[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 38 (Friday, February 26, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8854-8871]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3963]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Subtitle B, Chapter II
[Docket ID ED-2010-OESE-0001]
RIN 1810-AB08
Teacher Incentive Fund Program
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
[[Page 8855]]
ACTION: Proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Numbers: 84.385 and
84.374.
SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education (Secretary) proposes priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria under the Teacher
Incentive Fund (TIF) program. These proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria are designed to be used in two
separate and distinct TIF grant competitions: The Main TIF competition,
which will provide TIF funding to eligible entities to support their
implementation of performance-based compensation systems (PBCSs) in
accordance with the priorities, the Main TIF requirements, the
definitions, and the selection criteria proposed in this document, and
the TIF Evaluation competition, which will provide, in accordance with
the priorities, the Main TIF requirements, the definitions, and the
selection criteria as well as the Evaluation requirements proposed in
this document, TIF funding to help pay for the costs of implementing
these eligible entities' PBCS in exchange for an agreement to
participate in the national evaluation. The Secretary may use these
proposed TIF priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria in fiscal year (FY) 2010 and subsequent years. We intend the
proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria
to improve student achievement in high-need schools by creating
incentives for effective teachers and principals in these schools.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before March 29, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not
accept comments by fax or e-mail. Please submit your comments only one
time in order to ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies. In
addition, please include the Docket ID and the term ``Teacher Incentive
Fund'' at the top of your comments.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov to submit your comments electronically. Information
on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency
documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on
the site under ``How To Use This Site.'' A direct link to the docket
page is also available at http://www.ed.gov/programs/teacherincentive.
Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you
mail or deliver your comments about these proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, address them to:
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (Attention: Teacher
Incentive Fund Comments), U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland
Avenue, SW., Room 3E120, Washington, DC 20202.
Privacy Note: The Department's policy for comments received from
members of the public (including those comments submitted by mail,
commercial delivery, or hand delivery) is to make these submissions
available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore,
commenters should be careful to include in their comments only
information that they wish to make publicly available on the
Internet.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: April Lee. Telephone: (202) 205-5224,
or by e-mail: [email protected]. Note that we will not accept comments by e-
mail.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the
Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding
this notice. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in
developing the notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions,
and selection criteria, we urge you to identify clearly the specific
proposed priority, requirement, definition, or selection criterion that
each comment addresses.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of
reducing regulatory burden that might result from the proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. Please
let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or
increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and
efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about this notice by accessing Regulations.gov. You may also
inspect the comments in person, in Room 3E120, 400 Maryland Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal
holidays.
Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the
public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Purpose of Program: The purpose of the TIF program is to support
projects that develop and implement PBCSs for teachers and principals
in order to increase educator effectiveness and student achievement in
high-need schools.
Program Authority: The Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2008, Division G, Title III, Pub. L. 110-161; Departments of Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2010, Division D, Title III, Pub. L. 111-117;
and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Division A,
Title VIII, Pub. L. 111-5 (the ARRA).
Background
The Statutory Requirements
Statutory provisions that govern the use of TIF funds are contained
in the Department's annual congressional appropriations and in the
ARRA. In this regard, Public Law 111-117, which contains the
Department's fiscal year (FY) 2010 appropriation, authorizes the
Department to use TIF funds to make competitive grants to eligible
entities to develop and implement PBCSs in high-need schools. Eligible
entities for these funds are:
(a) Local educational agencies (LEAs), including charter schools
that are LEAs.
(b) States.
(c) Partnerships of--
(1) An LEA, a State, or both; and
(2) At least one non-profit organization.
Under Public Law 111-117, eligible entities must use TIF funds to
develop and implement in high-need schools PBCSs that--
(a) Consider gains in student academic achievement as well as
classroom evaluations conducted multiple times during each school year
among other factors, and
(b) Provide educators with incentives to take on additional
responsibilities and leadership roles.
Public Law 111-117 further provides that grant recipients (1) must
demonstrate that their PBCSs are developed with the input of teachers
and school leaders in the schools and LEAs the grants will serve, and
(2) may use TIF funds to develop or improve systems and tools (which
may be developed and used either for the entire LEA or only for schools
served under
[[Page 8856]]
the grant) that would enhance the quality and success of the PBCS, such
as high-quality teacher evaluations and tools to measure growth in
student achievement. In addition, Public Law 111-117 provides that
applications for TIF grants must include a plan for the financial
sustainability of the activities conducted and systems developed under
the grant once the grant period has expired.
Funds for this program, including funds for a required national
evaluation, were also appropriated as part of the ARRA. Recipients of
awards made with ARRA funds must meet specific reporting requirements
established by the ARRA. The following link provides guidance on these
reporting requirements: http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/memoranda_fy2009/m09-21.pdf.
Note: Provisions of the ARRA that govern use of TIF funds
require use of funds consistent with substantive requirements in the
Department's FY 2008 appropriations act, Public Law 110-161. The
Department's FY 2009 and FY 2010 appropriations acts contain
comparable provisions governing eligible grantees and the need to
use TIF funds to develop and implement PBCSs in high-need schools.
Although Public Law 110-161 and Public Law 111-115 provide that
Federal TIF funds may support PBCSs only for teachers and
principals, grantees may extend their PBCSs to all school personnel
by using non-TIF funds to pay for additional compensation for non-
instructional personnel.
Under the program, grantees may only use TIF funds for expenses
related to the development and implementation of their PBCS in high-
need schools identified in the applicant's proposal. However, in
addition to the financial incentives given to teachers and principals
based on their effectiveness and their assumption of additional
responsibilities or leadership roles (as defined in this notice), TIF
funds also may be used to support a variety of activities either for
the entire LEA or only for high-need schools served under the grant,
that are related to the PCBS. These activities include professional
development activities, evaluation and research analysis, costs of
developing or improving systems and tools that would enhance the
quality and success of the PBCS, such as high-quality teacher
evaluations and tools to measure growth in student achievement,
reasonable travel expenses related to the TIF program, data system
enhancement or development, and other reasonable and necessary costs.
With regard to payments for financial incentives, while the
Department is not proposing to establish a minimum percentage that
grantees would need to expend, it would expect that as an LEA's PBCS
becomes institutionalized, the percentage of its budget that is used
for incentive payments would increase throughout the five-year grant
period. In addition, while the salaries of certain staff outside of the
PBCS (such as salaries of a school's master, mentor or lead teacher)
could conceivably be legitimate costs of a TIF project, given the
purpose of the program the Department expects to continue to limit its
approval of the number of such staff whose salaries may be paid with
TIF funds. Grantees, however, would be able to use TIF funds towards
the costs of bonuses paid to any number of these staff if they assume
additional responsibilities under the PBCS.
Background: Signed into law by President Obama on February 17,
2009, the ARRA constitutes an unprecedented effort to revive the
Nation's economy, create or save millions of jobs, and address long-
neglected challenges so the Nation can thrive in the 21st century.
In addition to measures that modernize the Nation's infrastructure,
enhance energy independence, preserve and improve affordable health
care, provide tax relief, and protect those in greatest need, the ARRA
provides an unprecedented sum--approximately $100 billion dollars--to
fundamentally transform our public education system. Section 14005(d)
of the ARRA requires that this funding be used to promote effective
school reform in four assurance areas: (1) Adopting internationally
benchmarked standards and assessments that prepare students for success
in college and the workplace; (2) Building data systems that measure
student success and inform teachers and principals in how they can
improve their practices; (3) Increasing teacher effectiveness and
achieving equity in teacher distribution; and (4) Turning around our
lowest achieving schools.
The ARRA's second and third assurances are based upon evidence that
teachers are the single most critical factor in improving student
achievement. However, too many students, particularly those attending
high-need schools, are provided instruction by ineffective teachers.
Accordingly, the ARRA requires the Department to promote efforts that
ensure equitable distribution of effective teachers between high and
low poverty schools so that economically disadvantaged students have
the same access to effective teachers as other students.
TIF is one such effort. By requiring its grantees to draw
distinctions in how teachers are retained, promoted and rewarded, TIF,
as implemented by the Department, advances the ARRA's third assurance
of recruiting, developing and retaining effective teachers. To
accomplish these goals, the ARRA provides TIF with an additional $200
million dollars of funding.
The Department proposes, to the extent feasible and appropriate, to
align TIF with the requirements contained in the other ARRA programs,
including the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, Race to the Top, and the
Title I School Improvement Grants. The Department's intention in doing
so is to encourage applicants to develop plans for evaluating educator
effectiveness and for providing educators the professional development
needed to improve classroom practice and student achievement that
complement, and are consistent with, plans developed across these other
ARRA programs.
Along with authorizing TIF funds to be used to support projects
that implement PBCSs, the ARRA also requires the Department to use the
appropriated funds to conduct a ``rigorous national evaluation * * *
utilizing randomized controlled methodology to the extent feasible,
that assess the impact of performance-based teacher and principal
compensation systems supported by the funds provided in this Act on
teacher and principal recruitment and retention in high-need schools
and subjects.'' The ARRA thus requires the Department to award funds in
a way that will ensure adequate participation of both a treatment group
and control group in the national evaluation. Our proposal for the TIF
Evaluation Competition, and the questions on which we specifically
request public comment, are designed to permit the Department to meet
this responsibility, and at the same time to seek answers to research
questions about the effect of PBCSs on student achievement in high-need
schools that are of great importance to those who would implement such
systems.
Proposed Priorities
This notice contains five proposed priorities. The Secretary
intends to use all five proposed priorities for the Main TIF
competition and the TIF Evaluation competition.
Types of Priorities
The Secretary proposes five priorities for the Main TIF competition
and the TIF Evaluation competition. Proposed Priority 1 through 3 are
absolute priorities. Proposed Priorities 4 and 5 are proposed as
competitive preference priorities and are aligned with other key
education reform goals of the Department.
[[Page 8857]]
We may choose, in the notice of final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria, to change the designation of any
of these priorities to absolute, competitive preference, or
invitational priorities, or to include the substance of these
priorities in the requirements or the selection criteria. We may also
decide to include the substance of the requirements or the selection
criteria in the priorities.
With an invitational priority, we would signal our interest in
receiving applications that meet the priority; however, consistent with
34 CFR 75.105(c)(1), we would not give an application that meets an
invitational priority preference over other applications.
