the application requires. One commenter elaborated that the
SFSF Phase II application timeline could negatively affect a State's
ability to meet the Race to the Top application deadline because, in a
July 29, 2009 Federal Register notice, the Department proposed that
States must have an approved SFSF Phase II application to be eligible
for Race to the Top funds. One of these commenters emphasized that SFSF
Phase II funds are critical to preventing more serious school aid
reductions than those currently under consideration in the State.
Discussion: The Department will review Phase II applications
submitted by the deadline, which we will publish in a separate notice
in the Federal Register, on a timely basis to ensure that States will
meet any Race to the Top eligibility requirements related to SFSF
application approval and to provide additional resources expeditiously
to support elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter proposed that the Department include an
additional approval criterion requiring States to demonstrate that they
have expended their SFSF funds consistent with program requirements.
Discussion: We do not believe that the suggested approval criterion
is necessary. States will provide information on the uses of funds in
the quarterly reports that they submit pursuant to section 1512 of the
ARRA; these reports will be publicly available at http://
www.recovery.gov. In addition, the Department will collect information
on uses of SFSF funds through the annual performance reports States are
required to submit under section 14008 of the ARRA. The annual
performance reports will be made available to the public on the
Department's Web site at http://www.ed.gov. Furthermore, during its
monitoring of State implementation of the SFSF program, the Department
will review State and local uses of program funds to ensure compliance
with applicable requirements.
Changes: None.
[[Page 58443]]
Indicator and Descriptor Requirements Education Reform Area (a)--
Achieving Equity in Teacher Distribution
Teacher Qualifications: Indicator (a)(1)
Comment: Several commenters expressed support for our proposal to
use existing data on teacher qualifications from the Department's
EDFacts system for proposed Indicator (a)(1). These commenters believed
that leveraging existing data in EDFacts would minimize collection and
reporting burden on States and LEAs while still ensuring that high-
quality information is provided to the public. However, one commenter
requested clarification as to the State's responsibilities for
confirming the data in EDFacts.
Discussion: In general, we have sought to ensure that existing data
from the Department's EDFacts system (or other data for which the
Department is itself the source) are used to populate the indicators
for this program wherever possible so as to minimize the burden on
States and LEAs. In this case, we believe that existing data in EDFacts
on courses taught by highly qualified teachers is appropriate as a
measure of States' compliance with the statutory assurance.
As stated in the NPR, a State will not be required to perform any
additional analysis or verification in confirming indicator data that
are in EDFacts. We believe there are sufficient safeguards in place to
ensure the completeness and accuracy of data submitted by States in
EDFacts and do not expect or require a State to reexamine or refresh
the data. Rather, the confirmation a State will provide is meant to be
limited to an acknowledgment that the data provided by the Department
are the same data submitted by the State.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested that the Department clarify how
stakeholders should use the data reported for proposed Indicator (a)(1)
to identify inequities in the distribution of highly qualified teachers
across LEAs. Specifically, the commenter requested clarification on
whether stakeholders should identify inequities by comparing the data
generally for all LEAs across the State, or for subsets of LEAs in the
State based on shared characteristics such as size or location.
Discussion: The Department is requiring States to make publicly
available data on the distribution of highly qualified teachers across
LEAs so that educators, policymakers, and other stakeholders may
address inequities in the distribution of teachers between high- and
low-poverty schools. Decisions on how best to use the specific data
should be made at the State and local levels.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters recommended that the definitions of
highest-poverty school and lowest-poverty school applicable to proposed
Indicator (a)(1) be revised to require States to identify these schools
specifically using data on student eligibility for free- or reduced-
price lunches under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act
(NSLA), rather than using the poverty measure chosen by the State. One
of these commenters asserted that these terms should be given the same
meaning across States to prevent inconsistencies in reporting and to
ensure that the data reported by States can be aggregated at the
national level.
Discussion: The Department permits States to use a poverty measure
of their choice when reporting data on courses taught by highly
qualified teachers in the highest- and lowest-poverty schools in their
Consolidated State Performance Reports and in the annual State Report
Cards required under section 1111(h)(1) of the ESEA. While States may
and frequently do use student eligibility for free- or reduced-price
lunches under the NSLA as the poverty measure for reporting these data,
this is not always the case. While the Department appreciates the
concern for comparability of data for this indicator, we believe that
requiring the use of student eligibility for free- or reduced-price
lunches under the NSLA as the poverty measure for this indicator would
introduce unnecessary confusion for States that use other poverty
measures when reporting data on the poverty level of students in their
schools.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department include
additional metrics relating to the equitable distribution of teachers
that would require States to describe their plans for ensuring,
consistent with the statutory assurance, that students from low-income
families and minority students are not taught at higher rates than
other children by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers,
and to describe the measures States would use to evaluate and report on
the implementation of those plans.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter on the importance of
States' developing plans to ensure equity in the qualifications of
teachers serving disadvantaged students and their peers and evaluating
the impact of those plans. We note, however, that, to assess States'
compliance with the requirements of the ESEA referenced in the
statutory assurance in this reform area (i.e., the requirements of
section 1111(b)(8)(C)), the Department has previously required States
to develop Highly Qualified Teachers State Plans. Included in these
plans is a component (known as a ``Teacher Equity Plan'') in which the
State describes the steps being taken to ensure that students from low-
income families and minority students are not taught at higher rates
than other children by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field
teachers.\5\ Rather than include indicators that would collect
information on this topic that is additional to or duplicative of the
information already provided by States in their Teacher Equity Plans,
we have added an indicator that requires States to indicate whether
they have updated and publicly reported these plans.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ These plans are available at http://www.ed.gov/programs/
teacherqual/hqtplans/index.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: We have revised the indicators in this education reform
area to include a new Indicator (a)(2), which requires a State to
confirm whether the State's Teacher Equity Plan (as part of the State's
Highly Qualified Teacher Plan) fully reflects the steps the State is
currently taking to ensure that students from low-income families and
minority students are not taught at higher rates than other students by
inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers (as required in
section 1111(b)(8)(C) of the ESEA). With the addition of these
Indicators, we have renumbered the remaining Indicators and Descriptors
in this Education Reform Area.
Comment: A number of commenters expressed concern that, while
proposed Indicator (a)(1) would require States to provide data on the
distribution of highly qualified teachers between highest- and lowest-
poverty schools, it would not provide similar data with respect to
teachers of minority students. These commenters typically recommended
that an indicator be added in this education reform area requiring
States to provide data on the distribution of highly qualified teachers
between highest- and lowest-minority schools; one of these commenters
further recommended that the Department include in the final
requirements definitions of ``highest-minority school'' and ``lowest-
minority school.''
Discussion: As discussed previously, we have revised the indicators
in this education reform area to include an indicator requiring a State
to confirm that its Teacher Equity Plan accurately and fully reflects
the steps the State is
[[Page 58444]]
taking to ensure that students from low-income families and minority
students are not taught at higher rates than other students by
inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers. These plans
include data related to whether minority student populations are served
by highly qualified teachers (in addition to data related to whether
such teachers serve students from low-income families). We expect that,
in confirming or providing their current plans, States will provide up-
to-date data on this indicator as well as on the distribution of highly
qualified teachers between highest- and lowest-minority schools. For
this reason, we do not believe it is necessary to include the
additional indicators recommended by the commenters.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters asserted that proposed Indicator (a)(1)
would not furnish data on whether students from low-income families or
minority students are taught at higher rates than other students by
out-of-field or inexperienced teachers. These commenters typically
recommended that indicators be added in this education reform area to
provide data on the distribution of in-field and experienced teachers
between highest- and lowest-poverty schools, as well as between
highest- and lowest-minority schools.
Discussion: Inasmuch as we have revised the requirements in this
education reform area, as discussed previously, to include an indicator
regarding States' Teacher Equity Plans (in which States describe the
steps being taken to ensure that students from low-income families and
minority students are not taught at higher rates than other students by
inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers), we do not
believe it is necessary to include additional indicators that would
provide data specifically on the distribution of in-field or
experienced teachers. (We note also that section 9101(23) of the ESEA
requires that a highly qualified teacher demonstrate subject knowledge
or competence in the subjects the teacher teaches in addition to
possessing a State teaching credential; consideration of whether a
teacher is teaching in or out of field is, thus, incorporated in the
definition of ``highly qualified teacher'' used in Indicator (a)(1).)
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters made general statements that the
definition of ``highly qualified teacher'' is flawed or does not
identify high-quality teachers, though some acknowledged the ``interim
utility'' of the term as other, more accurate or more effective
measures of teacher quality are considered.
Discussion: While the Department believes that data on highly
qualified teachers do have value, we recognize that these data are
limited by their sole focus on teacher qualifications. As reflected in
the other indicators in this education reform area (discussed in
further detail later in this notice), the Department believes that
other measures, such as measures of teacher effectiveness, are needed
if efforts to identify high-quality teachers are to be successful.
Changes: None.
Teacher and Principal Effectiveness: General
Comment: Several commenters expressed support for including in this
education reform area the proposed metrics relating to teacher and
principal effectiveness, in particular the indicators on performance
ratings from teacher and principal performance evaluation systems
(proposed Indicators (a)(2) through (a)(6)). However, several
commenters questioned whether the Department had sufficient
justification for including these metrics. One commenter asserted that
requiring States to collect and publicly report data and information
for these metrics is not statutorily relevant, and another asserted
that the metrics exceed the requirements of the statute. Another
commenter believed that these indicators, as they concern evaluation
systems that are typically developed and implemented locally, represent
an unwarranted intrusion by the Federal Government into local matters.
Another commenter asserted that the ARRA does not provide the
Department with the authority to require States to collect and publicly
report data and information on principals.
Discussion: We disagree with the commenters that the Department has
insufficient justification for establishing these requirements. Section
14005(a) of the ARRA authorizes the Secretary to require States to
submit an application for funds under this program containing such
information as the Secretary may reasonably require. In addition to
requiring States to take actions to address inequities in the
distribution of highly qualified teachers, the statutory assurance in
this education reform area (section 14005(d)(2)) requires States to
``take actions to improve teacher effectiveness'' and, thus, clearly
provides a basis on which to establish requirements for the collection
and public reporting of data and information related to teacher
effectiveness. As stated in the NPR (74 FR 37838), we believe that
local evaluation systems play a principal role in determining teacher
effectiveness. Accordingly, we believe that requiring States to collect
and publicly report data and information on teacher evaluation systems
is reasonable and justified.
With respect to principal evaluation systems, as stated in the NPR
(74 FR 37838), effective school administration is a key factor in
effective teaching and learning. We likewise believe that local
evaluation systems play a primary role in determining the effectiveness
of school principals. Accordingly, we believe that requiring States to
collect and publicly report data and information on principal
evaluation systems is also reasonable and justified.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters stated that, with the proposed metrics,
the Department incorrectly or improperly equated the terms ``highly
qualified teacher'' and ``effective teacher.''
Discussion: As discussed earlier, the statutory assurance in this
reform area provides a basis on which to collect data and information
related both to teacher effectiveness and to teacher qualifications. In
collecting data and information on both of these items, it is not the
intention of the Department to conflate the two; on the contrary, the
intent is precisely to acknowledge a difference in these concepts.
Historically, in assessing the quality of our nation's teachers, the
Department has focused, through ``highly qualified teacher'' measures,
on the qualifications of teachers to the exclusion of other factors. By
including considerations of teacher effectiveness in the statutory
assurance, we believe the Congress has now signaled that this focus is
unnecessarily narrow and that additional measures of teacher quality
are needed--and, in particular, measures that are associated more
closely with the outcomes of teaching and learning than with inputs
such as qualifications. The metrics related to teacher effectiveness
are accordingly intended to provide new information on teacher quality,
separate and apart from information currently available on States'
compliance with the highly qualified teacher requirements of the ESEA.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter objected to the proposed metrics relating to
teacher and principal effectiveness on the grounds that, in estimating
the burden associated with these requirements, the Department stated
that it does not possess definitive information on the extent to which
teacher and principal
[[Page 58445]]
evaluations are officially implemented in LEAs.
Discussion: We disagree with the commenter's assertion that a lack
of information on whether teacher and principal evaluations are
officially implemented in LEAs casts doubt on the justification for
these metrics and believe, moreover, that the metrics will help to fill
the information gaps that caused the Department's burden estimates to
be speculative.
Changes: None.
Comment: Numerous commenters expressed concerns about the utility
or purpose of the proposed metrics relating to teacher and principal
effectiveness. A few commenters asserted that the data and information
collected and publicly reported for these metrics would not enable
stakeholders to identify effective teachers or principals or to improve
student achievement; to this point, many commenters asserted that, due
to variation in the design and implementation of local evaluation
systems, the data and information collected and publicly reported for
these metrics would not be comparable across LEAs (or States), while
another commenter asserted that local evaluation systems are generally
of poor quality. In light of concerns about comparability, one
commenter suggested that the Department provide a model for reporting
the data and information for these proposed metrics, while another
commenter recommended that, in lieu of these metrics, the Department
instead direct States to develop plans for working with their LEAs to
improve evaluation systems and the distribution of effective teachers
and principals across LEAs and schools.
Discussion: While we appreciate the questions raised by these
commenters regarding the purpose of the data and information that
States will collect and publicly report under these metrics, we believe
that the metrics will serve a very important purpose, namely, providing
new, crucially valuable information on teacher and principal quality.
As discussed earlier, information available on teacher and principal
quality has historically been limited, at both the State and Federal
levels, to information on the qualifications or years of service of
teachers. By requiring States to comply with these metrics, the
Department intends that new and more comprehensive information will be
available for stakeholders and that this availability will, in turn,
shift the focus of teacher quality debates toward the effectiveness of
educators.
Although variations in the design and implementation of evaluation
systems may mean that the data on teacher and principal effectiveness
ratings (as required under proposed Indicators (a)(2) through (a)(6))
are not comparable across those systems (i.e., in States that do not
require the implementation of uniform evaluation systems across LEAs),
such data will nonetheless provide information on teacher and principal
effectiveness that is informative for stakeholders, most importantly
parents. Although variations in the quality of those evaluation systems
may also mean that these ratings data are not reliable in all cases,
requiring the reporting of these data for all LEAs will nonetheless
shine a light on the limitations of current evaluation systems where
they exist and can drive efforts to improve those systems where such
improvements are needed. Because the methods for evaluating teachers
vary greatly across States and LEAs, the Department does not believe
that establishing a national model for reporting these data is
appropriate.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters cautioned that the proposed metrics
would force standardization upon local evaluation systems (which in
some cases would be prohibited by State laws providing for local
control over education) and would reduce opportunities for local
innovation; related to this point, one commenter requested
clarification about whether the proposed metrics would effectively
require that all LEAs in a State employ a single, uniform system for
evaluating teachers and for evaluating principals and that LEAs
aggregate and report results from that system.
Discussion: Although the Department hopes that the metrics in this
area will help promote the effective design and use of evaluation
systems generally across LEAs and States, we are not requiring with
these metrics that States and LEAs implement uniform teacher and
principal evaluation practices.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters asserted that the proposed metrics
relating to teacher and principal effectiveness would be unduly
burdensome on States and LEAs, particularly on small States and States
with many small LEAs. A few of these commenters requested that the
Department provide States with the flexibility in meeting these
requirements, such as by collecting the data and information for a
representative sample rather than for all of the LEAs in the State.
Discussion: We recognize that the proposed requirements for this
program place some burden on States and LEAs and have sought to reduce
that burden significantly, as reflected in the changes to the proposed
requirements discussed elsewhere in this notice. With respect to these
indicators, however, we continue to believe that the benefits of
collecting and reporting the data and information for all LEAs outweigh
the costs of doing so.
Further, we do not believe that it would be sufficient to report
data for only a sample of LEAs. The Department believes that the State
should make this information publicly available for all LEAs so that
each LEA can make any necessary reforms.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters recommended that the Department review
data collections currently in the EDFacts system to ascertain whether
data for the proposed metrics on teacher and principal effectiveness
are already available or potentially available through modifications to
other data. Related to this point, one commenter noted that new data
collection requirements may not be the most immediately effective means
for measuring a State's compliance with the statutory assurance, given
the amount of time and effort initially needed to meet the
requirements.
Discussion: The Department appreciates these comments and, as
noted, has sought to use data and information from existing Department
collections in the metrics for this program to the extent possible.
However, the Department does not currently collect data related to
teacher and principal effectiveness from States through the EDFacts
system or other systems so it is necessary for us to establish a new
requirement for the collection of those data.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested clarification as to whether the
collection and reporting of data and information for the proposed
metrics relating to teacher and principal effectiveness must occur
regularly or one time only.
Discussion: Consistent with the final State Plan requirements
established in this notice, a State must collect and publicly report
the data and information required for these metrics at least annually
and must be able to complete its first collection and reporting of the
data and information as soon as possible but no later than September
30, 2011. The Department will determine at a later date whether the
collection and public reporting of these data and information will
continue after September 30, 2011.
Changes: None.
[[Page 58446]]
Comment: A few commenters recommended that the Department or States
take a more proactive approach toward improving teacher and principal
evaluation systems and developing effective school personnel than what
is reflected in the proposed metrics in this area. These commenters'
recommendations include the following: the Department should promote
the development of evaluation systems that are specifically designed
for that purpose, incorporate student achievement and evidence-based
instructional practices as evaluation criteria, and use a range of
ratings beyond simple bimodal ratings (e.g., ``meets expectations''
versus ``does not meet expectations''); the Department should define
``teacher effectiveness'' and provide guidance to States and LEAs on
how to align evaluation systems with that definition; the Department
should provide guidance to States and LEAs on standards for principal
evaluation; and States should work toward developing systems for
licensing teachers based on effectiveness.
Discussion: We appreciate these recommendations and agree in large
part that the Department should play a role in supporting the
development of effective teachers and principals and the systems used
to evaluate their performance. In fact, the Department has sought and
continues to seek to promote the implementation by States and LEAs of
evaluation systems that produce meaningful and actionable information
on teacher and principal effectiveness through its competitive grant
programs, including the Teacher Incentive Fund. While we will take
these recommendations into consideration for those programs and in
future policymaking (including in the reauthorization of the ESEA), we
do not believe it would be appropriate to incorporate them formally
into the requirements for this program.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters recommended that the Department include
additional metrics related to effective teaching and learning,
including: Indicators about State efforts to improve teacher
preparation, recruitment, and compensation; indicators about factors
likely to attract high-quality teachers to struggling schools, such as
teaching and learning conditions, leadership, safety, autonomy, and
flexibility; indicators about other factors likely to affect student
achievement, such as class size, attendance, and student migration;
indicators relating to specific educational actions and practices in
schools that lead to dramatic gains in student achievement; indicators
on the teaching of Advanced Placement, International Baccalaureate, and
other advanced courses in secondary schools; and an indicator on
teacher attendance, particularly in high-poverty schools.
Discussion: Although the Department believes that there is value in
establishing indicators such as those mentioned by the commenters in
the requirements for this program, we are mindful of ensuring that we
minimize to the extent possible the burden on States and LEAs in
meeting these requirements and, in this instance, do not wish to create
additional burden in the form of additional requirements.
Changes: None.
Teacher and Principal Effectiveness: Descriptors (a)(1) and (a)(2)--
Evaluation System Descriptions
Comment: One commenter requested clarification as to the purpose of
the proposed requirements to describe the systems used to evaluate the
performance of teachers and principals in LEAs (Descriptors (a)(1) and
(a)(2)). The commenter intimated that the proposed descriptors were
unnecessary and that indicators alone should be sufficient to provide
information on teacher and principal effectiveness.
Discussion: As reflected in the NPR and discussed previously in
this notice, we believe that descriptions of teacher and principal
evaluation systems will provide stakeholders with much-needed (and,
often, otherwise unavailable) information on the design and usage of
these systems in LEAs and States. Moreover, we believe that these
descriptions will provide necessary context for the data and
information collected and reported for the indicators on ratings
received by teachers and principals from these systems (new Indicators
(a)(3) through (a)(7) (proposed Indicators (a)(2) through (a)(6));
without information on the design and usage of evaluation systems, data
on these ratings may be too open to interpretation by stakeholders and
may ultimately not be useful.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters requested that the Department provide
more information or greater prescription on the proposed requirements
to describe the systems used to evaluate the performance of teachers
and principals in LEAs. Several commenters recommended that the
Department further specify the information that should be included in
providing these descriptions, and a few commenters inquired as to
whether the Department would provide a sample or rubric for the
descriptions. A few other commenters recommended or intimated that
States be required to describe specific components or aspects of
evaluation systems used in LEAs, such as purpose, methodology,
participants, frequency of implementation, feedback protocols, and
procedures for review and appeals. In contrast, one commenter
recommended that States be provided flexibility in the types of
information or level of detail to be included in these descriptions.
Discussion: We agree that more information on how States may meet
the requirements to describe teacher and principal evaluations is
necessary and will address this issue in guidance for this program. In
recognition, however, of the limited availability of information on a
``typical'' evaluation system and the potential for wide variation in
these systems across LEAs and States, and also of the additional burden
that may be conferred upon States and LEAs in responding to additional
requirements, we do not believe it would be appropriate to include
additional requirements in this area.
Changes: None.
Teacher and Principal Effectiveness: New Indicators (a)(3) and (a)(6)
(Proposed Indicators (a)(2) and (a)(5))--Whether Systems Include
Student Achievement Outcomes as Evaluation Criterion
Comment: One commenter expressed support for proposed Indicators
(a)(2) and (a)(5), which ask whether the systems used by LEAs to
evaluate the performance of teachers and principals include student
achievement outcomes as an evaluation criterion, and encouraged the
Department to promote the use of such outcomes in performance
evaluations. A number of other commenters expressed concern about these
proposed indicators. These commenters asserted that fair and effective
teacher and principal evaluation systems include multiple evaluation
criteria and/or employ comprehensive evaluation frameworks and that,
through the proposed indicators, the Department was placing undue
weight or focus on the inclusion of student achievement outcomes to the
detriment of other factors important to evaluation. One commenter
asserted that using student achievement outcomes in evaluating teachers
and principals is inappropriate.
In light of concerns such as these, a few commenters recommended
that the Department ask for data or information on specific criteria
used to evaluate teacher and principal performance other than student
achievement outcomes,
[[Page 58447]]
such as preparation, planning, teaching practices, leadership skills,
cultural competence, extracurricular roles and assignments, working
conditions, and staff turnover rates.
Discussion: The Department agrees that teacher and principal
evaluation systems generally should include, in addition to criteria
relating to student achievement outcomes, other criteria such as those
noted by the commenters. In providing the descriptions of teacher and
principal evaluation systems under Descriptors (a)(1) and (a)(2), we
encourage States to include discussion of those criteria. (As noted
previously, the Department plans to provide guidance for this program
that will provide more information to States on describing their
teacher and principal evaluation systems; among other topics, this
guidance will address the information a State may want to include in
these descriptions with respect to evaluation criteria.)
However, we also believe that student achievement outcomes are a
central factor in evaluation systems that yield fair and reliable
assessments of performance (as stated in the NPR (74 FR 37838)).
Therefore, we believe that requiring States to report on the inclusion
of student achievement outcomes as a specific criterion in evaluation
systems is warranted.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters recommended that we include indicators
to address whether teacher and principal evaluation systems incorporate
opportunities for feedback and professional development and the nature
or types of those opportunities.
Discussion: The Department agrees that strong teacher and principal
evaluation systems will include mechanisms for providing teachers and
principals with feedback about their performance and for identifying
professional development and other support needs and opportunities
based on those results. We encourage States to discuss the inclusion of
these elements in their descriptions of teacher and principal
evaluation systems under Descriptors (a)(1) and (a)(2), but are not
requiring States to collect and report information separately and
specifically on these elements as part of the requirements for this
program.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters objected to the Department's proposal
to require the use of student achievement outcomes in teacher and
principal evaluations on the grounds that to do so exceeds the
requirements of the statute or is not supported by research.
Discussion: These commenters appear to misunderstand the
requirements proposed by the Department. Although (as discussed
previously) we believe that student achievement outcomes are a central
factor in effective teacher and principal evaluations, we are not
requiring, through new Indicators (a)(3) and (a)(6) (proposed
Indicators (a)(2) and (a)(5)), the use of student achievement outcomes
as an evaluation criterion; rather, we are requiring merely that States
indicate whether such outcomes are used in local teacher and principal
evaluation systems.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters asserted that student assessment
results should not be the sole or central student achievement outcome
used in teacher and principal evaluations and that multiple other
outcomes should be considered, such as grades; portfolios; and results
of written work, group work, presentations, and ``capstone'' projects.
In contrast, one commenter recommended that the definition of student
achievement outcomes include only summative and interim assessments,
and another commenter suggested that, in the evaluation of principals,
student growth should be the only student achievement outcome
specified.
Discussion: We agree with the commenters that student assessment
results should not be the sole achievement outcome used in evaluating
teachers and principals. The definition of student achievement outcomes
applicable to new Indicators (a)(3) and (a)(6) (proposed Indicators
(a)(2) and (a)(5)) includes, in addition to student assessment results,
student grades and rates at which students are on track to graduate
from high school and does not prohibit the consideration of additional
outcomes in teacher and principal evaluations, provided at least one of
these outcomes is used. Further, we note that the purpose of the
definition of student achievement outcomes is, again, not to require
the use of any specific student achievement outcome in teacher and
principal evaluations, but rather to specify the types of student
achievement outcomes that a State would include when responding to the
indicators. Although (as reflected in the discussions earlier in this
notice) the Department believes that such outcomes should be included
in local evaluation systems, a State and its LEAs remain permitted to
use these or other achievement outcomes or no such outcomes at all.
Changes: None.
Comment: A number of commenters expressed concern about the
specific use of results from academic assessments administered by the
State for accountability purposes as a student achievement outcome in
teacher and principal evaluations. One commenter noted that using such
results to evaluate teachers and principals is prohibited by law in the
commenter's State. Several other commenters cautioned against using
State assessment results to evaluate teacher and principal performance
as such assessments, they believe, are not designed specifically for
this purpose. In contrast, one commenter recommended that the
definition of ``student achievement outcomes'' applicable to proposed
Indicators (a)(2) and (a)(5) include State academic assessments only or
primarily, so as to prevent inconsistencies in reporting and the
uncoupling of instruction from State standards.
Discussion: As discussed previously, new Indicators (a)(3) and
(a)(6) (proposed Indicators (a)(2) and (a)(5)) do not require the use
of any specific student achievement outcome (including results from
student assessments such as the State's assessments) in teacher and
principal evaluations. If an LEA or State were to use student
assessment results as an evaluation criterion, it would be free to use
results from assessments other than the State assessments if it finds
those assessments to be appropriate or effective (and permissible) in
the teacher or principal evaluation context.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that using student assessment
results may be problematic in cases where teachers and principals are
not evaluated on an annual basis.
Discussion: As stated previously, the Department is not requiring
the use of student assessment results in teacher and principal
evaluations as part of the requirements for this program. In general,
however, the Department does not believe that considerations of the
frequency of teacher and principal evaluations should negatively affect
decisions to include results from student assessments in those
evaluations. In the Department's view, there is nothing to prevent LEAs
from using student assessment results over multiple years in
evaluations of teachers and principals if such evaluations occur less
than annually.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested clarification of the phrase
``rates at which students are on track to graduate from high school,''
which is included among the outcomes identified in the Department's
definition of student achievement outcomes applicable to
[[Page 58448]]
proposed Indicators (a)(2) and (a)(5). The commenter asserted that this
phrase is ambiguous as written.
Discussion: Although we are uncertain of the ambiguity to which the
commenter is referring, we will further clarify this phrase in guidance
for this program.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested clarification as to the
relationship between proposed Indicators (a)(2) and (a)(5) and the
proposed selection criterion for the Department's Race to the Top Fund
regarding the extent to which an applying State, in collaboration with
its LEAs, has a plan to increase the use of student growth as a
significant factor in the evaluation of teachers and principals.
Discussion: In the July 29, 2009 notice of proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for the Race to the
Top Fund, the Department proposed a definition of ``student growth,''
which defined that term as the change in achievement data for an
individual student between two points in time. We agree that, to the
extent possible, there should be consistency in definitions across
programs.
Changes: The Department has revised proposed Indicators (a)(2) and
(a)(5) so that States will now report on the extent to which systems
used to evaluate the performance of teachers and principals include
student achievement outcomes or student growth data as an evaluation
criterion. These Indicators have been renumbered as Indicators (a)(3)
and (a)(6) respectively.
The Department has also added a new definition of student growth,
which is defined as the change in achievement for an individual student
between two or more points in time. The definition further provides
that for grades in which the State administers summative assessments in
reading/language arts and mathematics, student growth data must be
based on a student's score on the State's assessment under section
1111(b)(3) of the ESEA. A State may also include other measures that
are rigorous and comparable across classrooms.
Teacher and Principal Effectiveness: New Indicators (a)(3) Through
(a)(7) (Proposed Indicators (a)(2) Through (a)(6))
Comment: A few commenters expressed support for proposed Indicators
(a)(2) through (a)(6) pursuant to which States would be required to
provide data and information on the performance ratings of teachers and
principals. These commenters further recommended that additional
information be collected and reported on the teachers and principals
receiving the lowest ratings from evaluations, including whether those
teachers and principals continue teaching or remain employed by the
LEA.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for these
indicators and agree that information such as that suggested by the
commenters would be valuable to collect. We are mindful here, however,
of local restrictions on reporting data on the outcomes of teacher and
principal evaluations in terms of retention or removal, and thus
believe it would be more appropriate to collect information on policies
for the use of evaluation results, rather than actual outcomes. In
addition, we believe that it is important to collect information on the
use of evaluation results not just with respect to teacher and
principal retention and removal, but for other employment decisions as
well, such as development, compensation, and promotion.
Changes: We are revising Descriptors (a)(1) and (a)(2) to require
States also to describe the use of results from teacher and principal
evaluation systems in decisions regarding teacher and principal
development, compensation, promotion, retention, and removal.
Comment: A few commenters requested clarification as to how these
requirements could be met in the case of an LEA whose evaluation system
does not provide ratings or levels. One of these commenters questioned
whether reporting would be required for an LEA that uses its evaluation
system to determine whether teachers or principals meet or do not meet
expectations but does not otherwise implement a rating scale.
Discussion: The Department will provide guidance to States on how
to publicly report indicator data for LEAs whose evaluations systems do
not produce ratings or levels for teacher or principals. We note here,
however, that we would consider binary classifications of effectiveness
(e.g., ``meets expectations'' versus ``does not meet expectations'') as
effectiveness ratings and that States should include LEAs using such
classifications when publicly reporting data on these indicators.
Changes: None.
Comment: A number of commenters expressed concerns about ensuring
that teacher and principal privacy is protected in publicly reporting
data and information for these proposed indicators. In general, these
commenters asserted that information that is personally identifiable
must be protected and not made publicly available. In support of this
assertion, one commenter stated that reporting personally identifiable
information may violate employment laws, and another stated that
reporting such information is prohibited by a court ruling in the
commenter's State. Other commenters asserted or suggested that
reporting personally identifiable information unfairly affects teachers
and principals in small and rural LEAs.
Discussion: We agree that teacher and principal privacy must be
protected and will provide guidance to States on publicly reporting
data and information for these indicators in a manner that achieves the
twin goals of optimized reporting and protection of personally
identifiable information.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested clarification as to whether and
how the requirements of the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
(FERPA) apply to the public reporting of data and information for the
proposed indicators.
Discussion: The requirements of FERPA apply to the disclosure of
information from education records of students. They do not address
disclosure of information in records relating to the employment of
teachers and principals and, thus, do not apply to the collection and
public reporting of data and information for new Indicators (a)(3)
through (a)(7) (proposed Indicators (a)(2) through (a)(6)).
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter noted that teacher evaluations are typically
performed by principals and claimed that collecting and publicly
reporting the data and information for proposed Indicators (a)(3) and
(a)(4) would have the unintended consequence of principals providing
all teachers with the same rating out of fear of public scrutiny.
Discussion: We believe that concern over this potential consequence
is outweighed by the value to stakeholders and other interested parties
of making the data and information for these indicators publicly
available. In addition, we question whether this concern is warranted,
as a public observer would typically expect to see variation in ratings
according to performance and, accordingly, would be struck by a
decision to provide all teachers with a uniform rating.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested clarification as to whether the
collection and public reporting of data for the proposed indicators on
the ratings of teachers (proposed Indicators (a)(3) and (a)(4)) would
apply only with respect to teachers who meet the definition of ``highly
qualified teacher.''
[[Page 58449]]
Discussion: The collection and public reporting of data for these
indicators applies with respect to all teachers who receive ratings
from the evaluation systems, not just to those who are highly
qualified.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested clarification as to how full-time
equivalent teachers should be calculated for purposes of reporting data
on the proposed indicators on the ratings of teachers.
Discussion: In reporting data for these indicators, teacher ``head
counts'' should be used rather than full-time equivalent counts. In
other words, data should be reported for each teacher who receives a
rating from the evaluation system regardless of the full-time or part-
time status of that teacher.
Changes: None.
