Friday, 

May 21, 2010 

Part III 

Department of 

Education 

34 CFR Subtitle B, Chapter II 

Teacher Incentive Fund; Notice Inviting 

Applications for New Awards for Fiscal 

Year (FY) 2010; Rule and Notice 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
28714 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 98 / Friday, May 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Subtitle B, Chapter II 

[Docket ID ED–2010–OESE–0001] 

RIN 1810–AB08 

Teacher Incentive Fund 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

(CFDA) Numbers: 84.385 and 84.374. 

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Department of 

Education. 

ACTION: Notice of final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education 

(Secretary) establishes priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria under the Teacher Incentive 

Fund (TIF) program. These priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria will 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 a 

performance-based compensation 

system (PBCS) in accordance with the 

priorities, the Main TIF competition 

requirements, the definitions, and the 

selection criteria established in this 

document; and the TIF Evaluation 

competition, which will provide, in 

accordance with the priorities, the Main 

TIF competition requirements, the 

definitions, and the selection criteria, as 

well as the Evaluation requirements 

established in this document, TIF 

funding to help pay the costs of 

implementing the eligible entity’s PBCS 

in exchange for an agreement to 

participate in the national evaluation. 

The Secretary may use these TIF 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria in fiscal year (FY) 2010 

and subsequent years. We intend the 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria announced in this 

document to help improve student 

achievement (as defined in this 

document) in high-need schools (as 

defined in this document) and provide 

incentives for effective teachers, 

principals, and other personnel (in 

those sites in which the grantee wishes 

to expand the PBCS to additional staff 

in its schools) in these schools to take 

on additional responsibilities and 

leadership roles. 

DATES: These priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria are 

effective July 6, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

April Lee, Telephone: (202) 205–5224; 

or by e-mail: TIF@ed.gov; or by mail: 

(Attention: Teacher Incentive Fund), 

U.S. Department of Education, 400 

Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 3E120, 

Washington, DC 20202. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Purpose of Program: The purpose of 

the TIF program is to support projects 

that develop and implement PBCSs for 

teachers, principals, and other 

personnel in order to increase educator 

effectiveness and student achievement 

(as defined in this notice), measured in 

significant part by student growth (as 

defined in this notice), in high-need 

schools (as defined in this notice). 

Program Authority: The Departments 

of Labor, Health and Human Services, 

and Education, and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act, 2008, Division G, 

Title III, Public Law 110–161; 

Departments of Labor, Health and 

Human Services, and Education, and 

Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 

2010, Division D, Title III, Public Law 

111–117; and the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Division 

A, Title VIII, Public Law 111–5. 

Background: Signed into law by 

President Obama on February 17, 2009, 

the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) 

constitutes an unprecedented effort to 

revive the Nation’s economy, create and 

save millions of jobs, and address longneglected 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 lowestachieving schools. 

The ARRA’s second and third 

assurances are based on evidence that 

teachers are the single most critical inschool factor in improving student 

achievement. In addition, the ARRA 

recognizes the contribution a principal 

makes toward running an effective 

school. However, too many students, 

particularly those attending high-need 

schools, are provided instruction by 

unqualified or ineffective teachers. 

Accordingly, the ARRA requires the 

Department to promote efforts that 

ensure an 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 that advances 

the ARRA’s third assurance of 

recruiting, developing, and retaining 

effective teachers. To meet this 

assurance, Congress appropriated an 

additional $200 million dollars of 

funding for the TIF program. 

The Department plans, to the extent 

feasible and appropriate, to align TIF 

with the requirements of other ARRA 

programs, including the State Fiscal 

Stabilization Fund, Race to the Top, and 

Title I School Improvement Grants. The 

Department’s intention in doing so is to 

maximize the efficient use of resources 

and encourage applicants to develop 

plans for evaluating educator 

effectiveness and for providing 

educators the useful feedback and 

professional development needed to 

improve classroom practice and student 

achievement that complement, and are 

consistent with, plans developed across 

other ARRA programs. 

Along with appropriating TIF funds to 

be used to support projects that 

implement PBCSs, the ARRA also 

requires the Department to use some of 

the appropriated funds to conduct a 

‘‘rigorous national evaluation * * * 

utilizing randomized controlled 

methodology to the extent feasible, that 

assesses the impact of performancebased 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. The TIF 

Evaluation competition is 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. 

The Department published a notice of 

proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria (NPP) 

for this program in the Federal Register 

on February 26, 2010 (75 FR 8854). That 

notice contained background 

information and our reasons for 

proposing the particular priorities, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 98 / Friday, May 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 28715 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria. 

Public Comment: We received 

comments on the NPP from 40 

commenters, including State 

educational agencies (SEAs), local 

educational agencies (LEAs), nonprofit 

organizations, teachers’ unions, 

universities, professional associations, 

parents, and other public citizens. We 

used these comments to revise, improve, 

and clarify the priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria. 

Major Changes in the Final Priorities, 

Requirements, Definitions, and 

Selection Criteria 

In addition to minor technical and 

editorial changes, there are several 

substantive differences between the 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria proposed in the NPP 

and the final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria that 

we establish in this notice. Those 

substantive changes are summarized in 

this section and discussed in greater 

detail in the Analysis of Comments and 

Changes that follows. We do not discuss 

minor technical or editorial changes, 

nor do we address comments that 

suggested changes that we are not 

authorized to make under the law. 

Priorities 

We are making the following changes 

to the priorities for this program: 

• In clause (b) of absolute priority 1 

(Differentiated Levels of Compensation 

for Effective Teachers and Principals), 

we have clarified the need for 

observation-based assessments of both 

teachers and principals as part of the 

evaluation system used to support a 

TIF-funded PBCS. This change is in 

response to a recommendation from a 

commenter to amend proposed priority 

1 to be consistent with core element (c), 

which requires classroom observations 

of teachers and principals at least twice 

during the school year. 

• In competitive preference priority 4 

(Use of Value-Added Measures of 

Student Achievement), we have 

changed the language to read: ‘‘Clearly 

explain the chosen value-added model 

to teachers to enable them to use the 

data generated through the model to 

improve classroom practices.’’ This 

change was made in response to a 

commenter’s request to provide 

clarification as to whether applicants 

could meet this priority by using valueadded models only, or whether they 

also must provide feedback to teachers 

aimed at improving instruction. 

• We have added a new competitive 

preference priority 6 to address the 

issue regarding whether current TIF 

grantees would be restricted from 

applying for TIF funds. Under this new 

competitive preference priority, the 

following applicants can receive 

additional points: Nonprofit 

organizations that are current TIF 

grantees that propose to work with a 

new eligible scope of SEAs and LEAs, 

and those applicants that do not already 

have a TIF grant in place. This 

competitive preference priority is titled 

Competitive Preference Priority 6—New 

Applicants to the Teacher Incentive 

Fund. Please see the Final Priorities 

section of this notice for the full 

language of this new competitive 

preference priority. 

Requirements 

We are making the following changes 

to the requirements for this program: 

• The NPP stated that ‘‘[a]lthough [the 

applicable statutes] provide that Federal 

TIF funds may support PBCSs only for 

teachers and principals, grantees may 

extend their PBCSs to additional school 

personnel by using non-TIF funds to 

pay for additional compensation for 

non-instructional personnel.’’ 75 FR 

8856. Under the Department’s FY 2010 

Appropriations Act, Congress 

authorized FY 2010 TIF funds to be 

used for PBCSs for teachers, principals, 

and other school personnel. Therefore, 

while requiring TIF-supported PBCSs to 

extend to both teachers and principals, 

we have revised the requirements to 

permit applicants to propose the use of 

TIF funds to support PBCSs that also 

benefit such other school personnel as 

the applicants may identify. (This 

change does not otherwise affect the 

program’s priorities, requirements, or 

selection criteria as proposed in the 

NPP.) 

• For both the Main TIF competition 

and the TIF Evaluation competition, the 

proposed Additional Eligibility 

Requirement that would have precluded 

applications that proposed to 

implement their PBCSs in schools 

currently served by a TIF grant award 

has been revised to permit applicants 

who are already TIF grantees to propose 

expansion of their existing PBCSs to 

cover new categories of staff in schools 

currently served by TIF funding. Thus, 

for example, current TIF grantees whose 

projects focus only on principals could 

seek TIF funding to expand their PBCSs 

to teachers and other personnel (in 

those sites in which the grantee wishes 

to expand the PBCS to additional staff 

in its schools) as well. 

• In paragraph (d) of the Core 

Elements, we have added a footnote to 

remind applicants that data systems that 

link teacher and principal incentives 

based on student growth (as defined in 

this notice) must comply with any 

applicable requirements under both the 

Family Educational Rights and Privacy 

Act (FERPA) and State and local privacy 

laws. This change was made in response 

to two commenters who urged the 

Department to ensure that the data 

management systems required by 

paragraph (d) of the Core Elements 

protect privacy of students and 

educators. 

• Under the TIF Evaluation 

Competition Requirements, a new 

design that incorporates a 1 percent 

across-the-board bonus has been 

selected for the control schools. The 

requirement to provide a match that 

would have been required if 

Comparison Design 2 was selected has 

been eliminated. 

• We have added a Local Evaluation 

requirement. The new requirement 

clarifies (1) that, in order to be eligible 

to receive points under the Quality of 

Local Evaluation selection criterion, 

applicants must include a description of 

their local evaluation in their 

application although it will not be 

considered when ranking applicants 

under the TIF Evaluation competition, 

and (2) that applicants selected under 

the TIF Evaluation competition will not 

be required to conduct the local 

evaluation they propose in response to 

the selection criterion. This was in 

response to three commenters who 

expressed concern that some applicants 

might mistakenly believe that applying 

for the TIF Evaluation competition 

obviates the need to address the Quality 

of Local Evaluation criterion. 

• We have clarified that the 

Department will waive the Advance 

Notice requirement under the TIF 

Evaluation competition for any 

applicant that is eligible to implement 

its PBCS in school year 2010–11 (i.e., for 

applicants that meet the five core 

requirements) so long as the program is 

implemented according to the 

evaluator’s assigned group status. (Note: 

The evaluator will be ready to assign 

group status immediately upon grant 

award.) We made this change in 

response to a commenter who expressed 

concern that, depending on when FY 

2010 TIF grants are awarded, applicants 

might not be able to provide the two 

months notice to teachers and 

principals involved in the evaluation, as 

required under the proposed Advance 

Notice requirement. 

• Under the Evaluation Competition 

requirements, the eligibility requirement 

was broadened to include consortia and 

intermediary units that have centralized 

coordination of data and that could 

meet the minimum requirement of 8 

schools in grades 3 through 8. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
28716 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 98 / Friday, May 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

Definitions 

We have made no changes to the 

proposed definitions. 

Selection Criteria 

We have made the following change 

to the selection criteria for this program: 

• We have added new sub-criterion to 

the Project Design selection criterion 

that concerns the extent to which an 

applicant provides a clear definition of 

how teachers, principals and other 

personnel (in those sites in which the 

grantee wishes to expand the PBCS to 

additional staff in its schools) are 

determined to be ‘‘effective’’ for the 

purposes of the proposed PBCS. We 

have added this sub-criterion because 

our proposed criterion would have had 

applicants address how effectiveness 

would be determined but had neglected 

to have reviewers examine the actual 

definition of teacher and principal 

effectiveness applicants would use. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes 

An analysis of the comments received 

on, and any changes to, the priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria since publication of the NPP for 

this program follows. 