Under an absolute priority, as specified by 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we
would consider only applications that meet the priority. Under a
competitive preference priority, we would give competitive preference
to an application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on the
extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the
priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the
priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Proposed Priority 1 (Absolute)--Differentiated Levels of Compensation
for Effective Teachers and Principals
Background
The quality of classroom teachers is the most important factor
under a school's control that affects student achievement.\1\ Studies
using value-added assessments indicate that individual teachers make a
significant difference in student achievement and that teacher
effectiveness varies considerably, even after adjusting for student
characteristics such as prior performance, race or income.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Goldhaber, D. (2007). Thoughts on Teacher Pay Reform.
Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center on Teacher Quality.
\2\ Sanders, W. (2006, November). Cumulative and Residual
Effects of Teachers on Future Student Academic Achievement.
Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee; and Rivkin, S., Hanushek,
E., and Kain, J. (2005, March). ``Teachers, Schools, and Academic
Achievement.'' Econometrica, 73, 417-458.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet one of the greatest obstacles to achieving the President's
ambitious goal of providing a high-quality education for all children
is that too few students, particularly low-income, minority, and low-
achieving students, are provided instruction by effective teachers. And
because LEAs typically do not pay teachers and principals based on
their effectiveness, but instead on a single salary schedule that pays
all teachers and principals the same based on experience and level of
education, LEAs rarely provide highly effective teachers and principals
in public school systems compensation that differs from what they
provide to less effective teachers and principals.
Moreover, LEAs typically provide no additional incentive for the
most effective teachers or principals to enter or remain in high-need
schools. On the contrary, by providing the same amount of compensation
based on credential and years of experience, and offering more
experienced educators a priority in transfer options, LEA personnel
systems often create at least implicit incentives for teachers and
principals to move into schools and classrooms that present the fewest
challenges. The failure to reward good performance by teachers and
principals and to encourage effective teachers and principals to work
in the most challenging schools makes it difficult to create a culture
in high-need schools that focuses on continued excellence and results.
The Secretary believes that LEAs with high-need schools that
implement a PBCS that (1) rewards teachers and principals who
demonstrate their effectiveness by improving student achievement and
(2) provides opportunities for highly effective teachers to take on
additional roles and responsibilities, will increase overall teacher
and principal quality and will attract outstanding educators to these
schools. The Secretary also believes that these PBCSs will foster the
creation of schools that use evidence of student achievement and of
effective teacher practice to continuously improve teaching and
learning.
Assuming that all funded projects are of sufficient quality, the
Department intends to fund a variety of approaches to implement a PBCS
including individual-based, school- or group-based awards, and a
combination of the two. Each applicant should propose a method or
methods that best meet the needs of its principals, teachers and
students in its high-need schools.
Proposed Absolute Priority
To meet this proposed absolute priority, an applicant must
demonstrate, in its application, that it will develop and implement a
PBCS that rewards, at differentiated levels, teachers and principals
who demonstrate their effectiveness by improving student achievement
(as defined in this notice) as part of the LEA's coherent and
integrated approach to strengthening the educator workforce.
In determining teacher and principal effectiveness as part of the
PBCS, the LEA--
(a) Must give significant weight to student growth (as defined in
this notice) based on objective data on student performance;
(b) Must include observation-based assessments of teacher
performance at multiple points in the year, carried out by evaluators
trained in using objective evidence-based rubrics for observation,
aligned with professional teaching standards; and, if applicable, as
part of the LEA's coherent and integrated approach to strengthening the
educator workforce; and
(c) May include other measures such as evidence of leadership roles
that increase the effectiveness of other teachers in the school or LEA.
In determining principal effectiveness as part of a PBCS, the LEA
must give significant weight to student growth and may include
supplemental measures such as high school graduation and college
enrollment rates.
In addition, the applicant must demonstrate that the differentiated
effectiveness incentive payments will provide incentive amounts that
are substantial and provide justification for the level of incentive
amounts chosen. While the Department does not propose a minimum
incentive amount, the Department encourages applicants to be thorough
in their explanation of why the selected incentive amounts are likely
high enough to create change in the behavior of current and prospective
teachers and principals.
Proposed Priority 2 (Absolute)--Fiscal Sustainability of the
Performance-Based Compensation System (PBCS)
Background
One of the most important steps that LEAs and States must take when
developing and implementing a PBCS is to accurately project program
costs and to plan for fiscal sustainability.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Guthrie, J.W., and Prince, C.D. (2008). Paying for and
Sustaining a Performance-based Compensation System. Washington, DC:
Center for Educator Compensation Reform. U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accurate cost projections at the development stage of a PBCS are
critical, especially if an LEA or State plans to expand a PBCS from
just a few schools to all schools in the LEA or to all LEAs in the
State.\4\ Ample evidence suggests that States and LEAs frequently
underestimate both the overall costs of
[[Page 8858]]
PBCSs for teachers and principals and the number of teachers and
principals that will qualify for awards under the chosen PBCS.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Hassel, B. (2002, May). Better pay for better teaching:
Making teacher compensation pay off in the age of accountability.
Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute.
\5\ Odden, A., and Wallace, M. (2007, February). Rewarding
Teacher Excellence: A Teacher Compensation Handbook for State and
Local Policy Makers. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education
Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Law 111-117 requires that applicants must ``include a plan
to sustain financially the activities conducted and systems developed
under the grant once the grant period has expired.'' This absolute
priority is intended to ensure that applicants effectively estimate the
future costs of the particular PBCS they plan to implement, and that
they are prepared to pay financial awards to everyone who earns them
under the system. In addition to the direct costs of performance-based
payments made as part of the PBCS that applicants should expect, there
can be extra costs associated with administering a PBCS. These costs
include both (1) employee benefits, such as premiums toward employee
retirement, State taxes, and Federal withholdings, and (2) the costs of
measuring employee effectiveness, such as costs associated with
developing measures of teacher effectiveness, effective teacher and
principal evaluation systems, incentives for career development, and
longitudinal data systems capable of linking individual educators with
student outcomes.
The Secretary seeks to promote the fiscal sustainability of
effective PBCSs by focusing applicants on the need to find additional
and alternative sources of funding in order to provide an increasing
share of matching funds (non-TIF funds) in those project years when
differentiated compensation is paid to teachers and principals. The
various strategies that States and LEAs might consider for securing
sustainable funding for their PBCSs include:
(a) Redeploying current State, LEA, or school resources, including
resources that currently contribute to salary increments based on the
accumulation of graduate credits and degrees.
(b) Redirecting expected future resources.
(c) Redirecting State and Federal categorical program assistance so
State or Federal program funds, where authorized, are used to assist in
paying for the expenses of the chosen PBCS.
(d) Seeking additional public funding.
(e) Seeking philanthropic or corporate support.
In this proposed priority, we are asking that applicants (1)
demonstrate that they have projected costs associated with the
development and implementation of the PBCS, and (2) provide evidence
that they will be able to sustain a financial commitment to their PBCS
through the commitment of funds other than those provided under the TIF
grant, during and beyond the life of the TIF project.
Proposed Absolute Priority
To meet this proposed absolute priority, the applicant must
provide, in its application, evidence that:
(a) The applicant has projected costs associated with the
development and implementation of the PBCS, during the project period
and beyond, and the LEA has accepted responsibilities to provide such
performance-based compensation to teachers and principals who earn them
under the system; and
(b) The applicant will provide from non-TIF funds over the course
of the five-year project period an increasing share of performance-
based compensation paid to teachers and principals in those project
years in which the LEA provides such payments as part of its PBCS.
Proposed Priority 3 (Absolute)--Programmatic Sustainability of the
Performance-Based Compensation System (PBCS)
Background
The Secretary seeks to focus applicants on the need to plan for the
programmatic sustainability of the chosen PBCS. Evidence suggests that
programmatic sustainability can best be accomplished when the PBCS is
aligned with the LEA's or State's strategies for increasing teachers'
and principals' effectiveness in high-need schools. Ideally, a PBCS
supports and reinforces a coherent and integrated approach to
strengthening the educator workforce, including teacher and principal
recruitment, induction, professional development, evaluation,
retention, and advancement into instructional leadership roles. When
the PBCS's implementation becomes embedded into the core of a LEA's
larger improvement strategy and operations, it will have a much greater
likelihood of financial sustainability over the long term.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Guthrie, J.W., & Prince, C.D. (2008). Paying for and
sustaining a performance-based compensation system. Washington, DC:
Center for Educator Compensation Reform. U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, through this proposed priority, we are asking that applicants
demonstrate that the proposed PBCS is aligned with a coherent strategy
for strengthening the educator workforce in the LEA(s) participating in
the project.
Proposed Absolute Priority
To meet this proposed absolute priority, the applicant must
provide, in its application, evidence that the proposed PBCS is aligned
with a coherent and integrated strategy, including the use of data and
evaluations for professional development, retention and tenure
decisions, for continuing to strengthen the educator workforce in the
LEA(s) participating in the project after the end of the TIF project
period.
Proposed Priority 4 (Competitive Preference)--Use of Value-Added
Measures of Student Achievement
Background
The Secretary supports the use of ``value-added'' measures of
teacher and principal effectiveness for purposes of determining
differentiated levels of compensation in a PBCS. Value-added measures
seek to statistically isolate the contribution of teachers and
principals to growth in student achievement between two or more points
in time from other factors contributing to student achievement growth,
including prior student achievement and student and family
characteristics. Research indicates that value-added measures are a
promising means of assessing the contributions of a school, teacher, or
principal, while filtering out the non-school factors that may also
contribute to growth in student achievement.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Goe, L. (May 2008). Key issue: Using value-added models to
identify and support highly effective teachers. National
Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through this priority, the Secretary seeks to promote the use of
value-added measures in PBCSs for teachers and principals. Value-added
measures of educational performance can provide a useful, objective
measure of teacher and principal effectiveness. The use of a value-
added measure under this priority would need to be implemented
consistent with the requirements in Proposed Absolute Priority 1
(Differentiated Levels of Compensation for Effective Teachers and
Principals), which would require observation-based assessments of
teacher performance at least twice a year.
Given the complexity of models that use value-added measures, the
Secretary seeks to ensure that applicants have a plan for (1) ensuring
that they have the capacity to implement the value-added model
effectively (e.g., that they have appropriate data systems and measures
[[Page 8859]]
to ensure data quality), and (2) clearly explaining the chosen value-
added model to teachers to enable them to use the data generated
through the models to improve classroom practices.
Proposed Competitive Preference Priority
To meet this proposed competitive preference priority, the
applicant must demonstrate, in its application, that the proposed PBCS
for teachers and principals will use a value-added measure of the
impact on student growth as a significant factor in calculating
differentiated levels of compensation provided to teachers and
principals.