Comment: Regarding the indicator on whether the number and
percentage 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 (proposed Indicator
(a)(4)), one commenter requested clarification on the meaning of ``in a
manner easily accessible and a format easily understandable by the
public.'' Specifically, the commenter sought clarification as to
whether this phrase meant that, to respond affirmatively to this
indicator, the data for an LEA must be made available in multiple
languages.
Discussion: The Department did not intend by the referenced phrase
to require the reporting of data in multiple languages. To clarify the
Department's intent, we are revising new Indicator (a)(5) (proposed
Indicator (a)(4)) to require States to indicate, for each LEA, whether
teacher performance data are publicly reported for each school in the
LEA, consistent with the definition of publicly report that we have
established in this notice. Accordingly, this indicator concerns
whether such data are made available to anyone with access to an
Internet connection without having to submit a request to the entity
that maintains the data and information in order to access that data
and information.
Changes: We are revising new Indicator (a)(5) (proposed Indicator
(a)(4)) to require States to indicate, for each LEA, whether teacher
performance data are publicly reported for each school in the LEA,
consistent with the definition of publicly report that we have
established in this notice.
Education Reform Area (b)--Improving the Collection and Use of Data
Indicator (b)(1)
General
Comment: Numerous commenters opposed the proposed requirement that
States have in place, as soon as possible but no later than September
30, 2011, a statewide longitudinal data system (SLDS) that contains all
of the elements described in section 6401(e)(2)(D) of the America
COMPETES Act (COMPETES Act). They described the deadline as arbitrary
and unrealistic, and indicated that it would not allow States
sufficient time to plan, develop, and implement a system that includes
valid and reliable data.
The commenters presented various arguments why States would not be
able to meet this deadline. One commenter indicated that States would
need more time to build teacher knowledge, support, and trust around
the implementation of an SLDS. Another commenter emphasized that the
Department should consider that it takes time to collaborate and build
trust among the various stakeholders involved with such systems.
Another argued that States would be unable to meet the deadline because
Federal law does not currently authorize the sharing of data between K-
12 and postsecondary systems. Finally, several commenters indicated
that States would not have the financial resources necessary to develop
and implement an SLDS by the September 30, 2011 deadline.
Some commenters suggested alternative deadlines for the
establishment of an SLDS. A few of these commenters argued that the
Department should establish deadlines on a State-by-State basis, taking
into consideration a State's current progress in developing such a
system. Others argued that States that have received an award under the
Department's SLDS grant program should be permitted to abide by the
implementation timeline under that program. One commenter recommended
accelerating the deadline to September 30, 2010 to ensure that States
comply with the requirement before the September 30, 2011 deadline for
obligating SFSF funds. One commenter argued that data collected as
early as 2011 will not reflect the potentially positive impact of SFSF
funds on student achievement.
Discussion: The ARRA requires every State receiving SFSF funds to
implement an SLDS that contains all of the elements specified in
section 6401(e)(2)(D) of the COMPETES Act. While the ARRA does not
establish a specific deadline for States to implement such a system,
the Department believes that the ability of States to collect and
analyze data is vital to advancing essential education reforms. As a
result, the Department is encouraging States to implement an SLDS as
soon as possible and is requiring that they do so no later than
September 30, 2011. The Department believes that two years is
sufficient time for each State to implement fully an SLDS, including to
consult with key stakeholders, regardless of how many of the required
elements it currently has in place. We do not agree that the timeline
should be shortened, recognizing that the full development and
implementation of these systems, in many cases, could not be
accomplished in less than a year.
To meet the costs of developing and implementing an SLDS, States
have available a number of resources. States may use the Government
Services funds they have received under SFSF and funds awarded under
the Department's SLDS Grant program. States may also use funds they
receive under the Race to the Top Fund to develop and implement an
SLDS.
Federal law does not prohibit the sharing and use of data between
K-12 and postsecondary systems, provided that certain Federal
requirements are met, so there is no reason to extend the deadline on
that basis. Elsewhere in this section, we provide a fuller discussion
of issues relating to data sharing and student privacy.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department consider using
the Data Quality Campaign's (DQC) collection efforts on statewide
longitudinal data systems in order to minimize the State reporting
burden and consider pre-populating the SFSF reporting tool with the
information reported to DQC.
Discussion: The Department appreciates DQC's role in collecting and
analyzing information on States' efforts in developing statewide
longitudinal data systems. The information States voluntarily collect
and provide to the DQC is valuable in measuring States' progress on
SLDS development and should facilitate States' ability to report the
requirements in the SFSF. The Department, however, is not using the
data provided by States through the annual DQC survey for several
reasons. First, DQC's survey does not fully align with the elements
specified in the COMPETES Act. Second, we do not believe it is
appropriate to rely on data collected by a third party to confirm
States' efforts with respect to the
[[Page 58450]]
development and implementation of an SLDS that includes all of the
elements specified in the COMPETES Act. Finally, we note that if States
are collecting and providing this information to the DQC, it should not
pose much additional burden on States to provide similar information to
the Department.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters urged the Department to focus on both
governance and implementation of an SLDS to ensure meaningful data may
be accessed by teachers and administrators to inform decisions and
instruction. One commenter noted that access and use by teachers and
administrators are key elements in the development of an SLDS. A few
commenters requested that the Department provide guidance on how, in
establishing an SLDS, a State should address such issues as governance,
professional development, security, identity management, process
controls, operations, and sustainability.
Discussion: When developing their plan for developing and
implementing an SLDS, we encourage States to consider not only the
technical requirements, but also governance issues, administrative
needs, and access and use by practitioners. The Department agrees that
successful management is important in establishing an SLDS that will be
used effectively. The Department encourages each State to describe in
its plan how it will address governance and management issues in the
development and implementation of its SLDS.
To assist in system design and development, the National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES) has posted standards and guidelines at the
following Web site: http://nces.ed.gov/Programs/SLDS/
standardsguidelines.asp. The NCES handbooks available at this Web site
include schemas of the Schools Interoperability Framework Association
and the Postsecondary Electronic Standards Council, the National
Education Data Model of the National Forum on Education Statistics, the
data glossary of NCES' Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System,
and others. Work is currently underway to create comprehensive
standards and guidelines for use by States to promote data quality and
interoperability of data systems both within States and across States.
The NCES site will be modified, as appropriate, to include up-to-date
resources.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters expressed concern that the notice did not
address the role of professional development as a key component of
implementing an SLDS and recommended that the Department require States
to address the provision of professional development in their plans.
Commenters also noted that addressing professional development needs in
order to ensure that an SLDS is used effectively by teachers will
result in additional financial burden on the States.
Discussion: The Department agrees that professional development
plays a key role in ensuring that teachers and administrators are
prepared to use the SLDS effectively to improve teaching and learning.
The Department encourages a State to consider the professional
development needs of educators when preparing its plan for implementing
its SLDS. We encourage States and LEAs to use all appropriate funding
sources, including those identified earlier, to support their efforts,
including efforts to provide professional development.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that there were not
adequate incentives for IHEs to provide the data needed for inclusion
in an SLDS. One commenter stated that LEAs and States should coordinate
efforts in developing an SLDS so that compatible systems are
established and so that LEAs do not develop data systems that are
incompatible with the SLDS.
Discussion: A high-quality SLDS containing data on students from
pre-K through postsecondary education should benefit IHEs as well as
LEAs and elementary and secondary schools. In developing its SLDS, a
State should consult with IHEs, LEAs, and other appropriate
stakeholders to ensure that the SLDS meets the needs of these various
entities. Inasmuch as each State's governor assured in the State's SFSF
Phase I application that the State would develop an SLDS, the governor
is in a unique position to bring all of these stakeholders together to
collaborate on SLDS development and implementation.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters suggested that the Department provide
guidance to States on how they might work together on the development
of an SLDS, especially with regards to reporting data on students who
move across State lines or students from the State who attend an out-
of-State IHE or school. A few commenters also requested that the
Department identify or develop grant opportunities that encourage
States to work together to create compatible data systems. Another
commenter suggested that the Department establish a uniform methodology
and clearinghouse for data-sharing among State agencies.
Discussion: The Department encourages States to work together and
share best practices in creating and implementing their SLDSs, in
particular with respect to the reporting of data for students from the
State who attend out-of-State IHEs or schools or students who have
moved across State lines. We note that the Department has proposed, for
the Race to the Top Fund, to establish an invitational priority for
States that propose to work together to adapt one State's statewide
longitudinal data system so that it may be used, in whole or in part,
by other State(s), rather than having each State build or continue
building its system independently. The Department will consider issuing
guidance to States on ways they can collaborate with each other in
developing these systems.
The Department does not plan to establish a uniform methodology and
clearinghouse for data sharing among the States because the
Department's goal is to assist States in developing individual data
systems that can provide important data at the State, LEA, and school
levels.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter claimed that the Department's proposal
requires States to align all courses with a common core curriculum.
This commenter requested that in establishing final requirements for
the SFSF program, the Department reconsider the date by which States
must implement an SLDS and allow States time to establish common
standards and update their SLDS with those standards so as not to
duplicate effort.
Discussion: The Department is not requiring that a State align all
courses with a common core curriculum or that a State use a common set
of standards in its SLDS. Under the ARRA, States receiving SFSF funds
must establish and implement an SLDS that includes all 12 elements
required under the America COMPETES Act, but these elements do not
include alignment with a common core curriculum. While the Department
encourages State participation in the development of common
internationally benchmarked standards and assessments, we believe that
the implementation of a high-quality SLDS need not wait for those
activities to be completed.
Changes: None.
[[Page 58451]]
Compliance With the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act
Comment: Some commenters questioned whether establishing and
implementing an SLDS in the manner proposed in the NPR would violate
State and Federal law, including FERPA. In this regard, a number of
commenters noted that some of the Department's past interpretations of
FERPA may pose a barrier to States' ability to establish an SLDS that
contains all 12 COMPETES Act elements and still comply with FERPA. One
commenter requested that any data collection that violated FERPA or
other Federal law be deleted from the indicators and descriptors.
Many commenters supported the Department's commitment in the NPR to
provide guidance regarding statewide longitudinal data systems and
FERPA. The commenters suggested that the Department provide guidance or
clarity on such issues as the ability to collect, report, audit, and
share information between State agencies.
Discussion: The establishment of a statewide longitudinal data
system with the necessary functionality to incorporate all 12 of the
COMPETES Act elements, by itself, does not violate FERPA. The actual
implementation of such a system (including the disclosure and
redisclosure of personally identifiable information from education
records) also does not violate FERPA provided that States follow
FERPA's specific requirements. In the following sections, in response
to specific questions from commenters, we provide greater detail about
how an SLDS may be established and implemented in compliance with
FERPA. The Department is not aware of any other Federal laws that would
prohibit or pose barriers to a State establishing an SLDS.
To the extent that State laws present barriers to the development
of an SLDS in compliance with the ARRA, the State will likely need to
take specific actions to address those barriers. As part of its
application, each State will identify any obstacles, including legal
barriers, that may prevent it from implementing an SLDS by the
September 30, 2011 deadline. The Department will provide further
clarification in this area as warranted.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters expressed concerns that the requirement to
collect and report student data from out-of-State IHEs would violate
FERPA. A few commenters asked the Department to provide guidance on how
States can collect data on remedial coursework on students who attend
out-of-State or private IHEs.
Discussion: Proposed Indicator (c)(13) would have requested that
States collect and report college course completion data for students
who enroll in a public IHE, whether or not the IHE is in-State or out-
of-State. We recognize that collection of data from out-of-State IHEs
in a FERPA-compliant manner could be burdensome on States and,
therefore, are revising this Indicator to provide that States need only
collect and publicly report these data from public IHEs within the
State. We also encourage States to consult the NCES Web site for
further assistance in developing statewide longitudinal data systems.
This Web site can be accessed at http://nces.ed.gov/dataguidelines/.
Changes: We have modified new Indicator (c)(12) (proposed Indicator
(c)(13)) to require that States provide college course credit data only
for students enrolled in public in-State IHEs.
Comment: One commenter suggested that, because States may collect
data only for those students who approve the release of their student
records, the data would not be reliable.
Discussion: As discussed in more detail later in this section,
under various exceptions in FERPA, a State may collect and disclose
student-level data for the purpose of evaluating education programs and
improving instruction without prior written student or parent consent.
Moreover, the Department is not asking States to collect data only for
those students who approve the release of information from their
student records.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters recommended that the Department clarify
whether States have the authority under FERPA to share data between
pre-kindergarten-through-grade-12 (pre-K-12) and postsecondary data
systems, particularly with respect to the requirements in new
Indicators (c)(11) and (c)(12) (proposed Indicators (c)(12) and
(c)(13)) that States collect and report student-level college
enrollment and course completion information. One commenter
specifically asked whether a State educational agency (SEA) may access
postsecondary education records of former students without explicit
student permission.
Discussion: As stated earlier, the establishment of a statewide
longitudinal data system with the necessary functionality to
incorporate all 12 of the COMPETES Act elements, including the sharing
of data between pre-K-12 and postsecondary data systems, by itself,
does not violate FERPA. States also may implement an SLDS that includes
the disclosure and redisclosure of personally identifiable information
from education records in a manner that complies with FERPA.
We first address the question of the disclosure and redisclosure of
personally identifiable information in the pre-K context. The
disclosure of personally identifiable information from pre-K programs
to LEAs is not affected by FERPA with respect to pre-K programs that do
not receive funding from the Department, as FERPA does not apply to
those programs. With respect to pre-K programs that receive funding
from the Department, the non-consensual disclosure of personally
identifiable information from the students' pre-K education records to
LEAs is permitted under the enrollment exception in the FERPA
regulations, provided that certain notification and access requirements
are met (20 U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1)(B); 34 CFR 99.31(a)(2) and 99.34).
The second issue raised by commenters involves the sharing of
information between postsecondary institutions and SEAs. Similar to the
pre-K context, the non-consensual disclosure of personally identifiable
information from K-12 education records to a postsecondary institution
is permitted under the enrollment exception, provided the notification
and access conditions are met. A postsecondary institution may disclose
personally identifiable information to an SEA under the evaluation
exception if the SEA has the authority to conduct an audit or
evaluation of the postsecondary institution's education programs (20
U.S.C. 1232g(b)(1)(C), (b)(3), and (b)(5); 34 CFR 99.31(a)(3) and
99.35). States that have not established the requisite authority may do
so in a number of ways, such as (1) creating an entity in the State to
house the SLDS and endowing that entity with the authority to conduct
evaluations of elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education
programs, or (2) granting authority at the SEA or IHE level to conduct
evaluations of elementary, secondary, and postsecondary education
programs. States may grant authority through various vehicles,
including, for example, executive orders, regulations, and legislation.
In some States, the formation documents for SEAs, IHEs, or other
educational entities may already grant the necessary authority.
The Department recognizes that there is considerable variation
among States' governance structures and laws, and that in some States
using the evaluation exception to obtain personally identifiable
information from
[[Page 58452]]
postsecondary institutions may be difficult. The Department is
currently reviewing its regulations and policies in this area and will
be in close communication with States over the next several months
regarding these issues. Of course, the Department also is available,
upon request, to provide States with technical assistance on how to
implement an SLDS that meets the requirements of FERPA.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter encouraged the Department to revisit FERPA
interpretations related to SLDSs, including on the issue of sharing
data between SEAs and State workforce agencies.
Discussion: Under current Department regulations, FERPA prevents
SEAs and LEAs from non-consensually disclosing personally identifiable
information from education records to State workforce agencies.
However, the sharing and reporting of personally identifiable
information from education records in de-identified form is permissible
under FERPA (see 34 CFR 99.31(b)). Furthermore, the reporting of
individually identifiable data by a State agency that does not maintain
education records is not covered by FERPA inasmuch as FERPA applies
only to the disclosure of student-level data from education records. In
other words, because the data maintained by a workforce agency is not
in an education record, FERPA does not apply and, accordingly, does not
present a barrier to the disclosure of such data by State workforce
agencies to educational agencies, to IHEs, or to the State agency that
maintains the SLDS.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested that the Department clarify its
position on the National Student Clearinghouse's ability to verify
college enrollment and course completion data.
Discussion: To the Department's knowledge, while the National
Student Clearinghouse does have the capacity to verify student
enrollment, persistence, and graduation data for the vast majority of
IHEs, it does not collect course completion data.
Changes: None.
America COMPETES Act Elements
Comment: One commenter recommended that we define what it means for
students to transition successfully from secondary school to
postsecondary education, which is one of the elements for an SLDS
described in the America COMPETES Act. Another commenter outlined
challenges in tracking students after they graduate from high school,
including difficulty in disaggregating data by subgroups in a manner
that is statistically accurate due to the fact that most high school
graduating classes have 100 or fewer students.
Discussion: The Department does not have a definition of
``successful transition'' at this time. States and LEAs may use many
indicators to determine successful transition, which may include the
ability to transition from secondary school to postsecondary school
within four to six years, an analysis of trends in student
demographics, program participation rate, courses taken or passed as
they relate to participation in remediation programs in postsecondary
education settings, time needed to graduate, and differences in
retention and persistence in community colleges versus four-year
institutions.
As discussed previously, to assist in SLDS design and development,
NCES has posted standards and guidelines at the following Web site:
http://nces.ed.gov/Programs/SLDS/standardsguidelines.asp. The NCES
handbooks available at this Web site include schemas of the Schools
Interoperability Framework Association and the Postsecondary Electronic
Standards Council, the National Education Data Model of the National
Forum on Education Statistics, the data glossary of NCES' Integrated
Postsecondary Education Data System, and others. Work is currently
underway to create comprehensive standards and guidelines for use by
States in promoting data quality and interoperability of data systems
both within States and across States. The NCES site will be modified,
as appropriate, to include up-to-date resources.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested that the Department provide its
long-term expectations regarding the higher education data elements of
an SLDS so that States may set up their systems to meet those goals and
any future requirements. One commenter recommended that the Department
publish criteria to judge the efficacy of SLDSs.
Discussion: As noted previously, work is underway to create
comprehensive standards and guidelines for use by States to promote
data quality and interoperability of data systems that span early
childhood through postsecondary education. The NCES site referenced
previously will be modified, as appropriate, to include up-to-date
resources.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters recommended that the Department clarify
whether the requirement in the COMPETES Act that the SLDS have the
capacity to communicate with higher education data systems means data
integration or two-way communications. Another commenter asked whether
these data can be merged for program evaluation and policy analysis
purposes.
Discussion: The COMPETES Act specifies that an SLDS have the
capacity to communicate with higher education data systems. Therefore,
statewide longitudinal data systems should have the ability to link an
individual student record from one system to another. Additionally,
these systems should meet interoperability and portability standards,
which will ensure that the systems provide timely and reliable
opportunities to share data across different sectors within a State and
across States. Timely and reliable information from across sectors will
facilitate the evaluation of which program or combinations of programs
is improving outcomes for students.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the requirement that
the SLDS communicate with postsecondary education data systems does not
account for students who choose a postsecondary path other than higher
education (i.e., military or employment credentials). Another commenter
recommended that the Department collect data on students who enter the
workforce or apprenticeship programs, or follow some form of career and
technical training path after high school.
Discussion: The Department acknowledges the importance of
collecting data on students who enter careers or technical training
upon graduating from high school. However, for the purposes of the SFSF
program, the Department has chosen to focus its data collection and
public reporting requirements on college enrollment and course
completion. The measures included in this notice will allow parents,
educators, and other key stakeholders to measure the efficacy of
secondary schools in preparing their graduates for success in college.
In addition, collecting and publicly reporting data on students
entering employment or technical training would be extremely complex
and burdensome on States.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department require
States to include in their SLDS an additional data element on the rate
of out-of-school suspensions and
[[Page 58453]]
expulsions. The commenter also suggested that the Department make the
existing data collected by the Department's Office for Civil Rights
(OCR) publicly available.
Discussion: We do not believe it is necessary to require States to
include in their SLDS an additional element on suspension and expulsion
rates. The ARRA requires only that States implement an SLDS that
contains the elements described in the America COMPETES Act. We believe
that requiring States to include this additional element in their
systems would be unduly burdensome.
The Department's Civil Rights Data Collection is publicly available
on the Department's Web site at http://www.ed.gov/about/offices/list/
ocr/data.html.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter urged the Department to clarify whether a
student identifier must include pre-K students if a State is to meet
the requirement that an SLDS include a unique statewide identifier that
does not permit a student to be individually identified by users of the
system. The commenter also requested that the Department clarify that
use of such an identifier would only be required where information is
being disclosed for research and analytical purposes and would not
apply to providing student data to teachers. One commenter requested
clarity on whether the definition of ``preschool'' included only
publicly operated preschools, or also publicly funded preschools and
non-publicly funded private preschools.
Discussion: For purposes of developing an SLDS that includes the
elements described in the America COMPETES Act, a State will need to
provide students enrolled in Federally and State-supported early
learning programs with a unique identifier that will follow each
student through the pre-K-12 system. This requirement applies only to
Federally and State-supported preschools, not private preschools.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the requirement in the
COMPETES Act that an SLDS contain student-level information about the
points at which students exit, transfer in, transfer out, drop out, or
complete pre-K-16 education programs should be expanded to include
information on re-enrolled students.
Discussion: The ARRA specifically requires States receiving SFSF
funds to develop and implement statewide longitudinal data systems that
contain the elements identified in the America COMPETES Act.
Accordingly, the language concerning this element that we included in
the NPR is taken directly from the America COMPETES Act. The Department
does not wish to add SLDS requirements that are not in the COMPETES
Act.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department eliminate
the COMPETES Act requirement that an SLDS include student-level
transcript information, including information on courses completed and
grades earned. The commenter said that the commenter's State does not
have a standard grade scale and, accordingly, the data would be
meaningless.
Discussion: The Department does not have the authority to change
the elements for an SLDS identified in the COMPETES Act.
Changes: None.
New Indicator (b)(3) (Proposed Indicator (b)(2))
Comment: A few commenters voiced concerns about the effect that
implementation of the indicators in education reform area (b) would
have on teacher privacy. One commenter requested that the Department
develop guidance on teacher privacy and teacher identifier systems,
including guidance on preventing unauthorized access to teacher
information. The commenter recommended that teachers' identities be
available only to their supervisors. One commenter recommended that the
Department require States to describe how they will protect teacher
confidentiality.
Discussion: The Department agrees that teacher and principal
privacy must be protected. However, teacher and principal privacy is
governed by State law. States, LEAs, and schools should consider their
individual State statutes and policies regarding teacher and principal
privacy when establishing an SLDS. As discussed in the Education Reform
Area (a)--Achieving Equity in Teacher Distribution section of this
notice, the Department will provide guidance to States on how States
should address teacher and principal privacy issues when publicly
reporting performance evaluation data in response to the relevant
indicators in education reform area (a).
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters requested that the Department clarify the
meaning of the term ``individual teacher impact'' in new Indicator
(b)(3) (proposed Indicator (b)(2)). Of these, several expressed
concerns about the difficulty in producing data that could reliably
account for the complexity of factors that affect teacher impact. One
commenter was specifically concerned with the requirement that States
provide estimates of individual teacher impact by the proposed deadline
of September 30, 2011; this commenter suggested that States instead be
required to report longitudinal statistics focusing on teacher-student
information and develop a timeline and plan for implementing a measure
of teacher impact on student learning. One commenter did not support
the use of State assessments to determine teacher impact and
recommended that the data be used to inform program evaluation and
professional development.
Another commenter expressed concerns about using value-added
measures to compare schools across a State because the overall teacher
quality in schools varies. In addition, one commenter expressed
concerns about limitations in using value-added measures in schools
with a highly mobile student population because class size may be too
small to make accurate assessments of teacher impact. Another commenter
cited challenges that States face in developing systems that provide
estimates of teacher impact because there are only a few providers
currently available to assist States in the development of these
systems.
Many commenters requested that we clarify the meaning of the term
``student achievement'' in new Indicator (b)(3) (proposed Indicator
(b)(2)). One commenter suggested that the Department require States to
indicate whether they provide student performance data to teachers for
every subject and grade level in which the State administers
assessments.
Discussion: The Department acknowledges that few providers are
currently available to support States in the development of systems
that provide estimates of teacher impact and that the use of such
systems is an evolving field. For these and the following reasons, the
Department is adding new Indicator (b)(2) and changing proposed
Indicator (b)(2) (new Indicator (b)(3)) to clarify the requirement that
a State provide estimates of teacher impact.
The Department agrees with the commenter who suggested that a State
report longitudinal statistics focusing on teacher-student information.
Therefore, the Department is adding new Indicator (b)(2) requiring a
State to indicate whether it provides student growth data on their
current students and the students they taught in the previous year to,
at a minimum, teachers of reading/language arts and mathematics in the
grades in which the State
[[Page 58454]]
administers assessments in those subjects, in a manner that is timely
and informs instructional programs.
The Department also acknowledges financial and institutional
challenges States face in establishing a system through which teachers
are provided estimates of their individual impact on student
achievement in a manner that is timely and informs instruction.
However, the Department believes reports of individual teacher impact
on student achievement may be a valuable tool to States, LEAs, and
teachers. Appreciating that this is a goal that States should work
towards in the future, the Department is revising proposed Indicator
(b)(2) (new Indicator (b)(3)) to require a State to indicate whether it
provides teachers of reading/language arts and mathematics in grades in
which the State administers assessments in those subjects with reports
of individual teacher impact on student achievement. The Department is
also revising the State Plan requirements with respect to proposed
Indicator (b)(2) (new Indicator (b)(3)) to require that, if a State
does not currently provide reports of teacher impact, it is required to
submit a plan on how it will do so in the future; we are not requiring,
however, that a State do so by any specific date.
The Department is also revising new Indicator (b)(3) (proposed
Indicator (b)(2)) to clarify that, for the purpose of providing reports
of teacher impact on student achievement, ``student achievement'' is
measured in terms of student performance on assessments the State
administers pursuant to section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA. Thus, we are
using this term in new Indicator (b)(3) (proposed Indicator (b)(2))
differently than our use of the term student achievement outcomes,
which is used in the indicators relating to teacher and principal
performance evaluation systems in education reform area (a).
The Department will provide guidance on the use of term ``teacher
impact.''
Changes: New Indicator (b)(2) requires that each State indicate
whether it provides student growth data on their current students and
the students they taught in the previous year to, at a minimum,
teachers of reading/language arts and mathematics in the grades in
which the State administers assessments in those subjects, in a manner
that is timely and informs instructional programs.
New Indicator (b)(3) (proposed Indicator (b)(2)) has been revised
to require each State to indicate whether it provides teachers of
reading/language arts and mathematics in grades in which the State
administers assessments in those subjects with reports of individual
teacher impact on student achievement on those assessments. In
addition, we are revising the State Plan requirements for new Indicator
(b)(3) (proposed Indicator (b)(2)). For new Indicator (b)(3) (proposed
Indicator (b)(2)), a State must indicate whether it provides teachers
of reading/language arts and mathematics in grades in which the State
administers assessments in those subjects with reports of individual
teacher impact on student achievement on those assessments. If the
State does not provide those teachers with such reports, it must submit
a plan for how it will develop and implement the means to do so.
Comment: One commenter noted that only 21 States currently report
the ability to connect student and teacher data. Several individual
States commented on their own limitations in linking teachers to
individual students. One commenter noted that although the State can
provide data linking student performance to teachers, LEAs would have
to grant teachers access to the data.
Discussion: The Department acknowledges that some States have
several of the COMPETES elements in place and other States have only a
few. However, in the SFSF Phase I application, each State Governor
committed to establishing, consistent with the requirements of the
ARRA, an SLDS with all 12 elements described in the America COMPETES
Act, including a teacher identifier system that enables the State to
match teachers to students.
FERPA allows the nonconsensual disclosure of personally
identifiable information (PII) from student records to school officials
with a legitimate educational interest in the data. In general, this
means that individuals in an LEA, including teachers, would need access
to PII from a student's education records in order to perform their
professional responsibilities. Schools should have in place criteria
for appropriate ``school officials'' and ``legitimate educational
interest'' and should include this information in the annual
notification to parents of their rights under FERPA. Criteria for
appropriate ``school officials'' and ``legitimate educational
interest'' should reflect the need for teachers and school
administrators to have access to PII from the SLDS to facilitate the
continuous improvement of education outcomes for students.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed the concern that States would not
be able to provide teachers with the results of student assessments in
time to inform instruction. Another commenter expressed concerns about
the ability of teachers to use the data to inform instruction if they
have no prior assessment results to serve as a basis of comparison.
Discussion: We agree that the student growth data and teacher
impact reports provided under new Indicator (b)(2) and new Indicator
(b)(3) (proposed Indicator (b)(2)) are unlikely to lead to timely
changes in day-to-day instruction. However, the Department believes
that even if student growth data or teacher impact reports are not
available to teachers until the end of the school year or the beginning
of the following school year, they can still be a valuable tool for
supporting instructional programs. For example, a teacher receiving
student growth data at the end of the year may adjust instructional
strategies the following year based on weak assessment results by
students in the prior year. Concurrently, the teacher in the subsequent
grade could use the data to identify areas of remediation to address
with incoming students.
As a result, the Department is adding new Indicator (b)(2) to
require a State to indicate whether it provides student growth data on
their current students and the students they taught in the previous
year to, at a minimum, teachers of reading/language arts and
mathematics in the grades in which the State administers assessments in
those subjects, in a manner that is timely and informs instructional
programs (rather than instruction). We are also removing the phrase
``in a manner that is timely and informs instruction'' from new
Indicator (b)(3) (proposed Indicator (b)(2)).
Additionally, because States do not administer summative
assessments in all grades or subjects, the requirements apply, at a
minimum, to teachers in those tested grades and subjects.
Changes: New Indicator (b)(2) requires that each State indicate
whether it provides student growth data on their current students and
the students they taught in the previous year to, at a minimum,
teachers of reading/language arts and mathematics in the grades in
which the State administers assessments in those subjects, in a manner
that is timely and informs instructional programs.
New Indicator (b)(3) (proposed Indicator (b)(2)) has been revised
to require each State to indicate whether it provides teachers of
reading/language arts and mathematics in grades in which the State
administers assessments in those subjects with reports of individual
teacher impact on student achievement on those assessments.
[[Page 58455]]
Comment: Several commenters expressed support for proposed
Indicator (b)(2) (new Indicator (b)(3)) but recommended that the
Department add an indicator on principals' and district administrators'
ability to collect, manage, and analyze data to improve instruction and
decision making.
Discussion: While the Department encourages States to provide
supports and strategies to district administrators and principals on
collecting, managing, and analyzing data to improve instruction and
decision making, the Department believes that adding additional
indicators and requiring additional information would add unnecessary
burden for States.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department encourage
States to provide principals with a data ``dashboard'' that includes
information on student achievement, attendance, and credit completion,
and other student data that can be linked to individual teachers.
Several commenters expressed concerns about how States will measure or
ensure teachers' use of student data, with some commenters recommending
that the Department include an indicator requiring a State to describe
how it will provide data to teachers and monitor teachers' use of the
data.
Discussion: While the Department encourages States to collect
information beyond that required through this notice, we believe that
the current data requirements are sufficient for the purposes of the
SFSF program and that additional requirements would be unnecessarily
burdensome on States.
Changes: None.
Education Reform Area (c)--Standards and Assessments
General
Comment: One commenter indicated that, in light of variances in
State accountability systems, it is difficult to compare student
achievement levels across States. The commenter noted that comparing
assessment data across States may give the false impression that
students in one State are underperforming when the opposite may be
true.
Discussion: The Department agrees with this comment and encourages
States to collaborate in developing common, internationally benchmarked
standards and assessments. In the meantime, collecting information on
student college enrollment and persistence rates (new Indicators
(c)(11) and (c)(12)) (proposed indicators (c)(12) and (c)(13)) will
provide meaningful data on how schools, districts, and States are
preparing their students for postsecondary success.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested that the Department define what is
meant by the term ``high-quality'' as applied to State assessments and
indicate whether any States meet that standard. The commenter also
requested that the Department clarify the relationship between
individual State assessments and internationally benchmarked common
assessments. The commenter further requested that the Department
clarify how the requirement to enhance current State assessments is
affected by efforts to develop common State assessments.
Discussion: By ``high-quality assessments'' the Department means
those assessments that have been peer reviewed and approved by the
Department. While the Department is encouraging the development of
common State assessments that are aligned with common, internationally
benchmarked student achievement standards, we believe that it is
critical for States to continue to ensure that their current
assessments are of high quality and rigorous.
Changes: None.
Indicator (c)(1)--Confirmation of Approval Status
Comment: A few commenters recommended that the Department clarify,
with respect to Indicator (c)(1), whether a State that does not have a
fully approved system of standards and assessments and that has entered
into a compliance agreement with the Department is eligible for SFSF
Phase II funding.
Discussion: Under the authority in section 457 of GEPA (20 U.S.C.
1234f), the Department has entered into compliance agreements with
certain States with respect to their assessment systems. These
agreements enable States to remain eligible to receive funding under
Part A of Title I of the ESEA while coming into full compliance with
the Title I standards and assessment requirements. A State that is
operating under such a compliance agreement will not be denied SFSF
Phase II funding solely due to the existence of such a compliance
agreement. A State in this situation must still meet the Phase II SFSF
application requirements to receive funding. The approval status of a
State's assessment system will not affect its eligibility for SFSF
funding.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the final notice clarify
how the commenter's State could confirm the approval status of its
State assessment system, as determined by the Department, given that it
has submitted data to the Department on its science assessments and is
awaiting a decision on those assessments.