Note about general comments: We received 

many comments expressing general support 

or making general recommendations for this 

program. In most cases, these comments were 

effectively duplicated by other comments 

expressing support or making specific 

recommendations for the program’s proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, or 

selection criteria, which we discuss in the 

sections that follow. We accordingly do not 

discuss those general comments here. In 

other cases, we interpreted a general 

comment as applying to a specific priority, 

requirement, definition, or selection 

criterion. We address the comment in the 

discussion that relates to the relevant 

priority, requirement, definition, or selection 

criterion. 

Note about comments on program issues 

not covered in the NPP: We received a 

number of comments relating to program 

issues that were not proposed for public 

comment in the NPP for this program. These 

issues include: specific funding ranges or 

award amounts for the grant categories, the 

number of grant awards, uses of funds, length 

of grant periods, and technical assistance for 

applicants. We do not address comments on 

these issues here. We note, however, that 

information on these issues will be made 

available through other Department 

documents, including the notice inviting 

applications for this program. 

General Comments 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed strong support for the TIF 

program, as outlined in the NPP, both 

for the overall effort to improve 

recruitment, development, and retention 

of effective teachers and for specific 

components of the NPP, such as 

encouraging the use of value-added 

models as part of teacher evaluation 

systems and allowing planning periods 

for grantees. 

Discussion: The Department 

appreciates the support of these 

commenters for the priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria proposed in the NPP. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed concern that the NPP relied 

excessively on indicators of student 

achievement and student growth as 

meaningful predictive measures of 

teacher and principal effectiveness. 

These commenters cited research that 

cautions against the use of student test 

scores to predict future teacher 

performance and that discourages the 

use of assessment results for purposes 

for which they have not been validated. 

One commenter also objected to the 

Department’s statement in the NPP that 

studies using value-added assessments 

indicate that individual teachers make a 

significant difference in student 

achievement, claiming that this 

statement was ‘‘an inaccurate 

summation of the research’’ on the use 

of value-added models to estimate 

individual teacher impact on student 

performance. Other commenters 

asserted that assessment data do not 

reflect other essential aspects of teacher 

performance, such as planning and 

preparation, the classroom environment, 

instructional methods, and other 

professional duties. In addition, two 

commenters claimed that the NPP 

ignored research and survey data 

showing that ‘‘nearly all teachers’’ would 

prefer supportive leadership and 

collaborative working environments to 

monetary rewards. These commenters 

noted that requiring payments 

‘‘substantial enough’’ to change teacher 

behavior may be ineffective if 

leadership, climate, and other supports 

are lacking. 

Discussion: As noted in the NPP, the 

Department believes that student 

achievement (as defined in this notice) 

and student growth (as defined in this 

notice) data are meaningful measures of 

teacher and principal effectiveness, and, 

therefore, should be a significant factor 

in the PBCSs funded by the TIF program 

as part of rigorous, transparent, and fair 

evaluation systems that include 

multiple measures. The Department’s 

citation of research showing that valueadded assessments can be used to 

demonstrate that individual teachers 

make a significant difference in student 

achievement was not intended to 

summarize all available research on the 

use of value-added models to measure 

teacher performance. Rather the citation 

was included in the NPP to emphasize 

research supporting the central premises 

of the TIF program: That since we know 

good teachers matter, it makes sense for 

compensation to take into account 

effectiveness, as measured by growth (as 

defined in this notice) in student 

achievement (as defined in this notice), 

and to offer financial incentives to 

encourage the most effective teachers to 

work in high-need schools. In addition, 

Congress has authorized and 

appropriated funding for the TIF 

program specifically to support the 

development and use of PBCSs that 

consider growth (as defined in this 

notice) in student achievement (as 

defined in this notice), among other 

factors. Thus, requiring growth (as 

defined in this notice) in student 

achievement (as defined in this notice) 

to be a significant factor in any PBCS 

supported with TIF funds is wholly 

consistent with the statutory authority 

for the TIF program. 

Moreover, this final notice, like the 

NPP, heeds the conclusion of much of 

the research cited by commenters that 

student achievement, no matter how it 

is measured, should not be the sole 

basis for making consequential 

decisions about teachers. In particular, 

this final notice retains the proposed 

requirement for at least two observationbased assessments of teacher 

performance in TIF projects, while 

permitting an applicant to include other 

measures of its own choosing. This 

flexibility allows applicants to take into 

account other measures of teacher 

effectiveness and performance when 

developing teacher evaluation systems 

for use as part of their PBCSs. In 

addition, the final notice retains the 

emphasis on the need for each applicant 

to demonstrate that its PBCS is part of 

a coherent and integrated approach to 

strengthening the educator workforce, 

which may include efforts to improve 

school climate, create collaborative 

environments, and other support for 

teachers, as recommended by the 

commenters. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters stated 

that the standard of reliability and 

validity for any teacher evaluation 

system must be higher when the results 

are used for high-stakes compensation, 

tenure, and termination decisions than 

when the results are used simply to 

identify and meet professional 

development needs. Another 

commenter recommended that the 

Department require multiple measures 

of teacher performance. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 98 / Friday, May 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 28717 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

that the teacher and principal 

evaluation systems used by TIF grantees 

as part of their PBCSs must be rigorous, 

transparent, and fair, in part through the 

use of multiple measures of 

performance. The Department believes 

that this goal was fully reflected in the 

NPP and has been retained in this final 

notice. For example, priority 1 requires 

LEAs to use a combination of student 

achievement (as defined in this notice), 

classroom observation, and other 

measures of the LEA’s choosing to 

evaluate teacher and principal 

effectiveness. Priority 2 requires 

evidence that the proposed PBCS is 

aligned with a coherent and integrated 

strategy for strengthening the educator 

workforce, including the use of data and 

evaluations for professional 

development, retention, and tenure 

decisions. The core elements that all 

applicants must put into place before 

beginning to make incentive payments 

are specifically intended to ensure that 

teachers and principals are involved in 

developing a PBCS and understand how 

it works, that evaluation systems 

include objectively collected data on 

classroom performance, and that 

applicant data systems are sufficiently 

robust to accurately link student 

achievement (as defined in this notice) 

data to individual teachers and human 

resources systems. The Department 

believes that these priorities and 

requirements, collectively, will ensure 

that TIF grantees implement a PBCS that 

meets the higher standard of reliability 

and validity for teacher evaluation 

systems called for by the commenters. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

the view that increasing funding for 

education, including for programs to 

support teachers, is not likely to 

improve the overall quality of our 

education system. According to this 

commenter, spending has increased 

dramatically since the 1960s, but test 

scores have not improved. The 

commenter also stated that teachers 

need respect and support from parents 

and administrators. 

Discussion: The Department believes 

that increased resources for education, 

effectively used, will improve the 

quality of our education system. 

However, the TIF program is focused on 

improving the efficacy of existing State 

and local education resources by 

encouraging LEAs and other applicants 

to use a greater proportion of those 

resources to reward effective teaching 

and school leadership and provide new 

incentives for our best teachers and 

principals to work in our most 

challenging schools. The Department 

believes that one of the best ways to 

demonstrate respect and increase 

support for teachers and principals is to 

increase the compensation of those who 

demonstrate effectiveness, in particular, 

by raising student achievement (as 

defined in this notice). 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter cautioned 

that while teacher evaluation is an 

essential component of a PBCS, effective 

teachers cannot be measured by test 

scores alone. Two other commenters 

emphasized the importance of 

collaborative partnerships of union 

leaders and administrators in the 

development of a successful PBCS, 

while another added that such 

collaboration is more important than the 

use of test scores. Other commenters 

asserted that changing the Nation’s 

education system to improve teaching 

and learning requires more than just 

changes in compensation; they argued 

that it also requires professional 

teaching standards, standards for 

teaching and learning conditions, and 

standards for professional development. 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

that effective teachers cannot be 

measured by test scores alone. The final 

requirements for this program, like 

those in the NPP, do not provide 

otherwise. Rather, as required by the 

program’s authorizing legislation, a 

PBCS must include the use of student 

achievement (as defined in this notice) 

data, classroom observations, and other 

measures selected by the grantee. 

Moreover, paragraph (c) of the Core 

Elements requires ‘‘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.’’ Finally, the 

Professional Development requirement 

provides that applicants must 

demonstrate that their PBCSs include 

high-quality professional development 

targeted to needs identified through an 

evaluation system. We, therefore, 

believe that the final notice adequately 

addresses the commenters’ concerns. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter urged the 

Department to make publicly available 

all successful grant applications so that 

these applications can serve as 

templates for future applicants and 

promote the sharing of promising 

practices. 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

with this commenter, and will post all 

successful TIF applications, for both the 

Main TIF competition and TIF 

Evaluation competitions, on its Web site 

at www.ed.gov. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters asked for 

clarification as to whether the PBCSs 

required by the NPP must include both 

teachers and principals. 

Discussion: The Department interprets 

the program’s authorizing legislation as 

requiring each PBCS supported with TIF 

funds to cover both teachers and 

principals in high-need schools. 

However, this does not mean that TIF 

funds must be used to pay performancebased compensation to both teachers 

and principals. If an LEA’s PBCS 

already provides compensation to either 

teachers or principals, the LEA may 

implement a TIF project that would 

benefit the other group, provided that 

the PBCS, as a whole, covers both 

groups of educators for the duration of 

the TIF project period. 

Thus, in response to this commenter’s 

question, the Department has revised 

the Additional Eligibility Requirement 

to extend eligibility to those applicants 

that have current PBCSs in their States 

or LEAs (including charter school 

LEAs), but currently provide 

performance-based compensation either 

only to principals or only to teachers. 

The requirement now allows an 

applicant to propose to expand an 

existing PBCS to cover teachers or 

principals who are not currently being 

served through the PBCS provided that 

TIF funds are used to expand the 

coverage of existing projects only in 

high-need schools (as defined in this 

notice). An applicant creating an 

entirely new PBCS must apply to use 

TIF funds to develop and implement a 

PBCS for both teachers and principals, 

as required by absolute priority 1. 

Changes: The Additional Eligibility 

Requirement has been revised to allow 

applicants that are current TIF grantees 

with principal- or teacher-only projects 

to expand their current PBCSs to those 

teachers or principals who work in 

high-need schools (as defined in this 

notice) and who are not currently being 

served through the PBCS currently in 

place. If funded under the new 

competition, the PBCS for both teachers 

and principals must remain in place for 

the duration of the TIF project. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended adding a definition of the 

term ‘‘teacher’’ to the final notice, while 

two other commenters suggested 

clarifying that, under the TIF program, 

‘‘teachers and principals’’ include other 

staff such as instructional specialists, 

counselors, librarians and media 

specialists, and assistant principals. 

Discussion: As in prior TIF 

competitions, the Department interprets 

the term ‘‘teacher’’ to include resource 

teachers and other staff who provide 

direct instruction, such as 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
28718 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 98 / Friday, May 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

paraprofessionals and classroom aides. 

However, in general, because the term 

‘‘teacher’’ is not defined in Federal 

statute or regulation, the Department 

believes the definition of ‘‘teacher’’ 

should reflect applicable State and local 

laws and policy regarding the inclusion 

of other school staff, such as counselors, 

librarians, and media specialists. 