Under this proposed priority, the applicant must also demonstrate
that it has a plan to ensure that, as part of the PBCS, it has the
capacity to (1) implement the proposed value-added model (e.g., through
robust data systems that collect the necessary data and ensure data
quality), and (2) educate teachers and principals on the chosen value-
added model and how it would be implemented.
Proposed Priority 5 (Competitive Preference)--Increased Recruitment and
Retention of Teachers in Hard-to-Staff Subjects and Specialty Areas in
High-Need Schools
Background
This proposed competitive preference priority is intended to ensure
that LEAs focus on recruiting and retaining effective teachers of hard-
to-staff subjects and specialty areas in high-need schools. High-need
schools are likely to have a higher proportion of vacancies, novice
teachers, out-of-field teachers, and ineffective teachers than other
schools in the LEA or State educational agency.\8\ In many LEAs,
recruiting and retaining effective secondary mathematics and science
teachers and teachers with the knowledge and skills to effectively
accelerate the learning of English language learners and students with
disabilities is particularly challenging. Providing incentives to hire
and retain teachers who are effective, or likely to be effective, in
teaching hard-to-staff subjects and specialty areas in high-need
schools can be a valuable tool for ensuring that students in those
schools are taught by effective teachers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Imazeki, J. and Goe, L. (2009). The Distribution of Highly
Qualified, Experienced Teachers: Challenges and Opportunities.
Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center on Teacher Quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The availability of such incentives should be communicated broadly
to current teachers in the LEA, as well as to potential recruits, to
increase the likelihood that effective teachers within the LEA, as well
as new teachers with relevant backgrounds, will apply for hard-to-staff
subjects and specialty areas in high-need schools.
Proposed Competitive Preference Priority
To meet this proposed competitive preference priority, the
applicant must demonstrate in its application that its proposed PBCS is
designed to assist high-need schools to (1) Serve high-need students
(as defined in this notice), (2) retain effective teachers in teaching
positions in hard-to-staff subjects and specialty areas, such as
mathematics, science, special education, and English language
acquisition, and (3) fill vacancies with teachers of those subjects or
specialty areas who are effective or likely to be effective. Applicants
would be required to provide an explanation for how they will determine
a teacher filling a vacancy is effective or likely to be effective. In
addition, applicants would be required to demonstrate, in their
applications, the extent to which the subject areas or specialty areas
they propose to target are hard-to-staff. Lastly, applicants would need
to demonstrate, in their applications, that they will implement a
process for effectively communicating to teachers which of the LEA's
schools are high-need and which subjects and specialty areas are
considered hard-to-staff.
Requirements
The following sections provide requirements for both the Main TIF
and Evaluation TIF competitions.
Proposed Requirements for the Main TIF Competition
Background
In order to promote successful projects that meet the objectives
Congress has established for the TIF program, the Secretary proposes to
establish the following requirements for the Main TIF competition:
(a) A requirement that an applicant may submit an application for
the Main TIF competition or the Evaluation competition. Applicants not
funded under the Evaluation competition are automatically eligible
under the Main TIF competition, and thus need not apply to both.
(b) A requirement that each applicant describe in its application
how its proposed PBCS will provide educators with incentives to take on
additional responsibilities and leadership roles, as defined in this
notice.
(c) A requirement that every applicant have five core elements (as
described below) of its PBCS in place or it must implement a planning
period.
(d) A requirement that the proposed PBCS provide participating
teachers and principals high quality professional development which is
targeted to needs identified through the evaluation process and shown
to be effective.
(e) A requirement that the applicant document that all
participating schools are high-need schools.
(f) A requirement that limits eligibility for both competitions to
applicants that propose to serve schools not already served (or to be
served) by current TIF grants.
The following describes the Department's rationale for proposing
these requirements:
Selection of Competition. To ensure that there is a sufficient
sample for the national evaluation, we propose to select applicants
from the Evaluation competition before selecting applicants from the
Main TIF competition. In order to not disadvantage the Evaluation
competition applicants, we further propose that any Evaluation
competition applicants not funded in the Evaluation competition would
be automatically eligible for the Main TIF competition.
Application Requirement. Public Law 111-8 requires that any PBCS
funded under the TIF program provide educators with incentives to take
on additional responsibilities and leadership roles.
The Secretary views this requirement as a critical component for
successful PBCSs and wants to ensure that each applicant has a plan in
place that details how its proposed PBCS will provide these incentives.
Core Elements of a PBCS and a Potential Planning Period. The
Secretary has identified five core elements that he believes are
essential to the success of any effective PBCS. We, therefore, propose
to require each TIF grantee to have:
(a) A plan for effectively communicating to teachers,
administrators, other school personnel, and the community at-large
about the components of the PBCS.
(b) The involvement and support of teachers, principals, and other
certified personnel (including input from teachers and principals in
the schools and LEAs to be served by the grant) and the involvement and
support of unions in participating LEAs where they are the designated
exclusive representatives for the purpose of collective bargaining that
is needed to carry out the grant.
[[Page 8860]]
(c) Rigorous, transparent, and fair evaluation systems for teachers
and principals that differentiate effectiveness using multiple rating
categories that take into account student achievement growth as a
significant factor, as well as classroom observations conducted at
least twice during the school year. The classroom observation process
must: (1) Use an objective, evidence-based rubric aligned with
professional teaching standards and the LEA'S coherent and integrated
approach to strengthening the educator workforce; (2) provide for
observations of each teacher or principal multiple times during the
school year by individuals (who may include peer reviewers), who are
provided specialized training; (3) incorporate the collection and
evaluation of additional forms of evidence; and (4) ensure a high
degree of inter-rater reliability (i.e., agreement among two or more
raters who score approximately the same) across the evaluators.
(d) A data-management system, consistent with the LEA's proposed
PBCS, that can link student achievement data to teacher and principal
payroll and human resources systems.
(e) A plan for ensuring that teachers and principals understand the
specific measures of teacher and principal effectiveness included in
the PBCS, and receive professional development that enables them to use
data generated by these measures to improve their practice.
The Secretary recognizes that not every applicant will be able to
demonstrate in its application that it has in place all five core
elements necessary to ensure effective implementation of its PBCS.
Based on the Department's experience with current TIF grantees,
however, we believe that having these required core elements in place
before beginning to build a PBCS leads to a much more efficient and
successful implementation of that system. Therefore, the Secretary
proposes to require any applicant that cannot demonstrate in its
application that it has in place each of these five core elements to
agree, as part of its application, to implement a planning period of up
to one year, during which it would use its TIF funds to develop the
core element or elements it lacks. Because of the importance of the
core elements, a grantee would be prohibited from using TIF program
funds to provide incentive payments to teachers or principals until the
Secretary is satisfied that it has implemented all five elements (as
demonstrated in the grantee's reports to the Department during the
project period).
Professional Development. The Secretary believes that high-quality
professional development, tied to the evaluation systems described
above, is a key component of any successful and enduring PBCS for
teachers and principals. Among other things, professional development
enables all teachers and principals in high-need schools to learn how
to generate, examine, and use student growth data to improve their
practices in the classroom and in their schools, and thereby raise
student achievement. For this reason, the Secretary proposes to require
each applicant to demonstrate, in its application, that it has a system
in place, or a specific plan for developing one, to (1) provide high-
quality professional development that is aligned with the PBCS for
teachers and principals consistent with the definition of the term
professional development in section 9101(34) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA) and targeted to
needs identified in the evaluation process; and (2) regularly assess
the effectiveness of this professional development in improving teacher
practice and student achievement and make modifications necessary to
improve its effectiveness.
High-Need Schools Documentation. Consistent with the requirement
that all schools served through the TIF program be ``high-need,'' the
Secretary proposes to require that each applicant demonstrate, in its
application, that it will implement the proposed PBCS in high-need
schools (as defined in this notice). The Secretary proposes this
requirement to enable the Department to ensure that all applicants are
eligible to receive funding under this program. This requirement would
specify that applicants must identify the schools in which the PBCS
would be implemented, and provide school-level data that demonstrate
that each school to be served is a high-need school. We would require
school-level data as opposed to LEA or State-level data because the TIF
authorizing statute requires poverty data be identified at the school
level.
Additional Eligibility Requirement. Finally, the Secretary proposes
to limit eligibility for the Main TIF competition and the Evaluation
competition to applicants that are serving schools not already served
(or to be served) by current TIF grants. We propose to establish this
eligibility requirement (1) in order to expand the number of LEAs and
schools that are able to take advantage of PBCSs funded under the TIF
program; and (2) because we believe that the projects currently funded
under the TIF program should successfully complete the activities
described in their approved application before seeking additional TIF
funds to enhance their current projects in schools already served.
Nothing in this proposed eligibility requirement would preclude current
TIF grantees from applying for a new award to expand their TIF-
supported PBCS into other high-need schools in the participating LEA.
Proposed Requirements for Main TIF Competition
For the reasons outlined in the preceding Background section, the
Secretary proposes the following requirements for the Main TIF
competition.
Selection of Competition. An applicant may submit an application
for either the Main TIF competition or the Evaluation competition. Each
applicant must identify in its application the competition for which it
is applying. The Evaluation competition will be funded prior to the
Main TIF competition. Any Evaluation applicants not funded in the
Evaluation competition will be automatically eligible for the Main TIF
competition.
Application Requirement. Each applicant must describe in its
application how its proposed PBCS will provide educators with
incentives to take on additional responsibilities and leadership roles,
as defined in this notice.
Core Elements of a PBCS and a Potential Planning Period. Each
applicant must either--
(a) Demonstrate in its application that it has in place each of the
following five core elements; or
(b) If the applicant cannot demonstrate in its application that it
has in place each of these five core elements--
(1) Agree, as part of its application, to implement a planning
period of up to one year, during which it will use its TIF funds to
develop the core element or elements it lacks; and
(2) Include a plan for how it will implement the core element or
elements it lacks during the planning period.
Core Elements.