Discussion: Indicator (c)(1) requires each State to confirm the
approval status, as determined by the Department, of its assessment
system with respect to reading/language arts, mathematics, and science
assessments. To comply with this indicator, a State merely confirms the
approval status of its assessment system (i.e., ``Full Approval,''
``Full Approval with Recommendations,'' ``Approval Expected,''
``Approval Pending,'' or ``Approval Pending, Compliance Agreement'').
The fact that a final determination has not been made concerning a
State's science assessments would not preclude a State from confirming
its most current approval status.
Changes: None.
Proposed Indicator (c)(2) and Proposed Descriptor (c)(1)--Enhancing
Assessments
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department remove the
indicators in education reform area (c) related to current State
assessment systems in light of the efforts that States are making
toward creating and implementing common, internationally benchmarked
standards and assessments. Other commenters supported proposed
Indicator (c)(2) (and proposed Descriptor (c)(1)), which would require
a State to indicate whether it is engaged in activities to enhance the
quality of its academic assessments. These commenters urged the
Department also to collect additional data about the alignment among
standards, assessments, professional development, instructional
materials, accommodations for students with disabilities, and
accommodations for students with limited English proficiency.
Discussion: As a condition of receiving SFSF funds, a State
assures, among other things, that it will enhance the quality of the
academic assessments it administers pursuant to section 1111(b)(3) of
the ESEA. The indicators in this education reform area require States
to be transparent on the current status of their efforts to provide
rigorous, high-quality standards and assessments. The Department
acknowledges that many States are working in collaboration or in
consortia with other States or organizations to improve the quality,
validity, and reliability of their standards and assessments. In
recognition of States'
[[Page 58456]]
efforts to develop common standards and assessments, the Department
does not believe it is necessary to collect additional information on
the steps that States may be taking to enhance their current State
assessments. The Department believes that the peer review of State
assessments provides sufficient information on State efforts to enhance
those assessments.
While the Department strongly encourages States to take steps to
align and publicly report the alignment of their standards,
assessments, professional development, instructional materials,
accommodations for students with disabilities, and accommodations for
students with limited English proficiency, the Department believes that
the current indicators are sufficient for the purposes of this program.
Changes: The Department has removed proposed Indicator (c)(2) and
Descriptor (c)(1). With the removal of this indicator and descriptor,
we have renumbered the remaining indicators and descriptors in this
education reform area.
New Indicator (c)(3) (Proposed Indicator (c)(4))--Alternate Assessments
for Students With Disabilities
Comment: One commenter recommended adding language on the validity
and reliability of assessments for students with disabilities to
proposed Indicator (c)(4), which requires States to 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.
Discussion: Section 1111(b)(3)(A) of the ESEA requires each State
to implement a set of high-quality student academic assessments. As
further required in section 1111(b)(3)(C)(iv), such assessments must be
of adequate technical quality for each purpose required under the ESEA.
Each State has submitted to the Department for peer review and approval
its regular and alternate assessments. This peer review includes a
rigorous evaluation of the validity and reliability of each assessment,
including all alternate assessments. Thus, if a State's alternate
assessments for students with disabilities are determined to have met
the statutory and regulatory requirements through the Department's peer
review process, those assessments would necessarily be valid and
reliable assessments. Accordingly, it is not necessary to add language
to new Indicator (c)(3) (proposed Indicator (c)(4)) on the validity and
reliability of assessments for students with disabilities.
Changes: None.
New Indicators (c)(4) and (c)(6) (Proposed Indicators (c)(5) and
(c)(7))-- Appropriateness and Effectiveness of Accommodations
Comment: Several commenters recommended that the Department remove
new Indicators (c)(4) and (c)(6) (proposed Indicators (c)(5) and
(c)(7)), which ask each State to indicate whether it has completed,
within the last two years, an analysis of the appropriateness and
effectiveness of the accommodations it provides, for assessment
purposes, to students with disabilities and students with limited
English proficiency, respectively. These commenters noted that this
analysis was already performed as part of the peer review process.
Discussion: The Department believes that States should regularly
analyze the appropriateness and effectiveness of their assessment
accommodations to ensure that the assessments fully address the needs
of students with disabilities and limited English proficient students.
The Department agrees that the peer review process includes a rigorous
analysis of the appropriateness and effectiveness of assessment
accommodations. Thus, a State that has submitted its assessment system
to the Department for peer review within the last two years, or that
has engaged in an alternative rigorous analysis of its assessment
accommodations during this timeframe, should be able to respond to
these indicators affirmatively.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that proposed Indicators
(c)(5) and (c)(7) will lead to an expectation that each State complete
an analysis of the accommodations it provides to students with
disabilities and students with limited English proficiency for
assessment purposes.
Discussion: Section 1111(b)(3)(A) of the ESEA requires each State
to implement a set of high-quality student academic assessments. This
requirement includes appropriate and effective accommodations for
students with disabilities and students with limited English
proficiency. The Department, therefore, encourages regular review of
accommodations that are part of State assessment systems.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters requested that the Department clarify
whether the analysis of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the
accommodations referenced in proposed Indicators (c)(5) and (c)(7)
could be done by other States or organizations.
Discussion: For purposes of these indicators, the analysis could be
done by other States or organizations. It is not necessary for each
State to have undergone a Departmental peer review of its assessment
system within the past two years.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department publish
criteria that States would use to review the appropriateness and
effectiveness of accommodations for students with disabilities.
Discussion: Section 1111(b)(3)(A)(ix)(II) and (III) of the ESEA
requires each State to ensure that students with disabilities and
students with limited English proficiency, respectively, have access to
appropriate accommodations necessary to measure the academic
achievement of those students. Element 4.6 in the Department's peer
review guidance provides the criteria the Department uses to determine
whether States have complied with these requirements.\6\ States may use
these criteria to guide any analysis of assessment accommodations that
are conducted outside the Department's peer review process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ This guidance is available at http://www.ed.gov/policy/
elsec/guid/saaprguidance.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters requested that the Department require
States to describe the accommodations available to students with
disabilities. One of these commenters recommended that the Department
require States to submit data on the number and percentage of students
afforded each accommodation.
Discussion: In their assessment manuals, States include information
on the accommodations available to students with disabilities. States
post these manuals on their Web sites to ensure transparency and
accountability for all students.
With regard to reporting the number and percentage of students
afforded each accommodation, while each student's Individualized
Education Program lists the accommodations to be provided to that
student, States are not required by law to aggregate and report the
number and percentage of students afforded each accommodation. The
regulations in 34 CFR 300.160(f) require that States report to the
public, among other things, the following: (1) The number of students
with disabilities who participate in the general (regular) assessments,
(2) the number of students
[[Page 58457]]
with disabilities provided accommodations (that did not result in an
invalid score) to participate in general assessments, and (3) the
number of students with disabilities who participate in alternate
assessments based on grade-level, alternate, or modified academic
achievement standards. We do not believe that further reporting with
respect to each type of accommodation provided is warranted for the
purposes of the SFSF program.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters requested that States be required to
describe the accommodations provided to students with limited English
proficiency for assessment purposes. One of these commenters also
recommended that States provide data on the number and percentage of
students afforded each accommodation.
Discussion: Information on accommodations offered to limited
English proficient students is already available in State assessment
manuals, which States make publicly available. Requiring States to
report on the number and percentage of students with limited English
proficiency who receive each type of accommodation would impose
significant additional burden on States and LEAs. The Department does
not believe that the additional data sought by these commenters are
warranted for the purposes of the SFSF program.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter inquired whether the data required under
proposed Indicator (c)(7) are already provided by States through the
Department's Education Data Exchange Network (EDEN). Another commenter
requested that we clarify whether the analysis referenced in this
indicator should be done at the State level or at the student level.
Discussion: The data that the Department will be collecting under
new Indicator (c)(6) (proposed Indicator (c)(7)) are not reported
through EDEN. Under this indicator, the Department is asking each State
whether, within the last two years, it has performed a State-level
analysis of its assessment accommodations for limited English
proficient students. This analysis is not required at the student
level.
Changes: None.
New Indicator (c)(7) (Proposed Indicator (c)(8))--Native Language
Assessments
Comments: Several commenters opposed this indicator, stating that
the Department does not have the authority to require native language
assessments or that it improperly implies that such assessments are
required or preferred.
Discussion: New Indicator (c)(7) (proposed Indicator (c)(8)) merely
requires a State to confirm whether or not it is administering native
language versions of State assessments, as approved by the Department,
for limited English proficient students. The indicator does not suggest
that the use of native language assessments is the best or only way of
meeting the needs of limited English proficient students, and it is not
intended to require States to use such assessments.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department add an
indicator or descriptor that would require States to list languages
spoken by one percent or more of students in the State for whom
translations of State assessments are provided or not provided.
Discussion: Because native language versions of State assessments
are not required under the ARRA or the ESEA, the Department does not
agree that this additional information should be collected as part of
the SFSF Phase II application.
Changes: None.
Comments: Several commenters suggested that the Department require
States to provide additional data demonstrating that the needs of
limited English proficient students are being met. For example, one
commenter recommended that proposed Indicator (c)(8) be broadened to
include other ways of gauging a student's mastery of content and
English. Another commenter suggested that the indicator be changed to
require States to provide data on the percentage of limited English
proficient students using native language versions of State assessments
and, of this group, the percentage of students who are also receiving
content instruction in their native language. A third commenter
recommended that States be required to provide their process for
classifying students as limited English proficient students. This
commenter requested that the Department modify the SFSF Phase II
requirements to require States to identify the types of valid and
appropriate assessments that are available for these students. This
commenter also suggested that States be required to describe the
instructional practices and programs that are approved for teaching
limited English proficient students.
Discussion: The Department agrees with these commenters about the
importance of providing limited English proficient students with
appropriate and effective instruction and assessment accommodations and
supports. While the recommended modifications might provide more
detailed information on the extent to which States are meeting the
needs of these students, for the purposes of this program, the
Department believes that new Indicators (c)(6), (c)(7), and (c)(8)
(proposed Indicators (c)(7), (c)(8), and (c)(9)) will provide
sufficient data in this area without imposing undue burden.
Changes: None.
New Indicators (c)(10), (c)(11), and (c)(12) (Proposed Indicators
(c)(11), (c)(12), and (c)(13))--High School Graduation Rate Data and
Postsecondary Enrollment and Attainment
Comments: Numerous commenters urged the Department to expand the
reporting requirements in proposed Indicators (c)(11), (c)(12), and
(c)(13) pertaining to high school graduation, college enrollment, and
course completion to account for high school graduates who choose a
path other than higher education. Several commenters argued that the
scope of the proposed data collection is too narrow and suggested, for
example, that the Department foster the collection of data on career
readiness in addition to college readiness.
Discussion: The Department recognizes the value of alternative
career pathways separate from higher education, and seeks in no way to
minimize the accomplishments of individuals or States with regard to
students who pursue successful careers immediately after high school
through military service, career and technical education programs, or
full-time employment. However, as discussed earlier, we have a
particular interest in collecting information on college readiness (as
an indicator of the strength of States' secondary education standards
and programs) and have chosen, for the purposes of this program, to
limit the burden of our reporting requirements accordingly.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters stated that collecting the proposed
student enrollment and course completion data would be very burdensome,
time-consuming, and costly for States. Some of these commenters
suggested that the indicators are unlikely to produce meaningful data.
Others noted that the requirements would negatively affect students by
taking valuable resources from the classroom.
Discussion: The Department acknowledges the challenges that the
postsecondary data collection and
[[Page 58458]]
public reporting requirements present. However, we believe that
collecting and publicly reporting these data will provide States, LEAs,
and schools with information they need in order to continuously improve
elementary and secondary education. The Department recognizes that
tracking credits earned by students enrolled in private IHEs or in out-
of-State IHEs is particularly challenging. Given that the majority of
high school graduates enroll in an in-State IHE, and that the majority
of enrollment in degree-granting institutions is in public
institutions, the Department believes that at this time States should
be required to collect course completion data only for students who
enroll in an in-State public IHE. These data should provide an accurate
reflection of the strength of States' secondary education standards and
programs.
Changes: The Department has revised proposed Indicator (c)(13) (new
Indicator (c)(12)) to require a State to 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 (as defined in section 101(a) of the HEA) in the State
within 16 months of receiving a regular high school diploma, the number
and percentage (including numerator and denominator) who complete at
least one year's worth of college credit (applicable to a degree)
within two years of enrollment in the IHE.
Comment: In the background to the section of the NPR discussing the
indicators and descriptors relating to standards and assessment
requirements, the Department included references to both college
education and technical training. The background discussion indicated
that a State would be required to provide data on the extent to which
students graduate from high school in four years with a regular high
school diploma and pursue a college education or technical training.
One commenter noted that none of the proposed indicators specifically
referenced ``technical training'' and recommended that the Department
delete the phrase unless the requirements of the program also reflect
career or technical training.
Discussion: The Department recognizes the importance of technical
training and believes it is an important option for many students.
However, the Department is not requiring States to provide data on
students who enroll in training programs. The Department believes that
this additional collection requirement would impose an undue burden on
States due to the wide range of technical training programs from which
data would be required. Moreover, the Department believes that the
college readiness data required under new Indicators (c)(11) and
(c)(12) (proposed Indicators (c)(12) and (c)(13)) are sufficient to
provide a sound measure of the strength of secondary education
standards and programs.
Changes: The Department has not included references to ``technical
training'' in the final requirements.
Comments: One commenter asserted that States will need vendor
services in order to track student enrollment, persistence, and
remedial course work and suggested that States would have to rely on
too few vendors during a short time period to provide the data under
proposed Indicators (c)(12) and (c)(13).
Discussion: The Department believes that obtaining data on student
enrollment and course completion in IHEs for these indicators will
provide stakeholders with critical information on the effectiveness of
secondary education across States. The Department believes that States
will be able to obtain the assistance they may need to meet the
requirements of new Indicators (c)(11) and (c)(12) (proposed Indicators
(c)(12) and (c)(13)) through available data sources such as the
National Student Clearinghouse.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters requested that the Department remove
inconsistencies between the student subgroups identified for reporting
in the SFSF NPR and the student subgroups identified for reporting in
the notice of proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria for the Race to the Top Fund.
Discussion: The proposed requirements under the Race to the Top
Fund included a requirement to disaggregate student data according to
the subgroups required under the National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) for some items and the subgroups required under section
1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA for others. For Phase II of SFSF, we
proposed that States be required to disaggregate data by the subgroups
in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA.
The Department is making every effort to unify requirements across
programs, particularly across ARRA programs, whenever possible. NAEP
presents data by a number of ``student groups,'' including gender, race
or ethnicity, highest level of parental education, and type of school
(public or private). Additional questionnaires also provide information
on student course-taking, home discussions of school work, and
television-viewing habits. By statute, the Department requires States
to disaggregate State assessment data for adequate yearly progress
(AYP) determinations by economically disadvantaged status, race/
ethnicity, disability, and English language proficiency (section
1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II)). State report cards must report assessment data
disaggregated by gender, race/ethnicity, English language proficiency,
migrant status, disability status, and economic advantage status,
unless such disaggregation would reveal personally identifiable student
information (section 1111(b)(3)(C)(xiii)). Under 34 CFR
200.19(a)(4)(i), with respect to high school graduation rates, the
Department requires that data be disaggregated by the subgroups in
section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA. Because new Indicator (c)(10)
(proposed Indicator (c)(11)) addresses graduation rates, the subgroups
identified in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA are the most
appropriate.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that the timeline for States to
report graduation rate data under proposed Indicator (c)(11) using a
four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate appears to be inconsistent
with the timeline in the Title I regulations.
Discussion: New Indicator (c)(10) (proposed Indicator (c)(11))
requires States to provide, for the State, for each LEA in the State,
and for each high school in the State, data disaggregated by student
subgroup on the number and percentage of students who graduate from
high school using the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate as
required by the Title I regulations in 34 CFR 200.19(b). Under the
Title I regulations, the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate must
be reported at the State, LEA, and high school levels, as well as
disaggregated by each subgroup described in section
1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA, beginning with report cards providing
results of assessments administered in the 2010-2011 school year. The
Department does not believe that the timeline for reporting under new
Indicator (c)(10) (proposed Indicator (c)(11)) is inconsistent with the
Title I regulations because those regulations do not specify a date by
which the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate for school year
2010-2011 must be reported. We believe that States should have the
capacity to publicly report these data by September 30, 2011, as
required in this notice.
Changes: None.
[[Page 58459]]
Comment: Numerous commenters questioned why the Department is
collecting data only on the basis of a four-year adjusted cohort
graduation rate and requested that the Department amend proposed
Indicator (c)(11) to take into consideration extended-year adjusted
cohort graduation rates. Several of the commenters indicated that use
of the adjusted four-year cohort graduation rate fails to take into
account legitimate reasons a student might take more than four years to
graduate. One commenter suggested adding a new indicator that collects
at the State, LEA, and high school levels, as well as disaggregated by
subgroups, data on the number and percentage of students who graduate
from high school using an extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate
as approved by the Department.
Discussion: The reporting of data using a four-year adjusted cohort
graduation rate, which States must uniformly implement as required in
the Title I regulations, helps ensure that there is an accurate method
of comparing graduation rate data across States. Without such
comparability, it is difficult to measure adequately how well schools,
LEAs, and States are doing in addressing the educational needs of high
school students. Thus, for the purposes of this program, the Department
is requiring the collection and public reporting of graduation rate
data only using the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that, in directing States to
submit graduation rate data under proposed Indicator (c)(11), the
Department establish an ``n size'' (minimum subgroup size) for
reporting so that student data are not personally identifiable.
Discussion: When presenting disaggregated data, States, LEAs, and
schools are responsible for ensuring that they do not reveal personally
identifiable information about individual students. As part of its
approved Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook
(Accountability Workbook) under Title I, each State has identified a
minimum number of students for reporting purposes. These established
minimum subgroup sizes are to be used in reporting the graduation rate
data under new Indicator (c)(10) (proposed Indicator (c)(11)).
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department consider
whether there are ways to better align college admissions requirements
with student performance expectations. The commenter asserted that such
alignment could more accurately assess the extent to which
postsecondary students require remediation. The commenter argued that
the extent to which college students require remediation is largely
within the control of IHEs because IHEs establish admissions
requirements. Further, this commenter contended that those IHEs with no
or low admissions requirements will likely have to provide more
remediation.
Discussion: The Department acknowledges that IHEs, in some
respects, may have control over the extent to which their students
require remediation. The Department encourages States to involve IHEs
in the process of aligning pre-K-12 standards, curricula, and
assessments so that students are better prepared for college.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters encouraged the use of college entrance
exams (such as SATs and ACTs) or NAEP data to demonstrate whether high
school standards and assessments are appropriately aligned to
facilitate college and career readiness. One commenter requested that
the Department gather information on whether graduation requirements
align with evidence of college and work readiness. This commenter
requested that the Department also require States to report, and
disaggregate by subgroups, the number and percentage of students who
earn two-year and four-year degrees at IHEs in three and six years,
respectively.
Discussion: While we recognize the value of college entrance test
data, the Department believes that new Indicators (c)(11) and (c)(12)
(proposed Indicators (c)(12) and (c)(13)) will provide data that
accurately and sufficiently reflect the strength of secondary education
standards and programs. In addition, not all IHEs require entrance
exams as a prerequisite for admission. With respect to using NAEP data
to validate State assessments, the Department affirms the utility of
comparing NAEP scores but notes that the NAEP is not administered
annually to high school students. In addition, we recognize that data
on the number and percentage of students who earn two-year and four-
year degrees within three and six years, respectively, would be a
reliable measure of the strength of secondary education. However, the
Department seeks to minimize the burden on States and believes that the
postsecondary enrollment and course-completion indicators in new
Indicators (c)(11) and (c)(12) (proposed Indicators (c)(12) and
(c)(13)) will address the underlying issue the commenters raised--
namely, how well high schools are preparing students for college.
Changes: None.
Comments: Numerous commenters opposed proposed Indicator (c)(12),
regarding the number of students who graduate from high school and
enroll in an IHE, claiming that the data collection would be too
costly, unreliable, or impractical to conduct at this time. One
commenter had specific concerns about the costs of obtaining enrollment
data on students who attend private or out-of-State IHEs.
Discussion: College enrollment data will help measure the extent to
which secondary schools have prepared their students for colleges and
universities. While difficult to quantify, the benefits associated with
collecting these data should outweigh the costs.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested that the Department clarify which
entity in the State (elementary or secondary school or IHE) will be
responsible for reporting on proposed Indicators (c)(12) and (c)(13).
Discussion: States are responsible for collecting and publicly
reporting these data and should implement the collection of these data
in the manner that is most effective for each State.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: In light of the number of recent high school graduates
who engage in experiential learning or other activities during the year
immediately following their high school graduation, the Department
believes it is important to collect data on students who enroll in an
IHE even if they do not do so immediately after receiving a regular
high school diploma. Collecting data on students who enroll in an IHE
within sixteen months of obtaining a regular high school diploma will
more accurately reflect the effectiveness of secondary education.
Changes: The Department has revised new Indicator (c)(11) (proposed
Indicator (c)(12)) to require a State to 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), the number and
percentage who enroll in an IHE (as defined in section 101(a) of the
HEA) within 16 months of receiving a regular high school diploma.
Comment: One commenter requested that, in order to measure
students'
[[Page 58460]]
academic readiness for postsecondary-level work, the Department require
States to collect both aggregated and disaggregated information on
students who are placed in one or more remedial courses during their
first year of enrollment in an IHE.
Discussion: The Department included new Indicator (c)(12) (proposed
Indicator (c)(13)) in order to provide a measure of students' college
readiness. Remedial courses generally do not result in credit toward a
degree, the type of credit measured by this indicator.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters requested that the Department define the
term ``one-year's worth of college credit'' in proposed Indicator
(c)(13).
Discussion: There is considerable variation among IHEs about what
it means to complete at least one year's worth of college credit. As a
result, it would not be feasible to establish a uniform definition of
this term at this time. The Department believes that permitting each
public IHE to define this term in a manner consistent with its own
academic requirements will not only minimize the reporting burden on
the IHEs and States, but will result in meaningful data on student
progress toward a college degree.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters suggested that proposed Indicators
(c)(12) on college enrollment and (c)(13) on course completion raise
potential FERPA issues and requested that the Department provide
guidance around creating a FERPA-compliant pre-K-16 data system. The
commenters sought additional guidance regarding the authority to share
data between pre-K-12 and postsecondary data systems, especially where
the systems are administered by separate State agencies.
One commenter specifically suggested that the Department provide
States with flexibility to set data aggregation and masking standards
to avoid reporting of small data cells that could identify an
individual student. The commenter suggested that the Department
consider collecting data aggregated at a higher level.
Discussion: As stated earlier in response to the comments on
implementing an SLDS that is compliant with FERPA, establishment of a
statewide longitudinal data system with the necessary functionality to
incorporate all 12 of the COMPETES Act elements, including the sharing
of data between pre-K-12 and postsecondary data systems does not by
itself violate FERPA. States also may implement an SLDS that includes
the disclosure and redisclosure of personally identifiable information
from education records in a manner that complies with FERPA. The non-
consensual disclosure of personally identifiable information from K-12
education records to a postsecondary institution is permitted under the
enrollment exception, provided the notification and access conditions
are met. Postsecondary institutions may disclose personally
identifiable information to an SEA under the evaluation exception if
the SEA has the authority to conduct an audit or evaluation of the
postsecondary institution's education programs. (20 U.S.C.
1232g(b)(1)(C), (b)(3), and (b)(5); 34 CFR 99.31(a)(3) and 99.35).
The Department is not requiring States to report student data that
would reveal personally identifiable information. In reporting data
under new Indicators (c)(11) and (c)(12) (proposed Indicators (c)(12)
and (c)(13)), States should use the minimum subgroup sizes that are
part of their approved Accountability Workbooks under Title I.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department strengthen
the metrics regarding standards and assessments by adding an indicator
on the number and percentage of students in each grade who are enrolled
in and successfully complete a college- or career-ready high school
curriculum (aligned with college- and career-ready standards),
disaggregated by subgroup and reported at the State, district, and
school levels.
Discussion: The Department recognizes the value of this information
but believes that the indicators on the adjusted four-year cohort
graduation rate, college enrollment, and college course completion are
sufficient to obtain data on elementary/secondary education and on
postsecondary outcomes. Given these other indicators, the Department
does not believe that the additional burden that would result from the
suggested indicator is warranted.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters requested that the Department require
States to collect and report data on the percentage of students who
earn college credit during their first year of college. These
commenters indicated that such data more accurately predict degree
completion.
Discussion: The Department's requirement that States collect data
on the number and percentage of high school graduates who complete at
least one year's worth of college credit within two years of enrollment
in the IHE will capture data on students who earn college credit during
their first year of college. The Department acknowledges the value of
data on college credit earned during their first year of college but
recognizes that students may attend college part-time and prefers to
establish a requirement that more flexibly accounts for a broader
spectrum of situations.
Changes: None.
Comment: None.
Discussion: New Indicator (c)(11) (proposed Indicator (c)(12))
requires States to report, for the State, and for each LEA and high
school in the State, disaggregated data on the number and percentage of
high school graduates who enroll in an IHE within 16 months of
receiving a regular high school diploma. New Indicator (c)(12)
(proposed Indicator (c)(13)) requires States to report, for the State,
and for each LEA and high school in the State, disaggregated data on
the number and percentage of those graduates who complete at least one
year's worth of college credit within two years of enrollment at a
public IHE in the State. States are required to identify graduates
using a four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate. The Department
recognizes that many States will be unable to report on postsecondary
enrollment and attainment of high school graduates consistent with the
four-year adjusted cohort rate by September 30, 2011. Therefore, the
Department has modified the plan requirements for new Indicators
(c)(11) and (c)(12).
Changes: The Department has modified the plan requirements for new
Indicators (c)(11) and (c)(12). These requirements now provide that the
State is required to, at a minimum, possess the ability to collect and
publicly report the data. As a result, the requirements of paragraph
(a) of the Plan Requirements section of this notice apply to these
indicators, at a minimum, with respect to the State's development of
the means to collect and to publicly report the data. Accordingly--
(1) If, for either of these indicators, a State will develop but
not implement the means to collect and publicly report the data (i.e.,
the State will not collect and publicly report the data) by September
30, 2011, the State--
(i) May submit a plan with respect to the indicator that addresses
the requirements of paragraph (a) only with respect to the State's
development of the means to collect and to publicly report the data,
and not the State's implementation of those means; and
(ii) If submitting a plan in this manner, must include in its plan
a description of the evidence it will
[[Page 58461]]
provide to the Department of Education, by September 30, 2011, to
demonstrate that it has developed the means to collect and publicly
report that data.
(2) If, however, for either of these indicators, a State will
develop and implement those means (i.e., the State will collect and
publicly report the data) by September 30, 2011, the State must submit
a plan with respect to the indicator that fully addresses the
requirements of paragraph (a).
Education Reform Area (d)--Supporting Struggling Schools
Introduction
A central purpose of ARRA funds is to increase the academic
achievement of students in struggling schools. As a result, the NPRs
regarding the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, the Race to the Top
Fund, and the School Improvement Grants each included requirements
related to struggling schools. The most explicit requirements were
included in the SIG NPR that was published in the Federal Register on
August 26, 2009 (74 FR 43101), in which the Department proposed four
rigorous school intervention models--turnaround, restart, school
closure, and transformation--that an LEA seeking SIG funds would
implement in the lowest-achieving Title I schools in improvement,
corrective action, or restructuring identified by each State and could
also implement in secondary schools that are eligible for, but do not
receive, Title I funds. Commenters on each notice recommended that the
Department make the identity of, and requirements for, struggling
schools consistent among all three programs. We agree with these
comments and, in response, have revised the four school intervention
models and are integrating them into the criteria, definitions, and
requirements for all three programs. In addition, we have developed a
definition of persistently lowest-achieving schools to substitute for
``schools in the lowest-achieving five percent'' (SFSF) and
persistently lowest-performing schools (Race to the Top) for use in all
three programs.
Because both the SFSF and Race to the Top notices of final
requirements are being published prior to the final SIG notice, we are
publishing, in final, the requirements for the four models in SFSF,
will append them to Race to the Top, and will incorporate them into the
final SIG notice when it is issued. In order to clarify and fully
explain the definition of persistently lowest-achieving schools and the
changes that we made to the four models, we are including in this
notice the comments and responses related to the definition and those
models from the SIG NPR. In the following sections, we first discuss
the comments we received on struggling schools in response to the SFSF
NPR and our responses. We then discuss the comments we received related
to the definition and the four intervention models as proposed in the
SIG NPR and our responses to those comments.
Persistently Lowest-Achieving Schools
Comment: Some commenters expressed support for our proposal in
education reform area (d) that States identify and support schools that
are not meeting student achievement goals, but a number of commenters
expressed concern that the proposed indicators in this reform area
would not result in the correct identification of those schools. Many
commenters were specifically concerned that high schools might not be
identified among the lowest-achieving schools. One commenter argued
that the strategies for turning around struggling high schools may
differ from strategies for turning around other schools and that the
data for the proposed indicators for education reform area (d) should
be disaggregated by school type and grade span so that high schools are
reported separately. Several commenters recommended broadening the
definition of lowest-achieving five percent to include both Title I and
non-Title I secondary schools with reasonably high scores on
assessments but low graduation rates in an effort to better identify
struggling schools. One commenter recommended that high schools with
graduation rates below 60 percent be added to proposed indicators
(d)(3) through (d)(5) to better identify low-achieving high schools.
Discussion: The Department agrees that it is important to identify
the lowest-achieving schools in each State so that parents, policy-
makers, and other stakeholders can take appropriate action and measure
the progress made in improving the achievement of students who attend
those schools. We also agree that strategies and approaches to reform
schools may vary according to school type and grade span. The
Department agrees that the proposed definition of lowest-achieving five
percent of schools might fail to identify some struggling secondary
schools, including those whose students are performing adequately on
State assessments but are failing to graduate.
Changes: The Department has removed the definition of lowest-
achieving five percent and added a new definition for the term
persistently lowest-achieving schools. This term is defined as follows:
With respect to the requirements that a State collect and publicly
report data and information on the persistently lowest-achieving
schools that are Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring or secondary schools that are eligible for, but do not
receive, Title I funds, persistently lowest-achieving schools means, as
determined by the State--
(a)(1) Any Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring that--
(i) Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of Title I schools
in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring or the lowest-
achieving five Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring in the State, whichever number of schools is greater; or
(ii) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in
34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent over a number of years;
and
(2) Any secondary school that is eligible for, but does not
receive, Title I funds that--
(i) Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of secondary schools
or the lowest-achieving five secondary schools in the State that are
eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds, whichever number of
schools is greater; or
(ii) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in
34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent over a number of years.
(b) To identify the lowest-achieving schools, a State must take
into account both--
(i) The academic achievement of the ``all students'' group in a
school in terms of proficiency on the State's approved assessments
under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA in reading/language arts and
mathematics combined; and
(ii) The school's lack of progress on those assessments over a
number of years in the ``all students'' group.
We have added a new Descriptor (d)(1), which requires States to
provide their definition of persistently lowest-achieving schools
(consistent with the requirements for defining this term set forth in
this notice) that the State uses to identify such schools.
We also have made two additional changes to education reform area
(d) that require States to report on reform efforts in secondary
schools. We have revised Indicator (d)(5) to require States to provide,
for the State, the number and identity of the schools that are
secondary schools that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I
funds that are identified as persistently lowest-achieving schools. We
have added new
[[Page 58462]]
Indicator (d)(6), which requires States to provide, for the State, of
the persistently lowest-achieving schools that are secondary schools
that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds, the number
and identity of those schools that have been turned around, restarted,
closed, or transformed in the last year.
Comment: With respect to Indicator (d)(3), one commenter questioned
the value of requiring States to collect data on schools in improvement
status in addition to schools identified for corrective action and
restructuring. The commenter further questioned whether the additional
collection of information is necessary to focus on the lowest-achieving
five percent.
Discussion: In order to remain consistent with school reform
strategies that States are implementing using funds available under
section 1003(g) of the ESEA (School Improvement Grants), the Department
chose to collect data on schools in improvement status. It is important
to capture information regarding all schools that are persistently
lowest-achieving schools in the State, including those in improvement.
Because the Department believes that States should place a priority
on reforming the persistently lowest-achieving schools, we are
requiring States to collect and publicly report information only on the
intervention strategies in those schools and not on every school in
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring.
Changes: Indicator (d)(3) has been revised to require States to
provide, for the State, the number and identity of Title I schools in
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that are identified as
persistently lowest-achieving schools. Indicator (d)(4) has been
revised to require the State to provide, for the State, of the
persistently lowest-achieving Title I schools in improvement,
corrective action, or restructuring, the number and identity of those
schools that have been turned around, restarted, closed, or transformed
(as defined in this notice) in the last year.
Comment: One commenter questioned the usefulness of the
stratification in proposed Indicators (d)(3), (d)(4), and (d)(5) and
recommended creating a new indicator that provides the identity and
grade levels of the schools identified for improvement, corrective
action, or restructuring and the lowest-achieving five percent of
schools in the State.