Moreover, during our review of public 

comments, we realized that the language 

authorizing the TIF program in the 

Department’s FY 2010 Appropriations 

Act expressly provides that TIF funds 

may support PBCSs that benefit 

teachers, principals, and other 

personnel (in those sites in which the 

grantee wishes to expand the PBCS to 

additional staff in its schools). 

Therefore, an applicant has flexibility 

to extend its PBCS to cover school 

personnel who are not teachers or 

principals and to define the range of 

other personnel who are eligible to 

participate in the PBCS. 

Changes: We have revised the 

requirements for the program to clarify 

that an applicant’s PBCS must cover 

teachers and principals and, at the 

discretion of the applicant, may cover 

other school personnel. 

Comment: One commenter strongly 

recommended that the Department 

require teacher evaluators in the PBCS 

to have subject- or specialty-area 

expertise specific to the position or 

positions that they are evaluating. 

Discussion: The Department believes 

that the language in paragraph (c) of the 

Core Elements, which specifies (1) that 

the evaluation process use objective 

evidence-based rubrics for observation, 

aligned with professional teaching 

standards, and (2) that evaluators have 

specialized training, is sufficient to 

ensure fair classroom observations of 

participating teachers. Moreover, 

requiring each evaluator to have the 

same subject or specialty area expertise 

as the individuals they are evaluating 

would be impracticable in many LEAs 

and would potentially limit the 

inclusion of classroom observations in 

teacher evaluation systems. For this 

reason, we do not believe it is 

appropriate to make the change 

requested by the commenter. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended increasing to three the 

minimum number of observation-based 

assessments required each year under 

proposed priorities 1 and 4, believing 

that two observations are insufficient to 

obtain a fair review. 

Discussion: While the requirement for 

multiple observations necessitates at 

least two observations per year, as was 

proposed in the NPP, the Department 

believes that the precise number of 

observation-based assessments should 

be left to the considered judgment of the 

applicant and its process of securing 

input from stakeholders. In particular, 

the quality of the observation-based 

assessment is likely to matter more than 

the number; two comprehensive 

observations by a well-prepared 

evaluator may provide a more accurate 

picture of teacher performance than five 

cursory classroom visits. For this 

reason, the Department declines to make 

the change recommended by the 

commenter. However, we note that 

grantees would have the flexibility to 

conduct additional assessments if 

desired. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter urged the 

Department to add statewide support, 

such as technical assistance, electronic 

networks, and regional meetings, to the 

list of activities described in the 

Background section of the NPP that may 

be supported with TIF funds. 

Discussion: Our final notice does not 

include the background statements 

provided in the NPP, so we are not 

making the change requested by the 

commenter. That said, to the extent that 

SEAs apply for TIF funds in conjunction 

with eligible LEAs, the activities 

described by the commenter generally 

would be permitted under the statutory 

authority for the TIF program, which 

allows the use of TIF funds to develop 

or improve systems and tools that 

would enhance the quality and success 

of the PBCS. The Department does not 

believe it is necessary to create a 

separate ‘‘statewide support’’ category. 

Changes: None. 

Priority 1 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended modifications to 

proposed priority 1 regarding 

differentiated levels of compensation for 

effective teachers and principals. One 

commenter stated that the requirement 

to give ‘‘significant weight’’ to student 

growth exceeded statutory authority, 

while others interpreted the 

requirement that LEAs give ‘‘significant 

weight’’ to student growth as the 

equivalent of basing the evaluation of 

teacher performance ‘‘on a single test 

score.’’ A few commenters also stated 

that because growth data are available 

for only 30 percent of the teaching force, 

a PBCS must use other measures to 

determine the effectiveness of most 

teachers and principals. One commenter 

suggested allowing applicants in States 

that do not have growth models to use 

status models to measure student 

learning. Other commenters 

recommended changing priority 1 to 

emphasize the use of multiple measures 

in a TIF-funded PBCS, such as 

classroom observations, portfolio 

reviews, student grades, and appraisals 

of lesson plans. 

One commenter also urged inclusion 

of school climate, resources, and 

professional development in teacher 

evaluations. Another commenter 

recommended including certification by 

the National Board for Professional 

Teaching Standards (NBPTS) as a 

specific option for measuring teacher 

effectiveness. On the other hand, one 

commenter called for maintaining the 

requirement in a previous TIF 

competition that bonuses be based 

‘‘primarily’’ on student achievement and 

urged that the final notice require 

applicants to ‘‘fully utilize’’ student 

achievement data by mandating a 50- 

percent weighting for such data. 

Another commenter recommended 

strengthening the program’s emphasis 

on student achievement by changing 

‘‘significant’’ to ‘‘predominant’’ so that 

student achievement will not ‘‘be 

obfuscated by multiple other objective 

and subjective criteria.’’ 

Discussion: The statute requires the 

Department to use TIF funds to support 

the development and implementation of 

PBCSs that use student achievement (as 

defined in this notice) and multiple 

classroom observations, as well as other 

factors, to determine incentive 

payments for teachers and principals. 

The Department believes that given the 

wide range of possible factors that might 

be included in their teacher evaluation 

systems, as well as the fact that 

improving student achievement is the 

underlying purpose of the TIF program, 

it is both appropriate and consistent 

with the statute to ensure that TIF 

grantees give student achievement 

‘‘significant’’ weight among the factors 

included in such systems. 

While the Department appreciates the 

concerns of commenters who argued for 

giving greater, ‘‘predominant’’ weight to 

student growth (as defined in this 

notice) in TIF-funded PBCSs, we 

continue to require that this factor be 

given ‘‘significant’’ weight in this final 

notice. We do so both (1) to emphasize, 

consistent with the Department’s Race 

to the Top program, that teacher 

effectiveness for TIF should not be 

determined solely on the basis of 

standardized test scores, and (2) in the 

belief that, given the statutory 

requirement that grantees also base their 

evaluations on multiple annual 

observations, among other factors, the 

LEA, in consultation with school staff 

and with the support of any teacher’s 

union that represents teachers in 

collective bargaining, is in the best 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 98 / Friday, May 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 28719 

position to determine the relative 

weight to give these other factors. 

Hence, this final notice requires a TIFsupported PBCS to use (1) student 

growth (as defined in this notice), 

(2) multiple classroom observations, and 

(3) other measures selected by the 

grantee to inform the payment decisions 

of the PBCS. These other measures 

might include, for example, outputs 

such as student portfolios or grades and 

inputs such as NBPTS certification. 

Congress established TIF as a 

competitive grant program to promote 

the use of PBCSs to improve student 

achievement (as defined in this notice) 

in high-need schools (as defined in this 

notice). Therefore, it is necessary only 

that LEAs that wish to apply for TIF 

funds be able to use the required 

student achievement (as defined in this 

notice) and growth (as defined in this 

notice) data for their teachers. Moreover, 

States or LEAs may, as a part of the TIF 

program, determine how to use 

assessments such as annual district 

assessments, interim assessments, or 

pre-tests/post-tests, to generate growth 

(as defined in this notice) data for a 

larger percentage of teachers and 

principals. However, the use of status 

model assessment data alone is not 

consistent with the emphasis of the TIF 

program on using student growth (as 

defined in this notice) to inform the 

decisions made under a PBCS. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

priority 1 and paragraph (c) of the Core 

Elements are inconsistent with regard to 

the need to include principal 

observations in determinations of 

principal effectiveness. This commenter 

recommended revising priority 1 to 

reflect the requirement for at least two 

yearly observations of principals in 

paragraph (c) of the Core Elements. 

Another commenter recommended 

emphasizing ‘‘growth’’ in graduation and 

postsecondary enrollment rates in the 

examples of supplemental measures for 

determining the effectiveness of 

principals, while a third commenter 

proposed including in those examples 

nine separate ‘‘measures of highly 

effective school leaders.’’ 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

that proposed absolute priority 1 was 

unclear on the need for observationbased assessments of both teachers and 

principals as part of the evaluation 

system used to support a TIF-funded 

PBCS. In the final notice, we have 

changed the priority to include 

principal observations in 

determinations of principal 

effectiveness. We believe this change is 

fully consistent with the statutory 

requirement that a PBCS for teachers 

and principals include multiple 

classroom observations. We decline, 

however, to modify or add any other 

examples of specific measures of 

principal performance, as the absolute 

priority is not meant to provide an 

exhaustive list of all possible 

supplemental measures an LEA might 

use. We will, however, consider 

including such examples in any nonregulatory guidance that we may issue 

for the TIF program. 

Changes: In paragraph (b) of priority 

1, we have changed ‘‘include 

observation-based assessments of 

teacher performance at multiple points 

in the year’’ to read ‘‘include 

observation-based assessments of 

teacher and principal performance at 

multiple points in the year.’’ 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended adding to proposed 

priority 1 a requirement that each 

applicant describe how its PBCS will 

include educators of both students with 

disabilities and gifted and talented 

students. 

Discussion: We do not believe that the 

Department should require an LEA to 

ensure that its PBCS apply to any 

specific group of teachers. Rather we 

believe that the LEA, in consultation 

with school staff and any teachers’ 

union that represents teachers for the 

purpose of collective bargaining, where 

applicable, should extend to all teachers 

in a high-need school or to a subset of 

those teachers based on hard-to-staff 

subjects or needs in particular specialty 

areas. 

We note that in the NPP, and now in 

this notice, we describe several ways in 

which a PBCS may include educators of 

both students with disabilities and 

gifted and talented students. First, 

under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of the selection 

criteria, the Department considers the 

extent to which the applicant 

demonstrates that the high-need schools 

that would participate in its PBCS have 

difficulty in recruiting highly qualified 

or effective teachers, particularly in 

hard-to-staff subject and specialty areas 

such as special education (these 

specialty areas also could include gifted 

and talented education). 

Second, under priority 5, the 

Department will give a competitive 

preference to an applicant showing that 

its proposed PBCS is designed to assist 

high-need schools to (1) serve high-need 

students (which, as defined in this 

notice, includes students with 

disabilities); (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. By 

implication, an LEA with a particular 

need for special education teachers 

could use its PBCS specifically to hire 

and retain such teachers. The 

Department has retained both of these 

provisions in this final notice, and 

believes that no additional language is 

needed to respond to the commenter’s 

concern. 

Changes: None. 

Priority 2 

Comment: Commenters had mixed 

reactions to absolute priority 2’s 

requirements regarding the fiscal 

sustainability of a PBCS. For example, 

while one commenter stated that the 

current fiscal climate will make it 

difficult to meet this priority, other 

commenters supported the priority for 

the same reason, suggesting that current 

budget constraints make it even more 

important for each applicant to 

demonstrate a strong commitment to 

sustaining its PBCS. One commenter 

also expressed concern that requiring 

grantees to demonstrate sustainability 

could ‘‘aggravate serious problems of 

school finance’’ in States with school 

funding equity problems. Another 

commenter urged the Department to 

acknowledge the dependence of 

sustainability plans on economic and 

budget factors and to include 

‘‘contingency options’’ for LEAs that 

may face extreme financial hardship 

both during and after the grant period. 