(a) A plan for effectively communicating to teachers,
administrators, other school personnel, and the community at-large the
components of the PBCS;
(b) The involvement and support of teachers, principals, and other
certified personnel (including input from teachers and principals in
the schools and LEAs to be served by the grant) and the involvement and
support of unions in participating LEAs where they are the
[[Page 8861]]
designated exclusive representatives for the purpose of collective
bargaining that is needed to carry out the grant;
(c) Rigorous, transparent, and fair evaluation systems for teachers
and principals that differentiate effectiveness using multiple rating
categories that take into account student achievement growth as a
significant factor, as well as classroom observations conducted at
least twice during the school year. The evaluation process must: (1)
Use an objective, evidence-based rubric aligned with professional
teaching standards and the LEA's coherent and integrated approach to
strengthening the educator workforce; (2) provide for observations of
each teacher or principal multiple times during the school year by
individuals (who may include peer reviewers), who are provided
specialized training; (3) incorporate the collection and evaluation of
additional forms of evidence; and (4) ensure a high degree of inter-
rater reliability (i.e., agreement among two or more raters who score
approximately the same);
(d) A data-management system that can link student achievement data
to teacher and principal payroll and human resources systems; and
(e) A plan for ensuring that teachers and principals understand the
specific measures of teacher and principal effectiveness included in
the PBCS, and receive professional development that enables them to use
data generated by these measures to improve their practice.
Planning Period Requirements. Each grantee that implements a
planning period to develop the core element or elements it lacks, would
be--
(a) Required to demonstrate in its annual performance report or
other interim performance report that it has implemented any of the
five core elements it had lacked; and
(b) Prohibited from using TIF program funds to provide incentive
payments to teachers or principals until it has implemented a PBCS
that, to the Secretary's satisfaction, has all five core elements.
Professional Development. Each applicant must demonstrate, in its
application, that its proposed PBCS will include a high-quality
professional development component for teachers and principals
consistent with the definition of the term professional development in
section 9101(34) of the ESEA.
The applicant must demonstrate that its PBCS has a professional
development component in place, or a specific plan for developing one
that is directly linked to the specific measures of teacher and
principal effectiveness included in the PBCS. The professional
development component of the PBCS must--
(1) Be based on needs assessed either at the high-need schools
participating in the applicant's proposed PBCS or LEA-wide;
(2) Be targeted to individual teachers' and principals' needs as
identified in the evaluation process;
(3) Provide--
(a) Those teachers and principals who do not receive differentiated
compensation based on effectiveness under the PBCS with the tools and
skills they need to improve their effectiveness in the classroom or
school and be able to raise student achievement; and
(b) Those teachers and principals who are deemed to be effective
and who, therefore, receive differentiated compensation under the PBCS,
with the tools and skills they need to (1) continue effective practices
in the classroom or school and raise student achievement, and (2)
successfully assume additional responsibilities and leadership roles;
and
(4) Include helping teachers and principals to better understand
and use the measures of effectiveness in the PBCS to improve practice
and student achievement.
(5) Include a process for regularly assessing the effectiveness of
this professional development in improving teacher practice and student
achievement and making modifications necessary to improve its
effectiveness.
High-Need Schools Documentation. Each applicant must demonstrate,
in its application, that the schools to be served by the proposed PBCS
are high-need schools, as defined in this notice. Each applicant must
provide, in its application, a list of schools in which the proposed
PBCS will be implemented as well as the most current data on the
percentage of each identified school's students who are eligible for
free or reduced-price lunch subsidies under the Richard B. Russell
National School Lunch Act, or other poverty measures that the LEA uses
(see section 1113(a)(5) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6313(a)(5))). Data
provided to demonstrate eligibility as a high-need school must be
school-level data; the Department will not accept LEA- or State-level
data for purposes of documenting whether a school is a high-need
school.
Additional Eligibility Requirement. An applicant must demonstrate,
in its application, that it will implement the proposed PBCS only in
schools that are not being served (or are not to be served) by current
TIF grants.
Proposed Requirements for the TIF Evaluation Competition
Background
The ARRA requires the Department's Institute of Education Sciences
(IES) to conduct a rigorous national evaluation, utilizing randomized
controlled methodology to the extent feasible, to assess the impact
that PBCSs for teachers and principals that are supported by program
funds have on teacher and principal recruitment and retention in high-
need schools and subjects. IES intends to implement this requirement,
as well as to conduct related research on important issues that concern
the effect of PBCSs on increased student achievement, by conducting a
national random-assignment impact evaluation of TIF grantees (the
Evaluation) that will provide researchers, policy-makers, school
administrators, and teachers with important information about the
teacher and principal differentiated effectiveness incentives component
of the PBCS. Moreover, to meet its statutory responsibility to conduct
this evaluation, the Department needs to be able to ensure it is able
to assess the impact of differentiated effectiveness incentives
component PBCSs using a sufficient number of high-need schools in
comparison to high-need schools in which differentiated effectiveness
incentives component PCBSs are not being implemented.
In order to select both appropriate grantees (consistent with the
objectives of the evaluation) and a sufficient number of participating
LEAs and schools for the evaluation, the Department proposes to hold a
separate competition under the TIF program--the TIF Evaluation
competition--and to select applicants for an award under the Evaluation
competition prior to selecting any applicants for an award under the
Main competition. Under the TIF Evaluation competition, applicants must
address all of the requirements and absolute priorities in the Main TIF
competition, as well as additional requirements that are specific to
the TIF Evaluation competition. The following describes the Evaluation
that IES would conduct as well as the competition the Secretary would
hold to select participants in the Evaluation.
Description of the Evaluation
Through the Evaluation, IES would study a select group of PBCSs
implemented in one or more LEAs, in which the PBCS--
(a) Determines the amount of teacher incentives for differentiated
[[Page 8862]]
effectiveness using one of the following two models:
(1) An individual-based incentive pay model, defined as a PBCS that
uses individual performance criteria for determining differentiated
effectiveness incentive payments.
(2) A mixed-group incentive model, defined as a PBCS that
determines differentiated effectiveness incentive payments using
performance criteria to evaluate a group, such as a grade-level team of
teachers or an entire school group, or using a mixture of individual
and group performance criteria;
(b) Determines the amount of principal differentiated effectiveness
incentive payments using any incentive model determined appropriate by
the applicant and proposed in the applicant's application; and
(c) Requires an LEA to make substantial and differentiated
effectiveness incentive payments at the following levels--
(1) For differentiated effectiveness incentive payments provided to
principals, (i) the average principal payout (defined as the total
amount of principal payments divided by the total number of principals
in the schools participating in the differentiated effectiveness
incentive payment component of the PBCS) is substantial (e.g., 5% of
the average principal salary), (ii) the criteria for determining
whether a principal is eligible for payment are challenging (e.g.,
payments are only made to those who perform significantly better than
the current average performance among study schools within the
district), and (iii) there is an expectation of meaningful differences
in resulting principal pay (e.g., at least some principals could
reasonably expect to receive an incentive payment of three times the
average principal payout) and the applicant's documentation of cost
projections is consistent with this expectation; and
(2) For differentiated effectiveness incentive payments provided to
teachers, (i) The average teacher payout (defined as the total amount
of teacher payments divided by the total number of teachers in the
schools participating in the differentiated effectiveness incentive
payment component of the PBCS) is substantial (e.g., 5% of the average
teacher salary), (ii) the criteria for determining whether a teacher is
eligible for payment are challenging (e.g., payments are only made to
those who perform significantly better than the current average
performance among study schools within the district), and (iii) there
is an expectation of meaningful differences in resulting teacher pay
(e.g., at least some teachers could reasonably expect to receive an
incentive payment of three times the average teacher payout) and the
applicant's documentation of cost projections is consistent with this
expectation.
The Department intends to assess the performance component of a
PBCS described in paragraph (c) in relation to a comparison group. This
notice describes two possible options for a comparison group. A
decision about whether to use either of these comparison designs, or a
different approach, will be made after review of public comment on this
notice. Accordingly, we specifically request comment on these proposed
designs as well as alternatives.
The two comparison designs are as follows:
(a) Comparison design 1: The differentiated effectiveness incentive
component of the PBCS would be compared to a PBCS with no
differentiated effectiveness incentive component. Thus, under this
design, all non-performance pay components of the PBCS (e.g., the
professional development component, incentives for leadership roles
component, and incentives for taking on additional responsibilities)
would be implemented in all schools participating in the evaluation and
the performance pay component of the PBCS would be implemented only in
those schools designated by the evaluation contractor;
(b) Comparison design 2: The differentiated effectiveness incentive
component of the PBCS would be compared to a PBCS with an across-the-
board salary increase of an amount equivalent to the expected average
payout in the differentiated effectiveness incentive payment (e.g., if
the expected average teacher payout is 5% of the average teacher
salary, then one-half of the schools participating in the evaluation,
as designated by the evaluation contractor, would implement the
applicant's proposed performance component of the PBCS while the other
half of the schools participating in the evaluation would implement an
across-the-board salary increase equivalent to the proposed applicant's
expected average payout, 5% in this example).
In evaluating the selected PBCSs, the Evaluation would address the
following research questions:
(a) Under comparison design 1: What is the effect on student
achievement of an LEA's PBCS that includes a performance component of a
PBCS that includes differentiated pay and in which the incentive has a
substantive average payout (e.g., 5% of the average teacher salary for
teachers)? What is the effect of such a PBCS component on the
composition and effectiveness of teachers and principals eligible for
the incentive payments? What is the effect on recruitment and retention
of eligible teachers and principals?
(b) Under comparison design 2: What is the effect on student
achievement of a performance based increase in wages compared to an
across-the-board increase in teacher and principal salary in which the
expected payouts are equivalent? Are there differences in the
composition and effectiveness of teachers and principals between these
two methods of increasing wages? Are there any differential effects on
recruitment and retention of teachers and principals?
(c) What is the relationship between the effect on student
achievement of individual-based and mixed-group incentive pay models
(i.e., is the differentiated effectiveness incentive of an individual-
based incentive pay model more likely to be associated with an effect
on student achievement)?
(d) What features of PBCSs (e.g., relative emphasis on student
achievement or teacher/principal observations incentives based on
absolute versus relative standards; and the extent of staff
eligibility) are associated with improved teacher and principal
effectiveness and student achievement?
(e) What are the implementation challenges associated with PBCSs,
and what strategies do grantees use to overcome them?
TIF Evaluation Competition
Grantees funded under the TIF Evaluation competition would be
awarded at least an additional $1 million over the 5-year grant period
(above the amount of funding awarded to them to implement the PBCS
proposed in its application) to help pay for any additional costs of
implementing activities associated with their TIF project. These costs
might include those associated with developing value-added measures of
student achievement, and professional development and expenses related
to release time for teachers to attend professional development that is
designed to support or complement the PBCS, and available to staff
working on the grant or district-wide. In addition, while under the
Main TIF competition the Department would continue its practice of
permitting TIF funding to be used to pay the salary of only one Master,
Mentor, or Lead Teacher or academic coach per school, recipients of
awards under the Evaluation competition would be permitted to use
[[Page 8863]]
the additional $1 million for salaries of other academic coaches such
as math and reading coaches, and of other Master, Mentor, or Lead
Teachers. Finally, TIF Evaluation grantees could also use the
additional $1 million award to pay for costs of securing data,
including data linked to student achievement, needed by the evaluation
contractor.