Discussion: The Department agrees that identifying schools and
providing greater disaggregation of data required on the persistently
lowest-achieving schools provides greater transparency and more
information that is useful to parents, educators, and other
stakeholders.
Changes: As noted in the previous responses, a new definition of
persistently lowest-achieving schools has been added and Indicators
(d)(3), (d)(4), and (d)(5) have been revised to require States to
provide the number and identity of the schools being reported under
these indicators. We also have removed the requirement that States
report the percentages for these schools.
Comment: One commenter requested that the Department provide States
with the flexibility to determine which schools are struggling.
Discussion: We believe that the definition of persistently lowest-
achieving schools that we have established in this notice provides
States with flexibility in identifying these schools while setting
forth basic parameters for States to follow in developing their
definitions. The SFSF definition and requirements for persistently
lowest-achieving schools and school intervention models will now be
consistent with those in the Race to the Top notice and the upcoming
School Improvement Grants notice; this consistency may encourage and
enable States to use diverse funding sources to accomplish consistent
goals. We encourage States to think comprehensively across these
programs in order to develop plans that best target and meet the needs
of their persistently lowest-achieving schools.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that State-by-State
comparisons will not identify the lowest-achieving schools in the
Nation.
Discussion: The purpose of the data collection and public reporting
requirements in education reform area (d) is not to provide a list of
the lowest-achieving schools in the Nation. Rather, the Department
intends that the required data collection and public reporting will
provide transparency on the persistently lowest-achieving schools in
each State. This will allow parents, students, and educators in each
State to make informed decisions and implement reform strategies that
will work best for their individual situations.
Changes: None.
The Four Intervention Models
Comment: Some commenters objected to our proposed definitions of
the intervention models (turnaround, school closure, consolidation)
used in Indicators (d)(3), (d)(4), and (d)(5). These commenters argued
that the definitions are overly restrictive and lack a sufficient
research base. Also, several commenters expressed a belief that the
definition for a school that has been turned around is too restrictive.
Many of these commenters recommended that States be given a broader
range of options for choosing intervention models and that the data
collection requirements be expanded to require States to report on
other models that have been used to assist struggling schools.
Discussion: The Department recognizes that there are reform models
and other intervention efforts not identified in the NPR that can be
successful in turning around struggling schools. We also understand
that no single reform model will be effective in every State or every
LEA. However, the intervention strategies proposed in the NPR focus on
dramatic change, including significant changes in leadership, staffing,
and governance, and as they are targeted to the Nation's persistently
lowest-achieving schools, which in most cases have not responded to
multiple earlier school improvement and turnaround efforts. Research
indicates that fundamental, comprehensive changes in leadership,
staffing, and governance hold the greatest promise for bringing about
the improvements in school structure, climate, and culture that are
required to break the cycle of chronic educational failure. We believe
that the reform models proposed in the NPR hold great promise in their
ability to turn around the Nation's persistently lowest-achieving
schools and that they are flexible enough to allow States and LEAs to
adapt them to meet their specific needs. As noted earlier, to be
consistent with the definitions and requirements in the School
Improvement Grants notice and to encourage and enable States to plan
effectively across these programs, these indicators, descriptors and
definitions, where appropriate, have been revised. Specifically, we
have added a fourth model, the transformation model, and revised and
clarified requirements in the turnaround, restart, and school closure
models.
At this time, the Department declines to require States to collect
data on other reform models as we believe that these hold the most
potential for turning around struggling schools.
Changes: We have revised the definitions of the intervention models
as detailed in the Final Definitions section of this notice.
We have revised Indicator (d)(4), which requires States to provide,
for the State, of the persistently lowest-achieving schools that are
Title I schools
[[Page 58463]]
in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring, the number and
identify of those schools that have been turned around, restarted,
closed, or transformed in the last year.
We have added new Indicator (d)(6), which requires States to
provide, for the State, of the persistently lowest-achieving schools
that are secondary schools that are eligible for, but do not receive,
Title I funds, the number and identity of those schools that have been
turned around, restarted, closed, or transformed in the last year. With
the addition of new Indicator (d)(6) and the addition of several new
indicators regarding charter schools, we have renumbered the indicators
in this education reform area.
Comment: A few commenters stated that the proposed models for
intervening in struggling schools are process or structural reforms
rather than results-based approaches focusing on gains in student
achievement. They believe that the collection of data will provide
information only on where reform efforts have occurred, not on the
success of those efforts.
Discussion: The Department believes that if the four reform models
established in this notice are implemented effectively, they will lead
to gains in student achievement. In addition, via EDFacts the
Department collects data on Title I schools in improvement, corrective
action, or restructuring and on whether those schools have improved
student achievement outcomes to a point that they are no longer
classified in those categories. The Department does not, therefore,
believe it is necessary to collect such data through these
requirements.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters recommended that the Department add an
indicator that would require States to report the number of Title I
schools in restructuring in the last five years for each LEA and, for
these schools, also report the number that have been turned around with
new leadership and a majority of new staff, the number that have been
turned around through conversion to charter schools, and the number
that have been closed and the students placed in higher-performing
schools.
Discussion: The Department currently collects, through its EDFacts
data system, information on the number and identity of Title I schools
in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in each State.
Through the SFSF Phase II application, States will report publicly on
the types of reforms implemented in persistently lowest-achieving
schools, which are the schools most in need of the types of
interventions included in this notice and the schools on which States
and LEAs should be focusing their reform efforts. Accordingly, we do
not think it is necessary to establish the additional reporting
requirements suggested by the commenters.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that States report the name and
number of all schools eligible for and receiving Title I funds by grade
span.
Discussion: The Department currently makes public information
regarding the name and number of Title I-eligible schools by grade span
in the Common Core of Data (CCD). We believe that the data available in
the CCD, combined with the information that States will report under
this notice, is sufficient to enable parents, educators, and other
stakeholders to judge State and local reform efforts.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter argued that closing schools in some rural
areas is not an option due to an already difficult time that districts
have in recruiting and retaining highly qualified staff.
Discussion: We agree that not all reform models are appropriate in
all circumstances. As States and LEAs work to implement reforms in the
persistently lowest-achieving schools, they should exercise great care
in determining exactly which reforms actions to implement in which
schools. This notice includes three intervention models (turnaround,
restart, and transformation) that do not require the closing of a
school.
Changes: None.
Schools That Have Been Turned Around
Comment: Some commenters expressed concern that the use of the
phrase schools that have been turned around implies improvement in
academic results in a formerly low-performing school. Commenters
recommend restricting the use of the term ``turned around'' to
circumstances in which States can demonstrate significant improvement
in student achievement. Further, the commenters recommended defining
this model as ``major reform actions'' or ``school that has undertaken
a turn-around strategy.''
Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters' concern that
the term schools that have been turned around implies an outcome rather
than an input. The term ``turnaround'' has several meanings, but we
believe that this notice clearly uses it to describe a process for
improving student achievement in a persistently lowest-achieving
school.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters expressed concern regarding the
requirement that one element of the turnaround model is the replacement
of at least 50 percent of the existing staff. Several commenters
indicated that the 50 percent figure is arbitrary. A few commenters
stated that there is a lack of existing research that supports the
assertion that a certain percentage of staff need to be replaced in
order to successfully turn around a school. Several commenters
recommended that the definition not include a specific percentage. One
commenter recommended that, under this model, all teachers should be
required to reapply for a teaching position with the new school
leadership having the authority to rehire teachers regardless of
seniority or tenure. Another commenter expressed concern that replacing
a majority of staff may not be the most effective approach for every
school; the new school leadership may determine, after an evaluation of
existing staff, that less than a majority be replaced to support the
turn-around effort. One commenter recommended that schools operating
under this model should be required to retain at least 50 percent of
current qualified staff.
Discussion: The Department recognizes that replacing leadership and
staff is one of the most difficult aspects of the school turnaround
option. However, we also believe that in our lowest-performing schools,
many of which have failed to improve despite repeated turnaround
efforts, dramatic and wholesale changes in leadership and staffing can
be the key to creating the new climate and culture needed to break the
cycle of educational failure. Moreover, the required turnaround option
leaves room to accommodate many of the flexibilities suggested by these
commenters. For example, a principal has the option of retaining
roughly half of existing staff who are deemed effective and who commit
to supporting other key elements of the school's turnaround plan. With
regard to the comment that new school leadership have the authority to
rehire teachers regardless of seniority or tenure, the Department
believes such issues are best resolved at the State and local levels in
the context of existing collective bargaining agreements; however, in
schools implementing a turnaround model, the principal must be provided
with sufficient operational flexibility, including in making staffing
[[Page 58464]]
decisions, to implement fully a comprehensive approach to substantially
improving student achievement outcomes. Finally, the Department would
like to make clear that the turnaround option is only one of four
reform models outlined in this notice. If a school determines that the
requirements of a turnaround model are too restrictive, the LEA may
choose to implement another reform model in the school.
Changes: The definition of a turnaround model has been revised to
require that the principal be given sufficient operational flexibility,
including in selecting staff, to implement fully a comprehensive
approach to substantially improving student achievement outcomes.
Comment: One commenter recommended that States be encouraged to
develop or support programs for rigorous preparation for principals who
are hired to turn around a school.
Discussion: We agree that principals need rigorous preparation and
support in order to achieve results in persistently lowest-achieving
schools. We encourage States and LEAs to work with existing, or develop
new, principal and school leadership programs that ensure adequate
preparation and ongoing support for principals working in persistently
lowest-achieving schools. We decline in this notice to require such
actions of States because the purpose of this notice is to have States
collect and publicly report data, not to establish professional
development policies.
Changes: None.
Schools That Have Made Progress
Comment: A few commenters expressed concern that the proposed
definition of schools that have made progress will not provide
information on whether schools are improving student achievement. The
commenters stated that this definition assumes that, on average, rates
in reading and mathematics are improving from year to year. Commenters
noted that, while this is true in many States, proficiency rates in
some States have been nearly flat or have declined from year to year. A
few commenters recommended that the Department require States to report
the average statewide gains used to determine whether schools meet the
definition of making progress in reading/language arts and mathematics.
Commenters recommended that the definition stipulate that gains in the
``all students'' category be greater than zero and, for schools
identified in the ``all students'' category, that the gains in the
``all students'' category be equal to or greater than the average gains
of schools in the State in the ``all students category.'' Additionally,
several commenters expressed concern that underperformance by subgroups
could go unchecked. Some commenters recommended that the definition of
a school that has made progress require gains for the subgroup or
subgroups that are equal to or greater than the average gains of
schools in the State in the ``all students'' category, and that are
greater than zero. Another commenter recommended changing the phrase
``in the `all students' category (as under section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(I)
of ESEA'' to ``in the `all students' and `subgroups' categories (as
under section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of ESEA.''
Discussion: We agree that a school that has made progress must
demonstrate positive gains. We also agree that, in order to monitor
progress on closing the achievement gap the data collection must
include measures of subgroup performance and average statewide subgroup
performance within the State. The reporting of average statewide gains
will provide useful information regarding progress in the State.
Changes: We have revised the definition of school that has made
progress as follows:
With respect to the requirements that a State collect and publicly
report the numbers and percentages of certain groups of schools 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
and for each student subgroup (as under section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the
ESEA), are equal to or greater than the average statewide school gain
in the State on that assessment, in the ``all students'' category and
for each student subgroup, except that if the average statewide school
gains in the State on that assessment are equal to or less than zero,
the gains of the school must be greater than zero.
We also have revised Indicators (d)(1) and (d)(2). Indicator (d)(1)
requires that a State provide, for the State, the average statewide
school gain in the ``all students'' category and the average statewide
school gain for each student subgroup (as under section
1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the ESEA) on the State assessments in reading/
language arts and for the State and for each LEA in the State, the
number and percentage (including numerator and denominator) of Title I
schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that have
made progress (as defined in this notice) on State assessments in
reading/language arts in the last year.
Indicator (d)(2) requires a State to provide, for the State, the
average statewide school gain in the ``all students'' category and the
average statewide school gain for each student subgroup (as under
section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the ESEA) on State assessments in
mathematics and for the State and for each LEA in the State, the number
and percentage (including numerator and denominator) of Title I schools
in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that have made
progress on State assessments in mathematics in the last year.
Comment: One commenter asserted that student achievement must be
used in conjunction with graduation rates for high schools to ensure
that there is no incentive for schools to have low-performing students
leave the school prior to graduation. The commenter recommended adding
to the definition of school that has made progress that a high school
must also have made gains in graduating students at a rate that is
equal to or greater than the average graduation rate gain of other
schools in the State and that the definition of continuous and
substantial improvement as defined by the Department in 34 CFR
200.19(b)(1) be met.
Discussion: The Department agrees that all high schools should work
to ensure that all of their students are graduating with a regular high
school diploma. As a result of our concern over graduation rates, we
have chosen, as discussed previously, to require States to collect and
publicly report data and information on their persistently lowest-
achieving schools . This requirement will capture secondary schools
with graduation rates below 60 percent. The Department believes that
the changes it has made to the definition of persistently lowest-
achieving schools sufficiently address the commenters' concern
regarding high school graduation rates.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters recommended that those schools in
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring determined to be
making progress in reading/language arts and mathematics, respectively,
be identified by name (in addition to providing the number and
percentage of such schools) in the reports States provide under
education reform area (d).
Discussion: While we encourage States to identify the schools in
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring determined to be
making progress in reading/language arts and
[[Page 58465]]
mathematics, we do not believe it is necessary to require States to
provide these identifications.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that the number and
percentage of schools that have made progress in reading/language arts
and mathematics do not align with current assessment and reporting
priorities since student assessments are conducted and reported by
grade level. The commenter asked that the Department provide guidance
on how States and LEAs should calculate school-level, rather than
grade-level, improvement. Similarly, one commenter stated that guidance
is needed on how States should calculate the student gains used to
determine school progress; otherwise, the commenter said, there will
not be a way to meaningfully compare data among States.
Discussion: The Department will provide guidance to States on
calculating school-level progress in reading/language arts and
mathematics.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that States be required to list
the number of schools that have emerged from improvement, corrective
action, or restructuring and to describe what activities led to these
results.
Discussion: The Department agrees that it is important to make
public the identity of schools that have emerged from improvement,
corrective action, or restructuring. The data that States will make
available under the requirements of this notice will over time provide
parents, educators, and policymakers with information on the extent to
which States and LEAs have had success in reforming the persistently
lowest-achieving schools. Information on the type of reforms
implemented in those schools will also be publicly available. However,
while we encourage studies on the efficacy of particular reform
strategies, we believe that requiring States to conduct such studies is
beyond the scope of the SFSF program.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department add an
indicator that would provide additional information on the dollar
amount and percentage of SFSF funds spent on secondary schools.
Discussion: States will provide quarterly data on the uses of funds
appropriated under the ARRA as required by section 1512 of the ARRA. In
addition, States will provide an annual report on uses of SFSF funds.
These reports will provide a certain amount of information on the uses
of ARRA funds. While we believe it would be useful also to require
States to collect and publicly report information on expenditure of
SFSF funds at the school level, we are mindful here, as in other areas,
of the burden of such a requirement on States and LEAs. We, therefore,
decline to require further reporting in this area.
Changes: None.
Charter Schools
Comment: As described earlier in this notice, one commenter stated
that the Department should require each State to indicate whether the
information it reports includes information from charter schools and,
if such information is not currently available, require the State to
provide information in its State plan on the steps it will take to
collect information on charter schools.
Discussion: Under the requirements, States will report information
on charter schools that are LEAs in the same manner that they will
provide information on any LEA. Further, information on public charter
schools that are not LEAs is provided in the same manner as it is for
other public elementary and secondary schools.
Additionally, as proposed in the NPR and established in this
notice, the Department is requiring States to collect and publicly
report information on the number of charter schools that are permitted
to operate and that are actually operating in the State (new Indicators
(d)(7) and (d)(8)). However, and as discussed in greater detail later
in this section, the Department agrees that it is important to collect
information on the academic achievement of students who attend charter
schools as well and has added new Indicators (d)(9) and (10) that
measure the performance of charter school students on State assessments
in reading/language arts and mathematics.
Changes: As discussed in more detail later, the Department has
added new Indicators (d)(9) and (d)(10) to education reform area (d).
Comment: A few commenters expressed support for proposed indicators
(d)(6) through (d)(9). However, many commenters expressed concern over
the Department's focus on charter schools. Several commenters objected
to the emphasis on charter schools, noting that research suggests that
many charter schools perform no better than regular public schools in
raising student achievement. A number of commenters believe that these
indicators will promote an overemphasis on charter schools while
ignoring other alternatives. They urged the Department to focus on
other models for turning around schools and to allow States flexibility
in determining the best strategies.
Discussion: The Department appreciates the comments in support of
the goal of increasing the number of high-performing charter schools as
a strategy for both turning around the persistently lowest-performing
schools and for increasing the educational options for students
attending such schools. The Department recognizes that the available
research on the effectiveness of charter schools in raising student
achievement is mixed. However, we believe strongly that high-performing
charter schools can be especially valuable in communities where
chronically low-performing traditional public schools have failed to
improve after years of conventional turnaround efforts. In such cases,
high-performing charter schools, whether created through the conversion
of a traditional public school enrolling the same students or by
establishing a new school that provides an alternative to traditional
public schools, can offer promising and proven options for breaking the
cycle of educational failure. Finally, while we believe in the ability
of high-performing charter schools to turn around struggling schools,
we do not believe that they are the only reform option. States and LEAs
have developed alternative intervention models that have demonstrated
success in raising student achievement in low-performing schools. In
addition to high-quality charter schools, we encourage the use of these
alternatives that have proven to be successful in transforming
struggling schools.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter questioned why progress information is not
required for charter schools when the Department has indicated that it
wants to hold charter schools accountable. The commenter proposed a new
indicator requiring information on charter school progress in reading
and mathematics.
Discussion: We agree that information should be collected on
charter school progress in improving student achievement in reading/
language arts and mathematics. Charter schools can serve as models for
school reform, but it is important that they be held accountable for
their performance. Collecting data on charter school progress in
reading/language arts and mathematics will provide valuable information
on charter school performance.
Changes: Two new indicators have been added to reform area (d) to
address charter school progress in reading/language arts and
mathematics. New Indicator (d)(9) requires each State to
[[Page 58466]]
provide, for the State and for each LEA in the State that operates
charter schools, information on the number and percentage of charter
schools that have made progress on State assessments in reading/
language arts in the last year. New Indicator (d)(10) establishes the
same requirement for State assessments in mathematics.
Comment: A number of commenters asserted that the proposed data
collection regarding charter schools would provide only a superficial
overview of charter school accountability and success and proposed new
indicators to collect additional information. The proposals included
collecting information on the charter school application process, the
number of charter school applications received each year, and the
number of applications approved and denied. The proposed indicators
also included collecting data on the extent to which charter schools
serve student populations comparable to non-charter public schools in
the district, and if a non-charter school was converted to a charter
school, the percentage of the former student population the charter
school continues to serve. Commenters also suggested collecting data on
reform strategies that have been applied to the lowest-achieving
charter schools and requiring States that allow charter schools to show
evidence of charter school success. Another commenter suggested that
all data related to charter schools be disaggregated by subpopulation.
Discussion: By requiring States to publicly report the number of
charter schools permitted to operate under State law, the number that
are currently operating, the number of charter schools that have closed
and the reason for closure, this final notice will ensure parents,
policy makers and other stakeholders have access to valuable
information on States' charter school laws, operations, and
accountability. To ensure greater transparency, States must report this
information in each of the last five years instead of, as called for in
the proposed requirements, over the last five years.
While we encourage States to collect and publicly report data on
the performance of charter schools beyond what is called for in this
notice, we believe that the information we are requiring is sufficient
for the purposes of this program.
Changes: New Indicators (d)(11) and (d)(12) (proposed Indicators
(d)(8) and (d)(9)) require that the information be publicly reported
for ``each of the last five years'' as opposed to ``the last five
years.''
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department prohibit
charter schools from refusing students based on test scores, special
needs, or any other factor.
Discussion: The Department believes that all students should have
access to an excellent education. However, State and local governments
possess the authority to authorize charter schools and as such,
requirements for charter school admissions are primarily State and
local matters. Nonetheless, Federal civil rights laws prohibit charter
schools (as recipients of Federal funds or as public entities) from
discriminating in admissions on the basis of race, color, national
origin, sex, or disability.\7\ In addition, we note that charter
schools receiving funds under the Department's Charter Schools Program
(CSP) may set minimum qualifications for admission only to the extent
that such qualifications are: (a) Consistent with the statutory
purposes of the CSP; (b) reasonably necessary to achieve the
educational mission of the charter school; and (c) consistent with
civil rights laws and Part B of the Individuals with Disabilities
Education Act.\8\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Additional information on the application of Federal civil
rights laws to charter schools is available at http://www.ed.gov/
offices/OCR/archives/pdf/charter.pdf.
\8\ Additional information on the CSP is available at http://
www.ed.gov/programs/charter/legislation.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested adding ``mismanagement'' to the
list of possible reasons a charter school may have closed.
Discussion: While the reasons for charter school closure included
in the notice are not meant to be exhaustive, the Department believes
that requiring States to report information on the closure of charter
schools due to academic, educational or financial reasons captures the
vast majority of official `mismanagement' circumstances that would
cause a charter school to close or not be renewed. The Department has
provided an ``other'' category to allow for closures not reflected in
the choices provided. A State could use that category for schools
closed because of other instances of ``mismanagement''.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked for clarification of which entities
would constitute a valid source of information on why a charter school
closed.
Discussion: SEAs are ultimately responsible for all schools in the
State and as such will be a valid source for why a charter school has
closed.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department consider
limiting the charter school data collection to such factors as size of
enrollment and length of operation. The commenter also recommended that
SEAs not be required to collect data on reasons for charter school
closures in previous years because some States do not have this
information and would be required to collect it retroactively.
Discussion: The Department believes that many States will already
have this information. States will need to collect information on
charter schools for the purposes of State funding and reporting for
LEAs and schools and, in doing so, will likely determine which charter
schools have closed. It is also likely that States also collect
information on the reasons for closure. Though some States may not
currently collect and publicly report this information, the Department
believes that it is important that they do so. Understanding the
reasons for charter school closures can help States, LEAs, and other
stakeholders determine which models of charter schools are effective
and eliminate those that are not.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department issue clear
reporting guidelines and a standard form for reporting the reasons for
charter school closures in order to eliminate potential problems with
reporting such data.
Discussion: Policies regarding authorization and closure of charter
schools vary greatly from State to State. The Department cannot provide
a standard reporting form that would address all of the different
issues in each State. We leave the establishment of such guidelines and
reporting forms to each State.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked for clarification regarding our intent
when we ask for information regarding ``the number of charter schools
currently permitted to operate.''
Discussion: In this section, the Department intends to require
States to collect and publicly report information on the number of
charter schools currently permitted to operate under State law.
Changes: We have revised new Indicator (d)(7) so that the indicator
now reads: Provide for the State and, if applicable, for each LEA in
the State, the number of charter schools that are currently permitted
to operate under State law.
[[Page 58467]]
Comments and Responses on the SIG NPR
As noted earlier, the following discussion summarizes the comments
we received, and our responses, on the ``Tier I'' and ``Tier II''
schools proposed in the SIG NPR that are now included in the definition
of persistently lowest-achieving schools. The discussion also
summarizes the comments and our responses on the four school
intervention models proposed in the SIG NPR.
Definition of Persistently Lowest-Achieving Schools
Comment: A number of commenters recommended alternatives to the
process proposed in the SIG NPR for determining the lowest-achieving
five percent of all Title I schools in improvement, corrective action,
or restructuring in the State--that is, ``Tier I'' schools. As proposed
in the SIG NPR, a Tier I school is a school in the lowest-achieving
five percent of all Title I schools in improvement, corrective action,
or restructuring in the State, or one of the five lowest-achieving
Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring in
the State, whichever number of schools is greater. Under the SIG NPR,
to determine this ``bottom five percent,'' a State would have had to
consider both the absolute performance of a school on the State's
assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics and whether its
gains on those assessments for the ``all students'' group over a number
of years were less than the average gains of schools in the State for
the ``all students'' group.
Several commenters said this proposed process was too prescriptive
and recommended that States have more flexibility in determining the
lowest-achieving five percent. The commenters specifically suggested
permitting States to restrict Tier I schools to schools in
restructuring if this group constitutes more than five percent of a
State's identified schools; to apply a State's growth model; or to
consider such other factors as measures of individual student growth,
writing samples, grades, and portfolios. One commenter suggested that
the Department determine the lowest-achieving five percent of schools
in the Nation rather than have each State determine its own lowest-
achieving five percent. Other commenters recommended changes that
include taking into account the length of time a school has been
designated for restructuring, measuring gains related to English
language proficiency, and including newly designated Title I schools
(especially secondary schools) that do not yet have an improvement
status.
Several commenters also suggested changing the method for
determining ``lack of progress,'' including using subgroups rather than
the ``all students'' group, measuring progress in meeting adequate
yearly progress targets, and narrowing achievement gaps. Another
commenter recommended clarifying that, even if a school shows gains
greater than the State average, it should not be considered to be
making progress if those gains are not greater than zero.
Finally, several commenters suggested that graduation rates be
taken into account in determining the lowest-achieving Title I high
schools. One of these commenters suggested including in Tier I all
Title I high schools in improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring with a graduation rate below 60 percent as well as their
feeder middle and junior high schools.
Discussion: In developing our proposed definition of the lowest-
achieving five percent of schools for each State as defined in the SIG
NPR, we considered several alternatives, including the use of the
existing ESEA improvement categories and the possibility of using a
measure that would identify the lowest-achieving five percent of
schools in the Nation rather than on a State-by-State basis. The goal
was to identify a uniform measure that could be applied easily by all
States using existing assessment data. We started with Title I schools
in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring as the initial
universe from which to select the lowest-achieving schools because
those are the schools eligible to receive SIG funds. ESEA improvement
categories were deemed too dependent on variations in individual
subgroup performance, rather than the overall performance of an entire
school, to reliably identify our worst schools. A nationwide measure,
although appealing from the perspective of national education policy,
would likely have identified many schools in a handful of States and
few or none in the majority of States, making it an inappropriate guide
for the most effective use of State formula grant funds.
In general, we believe that the changes and alternatives suggested
by commenters would add complexity to the method for determining the
lowest-achieving five percent of schools without meaningfully improving
the outcome. With the changes noted subsequently, we believe the
definition proposed in the SIG NPR is straightforward, can be easily
applied using data available in all States, and can produce easily
understood results in the form of a list of State's lowest-achieving
schools that have not improved in a number of years.
Regarding the determination of whether a school is making progress
in improving its scores on State assessments, the commenters
highlighted the complexity and potential unreliability of measuring
year-to-year gains on such assessments. In response, we are simplifying
this aspect of the definition to give SEAs greater flexibility in
determining a school's lack of progress on State assessments over a
number of years.
We also agree that it is important to include Title I high schools
in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that have low
graduation rates in the definition. The Secretary has made addressing
our Nation's unacceptably high drop-out rates--an estimated 1 million
students leave school annually, many never to return--a national
priority. In recognition of this priority, and in response to
recommendations from commenters, we are including in the definition any
Title I high school in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring
that has had a graduation rate that is less than 60 percent over a
number of years.
Accordingly, we have made these changes and incorporated the
process for determining the lowest-achieving five percent of Title I
schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring--also known
as Tier I schools for purposes of SIG funds--into a new definition of
persistently lowest-achieving schools in this notice.
Changes: The Department has added a definition of persistently
lowest-achieving schools to this notice that incorporates the process
described in the SIG NPR for determining the lowest-achieving five
percent of Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring (or the lowest-achieving five such schools, whichever
number of schools is greater) (``Tier I'' schools for purposes of SIG).
This new definition also includes any Title I high school in
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that has had a
graduation rate of less than 60 percent over a number of years (as will
the ``Tier I'' definition for SIG purposes). We have removed language
in proposed section I.A.1.a(ii) of the SIG NPR defining ``a school that
has not made progress.''
Comment: Numerous commenters expressed support for including
chronically low-achieving secondary schools that are eligible for, but
not receiving Title I funds as Tier II schools, as proposed in section
I.A.1.b in the SIG
[[Page 58468]]
NPR, including one commenter who suggested that LEAs be required to
fund Tier II schools. Other commenters, however, opposed the use of
Title I funds in non-Title I schools and recommended that other funding
be identified to serve those schools or stated that the inclusion of
those schools is more appropriately addressed in the Title I
reauthorization. One commenter suggested that it would not be
appropriate to provide Title I funds to such schools when the SIG NPR
would restrict the number of Title I schools that can be served in Tier
I.
Discussion: We believe that low-achieving secondary schools often
present unique resource, logistical, and pedagogical challenges that
require rigorous interventions to address. Yet, many such schools that
are eligible to receive Title I funds are not served because of
competing needs for Title I funds within an LEA. The large amounts of
ARRA funds--available through Stabilization, Race to the Top, and SIG--
present an opportunity to address the needs of these low-achieving
secondary schools. Accordingly, we have continued in this notice to
include secondary schools that are eligible for, but do not receive,
Title I funds in the definition of the persistently lowest-achieving
schools in a State.
As proposed in the SIG NPR, such secondary schools would have been
eligible if they were equally as low-achieving as a Tier I school. We
realized that this standard was too vague, particularly in light of the
rigorous interventions that would be required if an SEA identified, and
an LEA decided to serve, such a school. As a result, we have changed
the definition to include secondary schools that are eligible for, but
do not receive, Title I funds and that are among the lowest-achieving
five percent of such schools in a State (or the lowest five such
schools, whichever number of schools is greater). An SEA must identify
these schools using the same criteria as it uses to identify the
lowest-achieving Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, and
restructuring.
For the reasons noted earlier in this notice, we have also included
in the definition any high school that is eligible for, but does not
receive, Title I funds and that has had a graduation rate that is less
than 60 percent over a number of years.
Changes: The Department has added a definition of persistently
lowest-achieving schools to this notice that incorporates the lowest-
achieving five percent of secondary schools in a State that are
eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds (or the lowest-
achieving five such schools, whichever number of schools is greater)
(``Tier II'' schools for purposes of SIG). This new definition also
includes any high school that is eligible for, but does not receive,
Title I funds that has had a graduation rate of less than 60 percent
over a number of years (as will the ``Tier II'' definition for SIG
purposes). We have removed language in proposed section I.A.1.b of the
SIG NPR that required a comparison of the achievement of secondary
schools to Tier I schools.
General Comments on the Four Intervention Models
Comment: One commenter supported the Secretary's intent in
proposing the four interventions in the SIG NPR. The commenter noted
that the majority of SIG funds are intended to target the very lowest-
achieving schools in the Nation--schools that have not just missed
their accountability targets by narrow margins or in a single subgroup.
Rather, they are schools that have ``profoundly fail[ed]'' their
students ``for some time.'' Accordingly, the commenter acknowledged
that the four interventions are appropriately designed to engage these
schools in bold, dramatic changes or else to close their doors.
Conversely, several commenters suggested that the four
interventions are too prescriptive and do not leave room for State
innovation and discretion to fashion similarly rigorous interventions
that may be more workable in a particular State. The commenters noted
that for some school districts, particularly the most rural districts,
none of the interventions may be feasible solutions. In addition,
several commenters rejected the idea that there should be any Federal
requirements governing struggling schools. The commenters suggested
that schools in need of improvement be permitted to engage in self-
improvement strategies tailored to each individual school's needs as
determined at the local level based on local data, rather than being
mandated to adopt specific models by the Federal Government.
Discussion: We disagree that the four models limit State
innovation. Each model provides flexibility and permits LEAs to develop
approaches that are tailored to the needs of their schools within the
broad context created by each model's requirements. We do not believe
that any one model is appropriate for all schools; rather, it is the
Department's intention that LEAs select the model that is appropriate
for each particular school.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters suggested adding a fifth intervention
option. One commenter, for example, suggested permitting States to
propose an alternative, but rigorous, intervention model for approval
through a peer review process. The commenter noted that whatever
accountability measure is adopted in the SIG notice of final
requirements should serve to ensure that the model is held accountable
for results. Another commenter suggested a ``scale up'' model, in which
an LEA could use SIG funds to expand interventions with documented
success in producing rapid improvement in student achievement within
that LEA or in another LEA with similar demographics and challenges.
Yet another commenter suggested adding a ``supported transformation''
model to accommodate, in particular, the needs of children in low-
achieving schools in small, rural communities that lack the capacity to
transform their schools. The commenter identified the need for an SEA
to build the capacity of struggling LEAs by working to develop models
for intervention, to identify specific evidence-based intervention
strategies, and to provide ongoing, intensive technical, pedagogical,
and practical assistance so as to increase LEAs' capacity to assist
their low-achieving schools.