Other commenters objected to the 

priority’s reference to the 

‘‘redeployment’’ of other existing 

resources, stating that most LEAs 

already have reallocated available 

resources to meet the current budget 

crisis, that such redeployment may 

undermine other LEA program 

priorities, that resources used to support 

continuing education for teachers and 

principals are essential to improving the 

skills of these staff, and that redeploying 

resources used for salary increments 

potentially would lower the standard of 

living for teachers and make it more 

difficult to obtain mortgages and own 

their own homes. 

Discussion: The Department 

acknowledges all of the concerns raised 

by commenters regarding the difficulty 

of ensuring the fiscal sustainability of 

TIF-funded PBCSs. However, in Public 

Law 111–117, the FY 2010 

Appropriations Act that included 

funding for TIF, Congress provided that 

all applications for TIF grants ‘‘shall 

include a plan to sustain financially the 

activities conducted and systems 

developed under the grant once the 

grant period has expired.’’ We do not 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
28720 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 98 / Friday, May 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

believe any credible plan for financial 

sustainability is likely to succeed 

without a demonstration by an 

applicant of its readiness to make the 

hard choices needed to ensure that the 

funding will be available to sustain the 

PBCS after the TIF grant ends. For this 

reason, the Department also is extending 

this requirement to TIF awards made 

with ARRA funds. 

In addition, this final notice, like the 

NPP, does take into account the 

economic conditions facing the Nation’s 

school systems. Unlike previous TIF 

awards, which required an increasing 

non-TIF share in years in which 

performance-based compensation is 

provided and established a percentage 

ceiling on the amount of TIF funds that 

could be used for incentive payments 

during the last year of the grant period, 

this notice requires only an increasing 

non-TIF share in years when 

performance-based compensation is 

provided. For all of these reasons, the 

Department declines to make the 

recommended changes to priority 2. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

clarification regarding the duration of an 

applicant’s fiscal sustainability plan, 

i.e., how many years following the end 

of TIF funding must a PBCS be 

sustained? 

Discussion: Applicants have 

flexibility regarding the length of their 

sustainability plans. As a practical 

matter, we understand that the difficulty 

of making long-term predictions of 

economic conditions, State and local 

funding, and political factors may limit 

the required fiscal sustainability plans 

to no more than three to five years. 

Changes: None. 

Priority 3 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed support for priority 3 

regarding programmatic sustainability of 

the PBCS. One commenter also urged 

that the priority include a focus on 

strategies for supporting educators, such 

as professional development, mentoring, 

and induction programs. Similarly, 

another commenter cautioned against 

too much emphasis on the PBCS when 

other approaches related to recruiting, 

inducting, mentoring, evaluating, and 

retaining teachers may be more effective 

in improving student achievement. 

Another commenter encouraged the 

Department to require, as part of priority 

3, professional development strategies 

designed to improve the identification 

and instruction of students with 

disabilities and gifted and talented 

students. In addition, this commenter 

recommended that the Department 

promote mentoring and induction 

programs supporting collaboration 

between general and special education. 

Discussion: Priority 3 is based on the 

idea that a PBCS works best in 

conjunction with a coherent and 

integrated approach to strengthening the 

educator workforce that specifically 

includes many of the strategies 

suggested by the commenters, such as 

teacher and principal recruitment, 

induction, professional development, 

evaluation, retention, and advancement 

into instructional leadership roles (as 

defined in this notice). Contrary to the 

second commenter’s warning about ‘‘too 

much emphasis’’ on the PBCS, we 

believe the opportunity to receive 

incentive payments and other rewards 

from the PBCS will encourage educators 

to take full advantage of the various 

strategies and supports made available 

through the applicant’s coherent and 

integrated approach to strengthening the 

educator workforce. 

Moreover, the Department also 

expects that, particularly as part of an 

overall strategy to improve instruction 

for high-need students, TIF grantees will 

provide professional development 

related to meeting the needs of students 

with disabilities and gifted and talented 

students, including induction and 

mentoring programs aimed at 

supporting collaboration between 

general and special education. However, 

the Department declines to add specific 

requirements in this area as we believe 

that TIF grantees should implement sitespecific professional development 

opportunities for teachers and 

principals designed based on their 

specific needs, which may include 

professional development related to 

serving students with disabilities and 

gifted and talented students. 

Changes: None. 

Priority 4 

Comment: Three commenters 

expressed strong support for priority 4, 

a competitive priority on the use of 

value-added measures of student 

achievement for purposes of 

determining differentiated levels of 

compensation in a PBCS. Two of these 

commenters recommended making this 

priority an absolute priority, ‘‘since 

improving student achievement is the 

underlying purpose for all these 

incentives.’’ Another commenter stated 

that the use of value-added models will 

address the problem of non-random 

assignment of students to individual 

teachers by helping to ensure that 

teachers with the highest-achieving 

students do not benefit 

disproportionately from a PBCS. 

However, several other commenters 

raised strong objections to the use of 

value-added models as part of a PBCS, 

citing research that shows significant 

variability in the results of such models, 

particularly for individual teachers, the 

limited availability of data to support 

such models for most teachers, the 

limited number of vendors experienced 

in developing and implementing valueadded models, and the lack of evidence 

that such models are fair, reliable, and 

valid when used to evaluate teacher 

effectiveness or determine 

compensation levels. One commenter, 

for example, stated that value-added 

systems are not appropriate for ‘‘highstakes decisions regarding employee 

evaluation and compensation.’’ Another 

commenter stated that the use of valueadded models in PBCSs generally would 

exclude both educators of students with 

disabilities and the impact of regular 

instructors on students with disabilities, 

leading to ‘‘two separate systems for 

judging teacher performance.’’ As a 

result of these various concerns, three 

commenters recommended eliminating 

priority 4 altogether. Other commenters 

suggested replacing the priority with a 

competitive preference for programs 

that enhance teaching and leadership 

skills through professional development 

or the pursuit of advanced certification 

or degrees, as well as the addition of 

multiple measures to value-added 

models. Finally, one commenter asked 

whether TIF funds could be used to 

refine a value-added model. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

expressions of support for encouraging 

applicants to incorporate value-added 

measures into their PBCSs, in particular 

due to the potential for such measures 

to isolate the improved achievement 

that may be attributed to individual 

teachers regardless of the starting point 

of their students. The Department 

understands and, to some extent, shares 

the concerns of some commenters 

regarding the need to be judicious about 

the use of value-added models due to 

the public’s limited experience with 

them. We also recognize that many 

researchers have expressed concern 

about the use of value-added models to 

evaluate teacher performance. However, 

one purpose of a competitive grant 

program like the TIF program is to 

encourage innovation and the 

Department believes that a competitive 

preference on the use of value-added 

models as part of a PBCS is consistent 

with this purpose. 

We also note that many of the 

research-based concerns expressed by 

commenters focus on the potential use 

of value-added models as the sole or 

predominant indicator of teacher 

performance, an approach that is not 

required under either the statutory 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 98 / Friday, May 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 28721 

authority for the TIF program or this 

final notice, which states that, in 

determining teacher effectiveness, the 

LEA must give significant weight to 

student growth (as defined in this 

notice) and must include observationbased assessments of performance. 

Moreover, we believe that priority 4 is 

fully consistent with the observation of 

one study cited by a commenter that 

value-added approaches ‘‘may be 

appropriate for wider use as student 

assessment systems and value-added 

models evolve.’’ One purpose of priority 

4 is to promote such evolution by 

encouraging grantees to adapt valueadded models to their PBCSs consistent 

with the safeguards for all PBCSs 

required by this final notice (i.e., the use 

of multiple measures in teacher 

evaluation systems, teacher involvement 

in developing such systems, and robust 

data systems). 

In addition, value-added models have 

the potential to improve the 

measurement of academic growth (as 

defined in this notice) for many 

students with learning disabilities, and 

thus should not be dismissed simply 

because they may not be appropriate for 

all students with disabilities. TIF funds 

also may be used to improve tools to 

measure growth (as defined in this 

notice) in student achievement (as 

defined in this notice), such as valueadded models, and thus could be used 

to refine a value-added model, 

addressing some of the concerns raised 

by commenters. For this reason the 

Department does not agree with the 

commenters who suggested that we 

eliminate priority 4. Similarly, the 

Department does not agree that a 

competitive preference for programs 

that enhance teaching and leadership 

skills through professional development 

or attainment of professional credentials 

holds the same promise of improving 

our ability to measure teacher 

effectiveness as value-added measures 

of student achievement (as defined in 

this notice). We say this largely because 

such programs are not designed or 

intended to measure teacher 

effectiveness, as is statutorily required 

for the TIF program. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

clarification as to whether applicants 

could meet priority 4 by using valueadded models only to evaluate teacher 

performance or whether they also must 

provide to teachers feedback aimed at 

improving instruction. 

Discussion: In the NPP, the 

background section for proposed 

priority 4 clearly stated that one goal of 

this competitive preference priority is to 

ensure that applicants have a plan to 

enable teachers ‘‘to use the data 

generated through the models to 

improve classroom practices.’’ However, 

the language of the proposed priority 

inadvertently omitted any reference to 

improving classroom practice. The 

Department has revised priority 4 to 

require TIF applicants seeking to meet 

this priority to ensure that they will use 

value-added data to improve classroom 

instruction as well as to evaluate teacher 

performance. As these activities are 

directly related to providing feedback 

educators need to improve their 

performance, and thus are part of a 

coherent and integrated approach to 

strengthening the educator workforce 

(see priority 2), TIF funds may be used 

to pay for activities needed to help 

educators use the value-added data to 

improve classroom practices, including 

the development or enhancement of 

systems and tools used to generate 

feedback to teachers for the purpose of 

improving instruction. 

Changes: The Department has revised 

clause (2) of priority 4 to clarify that an 

applicant must demonstrate in its 

application that, as part of its PBCS, it 

has the capacity to clearly explain the 

chosen value-added model to teachers 

to enable them to use the data generated 

through the model to improve classroom 

practices. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that priority 4 be revised 

to require LEAs to have a plan for 

including career and technical 

education (CTE) teachers in value-added 

systems, although the commenter 

acknowledged that value-added 

measures are problematic in CTE due to 

the lack of comparative data for the endof-course assessments typically used in 

CTE courses. 

Discussion: The Department declines, 

for the reason cited by the commenter, 

to require applicants to have a plan for 

including CTE courses in their valueadded systems. However, applicants 

that have the capability to use such 

measures for CTE programs certainly 

may include them to meet the 

requirements of priority 4. 

Changes: None. 

Priority 5 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended changing priority 5, the 

competitive preference priority on 

increased recruitment and retention of 

teachers in hard-to-staff subjects and 

specialty areas in high-need schools, to 

an absolute priority. Another 

commenter called for giving priority to 

applications that propose to increase 

recruitment or retention of teachers in 

hard-to-staff subjects in high-need 

schools. A third commenter sought 

clarification that an applicant could 

receive points for priority 5 by 

including an emphasis on recruiting and 

retaining teachers in hard-to-staff 

subjects and specialty areas as part of an 

overall PBCS for all teachers, rather than 

a PBCS focused solely on the goals of 

priority 5. 