In order to be eligible to receive this additional funding,
applicants seeking awards under the TIF Evaluation competition must
agree to certain additional requirements. The following describes the
Department's rationale for proposing these additional requirements for
applicants under the TIF Evaluation competition:
Budget Information. The Secretary proposes to require each
applicant under the TIF Evaluation competition to include the
additional $1 million funds available in its proposed budget
accompanying the application for funding, and indicate the activities
it plans to implement using these additional funds. This application
requirement would assist the Department in conducting the necessary
budget analysis before grant funding is awarded and ensure the
Department has adequate budget information to fiscally manage the grant
throughout the five-year project period.
Two Incentive Models for Determining Teacher Incentive Payments.
Each TIF Evaluation competition grantee would be required to implement,
in at least one LEA, a PBCS that determines teacher differentiated
effectiveness incentive payments using either an individual-based
incentive pay model or a mixed-group incentive pay model.
The two proposed models would allow the Evaluation to separately
test two prominent models of incentive pay and allow for analyses that
will provide information about core aspects of differentiated
effectiveness incentive pay to inform policy. An individual-based
incentive pay model, which we would define as a PBCS that uses
individual performance criteria for determining incentive payments,
would provide the most direct incentive to teachers to improve their
own effectiveness, and thus the student achievement of the students
they teach. Under this model, the amount of a teacher's incentive
payment would be directly linked to the teacher's individual
performance, as measured against the criteria established for the PBCS.
One possible downside of using an individual-based incentive model is
that, given its focus on the individual, it may undermine collaboration
among teachers.
A mixed-group incentive pay model, which we would define as a PBCS
that determines differentiated effectiveness incentive payments using
performance criteria to evaluate a group, such as a grade-level team of
teachers or an entire school group, or using a mixture of individual
and group performance criteria, acknowledges the importance of
collaboration but may weaken the incentive for individual teachers to
perform better, because the performance criteria are, at least in part,
based on the performance of others. The use of individual teacher
performance criteria in addition to group performance criteria in a
mixed-group incentive pay model allows the grantee to use individual
performance criteria, which could lead to individual teacher
differentiated effectiveness incentive payments that differ by
individuals within the group. (If the PBCS only used group performance
criteria, then teachers within a group meeting the group performance
criteria all receive the same incentive payments. If, on the other
hand, the PBCS uses a mix of group and individual performance criteria,
then incentive payments for individual teachers within the group can
differ from teacher to teacher.)
Including in the Evaluation some LEAs with PBCSs that use an
individual-based incentive pay model and some LEAs with PBCSs that use
a mixed-group incentive pay model to determine teacher differentiated
effectiveness incentive payments would allow IES to analyze separately
each model. It also would allow the Evaluation to focus on the
relationship between various PBCS features (e.g., relative emphasis on
student achievement or teacher/principal observations as a performance
criterion; incentives based on absolute versus relative performance
criteria standards; and the extent of staff eligibility) and their
effect on teacher and student outcomes.
There is no analogous proposed choice of models for the principal
differentiated effectiveness incentive pay because, by its nature,
principal performance is a group performance measure related to the
performance of each principal's school.
Incentive Amounts. Evaluation grantees would be required to
implement a PBCS through which an LEA makes substantial incentive
awards at the following levels:
(a) For differentiated effectiveness incentive payments provided to
principals, (i) the average principal payout (defined as the total
amount of principal payments divided by the total number of principals
in the schools participating in the differentiated effectiveness
incentive payment component of the PBCS) is substantial (e.g., 5% of
the average principal salary), (ii) the criteria for determining
whether a principal is eligible for payment are challenging (e.g.,
payments are only made to those who perform significantly better than
the current average performance among study schools within the
district), and (iii) there is an expectation of meaningful differences
in resulting principal pay (e.g., at least some principals could
reasonably expect to receive an incentive payment of three times the
average principal payout) and the applicant's documentation of cost
projections is consistent with this expectation); and
(b) For differentiated effectiveness incentive payments provided to
teachers, (i) the average teacher payout (defined as the total amount
of teacher payments divided by the total number of teachers in the
schools participating in the differentiated effectiveness incentive
payment component of the PBCS) is substantial (e.g., 5% of the average
teacher salary), (ii) the criteria for determining whether a teacher is
eligible for payment are challenging (e.g., payments are only made to
those who perform significantly better than the current average
performance among study schools within the district), and (iii) there
is an expectation of meaningful differences in resulting teacher pay
(e.g., at least some teachers could reasonably expect to receive an
incentive payment of three times the average teacher payout) and the
applicant's documentation of cost projections is consistent with this
expectation).
Each Evaluation grantee would be required to agree to implement in
at least one LEA a PBCS with these characteristics to ensure that the
Evaluation can focus on the effectiveness of the differentiated
effectiveness incentive component of the PBCS. In designing the
Evaluation, IES determined that these differentiated effectiveness
incentive amounts, based on current evidence in the research
literature, are the minimal amounts needed to alter teacher and
principal behavior and recruitment in high-need schools consistent with
the effect the Evaluation is designed to detect.
Implementation of Evaluation. Each applicant under the TIF
Evaluation competition would be required to agree, in its application,
to implement its differentiated effectiveness incentive component of
the PBCS in at least one LEA in accordance with the implementation plan
developed by the
[[Page 8864]]
IES evaluator, Mathematica Policy Research. The applicant also would be
required to identify in its application the schools that would
participate in the evaluation. For each LEA participating in the
Evaluation, the IES evaluator would, by lottery, place eligible schools
equally within one of two groups (i.e., ``Group 1'' or ``Group 2'').
For each participating LEA, the grantee would be required to
implement its PBCS in the LEA's Group 1 schools in either school year
2010-2011 or school year 2011-2012, depending on whether the LEA has
the 5 core elements of the PBCS in place at the time of award.
The following describes implementation for each of the two
comparison designs the Department is considering:
(a) Comparison design 1: With the same timing as Group 1, Group 2
would be required to implement all non-differentiated effectiveness
incentive components of the PBCS. (Participating LEAs that have the 5
core elements in place at the time of the grant award would be required
to begin the first PBCS implementation in Group 1 schools and non-
differentiated effectiveness incentive components of the PBCS in Group
2 schools at the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year. Participating
LEAs that do not have in place the 5 core elements and that therefore
would implement a planning period would be required to begin the first
PBCS implementation in Group 1 schools and non-differentiated
effectiveness incentive components of the PBCS in Group 2 schools at
the beginning of the 2011-2012 school year.) All Group 2 schools would
be prohibited from implementing a differentiated effectiveness
incentive component for the duration of the TIF grant.
(b) Comparison design 2: With the same timing as Group 1, Group 2
would be required to implement all non-differentiated effectiveness
incentive components of the PBCS and a salary increase for teachers and
principals equivalent to the expected average payout in Group 1.
(Participating LEAs that have the 5 core elements in place at the time
of the grant award would be required to begin the PBCS implementation
in Group 1 schools and non-differentiated effectiveness incentive
components of the PBCS and the across the board salary increase in
Group 2 schools at the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year.
Participating LEAs that do not have in place the 5 core elements and
that therefore would implement a planning period would be required to
begin the PBCS implementation in Group 1 schools and non-differentiated
effectiveness incentive components of the PBCS and the across the board
salary increase in Group 2 schools at the beginning of the 2011-2012
school year.) All Group 2 schools would be prohibited from implementing
a differentiated effectiveness incentive component for the duration of
the TIF grant.
The selection and placement of the LEA's participating schools into
Groups 1 and 2 by lottery would enable the IES evaluator to examine
what happens to student, teacher, and principal outcomes in comparable
schools: (i) With and without a differentiated effectiveness incentive
component of the PBCS under comparison design 1; or (ii) with a
differentiated effectiveness incentive component of the PBCS and with
an across-the-board salary increase under comparison design 2. Both of
these evaluation designs would enable IES to compare outcomes in these
schools for up to 5 years after the PBCS is implemented. It is
important for the Evaluation to include multiple years because
principal and teacher behavior may take time to respond to the
differentiated effectiveness incentive payments. For teachers and
principals who transfer to the PBCS schools, it may also take time for
them to be effective in their new setting.
Under comparison design 2, in addition to the non-differentiated
effectiveness incentive components of its PBCS, the Group 2 schools
would also implement an across-the-board salary increase for teachers
and principals equivalent to the respective expected average payouts
for teachers and principals in Group 1. This requirement, in
combination with the random assignment study design, would ensure that
when the Evaluation compares schools in the study that have implemented
the differentiated effectiveness incentive component of the PBCS with
schools that have implemented an across-the-board salary increase,
differences in outcomes can be attributed to the differentiated
effectiveness incentive component of the PBCS.
Matching Requirement Under Comparison Group 2. (Funds provided to
meet this match requirement may address the element of Absolute
Proposed Priority 2 in which applicants would be required to provide
from non-TIF funds an increasing share of performance-based
compensation paid to teachers and principals.)
Each applicant under the TIF Evaluation competition would be
required to provide from non-TIF funds 50% of the proposed across-the-
board salary increase to be implemented in half of the participating
Evaluation schools. While an across-the-board salary increase for staff
in high-need schools reflects what may be, for some, a seemingly
attractive alternative to differentiated payments based on performance,
funds used to pay these increases are not supporting a PBCS. TIF funds
therefore could not support such an across-the-board salary increase
except for the fact that ARRA and the Department's FY 2010
appropriation permit the use of TIF funds for evaluation.
We recognize that if comparison design 2 is adopted, IES will be
able to secure important research results about the impact of PBCSs
relative to an across-the-board salary increase. On the other hand, the
teachers and principals in schools that benefit from such salary
increases will obtain significant benefits from use of TIF funds.
Balancing these competing factors, if comparative design 2 is adopted,
we believe that it is reasonable to require that grantees pay 50
percent of the costs of across-the-board salary increases for staff in
the group of schools selected to be in Group 2. The Department will
also consider alternative possibilities for design, including a hybrid
of the two approaches above.