Discussion: We included the four school intervention models in the
SIG NPR after an extensive examination of available research and
literature on school turnaround strategies and after outreach to
practitioners. Our goal, which we believe was achieved, was to identify
fundamental, disruptive changes that LEAs could make in order to
finally break the long cycle of educational failure--including the
failure of previous reforms--in the Nation's persistently lowest-
achieving schools. We also believe that these models, despite their
limited number, potentially encompass a wide range of specific reform
approaches, thus negating the need for a ``fifth model.'' We
understand, for example, that school closure may not work in some LEAs,
but that leaves the turnaround, restart, or transformation models as
possible options for them. We also know that not all States have a
charter school law, limiting the restart options available to LEAs in
such States. However, even where charter schools are not an option, an
LEA could work with an Education Management Organization (EMO) to
restart a failed school or could pursue one of the other three
intervention models. And we understand that some rural areas may face
unique challenges
[[Page 58469]]
in turning around low-achieving schools, but note that the significant
amount of funding available to implement the four models will help to
overcome the many resource limitations that previously have hindered
successful rural school reform in many areas.
The four school intervention models described in the SIG NPR also
are internally flexible, permitting LEAs to develop their own
approaches in the broad context created by the models' requirements.
For example, the turnaround and restart models focus on governance and
leadership changes, leaving substantial flexibility and autonomy for
new leadership teams to develop and implement their own comprehensive
improvement plans. Even the transformation model includes a wide
variety of permissible activities from which LEAs may choose to
supplement required elements, which are primarily focused on creating
the conditions to support effective school turnarounds rather than the
specific methods and activities targeting the academic needs of the
students in the school.
We also note that over the course of the past eight years, States
and LEAs have had considerable time, and have been able to tap new
resources, to identify and implement effective school turnaround
strategies. Yet they have demonstrated little success in doing so,
particularly in the Nation's persistently lowest-achieving schools,
including an estimated 2,000 ``dropout factories.'' Under the ESEA,
States have been required to set up statewide systems of support for
LEA and school improvement; to identify low-achieving schools for a
range of improvement, corrective action, and restructuring activities;
and to use the school improvement reservation under section 1003(a) of
the ESEA to fund such improvement activities. However, the overall
number of schools identified for improvement, corrective action, and
restructuring continues to grow; in particular, the number of
chronically low-achieving Title I schools identified for restructuring
has roughly tripled over the past three years to more than 5,000
schools. SEAs have thus far helped no more than a handful of these
schools to successfully restructure and exit improvement status, in
large part, we believe, because of an unwillingness to undertake the
kind of radical, fundamental reforms necessary to improve the
persistently lowest-achieving schools.
Finally, although we believe this recent history of failed school
improvement efforts justifies using ARRA SIG funds to leverage the
adoption of the more far-reaching reforms required by the four school
intervention models, we note that Part A of Title I of the ESEA
continues to make available nearly $15 billion annually, as well as an
additional $10 billion in fiscal year 2009 through the ARRA, that SEAs
and LEAs may use to develop and implement virtually any reform strategy
that they believe will significantly improve student achievement and
other important educational outcomes in Title I schools. In particular,
we would applaud State and local efforts to use existing Title I funds
to scale up successful interventions or to build State and local
capacity to develop and implement other promising school intervention
models. For all of these reasons, we decline to add a fifth school
intervention model to this notice.
Changes: None.
Turnaround Model
Principal and Staff Replacement
Comment: Many commenters opposed replacing principals and staff as
part of the turnaround model. Although several commenters acknowledged
that poor leadership and ineffective staff contribute to a school's low
performance, a majority claimed that staff replacement has not been
established as an effective reform strategy, others stated that such a
strategy is not a realistic option in many communities that already
face teacher and principal shortages, and one commenter suggested that
replacement requirements associated with turnaround plans would
discourage teachers and principals from working in struggling schools.
In addition, many commenters opposed sanctioning principals and
staff, partly because, as one commenter claimed, the turnaround model
assumes that most problems in a school are attributable to these
individuals. One stated that principals face ``trying'' circumstances
and another stated that the proposed requirements ignore the ``vital
role'' that principals play in high-need schools. These commenters
stated that other factors--such as poverty, lack of proper support, and
tenure and collective bargaining laws--should be addressed before
decisions are made to replace principals and staff. One commenter
claimed that principals and teachers in low-achieving schools could
perform their jobs if they are given adequate training and support and
working conditions are improved. Another opposed the replacement
requirement because the commenter believed a stable and consistent
staff is a key factor in school improvement.
Discussion: We understand that replacing leadership and staff is
one of the most difficult aspects of the four models; however, we also
know that many of our lowest-achieving schools have failed to improve
despite the repeated use of many of the strategies suggested by the
commenters. The emphasis of the ARRA on turning around struggling
schools also reflects, in part, an acknowledgement by the Congress that
past efforts have had limited or no success in breaking the cycle of
chronic educational failure in the Nation's persistently lowest-
achieving schools.
Accordingly, the Department believes that dramatic and wholesale
changes in leadership, staffing, and governance--such as those required
by the turnaround model--are an appropriate intervention option for
creating an entirely new school culture that breaks a system of
institutionalized failure. Although we acknowledge the possibility that
the turnaround model could discourage some principals and teachers from
working in the lowest-achieving schools, others will likely be
attracted by the opportunity to participate in a school turnaround with
other committed staff. In addition, other Federal programs, such as the
Teacher Incentive Fund and Race to the Top programs, are helping to
create incentives and provide resources that can be used to attract and
reward effective teachers and principals and improve strategies for
recruitment, retention, and professional development.
Changes: None.
Comment: A number of commenters recommended changes to the
principal and staff replacement requirements. One commenter proposed a
detailed ``fifth model'' that focused upon providing additional support
to teachers by improving working conditions, such as reducing class
size and providing professional development opportunities. Others
recommended (1) providing a principal with the autonomy to make his or
her own firing and hiring decisions instead of requiring the
replacement of 50 percent of the staff; (2) allowing staff to reapply
for their positions; (3) retaining principals who were recently hired;
(4) providing principals with a ``window'' of opportunity to improve
their schools before being replaced; (5) suggesting that the
replacement requirement extend to superintendents and boards of
education; (6) retaining at least 50 percent of current staff who
reapply and meet all of the requirements of the
[[Page 58470]]
redesigned school; and (7) focusing on staff qualifications and putting
in place effective staff rather than on a particular target level of
replacements.
Discussion: We agree with some of the changes to the turnaround
model suggested by commenters. For example, new language in paragraph
(a)(1)(i) of the turnaround model recognizes the vital role played by
the principal and acknowledges that new principals need authority to
make key changes required to turn around a failing school. Under this
new language, the new principal of a turnaround school would have
``sufficient operational flexibility (including in staffing, calendars/
time, and budgeting) to implement fully a comprehensive approach to
substantially improve student achievement outcomes and increase high
school graduation rates.''
We also recognize that the staff selected for a turnaround school
must have the skill and expertise to be effective in this context. We
are adding language clarifying that all personnel must be screened and
selected based on locally adopted competencies to measure their
effectiveness in a turnaround environment.
In addition, while the SIG NPR would have required an LEA to
replace at least 50 percent of the staff of a turnaround school, new
paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A) of the turnaround model requires an LEA, after
screening all staff using locally adopted competencies, to rehire no
more than 50 percent of the school's staff. Further, some commenters
appear to have overlooked proposed section I.B.1 in the SIG NPR, which
would give LEAs flexibility to continue implementing interventions
begun within the last two years that meet, in whole or in part, the
requirements of the turnaround, restart, or transformation models and,
thus, would in many cases allow an LEA to retain a recently hired
principal in a turnaround school. We are retaining this flexibility
provision in this notice.
Finally, the turnaround model includes significant provisions aimed
at supporting teachers. For example, the SIG NPR called for ``ongoing,
high-quality, job-embedded professional development to staff,'' as well
as increased time for collaboration and professional development for
staff. These supports for teachers and other staff are retained in this
final notice.
Changes: We have modified the provisions in the turnaround model in
paragraph (a)(1)(i) to give the new principal of a turnaround school
``sufficient operational flexibility (including in staffing, calendars/
time, and budgeting) to implement fully a comprehensive approach in
order to substantially improve student achievement outcomes and
increase high school graduation rates.'' As described earlier, we have
also revised paragraph (a)(1)(ii) to require that an LEA use locally
adopted competencies to measure the effectiveness of staff who can work
within the turnaround environment to meet the needs of students. In
addition, instead of the requirement that an LEA replace ``at least 50
percent of the staff'' in a turnaround school, paragraph (a)(1)(ii)(A)
of the definition requires an LEA to screen and rehire ``no more than
50 percent'' of the existing staff.
Comment: Numerous commenters expressed concerns that a national
shortage of principals and teachers would prevent successful
implementation of the turnaround model. Two commenters stated that, in
order to replace half of the staff as required by the turnaround model,
an LEA would likely be forced to hire less experienced teachers and
rely on emergency credentials or licensure to fully staff a turnaround
school. One commenter claimed that research shows that large pools of
available applicants are essential for successful replacement of
principals and teachers. Another commenter stated that there is a
``national shortage of transformational leaders'' who can lead
turnaround schools. Further, many commenters claimed that replacing
half of a school's staff would be difficult or even impossible in rural
schools and small communities. One commenter asserted that the shortage
of teachers in rural areas would disqualify these LEAs from applying
for school improvement funds. Another stated that even with recruitment
incentives it would be difficult to fill staff vacancies. One commenter
urged the Secretary to take such shortages into account before
requiring ``blanket firings'' of teachers. In addition, several
commenters observed that chronically low-performing schools already
suffer from a number of vacancies due to high staff turnover rates. In
fact, one commenter believed replacing 50 percent of the staff was not
a ``tough'' consequence because these schools already experience high
turnover.
These concerns led several commenters to recommend flexibility
regarding the staff replacement requirement of the turnaround model,
including the opportunity to request a waiver if an LEA could
demonstrate an inability to fill vacancies, and a required evaluation
before principals and staff can be replaced. Other commenters opposed
the replacement of principals without consideration of such factors as
years of experience and district-level support, recommended a three-
year window in which to make replacement decisions based upon multiple
measures, and suggested the provision of high-quality professional
development before replacing any staff.
Discussion: We recognize that the replacement requirement will
present challenges for LEAs, particularly in rural areas, where highly
effective principals and teachers capable of leading educational
transformation may be in short supply; however, the difficulty of
identifying new qualified teachers and school leaders for a turnaround
school must be measured against the enormous human and economic cost of
accepting the status quo for the Nation's persistently lowest-achieving
schools. We simply cannot afford to continue graduating hundreds of
thousands of students annually who are unprepared for either further
education or the workforce, or to permit roughly one million students
to drop out of high school each year, many of them never to return to
school. Instead, States and LEAs must work together to recruit, place,
and retain the effective principals and staff needed to implement the
turnaround model. The Department is supporting these efforts through
Federal grant programs that can provide resources for improving
strategies used to recruit effective principals and teachers, such as
the Teacher Incentive Fund program, which helps increase the number of
effective teachers teaching poor, minority, and disadvantaged students
in hard-to-staff subjects and schools.
Finally, we wish to clarify that the requirements for the
turnaround model do not require ``blanket firings'' of staff. The
Department agrees that staff should be carefully evaluated before any
replacement decisions are made and has added new language requiring
LEAs to use ``locally adopted competencies to measure the effectiveness
of staff who can work within the turnaround environment to meet the
needs of students.'' If required by State laws or union contracts,
principals and staff may have to be reassigned to other schools as
necessary.
Changes: As described earlier, we have revised paragraph (a)(1)(ii)
to require that an LEA use locally adopted competencies to measure the
effectiveness of staff who can work within the turnaround environment
to meet the needs of students. The LEA must then screen all existing
staff before rehiring no more than 50 percent of them.
[[Page 58471]]
Comment: Numerous commenters claimed that there is little research
supporting the replacement of leadership and staff in school turnaround
efforts. One commenter cited a 2008 Institute of Education Sciences
(IES) report, ``Turning Around Chronically Low-Performing Schools,''
that, according to the commenter, recommends that decisions to remove
staff should be made on an individual basis. Several others also
asserted that the proposed requirement to replace at least 50 percent
of staff was arbitrary, with two commenters recommending instead that
the Department ``empower the turnaround principal with the autonomy to
hire, based on merit, for every position in the school.''
Discussion: We are not claiming that merely replacing a principal
and 50 percent of a school's staff is sufficient to turn around a low-
achieving school. Although principal and staff replacement are key
features of the turnaround model proposed in the SIG NPR, they are not
the only features. The strength of the turnaround model lies in its
comprehensive combination of significant staffing and governance
changes, an improved instructional program, ongoing high-quality
professional development, the use of data to drive continuous
improvement, increased time for learning and for staff collaboration,
and appropriate supports for students. The staffing and governance
changes are intended primarily to create the conditions within a
school, including school climate and culture, that will permit
effective implementation of the other elements of the turnaround model.
Dramatic changes in leadership, staff, and governance structure help
lay the groundwork to create the conditions for autonomy and
flexibility that are associated with successful turnaround efforts.
Accordingly, we decline to remove the requirement for replacing staff
in a turnaround model.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters claimed that teacher tenure, State
collective bargaining laws, and union contracts prevent school
administrators from replacing staff as required by the turnaround
model. Several commenters stated that union contracts would force
school administrators to reassign dismissed teaching staff to other
schools, and the turnaround model would not solve the problem of
removing ineffective teachers from the classroom. One commenter asked
if an LEA would have to negotiate staff replacement with the union or
if the Federal grant requirements supersede State due process laws. One
commenter noted that the Department would have to provide ``involuntary
transfer authority'' to LEAs in order for them to implement the
turnaround model in collective bargaining States.
Several commenters called for the Department to foster
collaboration with teacher unions as well as the larger community. One
of these commenters claimed that collaboration ``increases leadership
and builds professionalism'' and recommended that evidence of
collaboration be documented. Another asserted the involvement of
school-based personnel in decision-making is key to the successful
implementation of school interventions. Another recommended that an LEA
seek ``feedback'' from all stakeholders, including students, parents,
and unions, as to whether an intervention is ``feasible or warranted.''
Discussion: We recognize that collective bargaining agreements and
union contracts may present barriers to implementation of the
turnaround model; however, we do not believe these barriers are
insurmountable. In particular, drawing upon pockets of success in
cities and States across the country, the Secretary believes LEAs and
unions can work together to bring about dramatic, positive changes in
our persistently lowest-achieving schools. Accordingly, the Department
encourages collaborations and partnerships between LEAs and teacher
unions and teacher membership associations to resolve issues created by
school intervention models in the context of existing collective
bargaining agreements. We also encourage LEAs to collaborate with
stakeholders in schools and in the larger community as they implement
school interventions.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters stated that the term ``staff'' was not
clearly defined. One commenter presumed it excluded maintenance, food
services, and other support staff. Another stated that the Department
should allow LEAs to develop their own definition of ``staff,'' and
permit LEAs to determine whether non-instructional staff should be
included in the replacement calculus. Two commenters also requested
greater clarity regarding the meaning of ``new governance.''
Discussion: We believe that, in high-achieving schools facing the
most challenging of circumstances, every adult in the school
contributes to the school's success, including the principal, teachers,
non-certificated staff, custodians, security guards, food service
staff, and others working in the school. Conversely, in a persistently
lowest-achieving school, we believe that no single group of adults in
the school is responsible for a culture of persistent failure. For this
reason, our general guidance is that an LEA should define ``staff''
broadly in developing and implementing a turnaround model. The
Department declines to define the term ``staff'' in this notice, but
plans to issue guidance that will clarify this and other issues related
to the turnaround model. As for the term ``governance,'' the language
in paragraph (a)(1)(v) suggests a number of possible governance
alternatives that may be adopted in the context of a turnaround model.
The Department declines to provide a more specific definition in order
to permit LEAs the flexibility needed to adopt a turnaround governance
structure that meets their local needs and circumstances.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters asked that the Department consider the
possible negative consequences of replacing staff on a school and
community, with one commenter suggesting that replacing half of the
staff could result in more damage ``to a fragile school than no change
at all.'' Another commenter stated that maintaining a consistent staff
is a key to school success.
Discussion: The Secretary disagrees that implementing a turnaround
model would be worse than ``no change at all.'' The schools that would
implement a turnaround model have, by definition, persistently failed
our children for years, and dramatic and fundamental change is
warranted. In addition, as stated elsewhere in this notice, the
commenters overlook the fact that the other options--the
transformation, school closure, and restart models--do not require
replacement of 50 percent of a school's staff. If an LEA believes that
it cannot successfully meet the requirements of the turnaround model,
we recommend that it consider one of the other three options.
Changes: None.
Comment: Numerous commenters stated that decisions regarding school
restructuring are best decided on the local, rather than the Federal,
level. One commenter opposed the requirements for the turnaround model
as being too prescriptive, and another recommended that the local
school board be provided with the discretion to determine how best to
implement the turnaround model. One commenter agreed that ``ineffective
staff and leadership should be replaced in order for school improvement
to work,'' but stated that the turnaround model's ``one-size-fits-all
formula may not be the best approach for all schools.'' Two
[[Page 58472]]
commenters specifically stated that the decision to remove a principal
and staff should be determined by a local school board. Similarly,
another commenter noted that decisions to replace a principal and staff
should be based upon ``local data'' rather than Federal requirements
that are not tailored to an individual school's needs. One of these
commenters stated that local decision-making is particularly important
if a school has been underperforming for a period longer than the
``principal's tenure or if the principal has begun a transformative
process that could be harmed by a leadership change.''
Discussion: An LEA is free to exercise local control and use local
data and leadership to determine which of the four school intervention
models to follow in turning around a persistently lowest-achieving
school. However, after nearly a decade of broad State and local
discretion in implementing, with little success, the school improvement
provisions of the ESEA, the Department believes, for the purpose of
this program, it is appropriate and necessary to limit that discretion
and require the use of a carefully developed set of school intervention
models in the Nation's lowest-achieving schools. In particular, the
turnaround and transformation models include a combination of staffing,
governance, and structural changes with specific comprehensive
instructional reforms that the Department believes hold great promise
for effective investment of the $3 billion provided for the SIG program
by the ARRA.
Changes: None.
Relationship Between Turnaround and Transformation Models
Comment: Several commenters believed the turnaround model lacked
sufficient detail and did not provide adequate direction to LEAs
attempting to implement the model. In contrast, several commenters
appreciated the level of detail contained in the transformation model
and suggested that the turnaround model provide a similar level of
detail. Some of these commenters recommended that the turnaround model
incorporate some of the specific provisions contained in the
transformation model. For example, one commenter suggested that the
turnaround model include the transformation model's provisions
regarding implementation of instructional changes. Another commenter
specifically recommended that the turnaround model incorporate the
transformation model's criteria for teacher effectiveness.
Discussion: We agree that the turnaround model in the SIG NPR
lacked clarity and potentially created confusion about whether
applicants could draw upon permissible activities described in the
transformation model. The Department did not intend to limit LEA
discretion in adapting elements of the transformation model to the
turnaround model. Accordingly, we are adding new language in paragraph
(a)(2)(i) to clarify that an LEA implementing the turnaround model may
implement any of the required and permissible activities under the
transformation model.
Changes: We have clarified in paragraph (a)(2)(i) that an LEA
implementing a turnaround model may also implement other strategies
such as ``[a]ny of the required and permissible activities under the
transformation model.'' In addition, we have made changes in the
turnaround model that correspond to changes we made in response to
comments on the transformation model. The specific changes are noted
subsequently in this notice in our discussion of comments on the
transformation model.
Restart Model
Comment: Many commenters opposed the restart model described in the
SIG NPR because, they claimed, charter schools generally do not perform
better than regular public schools. In particular, these commenters
cited recent research from the Center for Research on Education
Outcomes (CREDO) at Stanford University showing that fewer than one-
fifth of charter schools demonstrated gains in student achievement that
exceeded those of traditional public schools. One commenter also
mentioned a RAND study highlighting the low performance of charter
schools in Texas and a study by researchers at Johns Hopkins University
showing that most EMO-operated schools were outperformed by traditional
public schools. Most of these commenters proposed broadening or
strengthening the restart option, but one commenter recommended
removing it from the list of permitted school intervention models. One
commenter claimed that, where charter schools had raised student
achievement, in most cases it was attributable to high student
attrition rates brought about by demanding school schedules and
behavioral rules that did not work for all students. A few commenters
noted either that some States do not allow charter schools or that the
restart model would be unlikely to work in rural areas. Several
commenters also opposed the restart model because it might displace
students and disrupt existing efforts to build community schools;
another commenter recommended that any planning and reorganization for
a restart model take place during the school year, while students
remain in the school, so that there would be no disruption in services
if the school were closed and then reopened as a restart school.
Discussion: We acknowledge that the available research on the
effectiveness of charter schools in raising student achievement is
mixed, that some State laws significantly limit the creation or
expansion of charter schools, and that smaller communities,
particularly in rural areas, may not have sufficient access to
providers or teachers to support the creation of charter schools.
However, there are many examples of high-quality charter schools, and
the Secretary believes very strongly that high-achieving charter
schools can be a significant educational resource in communities with
chronically low-achieving regular public schools that have failed to
improve after years of conventional turnaround efforts. Although they
are not a ``silver bullet'' for failing schools or communities, a more
balanced view of the results produced by charter schools suggests that
they offer promising and proven options for breaking the cycle of
educational failure and fully merit inclusion in the restart model.
The Department also recognizes the concerns expressed by commenters
about the potential disruption to students, parents, and communities
that may be connected with a restart plan that involves closing and
then reopening a school. To help address this concern, we are adding
language to this notice allowing a school conversion--and not just
closing and reopening a school--to qualify as an acceptable restart
model.
At the same time, the Department emphasizes that just as the
restart model is one of four school intervention models supported by
this notice, charter schools are just one option under the restart
model. Contracting with an EMO is another restart option that may
provide sufficient flexibility in States without charter school laws or
in rural areas where few charter schools operate. An EMO also may be
able to develop and implement a plan that permits students to stay in
their school while undergoing a restart. For example, some EMOs hired
to turn around a low-achieving school may begin planning for the
turnaround in late winter or early spring, hire and train staff in late
spring and early summer, reconfigure and re-equip the school--including
the
[[Page 58473]]
acquisition of curricular materials and technology--during the summer,
and then reopen promptly in the fall, resulting in minimal, if any,
disruption to students and parents.
Changes: We have changed the language in paragraph (b) to define a
restart model as one in which an LEA converts a school or closes and
reopens a school under a charter school operator, a charter management
organization (CMO), or an EMO that has been selected through a rigorous
review process.
Defining Rigorous Review
Comment: Several commenters supported the requirement in the SIG
NPR that LEAs select a charter school operator, a CMO, or an EMO
through a ``rigorous review process.'' In general, these commenters
viewed this requirement as essential to ensuring the quality of a
restart model. Commenters also asked for clarification of how such a
review would be conducted, including guidance for SEAs and LEAs and
opportunities for parent and community involvement in reviewing and
selecting a restart school operator. One commenter raised a concern
about how it would be possible to review rigorously a new charter
school operator, CMO, or EMO.
Discussion: We believe that SEAs and LEAs should have flexibility
to develop their own review processes for charter school operators,
CMOs, and EMOs, based both on local circumstances and on their
experiences in authorizing charter schools. We will provide guidance
and technical assistance in this area, but will leave final decisions
on review requirements to SEAs and LEAs. We believe flexibility in
defining ``rigorous review'' is warranted because of the wide variation
in local need and community context as well as in the size, structure,
and experience of charter school operators, CMOs, and EMOs.
Changes: None.
Clarifying Restart Operator Definitions
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department provide a
definition of CMO and EMO, while other commenters suggested changes or
requested clarification of the definitions of CMO and EMO provided in
the SIG NPR. One commenter recommended defining a CMO as an
organization that ``operates or manages a school or schools'' rather
than, as in the SIG NPR, ``operates charter schools.'' This commenter
also urged the Department to define ``whole school operations'' as
applied to the definition of EMO. Another commenter recommended that
the Department include charter schools operated or managed by an LEA in
the definition of CMO. One commenter also urged the Department to
establish reporting requirements for CMOs and EMOs, including data on
student achievement, the impact of reforms on student achievement,
information on how CMOs and EMOs serve students with disabilities, and
other accountability data. Finally, two commenters also suggested that
the Department award funding directly to CMOs and EMOs to pay for
planning, outreach, and training staff for a restart effort.
Discussion: We included definitions of CMO and EMO in the preamble
of the SIG NPR and are adding these definitions in the definition of
restart model for clarification purposes. We agree that the definition
of CMO should include organizations that operate or manage charter
schools and have made this change to the CMO definition in this notice
accordingly. Although a charter school may exist as part of an LEA, it
is unlikely that the LEA would be responsible for operating or managing
the charter school. Therefore, we have not expressly included LEAs in
the definition of CMO. We are retaining the EMO definition from the SIG
NPR, and believe the emphasis on ``whole-school operation'' is
sufficient to distinguish EMOs from other providers that may help with
certain specific aspects of school operation and management, but that
do not assume full responsibility for the entire school, as is required
by the restart model.
The Department does not believe it is necessary to add new or
additional reporting requirements for EMOs and CMOs, as their
performance will be captured by the reporting metrics established in
the final SIG notice. More specifically, SEAs and LEAs already must
report on the intervention model used for each persistently lowest-
achieving school, as well as outcome data for those schools, including
outcome data disaggregated by student subgroups. As for providing SIG
funding directly to CMOs and EMOs, the SIG program is a State formula
grant program, and the Department must allocate funds to States in
accordance with the requirements of section 1003(g) of the ESEA.
Moreover, the only eligible SIG subgrantees are LEAs.
Changes: We have included the definitions of CMO and EMO in the
definition of restart model. We have also modified the definition of
CMO slightly to reflect the fact that a CMO may either operate or
manage charter schools.
Flexibility Under the Restart Model
Comment: Several commenters recommended greater flexibility for
LEAs implementing the restart model, including options to create magnet
schools or ``themed'' schools. Another commenter, claiming that few
charter school operators, CMOs, or EMOs have experience in ``whole
school takeover,'' recommended permitting a phase-in approach to
charter schools that would allow a charter school operator to start
with two or three early grades and gradually ``take over'' an entire
school.
Discussion: We believe that considerable flexibility regarding the
type of school program offered is inherent in the restart model, which
focuses on management and not on academic or curricular requirements.
For example, restart operators would be free to create ``themed''
schools, so long as those schools permit enrollment, within the grades
they serve, of any former student who wishes to attend. Additionally,
LEAs have the flexibility to work with providers to develop the
appropriate sequence and timetable for a restart partnership. Whether
through ``phase-in'' models or complete conversions, the Department
encourages SEAs and LEAs to take into account local context and need in
making these decisions.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters asked for clarification regarding various
aspects of the restart model, including whether it includes conversion
of existing schools, who would have authority over the operator of
restart schools (e.g., LEA, SEA, independent governing board, or a
State or local authorizer), and whether a group of individuals (e.g.,
teachers) could manage a restart school.
Discussion: We have changed the definition of restart model to
clarify that it includes conversion of an existing school and not just
strategies involving closing and reopening a school. In particular, we
believe that conversion approaches may permit implementation of a
restart model with minimal disruption for students, parents, and
communities. In general, an LEA would be responsible for authorizing or
contracting with charter school operators, CMOs, or EMOs for
implementation of a restart model. The precise form of this contract or
agreement would be up to State or local authorities and could include
each of the alternatives mentioned by the commenters. However,
regardless of the lines of authority, autonomy and freedom to operate
independently from the State or LEA are essential elements
[[Page 58474]]
of the restart model. A group of individuals, including teachers, would
be eligible to manage a restart school so long as they met the local
requirements of the rigorous review process included in the restart
model.
Changes: We have revised the first sentence of the definition of
restart model to read as follows: ``A restart model is one in which an
LEA converts a school or closes and reopens a school under a charter
school operator, a charter management organization (CMO), or an
education management organization (EMO) that has been selected through
a rigorous review process.''
Comment: Several commenters recommended that the Department include
specific elements of the turnaround and transformation models in the
restart model, including improved curricula and instruction, student
supports, extended learning time, community involvement, and partnering
with community-based organizations. Similarly, one commenter noted that
a restart model might permit a school to reopen as a charter school
while changing little inside the school and urged the Department to
require restart schools to use a model of reform that has been proven
effective or that includes evidence-based strategies. Another commenter
urged the Department to encourage use of the restart model to better
serve high-risk students and help dropouts reconnect to school.
Discussion: We note that restart models could include nearly all of
the specific reform elements identified under the turnaround and
transformation models, but decline to require the use of any particular
element or strategy. The restart model is specifically intended to give
operators flexibility and freedom to implement their own reform plans
and strategies. The required rigorous review process permits an LEA to
examine those plans and strategies--and helps prevent an operator from
assuming control of a school without a meaningful plan for turning it
around--but should not involve mandating or otherwise requiring
specific reform activities. However, the review process may require
operators to demonstrate that their strategies are informed by research
and other evidence of past success.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended requiring the review process for
CMOs and EMOs to include curriculum and staffing plans for meeting the
needs of subgroups of students, including students with disabilities
and limited English proficient students. Another commenter suggested
that the review process include examining the extent to which a restart
operator sought to ensure that restart schools would serve all former
students by requiring States to collect data on the number of students
from low-income families, students with disabilities, and limited
English proficient students served by a restart school compared with
the number of those students served by the school it replaced.
Discussion: Restart operators, by definition, have almost complete
freedom to develop and implement their own curricula and staffing
plans, and the Department declines to place limits in this area in
recognition of the core emphasis of the restart model on outcomes
rather than inputs. The requirement to enroll any former student who
wishes to attend the school will help to ensure that charter school
operators, CMOs, and EMOs include serving all existing groups of
students in their restart plans. Moreover, the effectiveness of these
curricula and staff changes in meeting the needs of subgroups of
students, including students with disabilities and limited English
proficient students, will be measured by the metrics in the final SIG
notice, which will include disaggregated achievement data by student
subgroup. We encourage SEAs and LEAs to analyze these data to ensure
that subgroups of students are properly included in restart schools and
that their needs are addressed.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters expressed concern that charter schools
are not subject to the same oversight, regulation, or accountability as
are regular public schools. Other commenters emphasized the importance,
particularly in the case of charter school conversions, of ensuring
autonomy, flexibility, and freedom from district rules and collective
bargaining agreements, so that charter schools can implement their own
cultures and practices.
Discussion: The restart model is specifically intended to give
providers freedom from the rules and regulations governing regular
public schools, in recognition of the fact that, while such rules and
regulations may be effective in requiring certain kinds of inputs, such
as teacher qualification requirements or a uniform length of the school
day or year, they have not been demonstrated to have a significant
impact on educational outcomes. Moreover, many successful charter
schools have achieved outstanding results by changing these inputs,
such as by hiring non-traditional but skilled teachers and by extending
the length of the school day. The Department believes that the outcome
metrics established in the final SIG notice will ensure accountability
for the performance of restart schools.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that LEAs could use the
restart model to close an existing charter school that, while
successful in raising student achievement, remained in school
improvement status under section 1116 of the ESEA.
Discussion: An existing charter school that is raising student
achievement would be unlikely, under the requirements for identifying a
State's persistently lowest-achieving schools, to be identified for
school intervention, because those requirements include not only low
levels of achievement, but also making little or no progress on
improving those low levels of achievement in recent years. Moreover,
this notice, as did the SIG NPR, provides flexibility for a school,
such as a recently converted charter school that meets the requirements
of the restart model, to use SIG funds to continue or complete reforms
it began within the prior two years. On the other hand, it is possible,
and in some cases appropriate, for an LEA to close a charter school
that is not serving its students well and implement a new intervention
model in the school.
Changes: None.
School Closure
Comment: A number of commenters expressed their general views
regarding whether closing schools is an appropriate intervention for
raising student achievement. Although no commenter advocated extensive
use of this intervention, several acknowledged that school closure is
sometimes necessary, particularly for schools with a long history of
very low achievement, and noted that some States and LEAs have used
this strategy successfully. Other commenters, however, expressed a
number of logistical concerns with this intervention. Some noted that
closing schools is often not feasible in rural areas in which the
distance between schools is too great to make practical enrolling
students from a closed school in higher-achieving schools. Others noted
that many LEAs do not have multiple schools at the same grade level in
which to enroll students from a closed school. Still others noted
capacity issues that would prevent schools from accommodating
additional students or the lack of high-achieving schools in which to
enroll students from a closed school. One
[[Page 58475]]
commenter noted that this intervention would not be feasible on a large
scale in large, urban LEAs with limited resources and substantial
numbers of low-achieving students. Another commenter recommended that
this intervention be limited to those LEAs with the capacity to enroll
affected students in other, higher-achieving schools.
Discussion: School closure is just one of four school intervention
models from which an LEA may choose to turn around or close its
persistently lowest-achieving schools, and the Department recognizes
that it may not be appropriate or workable in all circumstances. To
clarify this, we have revised the definition of school closure in this
notice to clarify that this option is viable when there are re-
enrollment options in higher-achieving schools in the LEA that are
within reasonable proximity to the closed school that can accommodate
the students from the closed school. To make this option more viable,
we have changed ``high-achieving schools'' to ``higher-achieving
schools.''
Changes: We have included the following clarifying language in the
definition of school closure: ``School closure occurs when an LEA
closes a school and enrolls the students who attended that school in
other schools in the LEA that are higher achieving. These other schools
should be within reasonable proximity to the closed school and may
include, but are not limited to, charter schools or new schools for
which achievement data are not yet available.''