Discussion: We agree with the first 

commenter that increased recruitment 

and retention of teachers in hard-to-staff 

subjects and specialty areas in highneed schools is an important goal; 

however, we also believe that designing 

and implementing a good PBCS is 

difficult, and that some LEAs may be 

reluctant to add to the challenge by 

making recruitment and retention 

bonuses a required component of the 

system. Consistent with our overall 

policy of establishing mandatory 

requirements only when necessary, we 

believe that retaining priority 5 as a 

competitive preference priority is the 

appropriate way to encourage applicants 

to consider ways to use the PBCS to 

promote increased recruitment and 

retention of teachers in hard-to-staff 

subjects and specialty areas in highneed schools. The Department declines 

to give a competitive preference to an 

applicant that proposes to increase 

recruitment or retention, because we 

believe that it is the combination of the 

two strategies that is likely to be both 

most needed and most effective in 

serving high-need students in high-need 

schools. Finally, we agree that the 

components and activities required to 

meet priority 5 may be part of a broader 

TIF proposal for developing and 

implementing a PBCS that fulfills the 

full range of an applicant’s recruitment 

and retention needs, not just those 

related to teachers in hard-to-staff 

subjects and specialty areas. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters objected 

to what they described as the premise of 

priority 5—that an effective teacher will 

be effective in any school without 

regard to the school’s conditions and 

climate. These commenters 

recommended that we address factors 

such as poor leadership and support, 

inadequate professional development, 

discipline and safety concerns, and 

planning time. The commenters argued 

that addressing these factors could help 

remove the ‘‘hard-to-staff’’ label from the 

school. A third commenter stated that 

any effort to attract and retain teachers 

should invest in teacher support and 

development. 

Discussion: Priority 5 is not premised 

on the assumption that an effective 

teacher will be effective in any school; 

rather, it is based on the premise that a 

teacher who has demonstrated the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
28722 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 98 / Friday, May 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

ability to raise student achievement (as 

defined in this notice) in one school is 

more likely to be effective in another 

school than a teacher who has not 

demonstrated such effectiveness in any 

school setting. In addition, an applicant 

seeking to meet priority 5 will be 

expected to incorporate the strategies for 

doing so into its coherent and integrated 

strategy for strengthening the educator 

workforce, which may, and whenever 

necessary should, include efforts to 

address the other conditions described 

by the commenters. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter objected to 

the use of the terms ‘‘effective’’ or ‘‘likely 

to be effective’’ in the context of priority 

5 because of concerns about the use of 

growth measures to determine 

‘‘effectiveness.’’ Another commenter 

recommended that the priority be 

revised to include NBPTS certification 

as one measure that could demonstrate 

whether a teacher who is filling a hardto-staff vacancy is effective or likely to 

be effective. 

Discussion: We have addressed 

concerns about the use of student 

growth (as defined in this notice) 

measures to determine teacher and 

principal effectiveness under the 

General Comments section of this 

preamble. In addition, priority 5 

requires applicants to provide an 

explanation for how they will determine 

that a teacher filling a vacancy is 

effective or likely to be effective. We 

believe that this language provides 

flexibility for an applicant to propose 

appropriate measures of effectiveness or 

likely effectiveness, including NBPTS 

certification, under priority 5. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Three commenters 

provided suggestions about how to 

define ‘‘hard-to-staff’’ subjects under 

priority 5. One commenter 

recommended that we add CTE to the 

list of hard-to-staff subjects and 

specialty areas. Another commenter 

requested that the priority provide 

flexibility to allow LEAs to change their 

lists of hard-to-staff subjects and 

specialty areas over the 5-year grant 

period. The last commenter asked the 

Department to clarify that LEAs have 

the authority to determine which 

subjects are hard-to-staff and which 

areas constitute ‘‘specialty areas,’’ and 

that specialty areas could include 

extended day, pre-K, or other areas in 

high-need schools that are difficult to 

staff. 

Discussion: Priority 5 requires 

applicants to demonstrate, in their 

applications, the extent to which the 

subjects or specialty areas they propose 

to target are hard-to-staff. The language 

of the priority leaves the determination 

of hard-to-staff subjects and specialty 

areas up to applicants and the LEAs that 

administer the affected high-need 

schools. The Department, therefore, 

believes that, under priority 5, 

applicants have the flexibility to define 

‘‘hard-to-staff’’ subjects consistent with 

the suggestions made by the 

commenters, including flexibility to 

change their definitions over the 5-year 

grant period. Also, because of this 

flexibility, we do not believe that any of 

the specific suggestions for additions to 

the list of hard-to-staff subjects and 

specialty areas are necessary, and 

therefore decline to make any changes 

to the priority. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

paying the teachers of some subjects 

more than teachers of other subjects 

undermines the basic equity of existing 

compensation systems. Instead, this 

commenter recommended that we 

address gaps in subject and specialty 

areas through scholarships, tuition 

assistance, and loan forgiveness 

programs. 

Discussion: The TIF program is 

premised on the belief that existing 

compensation systems do not serve the 

goal of increasing the number and 

proportion of effective teachers serving 

low-income, minority, and lowachieving students, and the belief that 

providing financial rewards for both 

effectiveness and willingness to work in 

challenging schools is a promising 

education reform. Many high-need 

schools have particular need for 

teachers of certain subjects and 

specialty areas (e.g., mathematics, 

science, and special education), and we 

believe that higher pay for effective 

teachers in these areas who agree to 

work in high-need schools could help to 

alleviate this problem. We are confident 

that performance-based compensation 

available through TIF can be one means 

of addressing this problem. The 

Department agrees that other kinds of 

rewards and incentives described by the 

commenter also may be effective, but 

they fall outside the scope of the TIF 

program. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asserted 

that the school intervention models 

required by the School Improvement 

Grants (SIG) program, some of which 

require the replacement of a school’s 

teachers, could be a disincentive for 

teachers to take jobs in hard-to-staff 

schools. 

Discussion: Except for school closure, 

none of the school intervention models 

required by the SIG program mandates 

the replacement of all effective teachers. 

Moreover, the Department believes that 

the significant resources potentially 

made available through the SIG program 

(up to $6 million per school over 3 

years) will, in many cases, create a 

strong incentive for effective teacher 

and leaders seeking the challenge of 

turning around a persistently lowestachieving school. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked 

whether priority 5 includes principals 

as well as teachers. 

Discussion: Priority 5 is a competitive 

preference priority focused on recruiting 

and retaining teachers in hard-to-staff 

subjects and specialty areas and does 

not apply to principals. That said, 

applicants may include strategies and 

incentives to recruit and retain effective 

principals in high-need schools as part 

of the overall design of their PBCSs, but 

would not receive priority consideration 

for doing so under either the Main TIF 

or TIF Evaluation competitions. 

Changes: None. 

Suggested Priorities 

Comment: Three commenters 

recommended that the Department 

establish additional absolute priorities 

for the TIF program. Two commenters 

called for an absolute priority on 

incentives to take on additional 

responsibilities and leadership roles, a 

recommendation that these commenters 

described as consistent with the 

treatment of other statutory mandates 

for this program. The third commenter 

suggested a new absolute priority on 

establishing and sustaining a 

competitive compensation schedule for 

school personnel that is comparable to 

compensation schedules of similar 

professions in the region. The 

commenter stated that such a priority is 

needed to avoid a situation in which a 

PBCS is perceived as preventing any 

teachers eligible for the PBCS from 

receiving a competitive, professional, or 

living wage, and that the schedule 

would need to be based on educational 

and professional attainment and provide 

annual increases that double the base 

salary within 10 years. 

Discussion: Under the Application 

Requirements, each applicant is 

required to 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). The Department believes that 

this requirement adequately addresses 

the commenters’ concern, and that it is 

unnecessary to add a new absolute 

priority on additional responsibilities 

and leadership roles (as defined in this 

notice). The recommendation to use the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 98 / Friday, May 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 28723 

TIF program to establish uniform higher 

compensation schedules that are not 

linked to student achievement (as 

defined in this notice) is inconsistent 

with the TIF program’s authorizing 

legislation, which requires eligible 

entities to use TIF funds to develop and 

implement PBCSs that consider growth 

(as defined in this notice) in student 

achievement (as defined in this notice), 

as well as classroom evaluations 

conducted multiple times during each 

school year. The law does not give the 

Department authority to require changes 

in an LEA’s regular staff compensation 

system. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Three commenters 

recommended that the final notice 

include two new invitational priorities. 

Two of these commenters called for an 

invitational priority for applications 

from SEAs in order to ensure the 

sustainability and broader impact of TIF 

awards. One commenter requested an 

invitational priority for PBCSs in which 

effective teachers are required to share 

their instructional practices prior to 

receiving incentive payments or 

bonuses. 

Discussion: SEAs, like other eligible 

entities, must use TIF funds awarded to 

them to develop and implement a PBCS 

in high-need schools, a requirement that 

could involve efforts to ensure the 

sustainability and broader impact of TIF 

awards. However, the TIF program 

statute does not authorize TIF funds to 

be used to promote statewide support 

and broader impact of local TIF projects, 

and hence an invitational priority in 

this area does not seem appropriate. 

Furthermore, the Department agrees that 

having teachers share effective 

instructional practices could be a useful 

element of a TIF project, but declines to 

add an invitational priority to make 

incentive payments contingent on such 

practices because the primary purpose 

of the incentive payments required by 

the TIF program is to reward teachers 

for improving student achievement (as 

defined in this notice), not for sharing 

effective practices. 

Changes: None. 

Application Requirements 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the application process described in the 

NPP was unnecessarily complex due to 

‘‘repetitive and inconsistent’’ priorities, 

application requirements, and selection 

criteria. The commenter recommended 

that because paragraphs (c) and (d) of 

the Core Elements already are covered 

by priorities 1 and 3, incorporating the 

remaining core elements into a new 

priority 6 regarding input from and 

communication with teachers would 

permit the elimination of the ‘‘core 

elements’’ section in the final notice. 

Discussion: The Department 

acknowledges that proposed priorities 1 

and 3 and paragraphs (c) and (d) of the 

Core Elements share some elements and 

language, but believes that there are 

differences in emphasis and detail that 

favor retention of the proposed structure 

of priorities, application requirements, 

core elements, selection criteria, and 

definitions. In addition, this structure 

facilitates the implementation of a 

planning period when necessary. For 

these reasons, the Department declines 

to change that structure in this final 

notice. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter was 

concerned that many of the terms used 

in paragraph (c) of the Core Elements 

related to professional development and 

evaluation systems are not defined (e.g., 

‘‘multiple,’’ ‘‘professional teaching 

standards,’’ and ‘‘inter-rater reliability’’). 

One commenter proposed the use of a 

specific model of teacher evaluation for 

the TIF program, while another 

commenter called for replacing the 

requirement in paragraph (c) of the Core 

Elements that principal and teacher 

effectiveness be measured in significant 

part by student achievement with a 

system that (1) uses multiple measures 

of educator performance based on clear 

and comprehensive professional 

expectations and (2) is linked to 

continuous professional development 

and opportunities to demonstrate newly 

acquired knowledge and skills. 

Another commenter asserted that few 

current performance evaluation systems 

are fair, valid, and reliable and 

recommended that the Department 

reconsider requiring the use of 

performance evaluation systems as part 

of a PBCS unless funding and other 

support (especially at the SEA level) is 

available to develop and implement 

new performance evaluation systems. 

Similarly, one commenter also 

suggested that, for a small LEA, the data 

management system called for in 

paragraph (d) of the Core Elements 

should be required to link student 

achievement data only to the teacher 

evaluation system and not to payroll 

and human resources systems. 