Advance Notice. To ensure that teachers and principals are aware of
the implementation of the PBCS in their schools, applicants would be
required to agree to work with the IES evaluator to notify all eligible
school staff in schools participating in the Evaluation at least two
months prior to the assigned Group 1 implementation schedule. Advance
notification and dissemination about the PBCS differentiated
effectiveness incentive component features and performance criteria two
months prior to the beginning of the school year in which it is
implemented is important so that teachers and principals within and
outside of the LEA would have time to learn about the differentiated
effectiveness incentive component of the PBCS, and be informed enough
about it to change their behavior in response. (e.g., for those in a
PBCS school with a differentiated effectiveness incentive component,
this might entail altering their teaching strategy to be more
effective; for those not in a PBCS school with a differentiated
effectiveness incentive component, this might entail transferring to a
PBCS school with a differentiated effectiveness component.)
Implementation of all Non-differentiated Effectiveness Incentive
Components. In order to isolate the effects of the differentiated
effectiveness
[[Page 8865]]
incentive component of the PBCS, the Department would require every
applicant to agree to implement the non-differentiated effectiveness
incentive components (e.g., the professional development component, the
incentives for leadership roles component, and the incentives for
taking on additional responsibilities) of its PBCS in all of an LEA's
Group 1 and Group 2 schools at the same time the applicant implements
the differentiated effectiveness incentive component of the PBCS in
Group 1 schools. This requirement, in combination with the random
assignment study design, would ensure that when the Evaluation compares
schools in the study with and without the differentiated effectiveness
incentive component of the PBCS, differences in outcomes can be
attributed to the differentiated effectiveness incentive component of
the PBCS. The LEA's schools in Group 2 would not be permitted to fully
implement the differentiated effectiveness incentive component of the
PBCS for the duration of the grant.
Scope of Schools. In order that funds reserved for the TIF
Evaluation competition are used as efficiently as possible, each
applicant would be required to demonstrate, in its application, that,
for each LEA in which it implements the PBCS, it will implement the
differentiated effectiveness incentive component of the PBCS--
(a) In eight or more high-need schools, within that LEA, that have
students in tested subjects (i.e., students in grades three through
eight); and
(b) In at least two schools among those eight or more high-need
schools that are of the same grade configuration (e.g., in at least two
elementary schools or at least two middle schools).
It would be important that each applicant provide the IES evaluator
with at least two schools with the same grade configuration among the
LEA's schools proposed to participate in the Evaluation so that the IES
evaluator's group assignments made by lottery can result with at least
one school of the same grade configuration in each of the two Groups
(i.e., at least one elementary school in Group 1 and at least one in
Group 2). It would also be important for the eight schools to be within
the same LEA so that the random assignment can be conducted within the
same local context (e.g., the schools have in common the same labor
market issues, the same union issues, the same LEA policies etc.).
Commitment to Evaluation. Because each participating LEA and school
will need to work with the IES evaluator, it is critical that both the
LEA and principals of the schools participating in the Evaluation are
aware of, and agree to, the requirements of the Evaluation (i.e.,
adhering to the implementation plan and cooperating with data-
collection efforts, such as providing math and reading State assessment
student test scores). Therefore, we propose to require applicants to
demonstrate, in their applications, that each participating LEA and
school is willing and able to participate in the Evaluation. To
demonstrate this willingness and ability to participate, each applicant
would be required to include, in its application, a letter from the
superintendent of each participating LEA, and a letter from the LEA's
research office or board, and principals of the participating schools
stating that these officials agree to comply with the Evaluation
requirements.
Proposed Requirements for the TIF Evaluation Competition
In addition to the requirements and priorities for the Main
competition, which applicants for the TIF Evaluation competition would
also be required to address, the Secretary proposes the following
requirements for the TIF Evaluation competition only:
Budget Information. An applicant for the TIF Evaluation competition
must provide, in its application, a proposed budget that indicates how
it plans to use the additional $1 million in funding received for
participating in the Evaluation. The following activities are the only
permissible uses for these additional funds: costs associated with
developing value-added measures of student achievement; professional
development and expenses related to release time for teachers to attend
professional development; and salaries of academic coaches such as math
and reading coaches, and Master, Mentor, or Lead Teacher salaries.
Two Incentive Models for Determining Teacher Incentive Payments. An
applicant for the TIF Evaluation competition must demonstrate, in its
application, that it will implement a PBCS that provides incentive
payments to both teachers and principals:
(a) Teacher Incentive Payments. To be eligible to receive a grant
under the TIF Evaluation competition, an applicant's teacher
differentiated effectiveness incentive component of the PBCS must use
one of the following two models:
(1) An individual-based incentive pay model, which awards
differentiated effectiveness incentive payments to teachers based on
individual teachers' performance (e.g., student achievement results,
teacher observations, etc.) based on criteria proposed by the applicant
in its application.
(2) A mixed-group incentive pay model which awards differentiated
effectiveness incentive payments to teachers using group performance
criteria at the grade, team, or school level, or using a mixture of
group and individual teacher performance criteria.
Note: Under the mixed-group incentive pay model, how much
emphasis is placed on individual performance relative to group
performance is up to the applicant to specify; however, in order to
be a mixed-group model, the PBCS must use group performance criteria
to determine the differentiated effectiveness incentive component of
the incentive amounts and may, but is not required to, use
individual performance criteria.
Each applicant must specify, in its application, which of these two
incentive models it will use for the teacher compensation component of
its PBCS.
(b) Principal Incentive Payments. To be eligible to receive a grant
under the TIF Evaluation competition, the applicant must describe, in
its application, the incentive model it will use for the principal
differentiated effectiveness incentive component of its PBCS. (There
are no specific model requirements for an applicant's principal
compensation component of the PBCS.)
Incentive Amounts. An applicant for the TIF Evaluation competition
must demonstrate, in its application, that it will implement a PBCS
that uses: (1) principal differentiated effectiveness incentive
payments in which (i) the average principal payout (defined as the
total amount of principal payments divided by the total number of
principals in the schools participating in the differentiated
effectiveness incentive payment component of the PBCS) is substantial
(e.g., 5% of the average principal salary), (ii) the criteria for
determining whether a principal is eligible for payment are challenging
(e.g., payments are only made to those who perform significantly better
than the current average performance among study schools within the
district), and (iii) there is an expectation of meaningful differences
in resulting principal pay (e.g., at least some principals could
reasonably expect to receive an incentive payment of three times the
average principal payout) and the applicant's documentation of cost
projections is consistent with this expectation); and
(2) Teacher differentiated effectiveness incentive payments in
which (i) the average teacher payout (defined as the total amount of
teacher
[[Page 8866]]
payments divided by the total number of teachers in the schools
participating in the differentiated effectiveness incentive payment
component of the PBCS) is substantial (e.g., 5% of the average teacher
salary), (ii) the criteria for determining whether a teacher is
eligible for payment are challenging (e.g., payments are only made to
those who perform significantly better than the current average
performance among study schools within the district), and (iii) there
is an expectation of meaningful differences in resulting teacher pay
(e.g., at least some teachers could reasonably expect to receive an
incentive payment of three times the average teacher payout) and the
applicant's documentation of cost projections is consistent with this
expectation).
Implementation of Evaluation. Each applicant under the TIF
Evaluation competition must agree, in its application, to implement its
differentiated effectiveness incentive component of the PBCS in at
least one LEA in accordance with the implementation plan developed by
the IES evaluator. The applicant would be required to identify in its
application the schools that would participate in the evaluation.
In its application, an applicant also must acknowledge that the IES
evaluator will select, by lottery, from among the schools participating
in the evaluation, those schools that will implement the differentiated
effectiveness incentive component of the PBCS and must agree to
implement the Evaluation design and its implementation plan within at
least one LEA.
In participating LEAs that have the five core elements in place at
the time of grant award, the first group of schools in that LEA (Group
1 schools) must begin implementation of all components of the PBCS at
the beginning of the 2010-2011 school year. In a participating LEA that
does not yet have in place the 5 core elements necessary to implement a
successful PBCS at the time of award, the first group of schools in
that LEA (Group 1 schools) must begin implementation of all components
of the PBCS no later than the 2011-2012 school year.
The following table illustrates the Evaluation random assignment
plan, depending on the amount of planning time an applicant would need:
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Random assignment Pay component of PBCS
\a\ \b\
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEAs Ready for 2010-11 Group 1.......... Differentiated pay
Implementation. implemented starting
in 2010-11.
Group 2.......... No differentiated pay
component until 2015-
16.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEAs Ready for 2011-12 Group 1.......... Differentiated pay
Implementation. implemented starting
in 2011-12.
Group 2.......... No differentiated pay
component until 2015-
16.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Design 2
------------------------------------------------------------------------
LEAs Ready for 2010-11 Group 1.......... Differentiated pay
Implementation. implemented starting
in 2010-11.
Group 2.......... Across the board pay
increase implemented
starting in 2010-11
through 2014-15.
-----------------------------------------
LEAs Ready for 2011-12 Group 1.......... Differentiated pay
Implementation. implemented starting
in 2011-12.
Group 2.......... Across the board pay
increase implemented
starting in 2011-12
through 2014-15.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
\a\ For each LEA, the IES evaluator will randomly assign the schools
participating in the Evaluation into 2 groups (Groups 1 and 2).
\b\ The school year listed is the first year in which the differentiated
effectiveness incentive component of the PBCS will be implemented in
the LEA's schools participating in the designated group.
Matching Requirement. (Funds provided to meet this match
requirement may address the element of Proposed Absolute Priority 2 in
which applicants are required to provide from non-TIF funds an
increasing share of performance-based compensation paid to teachers and
principals.) If Comparison Design 2 is selected, an applicant for the
TIF Evaluation competition must provide from non-TIF funds 50% of the
proposed across-the-board salary increase to be implemented in Group 2
schools.
Advance Notice. Each applicant must agree, in its application to
work with the IES evaluator to notify all eligible schools
participating in the Evaluation at least 2 months prior to the assigned
Group 1 implementation schedule.
Implementation of all Non-differentiated Effectiveness Incentive
Components. Each applicant must agree, in its application, to implement
the non-differentiated effectiveness incentive components of its PBCS
in all of the LEA's participating schools (those in Groups 1 and 2)
starting at the same time as the differentiated effectiveness incentive
component of its PBCS is implemented in the Group 1 schools. The
schools in Group 2 must not implement the differentiated effectiveness
incentive component of its PBCS for the duration of the TIF grant.