Comment: A number of commenters expressed the opinion that a school
should never be closed if that option displaces students and disrupts
communities. The commenters noted the importance of having a
neighborhood school that serves as the cornerstone of a community. One
commenter noted that, when students are moved to a school in a new
neighborhood, parents often find it more difficult to feel a sense of
belonging at the school or ownership of their child's education.
Another commenter noted that school closings often anger parents,
exacerbate overcrowding, increase safety and security concerns in
neighboring schools, and place students who need specific supports in
schools that may not be able to provide those supports. One commenter
expressed concern that closing a school may not address the educational
needs of specific students, which may be masked within a higher-
achieving school. Another commenter suggested the need for an
``educational impact statement'' before a school is closed, and one
suggested that an LEA have a detailed plan demonstrating how support
would be provided to students and their families transitioning to
different schools. Several commenters suggested that the final
requirements provide for parent and community input before a school is
closed.
Discussion: The Department recognizes and understands that school
closures, by definition, displace students and disrupt communities and
are among the most difficult decisions faced by local authorities.
However, each of the four school intervention models is predicated on
the potentially positive impact of ``disruptive change'' on student
educational opportunities, achievement, and other related outcomes.
Schools targeted for closure under this notice will likely have served
their communities poorly for many years, if not decades, as measured by
such factors as student achievement, graduation rates, and college
enrollment rates. Moreover, such schools also will likely have proven
impervious to positive change despite years of identification for
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring under the ESEA as well
as other previous reform efforts. The Department believes that, when
such schools prove unwilling or unable to change, closure must be
considered. Many communities have experience in closing, consolidating,
or otherwise changing the structure of their existing schools and have
their own processes and procedures for obtaining public input and
approval for such changes, including assessment of the impact on
students, families, neighborhoods, other schools, and transportation
requirements, as well as for developing plans to facilitate smooth
transitions for everyone involved. Although the Department encourages
LEAs and SEAs to involve students, parents, educators, the community,
and other stakeholders in the process, we decline to add any additional
requirements in this area of appropriate local discretion.
To address the disruptiveness school closure may cause to a
community, we have modified the definition of school closure, as noted
in response to the prior comment, to clarify that closure should entail
re-enrolling students from the closed school in other schools in the
LEA that are within reasonable proximity to the closed school. Finally,
we note that school closure is just one of the four school intervention
models available under the terms of this notice. LEAs and communities
that wish to preserve a neighborhood school may do so by implementing a
turnaround, restart, or transformation model.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters recommended that a school not be closed
unless an LEA opens a new school in its place. One commenter
specifically suggested closing a school in phases and reopening it as a
new school. Under this concept, an LEA would permit both students and
staff who choose to do so to remain in the school but the school would
enroll no new students. At the same time, according to the commenter,
other schools would be better prepared to absorb students who wish to
transfer, logistical and facility issues would be minimized, and the
new school would have adequate time to recruit and train high-quality
staff and develop its instructional program.
Discussion: The Department has revised the language in the
definition of school closure to recognize the need to have available
options for accommodating the educational needs of the students in a
closed school, but does not believe it is necessary to require an LEA
to open a new school in place of the closed school. Many LEAs
participating in the SIG program have under-utilized or under-enrolled
schools that may readily accommodate students from a closed school;
requiring such LEAs to open new schools simply does not make sense.
However, an LEA that chooses to reopen a new school would be free to do
so, either on its own or as part of a turnaround or restart model.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department provide
incentives for the development of successful charter schools in the
areas in which schools are closed. Specifically, the commenter
recommended that the Department require that an LEA that partners with
a CMO in order to serve the area in which the LEA is closing schools
receive a priority for SIG funds.
Discussion: SIG funds are intended to provide support to LEAs for
school improvement efforts targeted primarily at the persistently
lowest-achieving schools in a State, and not at providing incentives
for the creation of new schools, charter or otherwise, that serve the
same general attendance area. However, the restart model (as defined in
this notice) may be used by LEAs in situations where the goal is to
replace a persistently lowest-achieving school with a charter school.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that, in highlighting which
schools may be available to enroll students from a
[[Page 58476]]
closed school, the Department specifically mention magnet schools along
with charter schools.
Discussion: Decisions about the schools to which students from
closed schools may transfer are best left to the LEAs selecting the
school closure option. The language in the definition of school
closure, as in the SIG NPR, specifically mentions charter schools only
because not all available charter schools might be operated by the LEA
that is closing a neighborhood public school and, thus, might not be
initially included in an LEA's plan for transferring students from the
closed school. This is not a concern for magnet schools and, thus, the
Department declines to make the requested change.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department require
that, before an LEA may enroll students from a closed school in another
school, the LEA require a prospective receiving school, including a
charter school, to demonstrate a record of effectiveness in educating
its existing students and the capacity to integrate and educate new
students from closed schools. The commenter emphasized the importance
of this latter point, noting that merely because a school is high-
achieving does not mean that it is equipped to help additional students
from the lowest-achieving schools succeed while maintaining the quality
of its current educational program.
Discussion: The Department believes that the requirement to enroll
students from a closed school in a higher-achieving school responds to
the concerns of this commenter. The Department believes that such
higher-achieving schools are likely in nearly all circumstances, to
provide a better education for any new students than was available in
the closed school.
Changes: We have added language to the definition of school closure
clarifying that school closure entails re-enrolling students from the
closed school in other schools in the LEA that are higher achieving. We
have also added clarifying language that such schools may be new
schools for which achievement data are not available.
Comment: Several commenters questioned how SIG funds may be used in
closing a school. One commenter noted the importance of gaining
community input and that the costs for closing a school may include
costs associated with conducting parent and community meetings. Another
commenter recommended that allowable costs include academic supports
for struggling students who are enrolled in new schools.
Discussion: LEAs may use SIG funds to pay reasonable and necessary
costs related to closing a persistently lowest-achieving school,
including the costs associated with parent and community outreach.
However, SIG funds may not be used to serve students, struggling or
otherwise, in the schools to which they transfer, unless those schools
are Title I schools. The Department will include additional examples of
permissible uses of SIG funds in closing a school in guidance
accompanying the application package for SIG funds.
Changes: None.
Transformation Model
General Comments
Comment: Many commenters expressed strong support for the
transformation model. One commenter, for example, described it as ``a
balanced, comprehensive approach,'' and another described it as ``a
supportive and constructive approach.'' Still another commenter stated
that it ``provides the greatest hope for promoting genuine school
improvement.'' Several commenters noted that the transformation model
would be, in reality, the only choice among the four proposed
interventions, especially for many rural school districts.
A few commenters responded that the transformation model would
still not enable some communities, particularly those with difficult
demographics, to make adequate yearly progress. Other commenters
worried that, if not monitored carefully, the transformation model
would become like the ``other'' restructuring option under section
1116(b)(8)(B)(v) of the ESEA, perceived as the easiest (but least
meaningful) way to intervene in a struggling school. One of these
commenters recommended adding strong language to make clear that the
transformation model is not an incremental approach and that, except in
the area of changing staff, the model is as rigorous as the turnaround
model.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support. We believe the
transformation model holds tremendous promise for reforming
persistently lowest-achieving schools by developing and increasing
teacher and school leader effectiveness, implementing comprehensive
instructional reform strategies, increasing learning time and creating
community-oriented schools, and providing operating flexibility and
sustained support. Assuming the activities that support these
components are implemented with fidelity, the transformation model
represents a rigorous and wholesale approach to reforming a struggling
school, unlike the manner in which the ``other'' restructuring option
in section 1116 of the ESEA has often been implemented.
Changes: To strengthen the transformation model, we have made a
number of changes that we discuss in the following paragraphs in our
responses to specific comments.
Comment: One commenter recommended affording greater flexibility to
LEAs in implementing the transformation model by allowing them to
choose which activities are ``required'' and which are ``permissible''
within the four components. The commenter noted that LEAs with
persistently lowest-achieving schools may not have the teacher or
leader capacity or system to support, monitor, and sustain reforms
across all of their schools. The commenter advocated for creating
systems at the district level that enable LEAs to provide support at
each school.
Discussion: We decline to make the requested changes. We have
carefully reviewed the required activities within the four components
of the transformation model and have concluded that each is necessary
to ensure the rigor and effectiveness of the model; therefore, we
continue to require each one. An LEA, of course, may implement any or
all of the permissible activities as well as other activities not
described in this notice.
In anticipation of receiving unprecedented amounts of SIG funds,
SEAs and LEAs should begin now to plan for how they can use those funds
most effectively by putting in place the systems and conditions
necessary to support reform in their persistently lowest-achieving
schools. Despite the best preparation, however, we know that not every
LEA with persistently lowest-achieving schools has the capacity to
implement one of the four interventions in this notice in each such
school. As indicated in the SIG NPR, therefore, an LEA that lacks the
capacity to implement an intervention in each persistently lowest-
achieving school may apply to the SEA to implement an intervention in
just some of those schools.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended adding ``graduation rates,''
rated equally with test scores, to assess student achievement in
evaluating staff, ensuring that a school's curriculum is implemented
with fidelity, and providing operating flexibility. The commenter also
recommended making increasing graduation rates a required activity.
Discussion: We agree with the commenter that increasing high-school
[[Page 58477]]
graduation rates is vital to improving student achievement,
particularly in our Nation's ``dropout factories.'' We are,
accordingly, adding increasing high school graduation rates in three
provisions of the transformation model to make clear that it is also a
goal of the interventions in this notice. We are also making a
corresponding change in the turnaround model. In addition, we are
defining ``persistently lowest-achieving schools'' to include high
schools that have had a graduation rate below 60 percent over a number
of years. Through these changes, we hope to identify high schools with
low graduation rates that would implement one of the interventions in
this notice.
Changes: We have added increasing high school graduation rates in
three provisions of the transformation model: paragraphs
(d)(1)(i)(B)(1); (d)(1)(i)(C); and (d)(4)(i)(A). We also made a
corresponding change to the turnaround model in paragraph (a)(1)(i). In
addition, we have included high schools that have had a graduation rate
below 60 percent over a number of years in the definition of
persistently lowest-achieving schools.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department require an
LEA to set up an organizational entity within the LEA to be responsible
and held accountable for rapid improvement in student achievement in
schools implementing the transformation model in order to ``expedite
the clearing of bureaucratic underbrush'' that can impede the model's
effectiveness.
Discussion: Although nothing in this notice would preclude an LEA
from establishing an organizational entity responsible for ensuring
rapid improvement in student achievement in schools implementing the
transformation model, we decline to require the establishment of such
an entity. Evidence of an LEA's commitment to support its schools in
carrying out the required elements of the transformation model is a
factor that an SEA must consider in evaluating the LEA's application
for SIG funds.
Changes: None.
Developing and Increasing Teacher and School Leader Effectiveness
Comment: A number of commenters supported the emphasis in the
transformation model on strong principals and teachers, noting that
they are critical to transforming a low-achieving school. Commenters
cited specific provisions that they supported, such as ongoing, high-
quality job-embedded professional development; strategies to recruit,
place, and retain effective staff; increasing rigor through, for
example, early-college high schools; extending learning time;
emphasizing community-oriented schools; increased operating
flexibility; and sustained support from the LEA and SEA.
Discussion: The Secretary appreciates the commenters' support.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested adding the word ``ensuring'' in
the heading of the component of the transformation model that requires
developing teacher and school leader effectiveness. Another suggested
changing the heading to ``providing teachers and school leaders with
the resources and tools needed to be effective.''
Discussion: We decline to make these changes. First, we do not
believe that a school can ensure teacher and school leader
effectiveness. We do believe, however, that a school can take steps to
improve teacher and leader effectiveness. Second, we note that eligible
schools in LEAs that receive SIG funds--all of which are among the
lowest-achieving schools in a State--will have very large amounts of
resources to implement the transformation model or one of the other
school intervention models. Accordingly, we do not believe lack of
resources will be a barrier for reforming the persistently lowest-
achieving schools in a State. Moreover, there is a significant
requirement that an LEA provide ongoing, high-quality, job-embedded
professional development for all staff in a school implementing the
transformation model. Principals, teachers, and school leaders,
therefore, should have sufficient support to do their jobs.
Changes: We have revised the heading in paragraph (d)(1) to read:
``Developing and improving teacher and school leader effectiveness.''
Comment: Many commenters, many of whom were principals or
represented principals, opposed the requirement to replace the
principal. A number of commenters commented that such a decision should
be made locally, based on local data and circumstances in individual
schools, rather than being mandated by the Federal Government. One
commenter, although acknowledging the importance of effective school
leadership, asserted that a school's underperformance should not
necessarily be blamed on the principal. The commenter cited other
salient factors, such as whether the principal has the authority needed
to turn a school around or whether the principal is laying a foundation
for improvements not yet reflected in test scores. One commenter
suggested that a principal not be removed until the principal's
performance has been reviewed. Others suggested that, rather than
replacing the principal immediately, the requirements permit an LEA to
offer comprehensive support and leadership training for school leaders
and other staff to assist them in making the significant changes needed
to transform a school. Several commenters suggested removing the
principal unless the person commits to and is held accountable for a
turnaround plan that requires, for example, working with a partner
management organization or other entity skilled in turning around
struggling schools. Another commenter suggested permitting flexibility
with respect to removing the principal in cases warranted by, for
example, the size and geography of a school or LEA, the cause of the
academic failure, the specific solutions being sought, or other
barriers to removal.
Discussion: We refer readers to the earlier section of these
comments and responses titled ``Principal and Staff Replacement'' in
which we respond to similar public comments about the principal
replacement requirement under the turnaround model.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended a three-pronged approach to
defining principal effectiveness: evidence of improved student
achievement; changes in the number and percentage of teachers rated as
effective and highly effective; and assessment of a principal's highest
priority actions and practices.
Discussion: Generally, the Department agrees that multiple
measures, including the use of student achievement data, should be used
to evaluate principal effectiveness. Accordingly, we have revised
proposed section I.A.2.d.i.A.1 in the SIG NPR (new paragraph
(d)(1)(i)(B)(1) to allow an LEA to use, in additional to data on
student growth, observation-based assessments and ongoing collections
of professional practice that reflect student achievement and increased
high-school graduation rates to evaluate principal effectiveness.
Changes: We have modified paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B)(1) regarding
evaluation systems for teachers and principals to require that those
systems take into account student growth data as a significant factor
as well as other factors ``such as multiple observation-based
assessments of performance and ongoing collections of professional
practice reflective of student achievement and increased high-school
graduation rates.''
[[Page 58478]]
Comment: Several commenters cited the shortage of principals,
particularly in rural areas, as a reason to eliminate the requirement
to remove the principal in a school using the transformation model. One
commenter suggested hiring a ``turnaround leader'' or contracting with
an external lead partner instead of replacing the principal.
Discussion: We refer readers to the earlier section of these
comments and responses titled ``Principal and Staff Replacement'' where
we respond to public comments about the principal replacement
requirement under the turnaround model.
Changes: None.
Comment: A number of commenters suggested that a principal who has
been recently hired to turn around a school should not be removed.
Discussion: The commenters might have overlooked the fact that
proposed section I.B.1 in the SIG NPR allowed schools that have
``implemented, in whole or in part within the last two years, an
intervention that meets the requirements of the turnaround, restart, or
transformation models'' to ``continue or complete the intervention
being implemented.'' Thus, a recently hired principal who was hired to
implement a school intervention model that meets some or all of the
elements of one of the interventions in this notice would not have to
be replaced for purposes of a transformation model. We have retained
this flexibility in this notice.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters reacted to the requirement in the SIG NPR
to use evaluations that are based in significant measure on student
growth to improve teachers' and school leaders' performance. A few
commenters supported the requirement; most opposed it for a number of
reasons. Many commenters objected specifically to assessing teacher
effectiveness using testing instruments not designed for that purpose.
One commenter noted that standardized assessments are designed to
measure students' ready retrieval of knowledge and do not accurately
attribute student learning to particular lessons, pedagogical
strategies, or individual teachers. In addition, the commenter noted
that such assessments do not measure qualities like student motivation,
intellectual readiness, persistence, creativity, or the ability to
apply knowledge and work productively with others. One commenter
asserted that State assessments are generally of low quality and
measure a narrow range of student learning. The commenter also noted
that assessments do not acknowledge the contributions (or lack thereof)
of others, such as prior teachers, towards student achievement. Two
commenters argued that State assessments do not provide information
about the conditions in which learning occurs and over which a teacher
has no control, such as class size, student demographics, or
instructional resources. One commenter asserted that State assessments
fail to capture academic growth with respect to students with
disabilities. A number of commenters proposed other academic and
nonacademic measures for evaluating teachers and school leaders, such
as standards-based evaluations of practice that include such criteria
as observations of lesson preparation, content, and delivery;
innovation in teaching practices; analyses of student work and other
measures of student learning, such as writing samples, grades, goals in
individualized education programs for students with disabilities, and
``capstone'' projects such as end-of-course research papers; assessment
of commitment and ability to use feedback and data to learn and improve
practices; one-on-one teaching; staff leadership and mentoring skills;
conflict resolution skills; crisis management experience; extra-
curricular roles and contributions to a school; and relationships with
parents and the community.
Discussion: We respect and agree with the commenters' concerns that
student achievement data alone should not be used as the sole means to
evaluate teachers and principals. We must develop and support better
measures that take into account student achievement and more accurately
measure teacher and principal performance. Accordingly, we have revised
the transformation model's evaluation systems provision to require that
these systems take into account student growth data as a significant
factor, but also include other factors ``such as multiple observation-
based assessments of performance and ongoing collections of
professional practice reflective of student achievement and increased
high-school graduation rates.'' We have also clarified that those
systems must be rigorous, transparent, and equitable and that they must
be designed and developed with teacher and principal involvement.
Nonetheless, it is important to note that the Secretary believes
that student achievement data must be included as a significant factor
in evaluations of teacher and principal effectiveness. We are confident
that the legitimate concerns of the commenters regarding use of student
data can be addressed.
Changes: We have modified paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B) regarding
evaluation systems for teachers and principals in several respects.
First, we modified paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B) to require that evaluation
systems be rigorous, transparent, and equitable. Second, we modified
paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B)(1) to require that those systems take into
account student growth data as a significant factor but also include
other factors ``such as multiple observation-based assessments of
performance and ongoing collections of professional practice reflective
of student achievement and increased high school graduation rates.''
Third, we added paragraph (d)(1)(i)(B)(2) to require that evaluation
systems be designed and developed with teacher and principal
involvement.
Comment: A number of commenters raised issues related to collective
bargaining and the transformation model. Several commenters objected to
the perceived requirement to establish a performance pay plan based on
student outcomes, noting that collective bargaining agreements and, in
some cases, State laws often prohibit such a plan. Two others noted
that, because union contracts limit a principal's control over
staffing, principals should not be held accountable for school
performance results. At least one commenter expressed concern that
these collective bargaining barriers could preclude implementation of
the transformation model.
Discussion: In general, we refer readers to the earlier section of
these comments and responses titled ``Principal and Staff Replacement''
where we respond to similar public comments regarding collective
bargaining as it relates to the turnaround model. In addition, we note
that the transformation model does not require that an LEA establish a
performance pay plan for teachers or principals. Rather, an LEA must
identify and reward school leaders, teachers, and other staff who, in
implementing the transformation model, have increased student
achievement and graduation rates. One way of meeting this requirement
would be through performance pay. An LEA has the flexibility to devise
other means that meet this requirement.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter, responding to the proposed requirement to
remove staff who fail to contribute to raising student achievement,
recommended that this provision be deleted. The commenter noted that
this provision would make it very difficult to attract the most highly
qualified teachers and principals to the persistently lowest-achieving
schools. The commenter suggested that extensive
[[Page 58479]]
professional development, rather than removal, be required for staff in
schools in which achievement does not improve.
Discussion: In general, we refer readers to the section of these
comments and responses titled ``Principal and Staff Replacement'' where
we respond to similar comments regarding removal of the staff
replacement requirement under the turnaround model.
Changes: We have modified paragraph (d)(1)(i)(C) regarding removing
staff who, in implementing a transformation model, have not contributed
to increased student achievement and high school graduation rates to
make clear that removal should only occur after an individual has had
multiple opportunities to improve his or her professional practice and
has still not contributed to increased student achievement and
increased high school graduation rates.
Comment: Several commenters objected to the Secretary's proposal to
require an LEA to make ``high-stakes'' tenure and compensation
decisions through which the LEA would ``identify and reward school
leaders, teachers, and other staff who improve student achievement
outcomes and identify and remove those who do not.'' The commenters
thought this standard was too imprecise. They noted that teacher
compensation, tenure, and dismissal are, for the most part, governed by
State laws and/or collective bargaining agreements that cannot be
simply overturned by a Federal grant program. One of the commenters
suggested that this provision be modified by adding, at the end, the
phrase ``in full accordance with local and State laws, including
collective bargaining agreements.''
Discussion: In general, we refer readers to the section of these
comments and responses titled ``Principal and Staff Replacement'' where
we respond to similar comments regarding collective bargaining issues
as they relate to the turnaround model. In addition, we note that no
LEA is required to apply for a School Improvement Grant. Those that do
will receive significant resources to support their efforts to reform
their most struggling schools, but they also must have the ability to
implement the required components of whichever intervention they
choose. Accordingly, we decline to make the recommended changes.
Changes: None.
Comment: A number of commenters provided additional examples of
what professional development of staff under the transformation model
should entail, such as: addressing the needs of students with
disabilities and limited English proficient students; creating
professional learning communities within a school; providing mentoring;
involving parents in their child's education, especially parents of
limited English proficient students and immigrant children;
understanding and using data and assessments to improve and personalize
classroom practice; and implementing adolescent literacy and
mathematics initiatives.
Discussion: We appreciate the many excellent suggestions for
additional areas on which professional development should focus. With
one exception, we decline to add examples. We could never list all
relevant topics for strong professional development, which must be
tailored to the needs of staff in particular schools, and we would not
want to suggest that topics not listed were, thus, less worthy of
addressing.
Changes: We have added a permissible activity in paragraph
(d)(2)(ii)(C) under ``comprehensive instructional reform strategies''
to highlight the need for additional supports and professional
development for teachers and principals in implementing effective
strategies to educate students with disabilities in the least
restrictive environment and to ensure that limited English proficient
students acquire language skills necessary to master academic content.
Comment: One commenter noted that the requirement to provide staff
with ongoing, high-quality, job-embedded professional development was
silent with respect to the impact of professional development on
instruction. The commenter pointed to an apparent inconsistency with
the emphasis in the permissible activity that suggested that LEAs be
required to institute a system for measuring changes in instructional
practices resulting from professional development. Because the
commenter values professional development designed to improve
instruction, the commenter recommended that the Secretary require a
school to have a system for measuring changes in instructional
practices resulting from professional development in order to evaluate
its efficacy.
Discussion: We believe that the requirement to provide ongoing,
high-quality, job-embedded professional development to staff in a
school is clearly tied to improving instruction in multiple ways.
First, the requirement that professional development be ``job-
embedded'' connotes a direct connection between a teacher's work in the
classroom and the professional development the teacher receives.
Second, the examples of topics for professional development, such as
subject-specific pedagogy and differentiated instruction, are directly
related to improving the instruction a teacher provides. Third,
professional development must be aligned with the school's
comprehensive instructional program. Finally, the articulated purpose
of professional development in paragraph (d)(1)(i)(D) of the
transformation model is to ensure that a teacher is ``equipped to
facilitate effective teaching and learning'' and has the ``capacity to
successfully implement school reform strategies.'' Although we believe
that instituting a system for measuring changes in instructional
practices resulting from professional development can be valuable, we
decline to require it as part of this program. We believe that the
specificity in the nature of the professional development required for
a transformation model is sufficient to ensure that it, in fact,
results in improved instruction.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department add a
requirement that professional development be designed to ensure that
staff of a school using the transformation model can work effectively
with families and community partners. The commenter reasoned that,
given the emphasis on working with families and community partners to
improve the academic achievement of students in a school, staff must
know how to work with them.
Discussion: We decline to make the suggested change. We agree with
the commenter that family and community involvement in a school is
critical to the school's ultimate success and have included, as both
required and permissible activities, a variety of provisions to address
this important need. We would expect professional development to
include appropriate training to ensure, as the commenter suggests, that
staff are well equipped to facilitate family and community involvement.
We do not believe, however, that we should try to expressly highlight
each and every appropriate topic of high-quality professional
development in this notice.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that financial incentives are not
necessarily the most motivating factor in retaining high-quality staff.
Rather, the commenter stated that the culture of a school--i.e.,
quality relationships with other teachers, the school climate, the
leadership of the principal, and the potential for professional
growth--is often a greater motivator.
[[Page 58480]]
Discussion: We agree that financial incentives are not the only
motivating factor in attracting staff to a school or retaining them in
the school. We hope that changes in the culture of a school that result
from implementing the interventions established in this notice play a
large role in attracting, placing, and retaining high-quality staff. As
a result, in both the transformation and turnaround models, we have
provided examples of several strategies to recruit, place, and retain
high-quality staff.
Changes: We have added examples of strategies designed to recruit,
place, and retain staff, including ``financial incentives, increased
opportunities for promotion and career growth, and more flexible work
conditions'' in paragraphs (d)(1)(i)(E), with respect to the
transformation model, and (a)(1)(iii), with respect to the turnaround
model. We have also made clear that those strategies must be designed
to recruit, place, and retain staff who have the skills necessary to
meet the needs of the students in the schools implementing a
transformation or turnaround model, respectively.
Comment: Several commenters supported the concept of ``mutual
consent''--that is, ensuring that a school is not required to accept a
teacher without the mutual consent of the teacher and the principal,
regardless of the teacher's seniority. One commenter recommended making
``mutual consent'' a required component of both the turnaround model
and the transformation model. Other commenters, however, opposed any
mention of ``mutual consent,'' even as a permissible activity. One
asserted that the concept conflicts with the provision in section
1116(d) of the ESEA that precludes interventions in Title I schools
from affecting the rights, remedies, and procedures afforded school
employees under Federal, State, or local laws or under the terms of
collective bargaining agreements, memoranda of understanding, or other
agreements between employees and their employers.
Discussion: Like several commenters, the Secretary supports and
encourages the use of mutual consent. The Secretary considers mutual
consent to be a positive example of LEAs' partnering with unions to
bring change to the Nation's persistently lowest-achieving schools.
That said, we decline to require mutual consent as a part of the
transformation model because mutual consent policies and other similar
agreements are best resolved at the State and local levels in the
context of existing collective bargaining agreements.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Secretary add a
requirement that, in the event budget cuts occur, a principal be
allowed to lay off teachers on the basis of performance rather than
seniority. The commenter noted that this provision could be an
important lever for obtaining positive changes to collective bargaining
agreements that would help low-achieving schools attract and retain
effective staff.
Discussion: We decline to make the suggested change. Although we
support the need to modify collective bargaining agreements if they
impede efforts to attract and retain qualified staff in the
persistently lowest-achieving schools, we do not believe we can or
should prescribe the specific terms of those agreements.
Changes: None.
Comprehensive Instructional Reform Strategies
Comment: Several commenters suggested that the Department revise
the comprehensive instructional reform component of the transformation
model by modifying or expanding the provision requiring the use of
individualized student data to inform and differentiate instruction.
One commenter suggested clarifying that individualized student data are
to be used to meet students' academic needs while another commenter
suggested clarifying that the data should be used to address the needs
of ``individual'' students. Other commenters suggested expanding this
provision to include non-academic data such as chronic absenteeism,
truancy, health (vision, hearing, dental, and access to primary care),
safety, family engagement and well-being, and housing. The commenter
suggested that these data be used, in partnership with parents and
other community partners, to address other student needs.
Discussion: The purpose of this section of the transformation model
is to improve instruction, and we agree that adding the word
``academic'' is a helpful clarification. Although we also agree that
non-academic data can play an important role in identifying other
student needs that can affect learning, local school administrators,
working with parents and community partners, are in the best position
to determine how to address those needs. Therefore, we decline to add a
requirement that a school examine non-academic data.
Changes: We have added the word ``academic'' in paragraph
(d)(2)(i)(B) to clarify that the continuous use of student data to
inform and differentiate instruction must be promoted to meet the
academic needs of individual students. We made a corresponding change
in paragraph (a)(1)(vii) regarding the turnaround model.
Comment: One commenter noted that requiring instructional programs
to be ``evidence-based'' instead of ``research-based'' would enable the
use of programs for which there is accumulated evidence that does not
meet the current ESEA definition of ``scientifically based research.''
Discussion: We agree with the commenter that an LEA should only
implement instructional programs for which there is a sufficient body
of evidence supporting improved student achievement. We do not believe
a change is necessary, however, because we do not use the term
``scientifically based research'' and, therefore, do not invoke the
stringent requirements in section 9101(37) of the ESEA.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department add a
provision that would require a school to identify ``off-track and out-
of-school youth, through analysis and segmentation of student data,''
and develop and implement education options to put them back on track
to graduate. The commenter stated that, once students are off track to
graduating on time, their likelihood of graduating is often as low as
20 percent. Moreover, in the 2,000 high schools in the Nation with
four-year graduation rates of 60 percent or less, up to 80 percent of
ninth graders are significantly behind in skills or credits. Several
other commenters suggested including stronger support for re-enrolling
youth who have left high school as a critical part of increasing
graduation rates.
Discussion: We agree that programs and strategies designed to re-
engage youth who have dropped out of high school without receiving a
diploma are necessary in increasing graduation rates. Accordingly, we
are modifying the notice to address this need. We also hope that an
LEA's extension or restructuring of the school day to add time for
strategies such as advisory periods to build relationships between
students, faculty, and other staff will help to identify students who
are struggling and to secure for them the necessary supports
sufficiently early to prevent their dropping out of school. Finally, as
noted earlier, we have added references to increased high school
graduation rates in four provisions to make clear that implementation
of the models in high schools must focus on increasing graduation rates
as well as improved student achievement.
[[Page 58481]]
Changes: We have modified paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(E)(3) to add re-
engagement strategies as an example of a way to increase high school
graduation rates. We have also added paragraph (d)(2)(ii)(E)(4)
suggesting that permissible comprehensive instructional reform
strategies may include establishing early-warning systems to identify
students who may be at risk of failing to achieve to high standards or
graduate.
Comment: A number of commenters suggested that the Department
include additional required or permissible activities for carrying out
comprehensive instructional reform strategies. Specifically, two
commenters recommended that the Department require schools to conduct
periodic reviews so as to ensure that the curriculum is being
implemented with fidelity (rather than merely permitting this activity)
and improve school library programs. Other commenters suggested
expanding the permissible activities in secondary schools to include
learning opportunities that reflect the context of the community in
which the school is located, such as service learning, place-based
education, and civic and environmental education. The commenters also
recommended clarifying that improving students' transition from middle
to high schools should include family outreach and parent education.
Another commenter suggested that the Department expand the list of
permissible activities in elementary schools to include providing
opportunities for students to attend foreign language immersion
programs.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees that there are any number of
important activities that would be appropriate to address in a
transformation model. As described in this notice, the transformation
model, by necessity, focuses on several broad strategies. However,
nothing precludes local school leaders from expanding the model as
necessary to address other factors needed to respond to the specific
needs of students in the school.
Changes: We have included in this notice a definition of increased
learning time that would permit many, if not all, of the commenters'
suggestions. For example, that definition makes clear that a school may
increase time to teach core academic subjects, including, for example,
civics and foreign languages, and to provide enrichment activities such
as service learning and experiential and work-based learning
opportunities.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department add the
implementation of technology-based solutions to the list of permissible
activities, while another commenter recommended that the Department add
online instructional services offered by a for-profit or non-profit
entity as an example of a comprehensive, research-based instructional
program.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees that technology can be an
important tool for supporting instruction, and we are adding as a
permissible activity the suggestion to use and integrate technology-
based supports and interventions as part of a school's instructional
program. Although online instructional programs might be part of a
school's system of technology-based supports, we decline to mention it
specifically. Online instructional programs, if research-based, are one
of many ways to meet the needs of students in struggling schools,
particularly to provide courses or programs that schools in rural or
remote areas cannot otherwise provide. We cannot mention in this
notice, however, each and every type of instructional program.
Changes: We have added as a permissible activity in paragraph
(d)(2)(ii)(D) using and integrating technology-based supports and
interventions as part of a school's instructional program.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department add to the
transformation model the strategy to reorganize the school with a new
purpose and structure it as a magnet school, a thematic school, or a
school-community partnership.
Discussion: We decline to include this change in the transformation
model, a model that uses the existing staff in a school and who would
likely not have the expertise to implement an instructional program
with a whole new purpose.
Changes: None. However, we have clarified in paragraph (a)(2)(ii)
that a turnaround model may include a new school model (e.g., themed,
dual language academy).
Increasing Learning Time and Creating Community-Oriented Schools
Comment: Several commenters expressed support overall and for
various activities of the ``Increasing learning time and creating
community-oriented schools'' component of the transformation model,
including the references to school climate, internships, and community
service.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support. We are including
some of these activities in the definition of increased learning time
that also applies to the Stabilization Phase II and Race to the Top
programs, rather than listing them as specific elements of the
``increasing learning time and creating community-oriented schools''
component. They have no less importance, however.