Discussion: The Department believes 

that applicants should have some 

flexibility to define the terms cited by 

the first commenter, and that, if 

necessary, the Department may clarify 

such terms through non-regulatory 

guidance. We also believe that TIF 

applicants should be able to develop 

their own teacher evaluation systems in 

response to their own needs and 

circumstances, and thus we decline to 

require the use of any particular model 

for teacher evaluation. The 

recommendation that teacher 

evaluations should be based not on 

student achievement (as defined in this 

notice), but only on professional 

expectations and participation in 

professional development activities is 

not consistent with the statutory 

requirement that PBCSs take into 

account student achievement (as 

defined in this notice), and the 

Department, therefore, declines to make 

this change. 

The Department generally agrees that 

few States or LEAs have implemented 

high-quality teacher evaluation systems; 

this is why building such systems is 

both a priority and a prerequisite under 

priorities 1 and 4, all five core elements, 

and selection criterion (b). Moreover, as 

the NPP made clear, grantees 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 

the grant) that would enhance the 

quality and success of the PBCS, such 

as linkages that may not otherwise exist 

in the data systems used in small LEAs. 

For this reason, the Department does not 

believe it is necessary to permit 

exceptions to the requirements of 

paragraph (d) of the Core Elements for 

small LEAs. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended adding a paragraph to the 

Core Elements that would require the 

PBCS to be aligned with an LEA’s 

coherent and integrated strategy for 

strengthening its educator workforce, 

because without such a strategy, an 

applicant cannot meet priorities 1 and 3, 

and is therefore not eligible to receive a 

grant under the TIF program. Making 

the strategy one of the core elements 

would allow an LEA that does not 

already have such a strategy to use the 

planning period to develop one, thereby 

allowing them to meet priorities 1 and 

3. 

Discussion: To the extent that an 

eligible LEA does not already have a 

coherent and integrated strategy for 

strengthening its educator workforce, it 

must develop and document such a 

strategy as part of its application 

process. Moreover, an applicant would 

also be able to propose further work 

needed to design and implement its 

strategy for strengthening the educator 

workforce as part of its work during the 

Planning Period on Core Element (c). 

Therefore, we decline to follow the 

commenter’s recommendation. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

clarification of the requirement that the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
28724 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 98 / Friday, May 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

proposed PBCS provide participating 

teachers and principals with 

professional development that is shown 

to be effective. 

Discussion: The specific language 

cited by the commenter that the 

professional development must be 

‘‘shown to be effective’’ was included as 

background material in the 

Requirements section of the NPP and 

does not appear in this final notice. 

However, under paragraphs (3), (4), and 

(5) of the Professional Development 

requirement in the Requirements 

section of this notice, an applicant must 

demonstrate, in its application, that it 

provides effective professional 

development to teachers and principals 

covered by the PBCS and include a 

process for regularly assessing the 

effectiveness of this professional 

development in improving teacher 

practice and student achievement (as 

defined in this notice) and making the 

modifications necessary to improve its 

effectiveness. Therefore, we believe that 

the language in the Requirements 

section of this notice provides 

clarification and no additional language 

has been added. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed concern about ensuring 

involvement by and input from 

teachers, principals, and other school 

staff, as well as the involvement of 

unions representing these individuals, 

during the development of each LEA’s 

PBCS. One commenter requested that 

the Department clarify that developing, 

communicating, and implementing a 

PBCS is a joint process involving 

teachers, administrators, and other 

school personnel. In other words, the 

commenter asserted, involvement in 

developing the PBCS must precede 

communicating its elements. Another 

commenter stated that the timing of the 

application process could make it 

difficult to obtain required input from 

teachers and principals. Two 

commenters recommended replacing 

the reference to unions in paragraph (b) 

of the core elements with ‘‘local teacher 

associations,’’ to ensure that there is a 

mechanism for local teacher input in 

right-to-work States. 

Discussion: The Department believes 

that the language included in paragraph 

(b) of the Core Elements, which states 

that PBCSs must be developed with the 

involvement and support of teachers, 

principals, and other personnel, 

including unions in participating LEAs 

where they are designated exclusive 

representatives for the purpose of 

collective bargaining that is needed to 

carry out the grant, is sufficiently clear 

to meet the concerns of the commenters. 

The Department also believes that while 

an applicant will certainly want to 

discuss its proposal with affected 

educators and their union 

representatives as it develops its 

application, concerns about the 

availability of sufficient time to provide 

such input are addressed by the 

Planning Period provision, which 

allows a successful applicant to take up 

to one year during which it will use its 

TIF funds to develop the core element 

or elements it lacks. The Department 

certainly agrees that including local 

teacher input is important; however, the 

Department believes that the existing 

language in the notice is sufficient to 

address the need to involve both 

educators and union representatives in 

developing a PBCS and a TIF 

application. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the final notice 

require that both the LEA and the 

collective bargaining representative 

involved in a TIF proposal certify that 

they understand the proposals reflected 

in the TIF program application and will 

negotiate terms and conditions needed 

to implement a TIF award without 

reopening for negotiation other contract 

provisions that are not implicated by the 

program. In addition, three commenters 

recommended that the Department 

require 75 percent of teachers in nonbargaining LEAs to approve a TIF 

project in order to demonstrate the 

significant buy-in from those affected by 

the plan that is needed to ensure 

successful implementation. Another 

commenter objected to the requirement 

for support from teacher unions to 

receive a TIF grant because it would 

give unions effective veto power over an 

LEA decision to apply for and carry out 

a Federal grant. Instead, this commenter 

called for the Department to require 

evidence of support from teachers and 

principals for the proposed PBCS, as 

well as a description of any legal 

barriers to carrying out a proposed PBCS 

and plans to overcome those barriers. 

Discussion: The Department believes 

that, in general, the issues raised by the 

commenters about the TIF application 

and negotiating its terms and conditions 

for successful implementation should be 

the subject for local negotiation rather 

than Federal requirement. In addition 

because the creation of a PBCS directly 

affects employee compensation, which 

is a key issue in local collective 

bargaining agreements, the Department 

believes that cooperation from and 

agreement with local union 

representatives, where a union is a 

representative in collective bargaining, 

is essential to successful 

implementation of a PBCS. For these 

reasons, the Department has determined 

that it is not appropriate to revise the 

requirements as requested by the 

commenters. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern about the complexity of many 

growth and value-added models and 

recommended that the Department add 

language to paragraph (e) of the Core 

Elements to ensure that the pay 

formulas used in a PBCS are transparent 

and understandable by teachers and 

principals. 

Discussion: The Department believes 

that paragraphs (a), (b), and (e) of the 

Core Elements, which contain specific 

requirements related to communicating 

the components of the PBCS to teachers 

and principals, involving teachers and 

principals and ensuring their support 

for the PBCS, and ensuring that teachers 

and principals understand the measures 

of effectiveness included in the PBCS, 

are sufficient to ensure that PBCSs and 

related teacher evaluation systems are 

transparent and understandable by 

teachers and principals. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters urged the 

Department to ensure that the data 

management systems required by 

paragraph (d) of the Core Elements 

protect the privacy of students and 

educators. 

Discussion: The Department is 

committed to protecting the privacy of 

students and educators and, therefore, 

has added a clarifying footnote to 

paragraph (d) of the Core Elements to 

remind applicants that data systems 

used to pay incentives based on student 

growth (as defined in this notice) to 

teachers, principals, and other 

personnel (in those sites in which the 

grantee wishes to expand the PBCS to 

additional staff in its schools) must 

comply with any applicable 

requirements under FERPA. Privacy of 

data in these systems also is subject to 

any applicable State or local law. 

Changes: We have added a footnote to 

paragraph (d) of the Core Elements 

stating that each successful applicant 

will need to ensure that its PBCS, 

including related data systems, 

complies with FERPA and applicable 

State or local privacy laws. 

Comment: Two commenters 

expressed concern that limiting 

participation to high-need schools could 

make it difficult for many LEAs to 

implement a PBCS, and is inconsistent 

with the requirement that a PBCS be 

part of a district-wide coherent and 

integrated approach to strengthening the 

educator workforce. In addition, these 

commenters stated that limiting the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 98 / Friday, May 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 28725 

program to high-need schools would 

prevent a comparison of the impact of 

PBCSs in high-need and non-high-need 

schools. 

Discussion: Public Law 111–117, 

which contains the Department’s FY 

2010 appropriation, authorizes the 

Department to use TIF funds to make 

competitive grants to eligible entities to 

develop and implement a PBCS in highneed schools. While this statute 

authorizes grantees to use TIF funds to 

develop or improve systems and tools, 

such as high-quality teacher evaluations 

and measurements of growth (as defined 

in this notice) in student achievement 

(as defined in this notice), that would 

enhance the quality and success of the 

PBCS either district-wide or only for 

participating high-need schools, it does 

not authorize the use of TIF funds to 

implement the PBCS in schools that are 

not high-need. Limiting the use of TIF 

funds to implement PBCSs in high-need 

schools does not necessarily prevent a 

grantee from evaluating the impact of 

having a PBCS in high-need schools 

versus non-high-need schools. If a 

grantee wishes to evaluate the impact of 

its PBCS on staff in high-need schools 

relative to staff in schools that are not 

high-need, however, it would need to 

ensure that (1) its use of TIF funds to 

conduct the study is reasonable and 

necessary to its implementation of its 

PBCS for staff in high-need schools, and 

(2) it does not use TIF funds for any of 

the costs associated with implementing 

the PBCS in non-high-need schools. 

Changes: None. 

Planning Year 

Comment: In general, commenters 

praised the Department for proposing a 

planning year provision in the NPP, 

during which TIF applicants that need 

additional time to put in place the five 

core elements of a PBCS can do so. 

However, there were many suggestions 

for modifying or providing flexibility in 

the requirements of the planning period. 

A few commenters recommended that 

all grantees use a planning year to 

prepare to implement their PBCSs. Two 

commenters sought flexibility to begin 

implementing some core elements 

before plans for all five elements are in 

place. One commenter recommended 

that members of a consortium be 

permitted to have different starting 

points reflecting different levels of 

preparedness. Another commenter 

requested clarification regarding the 

portion of TIF funds that may be used 

for activities carried out during an 

approved planning year, whether TIF 

funds are available only for planning, 

and any other technical assistance and 

support that may be available during a 

planning period. 

Discussion: The Department 

appreciates expressions of support from 

commenters for the proposed planning 

period of up to one year for grantees to 

put in place the five core elements prior 

to beginning incentive payments. We 

disagree with the recommendation to 

mandate a planning year, as such a 

requirement would needlessly delay 

implementation of a PBCS in a site that 

has all the key requirements in place 

and is ready to move forward. We agree 

that grantees should be able to begin 

implementing some core elements 

before all five elements are in place, as 

long as the grantee does not begin 

making incentive payments before all 

five core elements are completed. For 

example, an LEA might begin 

conducting observation-based 

assessments before it is able to link 

student achievement data to individual 

teachers. While the LEA may begin 

conducting observation-based 

assessments using TIF funds, it may not 

begin making incentive payments solely 

on the basis of these observation-based 

assessments. We believe that the 

Planning Period provision allows for 

this flexibility and that no changes are 

necessary in the final notice. 