Scope of Schools. An applicant for the TIF Evaluation competition
must demonstrate, in its application, that it will implement a PBCS in
eight or more high-need schools, within an LEA, that have students in
tested subjects (i.e., students in grades three through eight), from
which there are at least two schools proposed to participate in the
Evaluation within the same LEA within each grade configuration (i.e.,
if elementary schools are proposed there are at least two elementary
schools among the minimum of eight schools all within the same LEA; if
middle schools are proposed there are at least two middle schools among
the minimum of eight schools all within the same LEA). Applicants that
include multiple LEAs must meet the scope of schools requirement in at
least one LEA.
Commitment to Evaluation. An applicant for the TIF Evaluation
competition must provide, in its application, documentation that
demonstrates the willingness of each participating LEA and school to
[[Page 8867]]
participate in the Evaluation. Such documentation must include for each
participating LEA:
(a) A letter from the LEA superintendent and the principals of the
participating schools stating that those officials agree to meet the
TIF Evaluation competition requirements, including adhering to the
implementation plan of the IES evaluator which involves selection
through a lottery of those schools to implement the differentiated
effectiveness component among the schools participating in the
evaluation.
(b) A letter from the research office or research board of the
participating LEA that expresses an agreement to comply with the
Evaluation requirements (if such research office approval is needed).
Proposed Definitions
Background
The Department proposes definitions for five terms not defined in
the authorizing legislation for TIF that the Department has determined
are necessary for the proper implementation of the TIF program: High-
need school, student achievement, student growth, high-need students,
and additional responsibilities and leadership roles.
High-Need School
Public Law 110-161 and Public Law 111-117 require an eligible
entity to use TIF funds to develop and implement a PBCS in a high-need
school, but they does not define the term ``high-need school.'' Because
the meaning of this term is critical to implementing the purpose of the
TIF program, we propose to define it. Specifically, we propose to
define a high-need school as a school with 50 percent or more of its
enrollment from low-income families, based on eligibility for free or
reduced-price lunch subsidies under the Richard B. Russell National
School Lunch Act, or other poverty measures that LEAs use (see section
1113(a)(5) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6313(a)(5))). Because it is widely
known that students attending middle and high schools submit
applications for free or reduced-price lunch subsidies much less
frequently than do students enrolled in elementary schools, we propose
to clarify in the definition that LEAs may establish eligibility of a
middle school or a high school as a high-need school based on
comparable data from its feeder schools. We are proposing to define the
term high-need school in terms of 50 percent eligibility for free- and
reduced-lunch subsidies because the Administration is focusing on
turning around struggling schools in high-poverty areas. We are
targeting our efforts to help the schools and students most in need.
Student Achievement and Student Growth
The Department believes that there is sufficient research
demonstrating that teacher effectiveness is a critical contributor to
student learning, where student learning is measured by student growth
over time--that is, the change in student achievement between two or
more points in time. We believe that student achievement should be
measured, in significant part, by a student's standardized test scores.
On the other hand, we recognize that teacher effectiveness should
not be determined solely on the basis of standardized test scores,
which is why we are proposing, consistent with the Race to the Top
program, that the use of student growth as a significant factor in
teacher evaluations must include multiple measures.
The Department believes that student achievement and student growth
data are meaningful predictive measures of teacher and principal
effectiveness, and, therefore, should be considered as a part of a
rigorous, transparent, and fair evaluation system.
High-Need Students
Through the Proposed Priority 5, the Department is encouraging
applicants to develop and implement a PBCS that serves the needs of
high-need students. The Department would like to take this opportunity
to define this term for the purpose of each applicant's understanding
of the competitive priority. It was important to the Department for
this definition to be consistent with the definition of high-need
students in the Race to the Top final notice of priorities. Thus, the
Department has used the same definition (identified below).
Additional Responsibilities and Leadership Roles
Public Law-161 and Public Law 111-117 require an eligible entity to
use TIF funds to develop and implement a PBCS in a high-need school
that provides educators incentives to take on additional
responsibilities and leadership roles, but it does not define the terms
``additional responsibilities and leadership roles.'' Because the
meaning of these terms is critical to implementing the purpose of the
TIF program, we propose to define it. Specifically, we propose to
define additional responsibilities and leadership roles as duties
teachers may voluntarily accept such as roles as master or mentor
teachers who are chosen through a performance-based selection process
including assessment of their teaching effectiveness and the ability to
work effectively with other adults and students, with responsibilities
to assess and improve the teaching effectiveness of other teachers in
the school; roles in induction and mentoring of novice teachers or
high-need students; roles in tutoring students; or in establishing and
developing learning communities designed to continually improve the
capacity of all teachers in a school to advance student learning, using
a shared set of practices, instructional principles or teaching
strategies. This list is not exhaustive and the Department would
encourage applicants to come up with other additional responsibility
and leadership role opportunities for its teachers and principals that
best meets the needs of its high-need schools.
Proposed Definitions
The Secretary proposes the following definitions of the terms high-
need school, student achievement and student growth, high-need
students, and additional responsibilities and leadership roles for use
in the TIF program. We would apply these definitions for any Main TIF
competition or TIF Evaluation competition in any year in which TIF is
funded.
High-need school means a school with 50 percent or more of its
enrollment from low-income families, based on eligibility for free or
reduced-price lunch subsidies under the Richard B. Russell National
School Lunch Act, or other poverty measures that LEAs use (see section
1113(a)(5) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6313(a)(5)). For middle and high
schools, eligibility may be calculated on the basis of comparable data
from feeder schools. Eligibility as a high-need school under this
definition is determined on the basis of the most currently available
data.
Student achievement means--
(a) For tested grades and subjects--
(1) A student's score on the State's assessments under the ESEA;
and
(2) As appropriate, other measures of student learning, such as
those described in paragraph (b) of this definition, provided that they
are rigorous and comparable across schools.
(b) For non-tested grades and subjects, alternative measures of
student learning and performance such as student scores on pre-tests
and end-of-course tests; student performance on English language
proficiency assessments, and other measures of student achievement
[[Page 8868]]
that are rigorous and comparable across schools.
Student growth means the change in student achievement (as defined
in this notice) for an individual student between two or more points in
time. A State or LEA may also include other measures that are rigorous
and comparable across schools.
High-need students means students at risk of educational failure or
otherwise in need of special assistance and support, such as students
who are living in poverty, who attend high-minority schools, who are
far below grade level, who have left school before receiving a regular
high school diploma, who are at risk of not graduating with a diploma
on time, who are homeless, who are in foster care, who have been
incarcerated, who have disabilities, or who are English language
learners.
Additional responsibilities and leadership roles means duties
teachers may voluntarily accept such as roles as master or mentor
teachers who are chosen through a performance-based selection process
including assessment of their teaching effectiveness and the ability to
work effectively with other adults and students, with responsibilities
to assess and improve the teaching effectiveness of other teachers in
the school; roles in induction and mentoring of novice teachers or
high-need students; roles in tutoring students; or in establishing and
developing learning communities designed to continually improve the
capacity of all teachers in a school to advance student learning, using
a shared set of practices, instructional principles or teaching
strategies.
Proposed Selection Criteria
The following selection criteria apply to both the Main competition
and the TIF Evaluation competition.
Background
The Secretary proposes these selection criteria to be used to
review an applicant's proposal for funding under either the Main TIF
competition or the TIF Evaluation competition. The Department believes
that these proposed selection criteria are needed to ensure that each
applicant demonstrates, in its application, that it: (1) Proposes to
implement a PBCS that will address a significant need of the LEA(s) to
be served by the project, through the types of awards to be given to
teachers and principals based on student achievement and other required
factors; (2) has or will have a personnel and management structure
capable of overseeing the development and implementation of the
proposed PBCS; and (3) commits to sustaining the proposed PBCS after
TIF funding has ended.
Proposed Selection Criteria
The Secretary proposes the following selection criteria for
evaluating an application under this program. We may apply one or more
of these criteria in any year in which there is a Main TIF competition
or TIF Evaluation competition for this program. In the notice inviting
applications, or the application package, or both we will announce the
maximum possible points assigned to each criterion.
(a) Need for the project. In determining the need for the proposed
project, the Secretary will consider the extent to which the applicant
establishes that--
(1) The high-need schools whose educators would be part of the PBCS
have difficulty--
(i) Recruiting highly qualified or effective teachers, particularly
in hard-to-staff subject areas or specialty areas, such as mathematics,
science, English Language Acquisition, and special education; and
(ii) Retaining highly qualified or effective teachers and
principals; and
(2) Student achievement in each of the schools whose educators
would be part of the PBCS is lower than in what the applicant
determines are comparable schools of the LEA, or another LEA within its
State, in terms of key factors such as size, grade levels, and poverty
levels.
(3) A definition of what it considers a ``comparable'' school for
the purposes of paragraph (2) of this selection criterion.
(b) Project design. The Secretary considers the quality of the
design of the proposed project. In determining the quality of the
design of the proposed project, the Secretary considers the extent to
which the proposed PBCS--
(1) Is part of a proposed LEA or Statewide strategy, as
appropriate, for improving the process by which each participating LEA
rewards teachers and principals in high-need schools based upon their
effectiveness as determined in significant part by student growth. With
regard to teacher and principal effectiveness, the Secretary considers
whether--
(i) The methodology the LEA or SEA proposes to use in its PBCS to
determine the effectiveness of a school's teachers and principals
includes valid and reliable measures of student achievement, including
norm- and criterion-referenced State-wide assessment scores, as
appropriate; and
(ii) The participating LEA would use the proposed PBCS to provide
performance awards to teachers and principals that are of sufficient
size to affect teacher and administrator behaviors, and their decision
whether to go to, or remain working in, the high-need school;
(2) Has the involvement and support of teachers, principals, and
other certified personnel (including input from teachers and principals
in the schools and LEAs to be served by the grant) and the involvement
and support of unions in participating LEAs where they are the
designated exclusive representatives for the purpose of collective
bargaining that is needed to carry out the grant;
(3) Includes rigorous, transparent, and fair evaluation systems for
teachers and principals that differentiate effectiveness using multiple
rating categories that take into account data on student growth as a
significant factor, as well as classroom observations conducted at
least twice during the school year;
(4) Includes a data-management system, consistent with the LEA's
proposed PBCS, that can link student achievement data to teacher and
principal payroll and human resources systems; and
(5) Incorporates high-quality professional development activities
that increase the capacity of teachers and principals to raise student
achievement, and are directly linked to the specific measures of
teacher and principal effectiveness included in the PBCS.