Changes: We have included in the notice a definition of increased
learning time that includes opportunities for enrichment activities for
students, such as service learning and community service.
Comment: Several commenters suggested that the Department highlight
the importance of certain activities by revising the heading of this
component. For example, one commenter suggested revising the heading to
emphasize family involvement while another commenter suggested revising
it to specifically reference students' social and emotional needs. A
third commenter suggested expanding the title to include ``using
research-based methods to deliver comprehensive services to students.''
Discussion: We decline to make these changes. Although we embrace
the need to address not just the academic needs of students but also
how their social and emotional needs affect their learning and to
emphasize the importance of family involvement, we believe it is
preferable to keep the heading for this component more general. The
headings for each of the components in the transformation model are
deliberately broad so as to cover a number of important activities, and
the fact that a specific activity is not in a heading is not a
reflection of that activity's importance. We believe the list of
permissible activities illustrates various ways in which a school can
address students' social and emotional needs and involve families in
their child's education.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters suggested that the Department highlight
the importance of certain activities by making them required. For
example, some commenters recommended expanding the required activities
to include a comprehensive guidance curriculum delivered by a school
counselor who is certified by the State department of education;
partnering with parents, faith-based and community-based organizations,
and others to provide comprehensive student services; more time for
social and emotional learning; and improving school climate. Another
commenter recommended requiring that the transformation model include
the components of the Comprehensive School Reform Demonstration
program.
[[Page 58482]]
Other commenters suggested adding references to high school study-
abroad programs as an example of a student enrichment activity and
activities designed to reduce out-of-school suspensions and expulsions
as a strategy for addressing school climate.
Discussion: As we noted earlier, we agree that there are any number
of important activities that would be appropriate to address in a
transformation model. As described in this notice, the transformation
model, by necessity, focuses on several broad strategies. However,
there is nothing to prevent local school leaders from expanding the
model as necessary to address other factors needed to respond to the
specific needs of students in the school.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department define
``community-oriented schools'' as schools that partner with community-
based organizations to provide necessary services to students and
families using research-based methods, which might include: a school-
based, on-site coordinator; comprehensive school- and student-level
needs assessments; community-assets assessments and identification of
potential partners; annual plans for school-level prevention and
individual intervention strategies; delivery of an appropriate mix of
prevention and intervention services; data collection and evaluation
over time, with on-going modifications of services; and/or other
research-based components. Another commenter suggested removing the
word ``oriented'' and using the term ``community-schools,'' which the
commenter indicated is more commonly known.
Discussion: Although we appreciate the commenters' interest in
ensuring greater clarity on the concept of ``community-oriented
schools,'' we decline to make the suggested changes. The components of
``community-oriented schools'' will vary school by school depending on
student and community needs and resources. There is nothing in the
notice that would prevent local school leaders from undertaking any of
the strategies in the definition the commenters proposed if necessary
to respond to the specific needs of students in the school.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters suggested that the Department add
``community-based organization'' and ``workforce systems, specifically
nonprofit and community-based organizations providing employment,
training, and education services to youth'' to the list of entities
with which an LEA or school may choose to partner in providing
enrichment activities during extended learning time.
Discussion: In the SIG NPR, we listed universities, businesses, and
museums as examples of entities with which a school could partner in
providing enrichment activities during extended learning time. In this
final notice, we are instead including a definition of increased
learning time that applies to the Stabilization Phase II, Race to the
Top, and SIG programs. That definition no longer includes examples of
appropriate partnership entities, because there may be any number of
organizations or entities in a particular community that might be
appropriate partners.
Changes: In the definition of increased learning time, we have
included the following: ``(b) instruction in other subjects and
enrichment activities that contribute to a well-rounded education,
including, for example, physical education, service learning, and
experiential and work-based learning opportunities that are provided by
partnering, as appropriate, with other organizations;''.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the reference to ``parents,''
in the list of entities with which schools might partner to create safe
school environments that meet students' social, emotional, and health
needs, should include ``parent organizations.''
Discussion: We agree with this suggestion and are adding a
reference to parent organizations.
Changes: We have revised the permissible activity in paragraph
(d)(3)(ii)(A) regarding creating safe school environments to include a
reference to partnering with parents and ``parent organizations,''
along with faith- and community-based organizations, health clinics,
other State and local agencies, and others.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department define
``family engagement'' and requiring the use of certain family-
engagement mechanisms, including family-engagement coordinators at
school sites, home visitation programs, family literacy programs, and
parent leadership programs. Another commenter recommended defining
``community engagement'' as systemic efforts to involve parents,
community residents, members of school communities, community partners,
and other stakeholders in exploring student and school needs and,
working together, developing a plan to address those needs.
Discussion: We agree that there are any number of important
activities that could support increased family and community
engagement. The reference to family and community engagement in this
notice is deliberately broad so as to provide maximum flexibility in
determining how best to address local needs. However, there is nothing
to prevent local school leaders from incorporating any of the
strategies mentioned or other strategies that will lead to effective
family and community engagement.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department include
language to make clear that extending learning time can be accomplished
by adding a preschool program prior to school entry.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees that preschool education is very
important in ensuring that children enter kindergarten with the skills
necessary to succeed in school. He also agrees that preschool education
is an effective way to increase learning time.
Changes: We have added, as a permissible activity in paragraph
(d)(3)(ii)(D), expanding the school program to offer full-day
kindergarten or pre-kindergarten.
Comment: Several commenters suggested that the Department clarify
that increased learning time includes summer school, after-school
programs, and other instruction during non-school hours. Several other
commenters suggested increasing instructional time during the school
day and the need to make existing time more effective, including
through the use of technology. Another commenter suggested clarifying
that extended learning time should be beyond the current State-mandated
instructional time.
Discussion: We have added in this notice a definition of increased
learning time that applies to the Stabilization Phase II, Race to the
Top, and SIG programs. Under that definition, increased learning time
means using a longer school day, week, or year schedule to
significantly increase the total number of school hours to include
additional time for instruction in core academic subjects; time for
instruction in other subjects and enrichment activities that contribute
to a well-rounded education; and time for teachers to collaborate,
plan, and engage in professional development within and across grades
and subjects.
Changes: We have revised the notice to define increased learning
time. The full definition is as follows:
Increased learning time means using a longer school day, week, or
year
[[Page 58483]]
schedule to significantly increase the total number of school hours to
include additional time for (a) instruction in core academic subjects
including English; reading or language arts; mathematics; science;
foreign languages; civics and government; economics; arts; history; and
geography; (b) instruction in other subjects and enrichment activities
that contribute to a well-rounded education, including, for example,
physical education, service learning, and experiential and work-based
learning opportunities that are provided by partnering, as appropriate,
with other organizations; and (c) teachers to collaborate, plan, and
engage in professional development within and across grades and
subjects.\9\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ Research supports the effectiveness of well-designed
programs that expand learning time by a minimum of 300 hours per
school year. (See Frazier, Julie A.; Morrison, Frederick J. ``The
Influence of Extended-year Schooling on Growth of Achievement and
Perceived Competence in Early Elementary School.'' Child
Development. Vol. 69 (2), April 1998, pp. 495-497 and research done
by Mass2020.) Extending learning into before- and after-school hours
can be difficult to implement effectively, but is permissible under
this definition with encouragement to closely integrate and
coordinate academic work between in-school and out-of school. (See
James-Burdumy, Susanne; Dynarski, Mark; Deke, John. ``When
Elementary Schools Stay Open Late: Results from The National
Evaluation of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program.''
http:// www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/redirect_
PubsDB.asp?strSite=http://epa.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/4/
296. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 29 (4),
December 2007, Document No. PP07-121.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Providing Operating Flexibility and Sustained Support
Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department add a
requirement that a school implementing the transformation model be
required to present a plan for how the various elements of the model
are aligned and coordinated to improve student achievement and other
indicators of student growth (such as health and civic competencies).
Discussion: We decline to make the suggested change. We are
confident that a school implementing the transformation model would
have a plan without the need for the Department to require it.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the list of potential
technical assistance providers in proposed section I.A.d.iv.A.2 of the
SIG NPR be expanded to include ``professional organizations that have a
track record of turning around low-performing schools.''
Discussion: This provision is intended to ensure that schools
implementing the transformation model receive coordinated ongoing
technical assistance and reflects the belief that an SEA, LEA, or
external lead partner organization would be in the best position to
integrate services at the school level. This notice does not preclude
the involvement of entities other than those mentioned so long as they
fulfill the role of a lead partner in integrating services and supports
for the school.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter cautioned about the use of ``weighted per-
pupil school-based budgeting,'' noting that early research indicates
this practice undermines cross-school cooperation by promoting
competition among schools for students and the resources or liabilities
they may represent.
Discussion: We note that implementing a per-pupil school-based
budget formula that is weighted based on student needs is listed as a
permissible, not required, activity to give schools operational
flexibility. We believe allocating funds based on student
characteristics and then giving schools broad flexibility to use those
funds to meet their respective needs is one way to provide incentives
for schools to use their cumulative resources in innovative ways to
meet the needs of their student population. If an LEA determines such
budgeting is not appropriate in the context of its schools, it need not
implement this activity.
Changes: None.
Final Requirements
The Secretary establishes 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: In general, a State must
collect and publicly report (as defined in this notice) 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 publicly 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; steps the State is currently taking to
ensure that students from low-income families and minority students are
not taught at higher rates than other students by inexperienced,
unqualified, or out-of-field teachers; on how teacher and principal
performance is evaluated; and the distribution of performance
evaluation ratings or levels among teachers and principals.
Specifically, a State must--
Indicator (a)(1). Confirm, for 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 Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA);
Indicator (a)(2). Confirm whether the State's Teacher Equity Plan
(as part of the State's Highly Qualified Teacher Plan) fully reflects
the steps the State is currently taking to ensure that students from
low-income families and minority students are not taught at higher
rates than other students by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-
field teachers (as required in section 1111(b)(8)(C) of the ESEA);
Descriptor (a)(1). Describe, for each local educational agency
(LEA) in the State, the systems used to evaluate the performance of
teachers and the use of results from those systems in decisions
regarding teacher development, compensation, promotion, retention, and
removal;
Indicator (a)(3). Indicate, for each LEA in the State, whether the
systems used to evaluate the performance of teachers include student
achievement outcomes or student growth data as an evaluation criterion;
Indicator (a)(4). 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)(5). 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
publicly reported for each school in the LEA;
Descriptor (a)(2). Describe, for each LEA in the State, the systems
used to evaluate the performance of principals and the use of results
from those systems in decisions regarding principal development,
compensation, promotion, retention, and removal;
Indicator (a)(6). Indicate, for each LEA in the State, whether the
systems used to evaluate the performance of principals include student
achievement outcomes or student growth data as an evaluation criterion;
and
[[Page 58484]]
Indicator (a)(7). 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
publicly report information on the elements of its statewide
longitudinal data system, on whether teachers receive data on student
growth in a manner that is timely and informs instructional programs,
and on whether teachers receive reports of individual teacher impact on
student achievement. 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;
Indicator (b)(2). Indicate whether the State provides student
growth data on their current students and the students they taught in
the previous year to, at a minimum, teachers of reading/language arts
and mathematics in grades in which the State administers assessments in
those subjects in a manner that is timely and informs instructional
programs; and
Indicator (b)(3). Indicate whether the State provides teachers of
reading/language arts and mathematics in grades in which the State
administers assessments in those subjects with reports of individual
teacher impact on student achievement on those assessments.
(c) Standards and assessments. A State must collect and publicly
report data and other information on whether students are provided
high-quality State assessments; whether students with disabilities and
limited English proficient students are included in State assessment
systems; whether the State makes information available regarding
student academic performance in the State compared to the academic
performance of students in other States; and 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.
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). 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)(3). 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)(4). 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)(5). 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)(6). 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)(7). Confirm whether the State provides native
language versions of State assessments for limited English proficient
students that are approved by the Department;
Indicator (c)(8). 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)(9). Confirm that the State's annual State Report Card
(under section 1111(h)(1) of the ESEA) contains the most recent
available State reading and mathematics National Assessment of
Educational Progress (NAEP) results as required by 34 CFR 200.11(c);
Indicator (c)(10). 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)(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), of the students who graduate from high school consistent
with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(i), the number and percentage (including
numerator and denominator) who enroll in an institution of higher
education (IHE) (as defined in section 101(a) of the Higher Education
Act of 1965, as amended (HEA)) within 16 months of receiving a regular
high school diploma; and
Indicator (c)(12). 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 (as defined in
section 101(a) of the HEA) in the State within 16 months of receiving a
regular high school diploma, the number and percentage (including
numerator and denominator) who complete at least one year's worth of
college credit (applicable to a degree) within two years of enrollment
in the IHE.
(d) Supporting struggling schools. A State must collect and
publicly report data and other information on the progress of certain
groups of schools in the State on State assessments in reading/language
arts and mathematics; on the extent to which reforms to improve student
academic achievement are implemented in the persistently lowest-
achieving schools in the State; and on the extent to which charter
schools are operating in the State. Specifically, a State must--
Indicator (d)(1). Provide, for the State, the average statewide
school gain in the ``all students'' category and the average statewide
school gain for each student subgroup (as under section
1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the ESEA) on the State assessments in reading/
language arts and for the State and for each LEA in the State, the
number and percentage (including numerator and denominator) of Title I
schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that have
made progress (as defined in this notice) on State assessments in
reading/language arts in the last year;
Indicator (d)(2). Provide, for the State, the average statewide
school gain in the ``all students'' category and the average statewide
school gain for each student subgroup (as under section
1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the ESEA) on State assessments in mathematics and
for the State and for each LEA in the State, the number and percentage
(including numerator and denominator) of Title I schools in
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that have made
progress on State assessments in mathematics in the last year;
Descriptor (d)(1). Provide the definition of ``persistently lowest-
[[Page 58485]]
achieving schools'' (consistent with the requirements for defining this
term set forth in this notice) that the State uses to identify such
schools;
Indicator (d)(3). Provide, for the State, the number and identity
of the schools that are Title I schools in improvement, corrective
action, or restructuring, that are identified as persistently lowest-
achieving schools;
Indicator (d)(4). Provide, for the State, of the persistently
lowest-achieving schools that are Title I schools in improvement,
corrective action, or restructuring, the number and identity of those
schools that have been turned around, restarted, closed, or transformed
(as defined in this notice) in the last year;
Indicator (d)(5). Provide, for the State, the number and identity
of the schools that are secondary schools that are eligible for, but do
not receive, Title I funds, that are identified as persistently lowest-
achieving schools;
Indicator (d)(6). Provide, for the State, of the persistently
lowest-achieving schools that are secondary schools that are eligible
for, but do not receive, Title I funds, the number and identity of
those schools that have been turned around, restarted, closed, or
transformed in the last year;
Indicator (d)(7). Provide, for the State and, if applicable, for
each LEA in the State, the number of charter schools that are currently
permitted to operate under State law;
Indicator (d)(8). Confirm, for the State and for each LEA in the
State that operates charter schools, the number of charter schools
currently operating;
Indicator (d)(9). Provide, for the State and for each LEA in the
State that operates charter schools, the number and percentage of
charter schools that have made progress on State assessments in
reading/language arts in the last year;
Indicator (d)(10). Provide, for the State and for each LEA in the
State that operates charter schools, the number and percentage of
charter schools that have made progress on State assessments in
mathematics in the last year;
Indicator (d)(11). 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 each of the last five years; and
Indicator (d)(12). Indicate, for each charter school that has
closed (including a school that was not reauthorized to operate) within
each of 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
paragraphs (c) and (d) of this section, the State must collect and
publicly 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 publicly report the required data
or other information, at least annually through September 30, 2011;
(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--
(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 fully collect the data or information, including--
(A) The milestones that the State establishes toward developing and
implementing those means;
(B) The date by which the State expects to reach each milestone;
and
(C) 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; and
(4) If the State is not able to fully publicly report, at least
annually through September 30, 2011, the data or other information
required by the indicator or descriptor--
(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 fully publicly report the data or information, including--
(A) The milestones that the State establishes toward developing and
implementing those means;
(B) The date by which the State expects to reach each milestone;
and
(C) 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.
(b) Data or other information. If the State is currently able to
fully collect and publicly 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 and publicly report that
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--
(i) Indicate which of the 12 elements are currently included in the
State's statewide longitudinal data system; and
(ii) If the State's statewide longitudinal data system does not
currently include all 12 elements, describe--
(A) 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 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);
(B) 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
(C) 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.
[[Page 58486]]
(2) With respect to Indicator (b)(2), the State must provide
student growth data on their students to, at a minimum, teachers of
reading/language arts and mathematics in grades in which the State
administers assessments in those subjects, in a manner that is timely
and informs instructional programs. To this end, the State must--
(i) Indicate whether the State provides teachers with such data;
and
(ii) If the State does not provide teachers with such data,
describe--
(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 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);
(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.
(3) With respect to Indicator (b)(3), the State must--
(i) Indicate whether it provides teachers of reading/language arts
and mathematics in grades in which the State administers assessments in
those subjects with reports of individual teacher impact on student
achievement on those assessments; and
(ii) If the State does not provide those teachers with such
reports, describe--
(A) The State's process and timeline for developing and
implementing the means to provide those teachers with such reports,
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 (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.
(d) Requirements for Indicators (c)(11) and (c)(12). With respect
to Indicators (c)(11) and (c)(12), the State is required to, at a
minimum, possess the ability to collect and publicly report the data.
As a result, the requirements of paragraph (a) of this section apply to
these indicators, at a minimum, with respect to the State's development
of the means to collect and to publicly report the data. Accordingly--
(1) If, for either of these indicators, a State will develop but
not implement the means to collect and publicly report the data (i.e.,
the State will not collect and publicly report the data) by September
30, 2011, the State--
(i) Must submit a plan with respect to the indicator that addresses
the requirements of paragraph (a) only with respect to the State's
development of the means to collect and to publicly report the data,
and not the State's implementation of those means; and
(ii) If submitting a plan in this manner, must include in its plan
a description of the evidence it will provide to the Department of
Education, by September 30, 2011, to demonstrate that it has developed
the means to collect and publicly report that data.
(2) If, however, for either of these indicators, a State will
develop and implement those means (i.e., the State will collect and
publicly report the data) by September 30, 2011, the State must submit
a plan with respect to the indicator that fully addresses the
requirements of paragraph (a).
(e) 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.
Final Definitions
The Secretary establishes 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.
For the purposes of this program, publicly report means that the
data or information required for an indicator or descriptor are made
available to anyone with access to an Internet connection without
having to submit a request to the entity that maintains the data and
information in order to access that data and information. Therefore,
States are required to maintain a public Web site that provides the
data and information that are responsive to the indicator and
descriptor requirements. If a State does not currently provide the
required data or information, it must provide on this Web site its plan
with respect to the indicator or descriptor and its reports on its
progress in implementing that plan.
With respect to the requirement that a State collect and publicly
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
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 a regular high school diploma.
With respect to the requirements that a State indicate whether
teacher and principal evaluation systems include student growth data as
an evaluation criterion and whether the State provides such data to, at
a minimum, teachers of reading/language arts and mathematics
[[Page 58487]]
in grades in which the State administers assessments in those subjects,
student growth means the change in achievement for an individual
student between two or more points in time. For grades in which the
State administers summative assessments in reading/language arts and
mathematics, student growth data must be based on a student's score on
the State's assessment under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA. A State
may also include other measures that are rigorous and comparable across
classrooms.
With respect to the requirement that a State collect and publicly
report the number of high-school graduates who enrolled in a public IHE
in the State who complete at least one year's worth of college credit
(applicable to a degree) within two years of enrollment, 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 publicly
report the numbers and percentages of certain groups of schools 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
and for each student subgroup (as under section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the
ESEA), are equal to or greater than the average statewide school gains
in the State on that assessment, in the ``all students'' category and
for each student subgroup, except that if the average statewide school
gains in the State on that assessment are equal to or less than zero,
the gains of the school must be greater than zero.
With respect to the requirements that a State collect and publicly
report data and information on the persistently lowest-achieving
schools that are Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring or secondary schools that are eligible for, but do not
receive, Title I funds, persistently lowest-achieving schools means, as
determined by the State--
(a)(1) Any Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring that--
(i) Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of Title I schools
in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring or the lowest-
achieving five Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring in the State, whichever number of schools is greater; or
(ii) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in
34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent over a number of years;
and
(2) Any secondary school that is eligible for, but does not
receive, Title I funds that--
(i) Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of secondary schools
or the lowest-achieving five secondary schools in the State that are
eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds, whichever number of
schools is greater; or
(ii) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in
34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent over a number of years.
(b) To identify the lowest-achieving schools, a State must take
into account both--
(1) The academic achievement of the ``all students'' group in a
school in terms of proficiency on the State's assessments under section
1111(b)(3) of the ESEA in reading/language arts and mathematics
combined; and
(2) The school's lack of progress on those assessments over a
number of years in the ``all students'' group.
With respect to the requirements that a State collect and publicly
report, of the persistently lowest-achieving schools, the number and
identity of schools that have been turned around, restarted, closed, or
transformed through one of the following in the last year--
(a) Turnaround model. (1) A turnaround model is one in which an LEA
must--
(i) Replace the principal and grant the principal sufficient
operational flexibility (including in staffing, calendars/time, and
budgeting) to implement fully a comprehensive approach in order to
substantially improve student achievement outcomes and increase high
school graduation rates;
(ii) Using locally adopted competencies to measure the
effectiveness of staff who can work within the turnaround environment
to meet the needs of students,
(A) Screen all existing staff and rehire no more than 50 percent;
and
(B) Select new staff;
(iii) Implement such strategies as financial incentives, increased
opportunities for promotion and career growth, and more flexible work
conditions that are designed to recruit, place, and retain staff with
the skills necessary to meet the needs of the students in the
turnaround school;
(iv) Provide staff with ongoing, high-quality, job-embedded
professional development that is aligned with the school's
comprehensive instructional program and designed with school staff to
ensure that they are equipped to facilitate effective teaching and
learning and have the capacity to successfully implement school reform
strategies;
(v) Adopt a new governance structure, which may include, but is not
limited to, requiring the school to report to a new ``turnaround
office'' in the LEA or SEA, hire a ``turnaround leader'' who reports
directly to the Superintendent or Chief Academic Officer, or enter into
a multi-year contract with the LEA or SEA to obtain added flexibility
in exchange for greater accountability;
(vi) Use data to identify and implement an instructional program
that is research-based and ``vertically aligned'' from one grade to the
next as well as aligned with State academic standards;
(vii) Promote the continuous use of student data (such as from
formative, interim, and summative assessments) to inform and
differentiate instruction in order to meet the academic needs of
individual students;
(viii) Establish schedules and implement strategies that provide
increased learning time (as defined in this notice); and
(ix) Provide appropriate social-emotional and community-oriented
services and supports for students.
(2) A turnaround model may also implement other strategies such
as--
(i) Any of the required and permissible activities under the
transformation model; or
(ii) A new school model (e.g., themed, dual language academy).
(b) Restart model. A restart model is one in which an LEA converts
a school or closes and reopens a school under a charter school
operator, a charter management organization (CMO), or an education
management organization (EMO) that has been selected through a rigorous
review process. (A CMO is a non-profit organization that operates or
manages charter schools by centralizing or sharing certain functions
and resources among schools. An EMO is a for-profit or non-profit
organization that provides ``whole-school operation'' services to an
LEA.) A restart model must enroll, within the grades it serves, any
former student who wishes to attend the school.
(c) School closure. School closure occurs when an LEA closes a
school and enrolls the students who attended that school in other
schools in the LEA that are higher achieving. These other schools
should be within reasonable proximity to the closed school and may
include, but are not limited to, charter schools or new schools for
which achievement data are not yet available.
(d) Transformation model. A transformation model is one in which
[[Page 58488]]
an LEA implements each of the following strategies:
(1) Developing and increasing teacher and school leader
effectiveness.
(i) Required activities. The LEA must--
(A) Replace the principal who led the school prior to commencement
of the transformation model;
(B) Use rigorous, transparent, and equitable evaluation systems for
teachers and principals that--
(1) Take into account data on student growth (as defined in this
notice) as a significant factor as well as other factors such as
multiple observation-based assessments of performance and ongoing
collections of professional practice reflective of student achievement
and increased high-school graduation rates; and
(2) Are designed and developed with teacher and principal
involvement;
(C) Identify and reward school leaders, teachers, and other staff
who, in implementing this model, have increased student achievement and
high-school graduation rates and identify and remove those who, after
ample opportunities have been provided for them to improve their
professional practice, have not done so;
(D) Provide staff with ongoing, high-quality, job-embedded
professional development (e.g., regarding subject-specific pedagogy,
instruction that reflects a deeper understanding of the community
served by the school, or differentiated instruction) that is aligned
with the school's comprehensive instructional program and designed with
school staff to ensure they are equipped to facilitate effective
teaching and learning and have the capacity to successfully implement
school reform strategies; and
(E) Implement such strategies as financial incentives, increased
opportunities for promotion and career growth, and more flexible work
conditions that are designed to recruit, place, and retain staff with
the skills necessary to meet the needs of the students in a
transformation school.
(ii) Permissible activities. An LEA may also implement other
strategies to develop teachers' and school leaders' effectiveness, such
as--
(A) Providing additional compensation to attract and retain staff
with the skills necessary to meet the needs of the students in a
transformation school;
(B) Instituting a system for measuring changes in instructional
practices resulting from professional development; or
(C) Ensuring that the school is not required to accept a teacher
without the mutual consent of the teacher and principal, regardless of
the teacher's seniority.
(2) Comprehensive instructional reform strategies.
(i) Required activities. The LEA must--
(A) Use data to identify and implement an instructional program
that is research-based and ``vertically aligned'' from one grade to the
next as well as aligned with State academic standards; and
(B) Promote the continuous use of student data (such as from
formative, interim, and summative assessments) to inform and
differentiate instruction in order to meet the academic needs of
individual students.
(ii) Permissible activities. An LEA may also implement
comprehensive instructional reform strategies, such as--
(A) Conducting periodic reviews to ensure that the curriculum is
being implemented with fidelity, is having the intended impact on
student achievement, and is modified if ineffective;
(B) Implementing a schoolwide ``response-to-intervention'' model;
(C) Providing additional supports and professional development to
teachers and principals in order to implement effective strategies to
support students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment
and to ensure that limited English proficient students acquire language
skills to master academic content;
(D) Using and integrating technology-based supports and
interventions as part of the instructional program; and
(E) In secondary schools--
(1) Increasing rigor by offering opportunities for students to
enroll in advanced coursework (such as Advanced Placement or
International Baccalaureate; or science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics courses, especially those that incorporate rigorous and
relevant project-, inquiry-, or design-based contextual learning
opportunities), early-college high schools, dual enrollment programs,
or thematic learning academies that prepare students for college and
careers, including by providing appropriate supports designed to ensure
that low-achieving students can take advantage of these programs and
coursework;
(2) Improving student transition from middle to high school through
summer transition programs or freshman academies;
(3) Increasing graduation rates through, for example, credit-
recovery programs, re-engagement strategies, smaller learning
communities, competency-based instruction and performance-based
assessments, and acceleration of basic reading and mathematics skills;
or
(4) Establishing early-warning systems to identify students who may
be at risk of failing to achieve to high standards or graduate.
(3) Increasing learning time and creating community-oriented
schools.
(i) Required activities. The LEA must--
(A) Establish schedules and implement strategies that provide
increased learning time (as defined in this notice); and
(B) Provide ongoing mechanisms for family and community engagement.
(ii) Permissible activities. An LEA may also implement other
strategies that extend learning time and create community-oriented
schools, such as--
(A) Partnering with parents and parent organizations, faith- and
community-based organizations, health clinics, other State or local
agencies, and others to create safe school environments that meet
students' social, emotional, and health needs;
(B) Extending or restructuring the school day so as to add time for
such strategies as advisory periods that build relationships between
students, faculty, and other school staff;
(C) Implementing approaches to improve school climate and
discipline, such as implementing a system of positive behavioral
supports or taking steps to eliminate bullying and student harassment;
or
(D) Expanding the school program to offer full-day kindergarten or
pre-kindergarten.
(4) Providing operational flexibility and sustained support.
(i) Required activities. The LEA must--
(A) Give the school sufficient operational flexibility (such as
staffing, calendars/time, and budgeting) to implement fully a
comprehensive approach to substantially improve student achievement
outcomes and increase high school graduation rates; and
(B) Ensure that the school receives ongoing, intensive technical
assistance and related support from the LEA, the SEA, or a designated
external lead partner organization (such as a school turnaround
organization or an EMO).
(ii) Permissible activities. The LEA may also implement other
strategies for providing operational flexibility and intensive support,
such as--
(A) Allowing the school to be run under a new governance
arrangement, such as a turnaround division within the LEA or SEA; or
[[Page 58489]]
(B) Implementing a per-pupil school-based budget formula that is
weighted based on student needs.
If a school identified as a persistently lowest-achieving school
has implemented, in whole or in part within the last two years, an
intervention that meets the requirements of the turnaround, restart, or
transformation models, the school may continue or complete the
intervention being implemented.
With respect to the requirement that schools using a turnaround
model or a transformation model have increased learning time, increased
learning time means using a longer school day, week, or year schedule
to significantly increase the total number of school hours to include
additional time for (a) instruction in core academic subjects,
including English, reading or language arts; mathematics; science;
foreign languages; civics and government; economics; arts; history; and
geography; (b) instruction in other subjects and enrichment activities
that contribute to a well-rounded education, including, for example,
physical education, service learning, and experiential and work-based
learning opportunities that are provided by partnering, as appropriate,
with other organizations; and (c) teachers to collaborate, plan, and
engage in professional development within and across grades and
subjects.\10\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ Research supports the effectiveness of well-designed
programs that expand learning time by a minimum of 300 hours per
school year. (See Frazier, Julie A.; Morrison, Frederick J. ``The
Influence of Extended-year Schooling on Growth of Achievement and
Perceived Competence in Early Elementary School.'' Child
Development. Vol. 69 (2), April 1998, pp. 495-497 and research done
by Mass2020.) Extending learning into before- and after-school hours
can be difficult to implement effectively, but is permissible under
this definition with encouragement to closely integrate and
coordinate academic work between in school and out of school. (See
James-Burdumy, Susanne; Dynarski, Mark; Deke, John. ``When
Elementary Schools Stay Open Late: Results from The National
Evaluation of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program.''
http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/redirect_
PubsDB.asp?strSite=http://epa.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/4/
296. Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 29 (4),
December 2007, Document No. PP07-121.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Final Approval Criteria
The Secretary establishes 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 publicly 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
publicly 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 publicly 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
publicly 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
student growth data on their students to, at a minimum, teachers of
reading/language arts and mathematics in grades in which the State
administers assessments in those subjects, in a manner that is timely
and informs instructional programs); 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) Excluding Indicator (b)(3), 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.
Executive Order 12866:
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether
this regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to the
requirements of the Executive Order and subject to review by OMB.
Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a ``significant
regulatory action'' as an action likely to result in a rule that may
(1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, or
adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local or
tribal governments, or communities in a material way (also referred to
as an ``economically significant'' rule); (2) create serious
inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action taken or planned by
another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary impacts of
entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the rights and
obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal or policy
issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive Order. Pursuant to the
Executive Order, it has been determined that this regulatory
[[Page 58490]]
action will have an annual effect on the economy of more than $100
million because the amount of government transfers provided through
SFSF will exceed that amount. Therefore, this action is ``economically
significant'' and subject to OMB review under section 3(f)(1) of the
Executive Order.
The costs of this regulatory action 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 requirements, the Department has determined
that the benefits of the 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.
Need for Federal Regulatory Action
These 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 requirements, definitions, and approval criteria 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 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 requirement for each State to provide student growth
data on their current students and the students they taught in the
previous year to, at a minimum, teachers of reading/language arts and
mathematics in grades in which the State administers assessments in
those subjects, in a manner that is timely and informs instructional
programs, 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 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 approval criteria themselves
are needed in order to provide for a clear and objective set of
standards that the Secretary will use in ensuring that each State,
before receiving the remainder of its Stabilization program allocation,
has in place a plan for collecting and publicly reporting the required
data and meeting the other requirements in this notice.
Regulatory Alternatives Considered
A likely alternative to promulgation of the types of requirements,
definitions, and approval criteria 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, establish statewide longitudinal data systems that include
the elements specified in the America COMPETES Act, enhance the quality
of their standards and assessments, ensure the inclusion of students
with disabilities and limited English proficient students in their
assessments, and 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.
Summary of Costs and Benefits
The Department has analyzed the costs of complying with these final
requirements. Some of the costs will be 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. Indicator (a)(1) requires that they confirm the data they
have reported, which should not be a time-consuming responsibility. As
a second example, the 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.
General Discussion of Comments
Other requirements will impose significant new costs. Many
commenters asserted that the volume of the proposed data collection
requirements would constitute an unreasonable, unrealistic task for
States and LEAs, particularly in light of strained budgets and
reductions in personnel. Two commenters acknowledged that some data
requirements would be appropriate in light of such an investment as the
SFSF; they contended, however, that the proposed requirements would go
beyond what they considered appropriate. Commenters variously
recommended generally reducing the data requirements, allowing
sampling, increasing reporting time, and adding support for school and
LEA capacity-building specifically to meet data collection and
reporting requirements. One commenter argued that, while the
commenter's State could complete the plan as required, the State could
not actually carry out all data collection activities in the plan.