In addition, the Department agrees 

that members of a consortium could 

have different starting dates depending 

on their respective readiness relative to 

the five core elements and believes that, 

as proposed, the Planning Period 

provision and Core Elements would 

allow this and that no changes to the 

final notice are necessary. With respect 

to the portion of TIF funds that may be 

used for a planning year, whether TIF 

funds are available only for planning, 

and any other technical assistance and 

support that may be available during a 

planning period, an applicant may 

propose to use a specific amount of its 

TIF awards for a planning period, 

subject to negotiation and approval by 

the Department; however, TIF awards 

are not available solely for planning 

purposes. The Department may be able 

to provide limited technical assistance 

during a planning period. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asserted 

that the Planning Period provision is 

unnecessary and ‘‘potentially unlawful’’ 

because a grantee that does not meet 

requirements, including the core 

elements, after the planning period may 

have spent grant funds unlawfully. For 

this reason, the commenter 

recommended that the Department 

eliminate the Planning Period in the 

final notice. 

Discussion: The Department disagrees 

with this interpretation of the 

authorizing statutes; provided that it 

expends its TIF funds properly during 

the Planning Period to implement its 

planning responsibilities, a grantee that 

fails to complete the required core 

elements during its planning period 

simply would become ineligible to 

receive or otherwise obligate the 

remainder of its five-year grant amount. 

Changes: None. 

Eligibility 

Comment: A large number of 

commenters objected to excluding 

current TIF grantees from the Main TIF 

and TIF Evaluation competitions, as 

proposed in the NPP. In particular, 

commenters stated that the prohibition 

on awarding new TIF funds to existing 

grantees would prevent the expansion of 

many promising PBCSs. One commenter 

added that excluding current grantees 

from the new competitions appeared to 

be contrary to the Department’s 

emphasis on rewarding and replicating 

successful practices. Commenters 

recommended several alternatives to the 

exclusion of existing TIF grantees from 

these competitions, including extending 

eligibility to current grantees but giving 

priority to new applicants, limiting 

eligibility for the TIF Evaluation 

competition to new applicants but 

allowing existing grantees to apply for 

the Main TIF competition, and 

permitting awards to existing grantees 

that want to expand their programs to 

cover teachers or other educators who 

currently are not served (e.g., a PBCS 

currently in place in high-need schools 

for principals only could be expanded 

to serve teachers). 

Discussion: The Department did not 

propose to exclude existing TIF grantees 

from applying for new TIF awards; 

instead, the NPP proposed to limit 

eligibility for the Main TIF competition 

and the TIF Evaluation competition to 

applicants proposing to serve schools 

not already served (or to be served) 

under current TIF grants. A grantee, for 

example, that is serving only some of its 

high-need schools would have been 

eligible for a new award to expand 

coverage of its PBCS to additional highneed schools. The intention, as stated in 

the NPP, was to use new TIF funding to 

extend PBCSs to new high-need schools, 

rather than to provide more funding for 

PBCSs in schools already supported by 

the TIF program. Nonetheless, the 

Department is persuaded by the 

commenters that this proposal might 

have a negative impact upon the 

continued success of existing PBCSs. 

Because we do not want to impede the 

expansion of current TIF-funded PBCSs 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
28726 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 98 / Friday, May 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

to cover additional groups of educators 

in high-need schools, we have revised 

the eligibility requirement to permit 

existing TIF grantees that want to 

expand their PBCSs to cover unserved 

staff (as in the example cited by the last 

commenter) to expand a PBCS currently 

serving only principals to cover teachers 

as well. However, because we believe 

existing TIF grantees generally will have 

a competitive advantage in applying for 

new TIF funds, we also are adding a 

new competitive preference priority for 

new TIF applicants to promote a more 

level playing field for both existing 

grantees and new applicants. We have 

extended this competitive preference 

priority to the nonprofit organizations 

that (1) had previously received a TIF 

grant as part of a partnership, and (2) 

apply in partnership with one or more 

new LEAs or States. We do so because 

we believe that, given the focus of the 

TIF application requirements on 

conditions within the implementing 

LEA(s), these nonprofit organizations 

will not likely have a competitive 

advantage over other applicants. 

Changes: We have revised the 

Additional Eligibility Requirement to 

allow existing TIF grantees to propose 

expanding their PBCSs to high-need 

schools not currently funded by TIF, as 

well as to include new categories of staff 

in schools currently funded by TIF. We 

have also added a new competitive 

preference priority that would give 

additional points to those applicants not 

currently funded by TIF. For this 

reason, we extend the availability of 

these competitive preference points to 

these nonprofit organizations as well. 

This new competitive preference 

priority is called Competitive Preference 

Priority 6—New Applicants to the 

Teacher Incentive Fund 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended expanding the TIF 

program to include high schools. 

Discussion: There is no restriction on 

serving high schools under the TIF 

program as long as applicants are able 

to meet all applicable requirements, 

including the use of data on student 

growth (as defined in this notice) as a 

significant factor in the evaluation of 

teachers, principals, and other school 

personnel that applicants may choose to 

include in the PBCS. Issues affecting 

high school participation in the 

evaluation are discussed in the 

following section under the sub-heading 

TIF Evaluation Competition. 

Changes: None. 

TIF Evaluation Competition 

Comment: A few commenters noted 

that the NPP appears to limit 

participation in the TIF Evaluation 

competition to schools that have grades 

covered by assessment requirements 

under the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, as amended 

(ESEA) (i.e., tested grades 3 through 8), 

and recommended that the Department 

should consider expanding the range of 

allowable tests to include advanced 

placement tests or the ACT to encourage 

greater participation by high schools, as 

well as the inclusion of a broader 

variety of subjects. Other commenters 

added that excluding high schools from 

the TIF Evaluation competition unfairly 

penalizes States and LEAs with 

assessment systems capable of 

providing value-added data for all 

teachers at all grade levels. 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

that some high school tests would be 

suitable for the national evaluation. 

However, we also believe that the 

circumstances under which these tests 

would meet the requirements of the 

national evaluation are too complicated 

and varied to describe fully in this 

notice. The suitability of high school 

tests would depend upon the 

psychometric properties of the tests and 

the alignment between the subject 

matter taught by individual teachers and 

their students. In addition, the 

Department’s Institute of Education 

Sciences (IES) evaluator would need to 

investigate whether the circumstances 

in which each high school test is used 

is consistent with the evaluation design. 

For example, tracking of courses at the 

high school level makes such 

comparisons more complicated and less 

reliable within the current study design. 

Also, because the expected effects of 

PBCSs on the issues to be studied are 

lower at higher grade levels, efforts to 

evaluate the effects of PBCSs on 

recruitment and retention of staff and 

student achievement at high school 

grade levels would require the evaluator 

to add significant numbers of new 

schools to the evaluation in order to 

assess the areas that are the pivotal to 

the study design. 

Therefore, the Department believes it 

is neither cost-efficient nor practical to 

include high schools in the national 

evaluation plan, and therefore has 

limited the evaluation to the effects of 

the PBCSs on recruitment and retention 

of staff and student achievement in 

schools with grades 3 through 8. An 

applicant to the TIF Evaluation 

competition may propose a PBCS that 

also covers staff who work in high-need 

high schools and, if selected for the 

evaluation competition, may use TIF 

funds for PBCSs in those schools. 

However, for reasons we summarize in 

the preceding paragraph, we have 

determined that an LEA’s high-need 

high schools will not count toward the 

minimum of eight schools required 

under the TIF Evaluation competition. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Three commenters cited 

the potential for confusion regarding the 

evaluation requirements for both the 

Main TIF competition and the TIF 

Evaluation competition; in particular, 

these commenters expressed concern 

that some applicants may believe that 

applying for the TIF Evaluation 

competition obviates the need for a local 

project evaluation required under the 

Main TIF competition. 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

that the local project evaluation 

described in the selection criteria of the 

Main TIF competition would add little 

or no utility for participants in the 

national evaluation selected under the 

TIF Evaluation competition and so does 

not believe that applicants selected 

under the TIF Evaluation competition 

should be required to conduct the local 

evaluations they propose in response to 

the Quality of Local Evaluation 

selection criteria. However, in the event 

that an applicant is not selected under 

the TIF Evaluation competition, the 

applicant’s response to the local 

evaluation selection criteria will be 

reviewed as part of the Main TIF 

competition. For this reason, we are 

adding a Local Evaluation requirement 

to the TIF Evaluation requirements. 

Changes: We have added a new 

requirement, called the Local Evaluation 

requirement in the TIF Evaluation 

competition requirements. This new 

requirement clarifies that, in order to be 

eligible to receive points under the 

selection criteria of the Main TIF 

competition, applications must include 

a description of its local evaluation, 

demonstrated in its response to the 

selection criterion Quality of Local 

Evaluation. If an applicant is selected 

under the TIF Evaluation competition, 

the local evaluation plan will not be 

reviewed and will not be applicable for 

program implementation. 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed concern about various aspects 

of the TIF Evaluation competition, 

including: The timeline and high 

matching requirements that could 

prevent many LEAs from applying, 

possible unfairness resulting from the 

selection of TIF Evaluation grantees 

before making awards under the Main 

TIF competition, lack of support in the 

statute for additional funding for 

Evaluation grantees, and unintended 

consequences on teacher employment 

decisions at control schools (e.g., 

teachers may leave control schools if 

they know that they cannot receive 

performance pay regardless of their 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 98 / Friday, May 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 28727 

effectiveness). Finally, one commenter 

recommended an independent 

validation and peer-review of the IES 

evaluation. 

Discussion: The Department 

recognizes that the challenge of 

conducting an evaluation of the TIF 

program that uses randomized 

controlled methodology to the extent 

feasible, as required by the statute, has 

created a variety of concerns among 

commenters, including the fair 

treatment of applicants for both the 

Main TIF and TIF Evaluation 

competitions, tight timelines and high 

non-TIF program costs, and the 

difficulty of ensuring adequate 

participation by control schools that, by 

definition, will not be able to offer 

incentive payments to their teachers for 

the duration of the grant period. In 

response to many of these concerns, and 

to ensure high-quality evaluation results 

consistent with the statute, the 

Department has decided to implement, 

as outlined in this final notice, a hybrid 

of proposed comparison designs 1 and 

2 that would provide a comparison 

between PBCSs implementing 

differentiated effectiveness incentive 

payments and PBCSs providing a small 

(i.e., 1 percent) across-the-board bonus 

to all teachers and principals. Through 

the TIF program, the Department will 

pay the full cost of this modest acrossthe-board bonus in order to make 

participation in the TIF Evaluation 

competition more appealing to potential 

applicants. This approach will permit a 

study design that examines the 

effectiveness of substantial 

differentiated payments on teacher and 

principal performance while keeping 

program costs reasonable and providing 

a sufficient incentive for participation 

by control schools. 

The Department does not believe, 

however, that additional financial 

support for TIF Evaluation grantees is 

inconsistent with the statutory authority 

for the TIF program, because this 

additional funding is essential to ensure 

the feasibility of the randomized 

controlled methodology specifically 

required by the statute. Finally, IES, 

which will manage the evaluation 

contract, will be guided by the expertise 

of an external technical working group 

to ensure the integrity and rigor of its 

study design, and all IES evaluations are 

subject to a rigorous external review 

process before the release of any 

findings. 

Changes: We have revised the study 

design in this final notice to include a 

comparison of the implementation of 

differentiated effectiveness incentive 

payments in Group 1 schools with the 

payment of annual, 1 percent across-theboard bonuses in Group 2 schools. 