(c) Adequacy of Support for the Proposed Project. In determining
the adequacy of the support for the proposed project, the Secretary
considers the extent to which--
(1) The management plan is likely to achieve the objectives of the
proposed project on time and within budget, and includes clearly
defined responsibilities and detailed timelines and milestones for
accomplishing project tasks;
(2) The project director and other key personnel are qualified to
carry out their responsibilities, and their time commitments are
appropriate and adequate to implement the project effectively;
(3) The applicant will support the proposed project with funds
provided under other Federal or State programs and local financial or
in-kind resources; and
(4) The requested grant amount and project costs are sufficient to
attain project goals and reasonable in relation to the objectives and
design of the project.
[[Page 8869]]
(d) Quality of Evaluation. In determining the quality of the
project evaluation, the Secretary considers the extent to which the
applicant's evaluation plan--
(1) Includes the use of strong and measurable performance
objectives (that are clearly related to the goals of the project) for
raising student achievement, increasing teacher and principal
effectiveness, and retaining and recruiting effective teachers and
principals;
(2) Will produce evaluation data that are quantitative and
qualitative; and
(3) Includes adequate evaluation procedures for ensuring feedback
and continuous improvement in the operation of the proposed project.
Final Priorities, Requirements, Definition, and Selection Criteria
We will announce the final priorities, requirements, definition,
and selection criteria in a notice in the Federal Register. We will
determine the final priorities, requirements, definition, and selection
criteria after considering responses to this notice and other
information available to the Department. This notice does not preclude
us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or
selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking
requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use these proposed priorities, requirements,
definition, and selection criteria, we invite applications through a
notice in the Federal Register.
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 Office of Management and Budget (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 action will have an annual effect on
the economy of more than $100 million because the amount of government
transfers provided through the TIF program 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 potential costs associated with this proposed regulatory action
are those resulting from statutory requirements and those we have
determined as necessary for administering this program effectively and
efficiently.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits of this proposed
regulatory action, we have determined that the benefits of the proposed
priorities, requirements, definition, and selection criteria justify
the costs.
We have determined, also, that this proposed regulatory action does
not unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
Need for Federal Regulatory Action
The proposed priorities, requirements, definition, and selection
criteria are needed to implement the TIF program. The Secretary does
not believe that the statute, by itself, provides a sufficient level of
detail to ensure that the program achieves the greatest national impact
in promoting the development and implementation of teacher and school
leader PBCSs. The authorizing and appropriations language is very brief
and provides only broad parameters to govern the program. The
priorities, requirements, definition, and selection criteria proposed
in this notice would clarify the types of activities the Department
seeks to fund, and permit the Department to evaluate proposed projects
using selection criteria that are based on the purpose of the program
and are closely aligned with the Secretary's priorities.
In the absence of specific selection criteria for the TIF program,
the Department would use the general selection criteria in 34 CFR
75.210 of the Education Department General Administrative Regulations
in selecting grant recipients. However, the Secretary does not believe
the use of those general criteria would be appropriate for the Main TIF
grant or TIF Evaluation competitions, because they do not focus on the
development of PBCSs or activities most likely to increase the quality
of teaching and school administration and improve educational outcomes
for students.
Regulatory Alternatives Considered
The Department considered a variety of possible priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria before deciding to
propose those included in this notice. For example, the Department
considered--
(1) Allowing applicants to propose to serve schools already served
(or to be served) by current TIF grants, but chose to limit eligibility
in order to expand the program to new schools.
(2) A variety of definitions for the term ``high-need school''
before proposing to define this term based on 50 percent eligibility
for free- and reduced-lunch subsidies as the best means of focusing the
program on turning around struggling schools in high-poverty areas. We
are targeting our efforts to help the schools and students most in
need.
(3) Restricting the range of approaches to implementing a PBCS that
this competition would support, to individual-based, school-based, or
group-based awards. However, we recognize that a combination of these
approaches may best meet the needs of an applicant's high-need school
or schools.
The proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria are those that the Secretary believes best capture the purpose
of the TIF program while clarifying what he expects the program to
accomplish and ensuring that program activities are aligned with other
Presidential and Departmental priorities. The proposals also would
provide eligible applicants with some flexibility in selecting
activities to carry out the purposes of program. The Secretary believes
that the proposals reflected in this notice appropriately balance the
need to flesh out TIF programmatic requirements and provide the
Department with the necessary tools to evaluate applications for TIF
funding with the goal of providing applicants with sufficient
flexibility to implement innovative approaches to PBCSs. We seek public
comment on whether we have achieved an acceptable balance.
Summary of Costs and Benefits
The Secretary believes that the proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria would not impose significant costs
on eligible States, LEAs, or nonprofit organizations that would receive
assistance through the TIF program. The Secretary also believes that
the benefits of implementing the proposals contained
[[Page 8870]]
in this notice outweigh any associated costs.
The Secretary believes that the proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria would result in selection of high-
quality applications to implement activities that are most likely to
improve the quality of teaching and educational administration. Through
the regulatory action proposed in this notice, the Secretary seeks to
provide clarity as to the scope of activities he expects to support
with program funds and the expected burden of work involved in
preparing an application and implementing a project under the program.
A potential applicant would need to consider carefully the effort that
would be required to prepare a strong application and its capacity to
implement a project successfully.
The Secretary believes that the costs imposed on an applicant by
the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria would be largely limited to paperwork burden related to
preparing an application and that the benefits of implementing these
proposals would outweigh any costs incurred by the applicant. This is
because, during the project period, the costs of actually carrying out
activities under a TIF grant would be paid for with program funds and
any matching funds. Thus, the costs of implementing a TIF project or
evaluation using these proposed priorities, requirements, definition,
and selection criteria would not be a burden for any eligible
applicants, including small entities.
Accounting Statement
As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at http://www.Whitehouse.gov/omb/Circulars/a004/a-4.pdf), in the following table,
we have prepared an accounting statement showing the classification of
the expenditures associated with the provisions of this proposed
regulatory action. This table provides our best estimate of the Federal
payments to be made to States, LEAs, and nonprofit organizations under
this program as a result of this proposed regulatory action. This table
is based on funds available for new awards under this program from the
ARRA supplemental appropriation and the fiscal year 2010 appropriation.
Expenditures are classified as transfers to those entities.
Accounting Statement Classification of Estimated Expenditures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Transfers (in millions)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annual Monetized Transfers................ $439.0.
From Whom to Whom......................... Federal Government to
States, LEAs, and
nonprofits.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The requirements and selection criteria proposed in this notice
would require the collection of information that is subject to review
by the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520).
We estimate that each applicant would spend approximately 248 hours
of staff time to address the requirements and selection criteria,
prepare the application, and obtain necessary clearances. Based on the
number of applications the Department received in the first competition
it held (in FY 2006), we expect to receive approximately 120
applications for these funds. The total number of hours for all
expected applicants is an estimated 29,760 hours. We estimate the total
cost per hour of the applicant-level staff who carry out this work to
be $30 per hour. The total estimated cost for all applicants would be
$892,800.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that this proposed regulatory action will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The small entities that this proposed regulatory action may
affect are (1) small LEAs, and (2) nonprofit organizations applying for
and receiving funds under this program in partnership with an LEA or
SEA. The Secretary believes that the costs imposed on an applicant by
the proposed priorities, requirements, definition, and selection
criteria would be limited to paperwork burden related to preparing an
application and that the benefits of implementing these proposals would
outweigh any costs incurred by the applicant.
Participation in the TIF program is voluntary. For this reason, the
proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria
would impose no burden on small entities unless they applied for
funding under a TIF program using the priorities, requirements,
definition and selection criteria proposed in this notice. We expect
that in determining whether to apply for TIF funds, an eligible entity
would evaluate the requirements of preparing an application and
implementing a TIF project, and any associated costs, and weigh them
against the benefits likely to be achieved by implementing the TIF
project. An eligible entity would probably apply only if it determines
that the likely benefits exceed the costs of preparing an application
and implementing a project. The likely benefits of applying for a TIF
program grant include the potential receipt of a grant as well as other
benefits that may accrue to an entity through its development of an
application, such as the use of its TIF application to spur development
and implementation of PBCSs without Federal funding through the TIF
program.
The U.S. Small Business Administration (SBA) Size Standards define
``small entities'' as for-profit or nonprofit institutions with total
annual revenue below $7,000,000 or, if they are institutions controlled
by small governmental jurisdictions (that are comprised of cities,
counties, towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special
districts), with a population of less than 50,000. The Urban
Institute's National Center for Charitable Statistics reported that of
203,635 nonprofit organizations that had an educational mission and
reported revenue to the Internal Revenue Service (IRS) by July 2009,
200,342 (over 98 percent) had revenues of less than $5 million. In
addition, there are 12,484 LEAs in the country that meet the SBA's
definition of small entity. While these entities are eligible to apply
for funding under the TIF program, the Secretary believes that only a
small number of them will be interested in applying, thus reducing the
likelihood that the priorities, requirements, definitions and selection
criteria proposed in this notice would have a significant economic
impact on small entities. In the first TIF competition that the
Department held in FY 2006, approximately 21 nonprofit organizations
applied for funding in partnership with an LEA or SEA, and few of these
organizations appeared to be a small entity. The Secretary has no
reason to believe that a future competition under this program would be
different. To the contrary, we expect that the competitions run under
Public Law 111-8 and ARRA will be similar to the FY 2006 competition
because only a limited number of nonprofit organizations are working
actively on the development of teacher and school leader PBCSs and many
of these organizations are larger organizations.
In addition, the Secretary believes that the priorities,
requirements,
[[Page 8871]]
definitions, and selection criteria proposed in this notice do not
impose any additional burden on a small entity applying for a grant
than the entity would face in the absence of the proposed action. That
is, the length of the applications those entities would submit in the
absence of the proposed regulatory action and the time needed to
prepare an application would likely be the same.
Further, this proposed regulatory action may help a small entity
determine whether it has the interest, need, or capacity to implement
activities under the program and, thus, prevent a small entity that
does not have such an interest, need, or capacity from absorbing the
burden of applying.
This proposed regulatory action would not have a significant
economic impact on a small entity once it receives a grant because it
would be able to meet the costs of compliance using the funds provided
under this program and with any matching funds provided by private-
sector partners.
The Secretary invites comments from small nonprofit organizations
and small LEAs as to whether they believe this proposed regulatory
action would have a significant economic impact on them and, if so,
requests evidence to support that belief.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is subject to the requirements of 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: February 22, 2010.
Thelma Mel[eacute]ndez de Santa Ana,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2010-3963 Filed 2-25-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P