While we understand the fiscal challenges that face numerous States
and LEAs, we strongly believe that the benefits to the public of these
requirements outweigh the State and local implementation costs.
Specifically, 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 later in this section, 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 persistently lowest-achieving schools, and charter school
[[Page 58491]]
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.
While several commenters expressed concern regarding the lack of
funds available to States to comply with the data requirements,
emphasizing that States have recently had to make severe budget cuts,
States will be able to draw on Federal resources in meeting some of the
requirements. For example, the 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. As one commenter noted, Federal funds that States
receive from the Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems Grant program,
through which the Department has made over $187 million available since
fiscal year 2005, may be used to meet this requirement. 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 necessary to report on these performance indicators.
Some commenters argued that the Stabilization Government Services
Fund will not be sufficient to cover the expenses of complying with
these requirements. Three commenters added that the Department should
not add data requirements unknown at the time States obligated the
Stabilization funds. A few commenters contended that, in accordance
with congressional intent, States have used or will use SFSF funds to
help avoid severe reductions in State services and layoffs of State-
funded employees, including in the educational system. One of these
commenters further explained that, even with Stabilization funds, the
LEAs in the commenter's State must still implement severe budget cuts.
Another explained that other Federal programs requiring States to
collect data provide administrative funds for this purpose. Numerous
commenters asserted that much time has already been spent collecting
and reporting data related to SFSF Phase I. Two commenters expressed
appreciation for the relief SFSF funds have provided to LEAs, but noted
that States received no portion of the Education Fund resources. The
Department appreciates the perspective captured in these comments but
continues to believe that Stabilization funds should be used to save
and create jobs as well as to advance education reform, and has clearly
stated those objectives since the passage of the ARRA. As stated
earlier, the Department is requiring States to report on the particular
indicators and descriptors presented in this notice in the interest of
advancing reform in a transparent manner.
The Department recognizes, however, that the proposed requirements
would have required more effort than may be reasonable for States at
this time. Therefore, the Department has made a key change from the
proposed requirements to reduce the estimated cost of the final
requirements. In the NPR, the Department proposed to require each State
to provide 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 final requirements provide, instead, for States to
provide student growth data to, at a minimum, teachers of reading/
language arts and mathematics in grades in which the State administers
assessments in those subjects, in a manner that is timely and informs
instructional programs.\11\ The Department expects that this
requirement will be significantly less costly to implement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\11\ The final requirements, however, still require States to
indicate whether they provide reports of individual teacher impact
on student achievement and, if they do not, to provide a plan for
doing so.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
One commenter warned that, without ongoing funds to maintain, for
example, the longitudinal data system, the modifications to student
assessments, or the Federal reporting requirements, these requirements
will create a ``funding cliff'' in fiscal year 2011. The Department
encourages States to consider ways that these funds may be invested so
as to minimize the impact of the end of the period of availability of
the Stabilization funds, and disagrees with another commenter who
argued that these requirements constitute an unfunded mandate. States
and LEAs may use a share of these or other resources to respond to
these requirements, and the Department expects that Government Services
funds as well as State administrative funds from other programs,
including Title II, Part A, can be used as appropriate to meet these
requirements. Two additional commenters urged the Department to allow
States to report that they will use funds from Race to the Top to
comply with the requirements established in this notice; the Department
encourages States that apply for Race to the Top grants to consider how
those funds may be used to meet these requirements while also meeting
the criteria for Race to the Top.
The following is a detailed analysis of the estimated costs of
implementing the specific final 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 requiring 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.\12\ 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. In addition, the final
requirements provide for States to indicate whether the State's Teacher
Equity Plan (a part of the State's Highly Qualified Teacher Plan) has
been updated to fully reflect the steps the State is currently taking
to ensure that
[[Page 58492]]
students from low-income families and minority students are not taught
at higher rates than other students by inexperienced, unqualified, or
out-of-field teachers. The Department expects that this will require an
hour of effort, for a total estimated burden of 52 hours at a cost of
$1,560.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ Some commenters argued that we should use a higher estimate
than $30 per hour of State effort but did not provide specific
alternate estimates. We believe that $30 is a reasonable estimate of
the national average cost of staff time in State educational
agencies; it is also the estimate the Department has used in other
regulatory cost estimates. We recognize, however, that actual costs
will vary across States.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
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 requiring 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 or student growth data as an evaluation criterion.
The level of effort required to respond to these 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.\13\ For these 12 States, the Department estimates that a
total of 72 hours (6 hours per State) would be required to respond to
these 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 requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ 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). While one
commenter asserted that a survey will not suffice to collect these data
annually, the Department expects that a survey is all that would be
necessary for a State to collect this information. 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
centralized teacher and principal evaluation systems in place. For
those LEAs, we estimate that 3 hours would be required to respond to
these requirements. For the estimated 3,092 LEAs that do not have a
centralized evaluation system in place, we estimate that 2 hours would
be required because we expect that these systems are less complex than
centralized systems. 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. In the NPR, we invited
commenters to provide information on the prevalence of these systems in
LEAs (so that we could further refine our estimates) and on the
potential costs of meeting the requirements for LEAs that have or do
not have such a system, but we did not receive any comments on these
issues. As a result, we are retaining the estimates that we included in
the NPR for these metrics.
The Department is also requiring 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, as
well as a description of how each LEA uses results from those systems
in decisions regarding teacher and principal development, compensation,
promotion, retention, and removal. Finally, the Department is requiring
States to indicate, for each LEA in the State whose teachers receive
performance ratings or levels through an evaluation system, whether the
number and percentage of teachers rated at each performance rating or
level are publicly reported for each school in the LEA. One commenter
expressed the belief that LEAs will have to develop Web sites to post
information on their evaluation systems. The Department expects that
many LEAs that make this information publicly available will choose to
do so on their pre-existing Web site; if any LEAs currently do not have
Web sites, they may create a Web site or may publicly report this
information in another easily accessible format.
We were unable to find nationally representative information on
whether LEAs will have information on their teacher and principal
evaluation systems readily available in a centralized database and,
therefore, invited comment on this issue. Though at least one commenter
asserted that the request was reasonable, many commenters argued that
the cost and time to comply with these data requirements would far
exceed the estimates in the NPR. One commenter directed us to a study
by the New Teacher Project (NTP),\14\ which analyzed the teacher
evaluation systems of a sample of 12 LEAs. Of those 12 LEAs, only 4
tracked teacher evaluation results electronically. Although the NTP
report examined only a small number of LEAs, which were not nationally
representative, we base our cost estimates on this finding, as it is
the only source of information available. Thus, we assume that 33
percent of LEAs will have information on the teacher and principal
evaluation results in a central database.\15\ Applying this percentage
to the estimated 11,908 LEAs that have in place a centralized 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 3,930 LEAs would need to spend 3 hours each to respond
to these requirements for a total burden of
[[Page 58493]]
11,790 hours and $294,750. One commenter suggested that the Department
include in this estimate the cost of LEAs participating in training
from the State on how to respond to these requirements; this estimate
of 3 hours includes 1 hour per LEA for such training. The Department
downwardly revised the LEA-level estimate of burden for these LEAs from
5 hours per LEA in the NPR to 3 hours per LEA because we are now
assuming that these LEAs not only have this information available in
the central office but also that the information is available
electronically, which would further simplify the process.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See http://widgeteffect.org/downloads/TheWidgetEffect.pdf.
\15\ It is important to note that this study includes in its
sample only medium-size and large LEAs and, therefore, that the
actual percentage of LEAs with teacher and principal evaluation
results in a central database may be lower than 33 percent. We also
believe, however, that small LEAs with fewer teachers and principals
would require less effort than a medium-size or large LEA to comply
with these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We estimate that each of the other 7,978 LEAs will require
significantly more time to respond. One commenter suggested that we
estimate LEA burden for the requirements regarding the number and
percentage of teachers and principals rated at each performance rating
or level by considering the number of teachers, assuming that all
evaluation results would need to be entered and aggregated at the LEA
level, which would require ten minutes per individual. This commenter
also recommended that we use the estimate of 3.6 million public school
teachers nationwide to determine the level of LEA effort required. We
agree with this commenter's point that the estimate of LEA burden for
these requirements should consider the number of teachers in the LEA;
however, according to the Digest of Education Statistics, there are
approximately 3.2 million teachers and 87,620 principals in public
elementary and secondary schools.16 17 Based on this figure,
we estimate that an average LEA employs 213 teachers and 6 principals.
Applying this number of teachers and principals to the estimated 7,978
LEAs nationwide that do not have this information electronically in a
central system, we estimate that these LEAs will need to enter data for
1,699,314 teachers and 47,868 principals into their existing personnel
systems. Using the commenter's estimate that LEAs could enter
information for 6 individuals per hour, we estimate that these LEAs
would have a combined burden of 291,197 hours at a cost of $7,279,925.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\16\ See http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/dt08_
004.asp?referrer=list. The most recent data available is from 2006.
\17\ See http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/dt08_
086.asp. The most recent data available is for the 2003-04 school
year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We further estimate that all 15,000 LEAs would each require 1 hour
to describe how they use results from teacher and principal evaluation
systems in decisions regarding teacher and principal development,
compensation, promotion, retention, and removal.
The Department, therefore, estimates the total LEA burden for these
requirements to be 317,987 hours across the Nation at an estimated
total cost of $7,949,675 (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 requirements in this section, and will then
need to aggregate and publicly report the data on their Web site. We
estimate that these activities will require 8 hours of effort per
State, for a total burden of 416 hours at a cost of $12,480. We further
estimate that it will cost each State $10,000 to establish and maintain
a Web site to which it will post all of the data required by this
notice, including the requirements in this section. While one commenter
expressed concern for States with large numbers of LEAs, the 8-hour
estimate reflects average burden across all States, including those
with high and low numbers of LEAs.
Many commenters reported that complying with the teacher and
principal evaluation data requirements will significantly burden States
and LEAs. One commenter emphasized that the commenter's State does not
currently collect any of the information included in these
requirements. Some commenters elaborated that collecting these data
will require extensive communication and follow-up between States and
LEAs. One commenter recommended that States be permitted to sample
their LEAs, and another commenter suggested that, while the estimates
may be fairly accurate, these data requirements will negatively affect
a State's ability to complete the application within the required
timeframe.
The Department agrees that States and LEAs will be required to make
an effort to meet these requirements, and that the level of effort will
vary across the States and their LEAs. We believe that the availability
of these data will benefit parents and their children and that the
benefits of collecting and reporting this information outweigh the
costs. Further, we believe that parents with children in every LEA
across the Nation deserve to have access to this information and,
therefore, decline to allow States or LEAs to sample their teachers and
principals in responding to these requirements.
Another commenter recommended that the Department identify the most
effective teacher and principal evaluation systems and provide States
with a tool for collecting the teacher and principal data. The
Department may, in the future, assess teacher and principal evaluation
systems, but does not believe State collection and reporting of data on
their systems should await completion of such an effort.
Two commenters expressed particular concern for the effort required
of small, rural LEAs, but we expect that collecting this information
will be a simple process for small LEAs (which typically operate few
schools and employ few teachers and principals), so we do not provide
separate estimates for them here. Lastly, two commenters contended that
the estimates do not account for the data systems that LEAs will have
to develop to collect this information. We assume that LEAs will add a
data element to an existing data system and, therefore, do not believe
that it is appropriate to assume the need for development of data
systems for the purpose of these estimates.
For more detailed estimates of costs for these 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 requires 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 is also requiring that States report whether the
State provides student growth data on their current students and the
students they taught in the previous year to, at a minimum, teachers of
reading/language arts and
[[Page 58494]]
mathematics in grades in which the State administers assessments in
those subjects in a manner that is timely and informs instructional
programs. 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 student growth data in all States. We are also requiring States to
indicate whether the State provides teachers of reading/language arts
and mathematics in grades in which the State administers assessments in
those subjects with reports of individual teacher impact on student
achievement on those assessments. The costs of merely publicly
reporting on whether a State currently provides this information to
teachers should be minimal. We estimate that each State would spend one
hour to publicly report this information, for a total level of effort
of 52 hours at a cost of $1,560.
State Assessments
In response to the requirement in section 14005(d)(4)(A) of the
ARRA that States enhance the quality of their student assessments, the
Department requires that the States confirm certain existing data and
other information and submit some new information about their
assessment systems. Specifically, the Department requires 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). In addition, States will confirm
that their annual State Report Card (issued pursuant to the
requirements of section 1111(h) of the ESEA) contains the most recent
available State reading and mathematics NAEP results. The Department
estimates that each State would require two hours to respond to these
requirements, for a total cost of $3,120.
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 requires 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 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 requires 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) of the ARRA 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 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 in this notice are aligned with this
provision of the America COMPETES Act.
First, the Department requires each State to publicly report, for
the State and each LEA and high school in the State and, at each of
these levels, by student subgroup,\18\ 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 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\18\ 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,\19\ the Department believes that most States are well-
situated to collect and publicly report these data, or have the
processes underway to make such reporting possible by September 30,
2011. In fulfillment of the 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.\20\ 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.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\19\ http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey.
\20\ 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 requiring States to publicly 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 and
percentage of students who graduate from high school consistent with 34
CFR 200.19(b)(1)(i) who enroll in an IHE within 16 months of receiving
a regular high school diploma and, of those students who
[[Page 58495]]
enroll in a public IHE within the State, the number and percentage who
complete at least one year's worth of college credit (applicable to a
degree) within two years of enrollment in the IHE. The 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 COMPETES Act. As discussed earlier, section 14005(d)(3) of the ARRA
requires States to assure, in their Stabilization Fund application,
that they will establish such a data system.
One commenter expressed concern that, according to the 2008 Data
Quality Campaign survey, only 28 States reported the ability to share
data with postsecondary institutions. While that may be true, several
of the data elements described in section 6401(e)(2)(D) of the COMPETES
Act require data systems to include linkages to postsecondary
institutions, and States assured that they would implement a data
system with these elements in place when they applied for Phase I
Stabilization funds. Several commenters contended that many LEAs
currently lack the infrastructure and data collection systems necessary
to comply with the requirements proposed in the NPR. One commenter
explained that many of the requirements presume that States already
have P-20 data systems in place. These commenters correctly state that
we do not include the costs of establishing such a system in the costs
of these requirements. This exclusion is warranted because the
requirement to establish such a system flows from the ARRA, not from
these requirements.\21\ 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 Department's Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems Grant
program. Further, the efforts of the National Student Clearinghouse
(NSC), 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 (which enroll over 92 percent of college students) and
hundreds of LEAs participate in the NSC's efforts. The Department
expects that LEAs and IHEs that currently provide data to this system
may require less effort to respond to this requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\21\ We do acknowledge, however, that although the statute does
not set a deadline for State establishment of the required data
systems, paragraph (c)(2)(ii)(A) under the section of this notice
entitled ``State Plans'' would require States to have in place
statewide longitudinal data systems that fully include all 12
elements described in the 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).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Two commenters requested that States be allowed to use the NSC to
reduce burden; however, one commenter reported that use of the NSC
would increase the cost of meeting these requirements. One commenter
noted that the NSC collects only enrollment data. It is important to
note that the Department mentions the NSC as a potential resource, but
that States and IHEs are not encouraged or required to use it to meet
these requirements.
With respect to the requirement on publicly reporting postsecondary
enrollment, the Department expects that LEAs will 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.\22\ Holding that number constant, the Department estimates
that LEAs will be able to enter data for these students at a pace of 20
students per hour which will result in a total level of LEA effort of
124,600 hours at a cost of $3,115,000. One commenter correctly pointed
out that the tables in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 section in
the NPR did not include this $3,115,000 in LEA burden; the Department
has added this item to the table in this notice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\22\ 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 will 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,\23\ the Department
estimates that 2,018,520 first-time freshmen (81 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 100,926
hours of IHE effort at a total cost of $2,523,150 (assuming a cost of
$25 per hour).\24\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\23\ http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/dt08_
223.asp.
\24\ 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 will 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 473,480 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. One commenter
argued that the estimate provided in the NPR accounts only for the data
to be entered, whereas the burden relates more to obtaining the
information rather than entering the data. However, our estimates
include the effort involved in obtaining the data as well as entering
it into the system. This element of the requirement, therefore, will
result in a national total of 236,740 hours of State effort at a total
cost of $7,102,200. 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 23,674 hours of IHE
effort at a total cost of $591,850.
Finally, to meet the requirement that they publicly report the
number of students who enroll in IHEs, States will need to aggregate
the data received from all IHEs and will then need to run analyses and
publicly report 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 will need 40 hours to conduct
these analyses and publicly report these data, for a total State burden
of 2,080 hours at a cost of $62,400.
The requirement that States publicly report the number of students
enrolling
[[Page 58496]]
in a public, in-State IHE who complete at least one year's worth of
college credit applicable toward a degree within two years of
enrollment at the IHE will also entail a collaborative process between
SEAs and IHEs. Again, based on data from the Digest of Education
Statistics, the Department estimates that 2,018,520 first-time freshmen
enroll in IHEs in their home State. Based on additional data from the
Digest of Education Statistics, we further estimate that 74 percent of
students enrolled in degree-granting IHEs are enrolled in public
IHEs.\25\ We therefore estimate that 1,493,705 first-time freshmen
enroll in public IHEs in their home State. 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 requirement will be approximately 74,685 hours of IHE
effort at an estimated cost of $1,867,131, assuming a cost of $25 per
hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\25\ See http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/dt08_
192.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, as with the previous indicator, States will need to
aggregate the data received from all IHEs and will then need to run
analyses and publicly report the data for the State, LEA, and school
levels and at each of these levels, by student subgroup. The Department
estimates that each State will need 40 hours to conduct these analyses
and publicly report these data, for a total State burden of 2,080 hours
at a cost of $62,400.
Many commenters opposed the proposed requirements to collect
information on high-school student college enrollment and course
completion, particularly for those students enrolling in and completing
courses at out-of-State IHEs. The Department strongly believes that the
indicators in this section provide the best gauge for 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. This
information should be a central factor in evaluating the effectiveness
of high schools in preparing young people for successful futures.
However, to reduce the overall burden of complying with these
requirements, the Department has removed the requirement that course
completion data for students enrolling out-of-State be collected and
reported.
Several commenters asserted that the cost and time to comply with
the college enrollment and course completion data requirements would
far exceed the estimates in the notice, but they did not provide
alternate estimates. Further, one commenter questioned whether or not,
after requiring States to invest significant cost and time building the
capacity to collect these data, the Department would require States to
submit them beyond 2011; the Department is not requiring States to
submit data beyond 2011 at this time. One commenter detailed the
necessary one-time development and planning, and annual, activities
that collection of these data would require and contended that were not
accounted for in the Department's cost estimate. The Department
considers these costs to be requirements of maintaining a high-quality
longitudinal data system and, therefore, does not include the effort
involved in these steps in the burden estimates for these requirements.
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
the persistently lowest-achieving schools in the State. Section
14005(d)(5) requires States to ensure compliance with the Title I
requirements in this area. To track State progress, the Department is
requiring 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, for the State, in the ``all students'' category
and for each student subgroup (as under section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the
ESEA), and, of the Title I schools in improvement, corrective action,
or restructuring, the number and identity of the persistently lowest-
achieving schools as defined by the State. The State is also required
to provide the definition that it uses to identify its ``persistently
lowest-achieving schools.'' States are also required to publicly report
the number and identity of their Title I schools in improvement,
corrective action, or restructuring that are identified as persistently
lowest-achieving and, of those schools, the number and identity of
schools that have been turned around, restarted, closed, or transformed
in the last year.
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 will have to collect new data on the
schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring (in general
and in the persistently lowest-achieving schools) that have been turned
around, restarted, closed, or transformed. (In addition, the State will
need to define the term ``persistently lowest-achieving schools.'') 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 requirement
will be 2,346 hours at a cost of $58,650. States will 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 will require 25 hours of
effort to respond to these requirements, for a total cost of $39,000.
In addition, the Department is requiring States to provide, for the
State, the number and identity of the secondary schools that are
eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds, that are identified as
persistently lowest-achieving schools, and, of these schools, the
number and identity of schools that have been turned around, restarted,
closed, or transformed in the last year. The Department expects that
some, but not all, States have the data required to determine the
identity of secondary schools that are eligible for, but do not
receive, Title I funds, but that they may have to run new analyses of
the data to determine which of these schools have been turned around,
restarted, closed, or transformed in the last year. Other States may
have to include an item in the LEA survey that they will be
distributing to respond to several of these requirements. The
Department estimates that each State will require an average of 16
hours of effort to respond to these two requirements, for a total cost
of $24,960. We further estimate that the 1,173 affected LEAs will need
a total of 4 hours to respond to these two survey items.
Two commenters asserted that the cost and time to comply with the
supporting struggling schools data requirements would exceed the
estimates in the NPR. The Department declines to adjust these burden
estimates as these commenters did not provide specific recommended
revisions.
[[Page 58497]]
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 under State
law and the number that are currently operating. We expect that this
information will be readily available and that States will need only a
total of one hour to respond to these two requirements.
In addition, the Department will require States to provide, for the
State and for each LEA in the State that operates charter schools, the
number and percentage (including numerator and denominator) of charter
schools that have made progress on State assessments in reading/
language arts and mathematics in the last year. Finally, the Department
is requiring States to 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 each of the last five years and to indicate, for
each such school, whether the closure was for financial, enrollment,
academic, or other reasons. The Department believes that SEAs will
likely also have this information readily available (although some may
need to obtain additional information from their LEAs) and will need
eight hours to publicly report it. The Department assumes that the
effort to respond to these requirements will 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 will total 336 hours at a cost
of $10,080.
State Plans
These requirements 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 publicly report data for the indicators and descriptors at
least annually. If the State is currently able to fully collect and
publicly 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 publicly 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 publicly report such data or
information as soon as possible but no later than September 30, 2011.
As a part of this plan, the State will need 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 publicly report the data or information. The
level of effort involved in preparing 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 pre-K-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 will be necessary to meet some of the requirements and
will likely need to spend less time completing these elements of their
plans. The Department estimates that, in total, each of the 15 States
that currently provides student growth information to teachers will
need an average of 439 hours to prepare these sections of the plan, and
that the other 37 States will require 547 hours; thus, the total hours
that will be necessary to meet this requirement for the 50 States, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico would be 26,824 hours, for a
total cost of $804,720. For more detailed estimates of costs for each
specific requirement, please see the tables in the Paperwork Reduction
Act of 1995 section of this notice.
The final requirements provide for States to include in their plan
under this program the State's Teacher Equity Plan if it was updated to
fully reflect the steps the State is currently taking to ensure that
students from low-income families and minority students are not taught
at higher rates than other students by inexperienced, unqualified, or
out-of-field teachers. If the State has not updated the State's Teacher
Equity Plan to fully reflect the steps the State is currently taking to
ensure that students from low-income families and minority students are
not taught at higher rates than other students by inexperienced,
unqualified, or out-of-field teachers, the State must do so as soon as
possible but no later than September 30, 2011. Accordingly, the State
must provide the date by which it will make its updated Teacher Equity
Plan available to the public. The Department assumes that all States
will need to revise their plan to reflect efforts they have made in
this area as a result of the funds available to them through this
program and estimates that the revisions will take 80 hours per State.
The total State effort involved in meeting this requirement is,
therefore, 4,160 hours at a total cost of $124,800 (assuming $30 per
hour of State effort).
In addition, as part of the planning requirements, the Department
is requiring each State to indicate whether it provides student growth
data to, at a minimum, teachers of reading/language arts and
mathematics in grades in which the State administers assessments in
those subjects, in a manner that is timely and informs instructional
programs and, if the State does not currently do so, to describe a
process and timeline for doing so by September 30, 2011. The Department
understands that at least 15 States currently provide this type of
information to their teachers; the 15 States have been approved to use
``growth models'' to inform determinations of adequate yearly progress
under the ESEA. However, additional States are implementing growth
models for State-level accountability purposes, and 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 contacted several experts in an effort to accurately
estimate the State cost of calculating student growth data. According
to these experts, the State cost is not a function of the student
enrollment in a State; the two drivers of cost are an alignment
analysis of the proficiency levels of the State assessments and the new
programming required in the State assessment results database to enable
the State to generate growth estimates for individual students. These
experts estimated that the cost per State would range from $100,000 to
$500,000. Using these figures, the Department estimates that the total
cost across the 37 States that the Department has not approved to
implement growth models would range from $3,700,000 to $18,500,000.
In the NPR, the Department estimated that the State cost of
estimating individual teacher impact on student achievement, including
the cost of
[[Page 58498]]
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. Two commenters suggested that the cost of providing reading/
language arts and mathematics teachers with student performance data is
closer to $4 per student rather than the $2 per student estimated in
the NPR, but these commenters included the cost of the data system in
the $4 per student figure. As noted earlier, these estimates do not
include the cost of the data system as that requirement flows from the
ARRA, not these requirements. As a result, the Department considers
that the estimate of $2 per affected student is a fair estimate of the
cost of implementing the proposed requirement.
In addition, the Department estimated 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
and used this assumption to estimate 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 requirement.\26\
Based on data on public elementary and secondary student enrollment by
grade, however, the Department now estimates that approximately
25,836,000 students are in tested grades.\27\ Applying the revised
number of students in tested grades to this estimate, the total State
cost of this requirement would have been $51,672,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\26\ 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.
\27\ See http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/dt08_
034.asp. To determine the number of students in tested grades, we
used the total number of public school students enrolled in grades 3
through 8, as well as grade 10, in fall of 2006.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the interest of reducing the overall costs of these
requirements, the Department has decided to require States to provide
(in a manner that is timely and informs instructional programs) student
growth data, rather than estimates of individual teacher impact on
student achievement to, at a minimum, teachers of reading/language arts
and mathematics in grades in which the State administers assessments in
those subjects. The Department estimates that this change from the
proposed to the final requirement in this section reduces the State
burden by at least $34,000,000 and up to almost $49,000,000 (from
$52,672,000 if we had required States to provide teachers with
estimates of their impact, to between $3,700,000 and $18,500,000 now
that we have changed the requirement to have States provide teachers
with student growth data).
The Department is, however, requiring States to indicate whether
they provide teachers of reading/language arts and mathematics in
grades in which the State administers assessments in those subjects
with reports of individual teacher impact on student achievement on
those assessments, and, if the State does not provide those teachers
with such reports, describe the State's process and timeline for
developing and implementing the means to provide those teachers with
such reports, 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. In
addition, we are requiring States to describe the nature and frequency
of reports that the State will provide to the public regarding its
progress in developing and implementing those means and 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. We estimate that these sections of the State plan will require
an average of 129 hours for States to complete at a cost per State of
$3,870. These amounts are included in the total estimated State burden
of completing the plan.
The Department 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 planning requirements
would not require States to provide this professional development, we
have not included its cost in the estimated costs of these
requirements.
In addition, the Department is requiring 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 requirements will be 294,076 hours and between $13,042,280 and
$27,842,280 for SEAs, 522,677 hours and $13,066,925 for LEAs, and
199,285 hours and $4,982,131 for IHEs, for a total burden of 1,016,038
hours at a cost of between $31,091,336 and $45,891,336. Several
commenters argued that the cost and time to comply with the data
requirements would far exceed the estimates in the notice. Another
commenter asserted that the Department underestimated the burden for
the writing of a State plan, and another that the Department
underestimated the burden for preparing the application. As noted
elsewhere in this section of the notice, we revised our estimates of
the burden involved in responding to Indicators (a)(4) and (a)(7). As
these particular commenters did not provide alternate estimates of the
effort involved with drafting a State plan or completing the
application, we decline to revise our estimates of those requirements.
Many commenters expressed concern that the estimates did not account
for the development of or enhancements to current State and LEA data
systems and software necessary to collect and report the data. We
believe, however, that our estimates include the effort involved with
collecting and reporting the data, and have added the estimate that
States would need to spend an average of $10,000 to develop and
maintain a Web site on which to post this information.
Benefits
The principal benefits of the 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
[[Page 58499]]
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 use this data to evaluate 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 within the State 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.\28\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\28\ 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 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.\29\ 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.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\29\ 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.
\30\ Center for Educator Compensation Reform: http://
cecr.ed.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
A few commenters questioned the utility of the data to be
collected. Specifically, one commenter noted that lack of context on
teacher/principal evaluation systems will render that data minimally
meaningful to the end user. Another commenter cautioned that
inconsistencies between States limit the comparability of the data and
effectively reduce the value of data collection efforts. A third
commenter argued more generally that, while data-driven decision making
constitutes a priority for the commenter's State, much of the data
required would not contribute to improved educational outcomes for
students and, in fact, would divert attention from developing the
infrastructure and relationships necessary to improve education. The
Department continues to believe, however, that the 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 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 regulatory
action. Expenditures are classified as transfers to States.
Table--Accounting Statement Classification of Estimated Expenditures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Transfers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Monetized Transfers................ $11,500,425,885.
From Whom to Whom......................... Federal Government to
States.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Stabilization program provides approximately $48.6 billion in
formula grants to States.\31\ As previously noted, the Department is
awarding Stabilization program funds in two phases. In the first phase,
the Department awarded 67 percent of a State's Education Stabilization
Fund allocation, unless the State demonstrated that additional funds
were required to restore fiscal year 2009 State support for education,
in which case the Department awarded the State up to 90 percent of that
allocation. In addition, the Department awarded 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. Approximately $11.5 billion will be
available in Phase II.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\31\ 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). The
Department has received emergency approval for the information
collections described below under Information Collection Reference
Number 200910-1810-003.
A description of the specific information collection requirements
is provided in the following tables along with estimates of the annual
recordkeeping burden for these requirements. Included in an 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 58500]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12NO09.059
[[Page 58501]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12NO09.060
[[Page 58502]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12NO09.061
[[Page 58503]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12NO09.062
[[Page 58504]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12NO09.063
[[Page 58505]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12NO09.064
[[Page 58506]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12NO09.065
[[Page 58507]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12NO09.066
[[Page 58508]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12NO09.067
[[Page 58509]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12NO09.068
[[Page 58510]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12NO09.069
[[Page 58511]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12NO09.070
[[Page 58512]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12NO09.071
[[Page 58513]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12NO09.072
[[Page 58514]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12NO09.073
[[Page 58515]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12NO09.074
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12NO09.075
[[Page 58516]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12NO09.076
[[Page 58517]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12NO09.077
[[Page 58518]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12NO09.078
[[Page 58519]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12NO09.079
[[Page 58520]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12NO09.080
[[Page 58521]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12NO09.081
[[Page 58522]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12NO09.082
[[Page 58523]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12NO09.083
[[Page 58524]]
[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR12NO09.084
BILLING CODE 4000-01-C
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that this regulatory action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The small entities that this regulatory action will affect are small
LEAs receiving funds under this program and small IHEs.
This regulatory action will not have a significant economic impact
on small LEAs because they will be able to meet
[[Page 58525]]
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 requirement; only 100 of these IHEs are public. 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; just 60,391 of these
students are enrolled in small, degree-granting public IHEs. As the
burden for indicators (c)(11) and (c)(12) 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 requirements
than will be the case for larger IHEs. Based on IPEDS data, the
Department estimates that 24,517 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
indicator (c)(11), IHEs will be able to 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 will need to spend 1,226 hours to respond to this
requirement at a total cost of $30,650 (assuming a cost of $25 per
hour).
The effort involved in reporting the number of students enrolling
in a public IHE in their home State who complete at least one year's
worth of college credit applicable toward a degree within two years as
required by indicator (c)(12) will also apply to small IHEs, but will
be limited to students who enroll in public IHEs in their home State.
As discussed earlier in the Summary of Costs and Benefits section of
this notice, the Department estimates that 81 percent of first-time
freshmen who graduate from public high schools enroll in IHEs in their
home State. Applying this percentage to the estimated number of first-
time freshmen enrolled in small public IHEs (9,187), the Department
estimates that small IHEs will be required to report credit completion
data for a total of 7,442 students. For this 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 public IHEs in their home State, the Department estimates that
these IHEs will need to spend 372 hours to respond to this requirement
at a total cost of $9,300. The total cost of these requirements for
small IHEs is, therefore, $39,950; $19,310 of this cost will be borne
by small private IHEs, and $20,640 of the cost will be borne by small
public IHEs. Based on the total number of small IHEs across the Nation,
the estimated cost per small private IHE is $45, and the estimated cost
per small public IHE is $206. The Department has, therefore, determined
that the requirements will 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 regulatory action will outweigh the burdens on these institutions
of complying with the 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 requirements that apply to IHEs should, in
particular, spur more rapid implementation of pre-K-16 State
longitudinal data systems.
Assessment of Educational Impact
In the NPR and in accordance with section 411 of the General
Education Provisions Act, 20 U.S.C. 1221e-4, we requested 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.
Based on the response to the NPR and on our review, we have
determined that these final 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.
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: November 6, 2009.
Arne Duncan,
Secretary of Education.
[FR Doc. E9-27161 Filed 11-9-09; 11:15 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P