Under the new hybrid comparison 

design, the IES evaluator will select, by 

lottery, one-half of the evaluation 

schools within an LEA to implement the 

applicant’s proposed differentiated 

effectiveness incentive payment 

component of the PBCS. The other half 

of the schools within the LEA 

participating in the evaluation will 

implement a 1 percent across-the-board 

annual bonus for teachers and 

principals, without implementing the 

differentiated effectiveness payment 

component. Both sets of schools would 

implement all of the non-payment 

components of the PBCS. Under this 

design, both treatment and control 

schools will receive additional TIF 

funds they may use for bonuses to 

attract educators as well as to pay for 

PBCS components. The evaluation will 

use a random assignment design 

consistent with the statute. 

Furthermore, we have removed the nonTIF match requirement that would have 

been applicable to proposed comparison 

design 2; there is no match requirement 

for the new hybrid design. 

Comment: Two commenters requested 

clarification regarding IES’s data 

collection plans, as well as when 

collected information would be 

available to grantees. 

Discussion: IES’s current data 

collection plan is designed to provide 

rich information about participating 

schools and staff, grant implementation, 

and rigorous impact data on educator 

recruitment, mobility, and student 

achievement. Data instruments will 

include grantee surveys and interviews, 

teacher and principal surveys, and 

student administrative records. IES 

expects to provide Evaluation 

competition grantees with regular and 

continuous evaluation results as they 

become available during and beyond the 

life of the 5-year grant period. 

Changes: None. 

Evaluation Models 

Comment: A few commenters 

expressed a preference for comparison 

design 1 in the proposed TIF Evaluation 

competition, largely due to the higher 

cost of proposed comparison design 2, 

which would have required across-theboard salary increases that could be 

difficult to sustain beyond the grant 

period. In addition, one commenter 

expressed concern about predicting the 

required level of the across-the-board 

increases in the control schools before 

data are available on the actual size of 

incentive payments in the treatment 

schools. 

Discussion: As discussed earlier in 

this notice, upon consideration of the 

public comments, the Department has 

determined that neither proposed 

comparison design 1 nor proposed 

comparison design 2 is likely to produce 

the high-quality evaluation results that 

the law anticipates for the required 

randomized study. Consequently, the 

final TIF Evaluation competition 

requirements reflect a hybrid of these 

two designs, described elsewhere in this 

notice, which will compare the 

outcomes obtained by PBCSs 

implementing differentiated 

effectiveness incentive payments and 

PBCSs providing a small (i.e., 1 percent) 

across-the-board bonus to all teachers 

and principals. In particular, this new 

hybrid approach addresses the cost 

concerns raised by the commenters 

about the need for LEAs to be able to 

accurately predict their capacity to 

provide across-the-board salary 

increases. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A number of commenters 

cited concerns about the proposed TIF 

Evaluation competition requirements, 

including the potential for high payouts 

(e.g., 15 percent of salary) limiting the 

number of applicants that can afford to 

participate in the TIF Evaluation 

program, uncertainty about defining 

‘‘significantly’’ better performance, and 

doubts that two months provides 

sufficient advance notice to change 

behavior. 

Discussion: The Department believes 

that the potential for highly effective 

teachers and principals to receive 

substantially larger incentive rewards is 

essential both (1) to producing the 

measurable treatment effects required 

for meaningful and reliable evaluation 

results and (2) to implementing absolute 

priority 1. Hence, we envision that TIF 

Evaluation grantees and Main TIF 

grantees will have comparable 

differentiated incentive payment 

amounts. 

Moreover, certainly not all teachers 

who are eligible to participate in the 

PBCS will likely earn the additional 

compensation. The issue really is the 

amount that, on average, an LEA must 

set aside for performance-based 

compensation per teacher (i.e., higher 

incentive payments for the highestperforming teachers and principals will 

be offset by lower or no incentive 

payments for modestly performing 

teachers and principals), a context that 

we believe many if not most LEAs will 

find manageable. 

With regard to the meaning of 

‘‘significantly better’’ performance, the 

Department believes that this definition 

will vary from one teacher evaluation 

system to another, and that it is 

appropriate to allow applicants to 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
28728 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 98 / Friday, May 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

propose their own locally based criteria 

for determining what constitutes 

‘‘significantly better.’’ 

Finally, while we agree that 

applicants should work with the IES 

evaluator to provide as much advance 

notice as possible of each school’s status 

under the TIF Evaluation grant 

implementation plan, we believe that a 

minimum of two months notice is 

sufficient for affected teachers and 

principals to learn about the potential 

impact of the proposed PBCS and 

change their teaching practice in 

response. The Department also notes 

that a significant potential benefit of the 

planning period will be to give teachers 

and principals considerably more time 

to learn about a proposed PBCS prior to 

its implementation. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

expressed concern about (1) the possible 

unintended consequences of the TIF 

Evaluation model designs, including the 

motivational effects on teachers of 

seeing performance-based compensation 

withheld from them while it is granted 

to teachers in other high-need schools; 

(2) the possibility of incentives luring 

both effective and ineffective teachers to 

treatment schools, where they have a 

chance to earn more money through 

bonus and incentive payments; and (3) 

the reluctance of teachers to participate 

in a lottery-based selection process that 

would make only some of them eligible 

for increased compensation. 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

that these are legitimate concerns about 

the likely feasibility of the proposed 

comparison designs in the proposed TIF 

Evaluation competition; indeed, similar 

concerns led the Department to invite 

comment on two different proposed 

study designs. Ultimately, in 

considering public comment, the 

Department decided to implement a 

hybrid evaluation study design, 

described elsewhere in this final notice, 

which we believe is the best approach 

to minimizing the concerns raised by 

the commenters within the context of 

the TIF statute’s requirement of a 

randomized design. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Three commenters 

expressed concern that requiring eight 

schools with students in grades 3 

through 8 would eliminate many small 

and medium-sized LEAs from 

consideration for TIF Evaluation 

awards. These commenters 

recommended that the selected 

evaluation design should ensure that a 

representative sample of schools (small, 

large, urban, rural, suburban) can meet 

the final design requirements. One 

commenter suggested that smaller LEAs 

could join consortia for purpose of 

reaching the eight-school requirement. 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

that larger LEAs are more likely to meet 

the proposed minimum number of 

schools requirement, but believes that 

this limitation is necessary due to the 

need to conduct a rigorous evaluation 

with limited resources. Extending the 

evaluation design to better 

accommodate LEAs with a smaller 

number of high-need schools in grades 

3 through 8 will make the evaluation 

prohibitively complicated and 

expensive. For this reason, the study 

design emphasizes rigor over 

representativeness. We acknowledge 

that although the national evaluation 

will not provide representative 

estimates of the effect of the TIF 

program on all LEAs in the Nation, it 

will provide descriptive information on 

all grantees funded under the FY 2010 

competition. Also, we do agree that 

including consortia or intermediary 

units in the Evaluation design would be 

consistent with the needs of the 

evaluation design. Specifically, we 

believe it is appropriate to permit 

consortia or intermediary units that are 

considered LEAs under State law and 

that serve a coordinating function (i.e., 

where data are available from a 

centralized or coordinating entity) to 

participate in the TIF Evaluation 

competition. 

Changes: Consortia or intermediary 

units that are considered LEAs under 

State law and serve a coordinating 

function (i.e., data are available from a 

centralized or coordinating entity) are 

now eligible for the TIF Evaluation 

competition. The minimum number of 

schools required for the overall 

consortia or intermediary unit is still 

eight and proposed consortia or 

intermediary unit schools must meet 

other requirements (i.e., within the 

eight, each school is at least paired with 

another school at the same grade level 

and within the same State). 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended changes to the IES 

evaluation plan. These changes 

included: (1) Gathering data about the 

preparation of teachers who receive 

incentive payments to help determine 

the effectiveness of such preparation; (2) 

requiring a letter from each participating 

LEA’s superintendent, board, principals, 

and research office indicating agreement 

to comply with evaluation 

requirements; (3) measuring the impact 

of PBCSs on teachers of students with 

disabilities and gifted and talented 

students; (4) protecting the rights of 

students and other participants in the 

TIF Evaluation; and (5) ensuring that 

key decisions regarding the conduct of 

the evaluation are made in the best 

interests of students and staff in 

participating schools. 

Discussion: The Department believes 

that the data that will be collected as 

part of the rigorous, fair, and valid 

teacher evaluation systems required of 

TIF grantees will provide an excellent 

source for investigating the relative 

effectiveness of various forms of teacher 

preparation. However, investigations of 

factors affecting the preparation of 

teachers who receive incentive 

payments, while potentially important, 

are outside the scope of the TIF 

Evaluation competition, which is 

statutorily focused on the impact that 

PBCSs have on teacher and principal 

performance in high-need schools. We 

also note that the Commitment to 

Evaluation requirement of the proposed 

TIF Evaluation, which is retained 

unchanged in this final notice, requires 

letters from LEA superintendents, 

principals, and research offices 

indicating agreement to comply with all 

applicable TIF Evaluation requirements. 

In addition, to the extent that applicant 

PBCSs cover teachers of students with 

disabilities and teachers of gifted and 

talented students, the Department 

expects that these teachers will be 

included in the national TIF evaluation. 

As for protecting the rights and interests 

of students and other participants in the 

TIF Evaluation program, IES follows 

accepted ethical study procedures and 

its study designs and data collections 

are approved by both the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) and an 

independent Institutional Review 

Board. In addition, the statute 

authorizing IES requires protections 

related to data security and 

confidentiality, which IES follows. Also, 

IES is guided by the expertise of an 

external technical working group to 

ensure the integrity and rigor of its 

study design. Therefore, the Department 

believes that the IES evaluation plan 

already adequately addresses the 

commenters’ concerns. 

Changes: None. 

Matching Funds 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

allow prior investments in the planning 

and design of a PBCS to count as 

matching funds under new TIF awards. 

Discussion: The primary purpose of 

requiring a matching contribution under 

the TIF program is to encourage grantees 

to commit, over time, the resources they 

need to continue making incentive 

payments once the period of Federal 

funding has ended. Funding or other 

resources expended on planning prior to 

receipt of a TIF grant would not 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 98 / Friday, May 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 28729 

promote this purpose. Moreover, the 

Department’s regulations regarding 

matching contributions (34 CFR 

74.23(a)(4) and 80.24) and cost 

principles issued by the OMB in its 

Circulars A–21 and A–87 (codified in 2 

CFR parts 20 and 225) require that, to 

be allowable, a matching contribution 

must be something that would be an 

allowable cost if paid with Federal grant 

funds. A grantee’s prior investment in 

other services or activities is not such a 

cost. For these reasons, the Department 

declines to permit such prior 

investments to count toward the 

required non-TIF match. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

flexibility, in recognition of the current 

State and local budget climate, to allow 

a greater contribution from TIF grant 

funds toward incentive payments in the 

initial award years. Another commenter 

noted that the percentage of an 

applicant’s budget used for incentives 

may not increase in a linear fashion due 

to such factors as uneven assessment 

results and local budget issues such as 

declining enrollments and school 

closures. This commenter recommended 

that the final notice include instead the 

expectation for ‘‘an upward trend’’ in 

both student achievement growth and 

the percentage of the applicant’s budget 

used for incentive payments. 

Discussion: The NPP specifically 

proposed allowing grantees to begin 

with a small contribution in the early 

years of a TIF project, stating in the 

Background section that while there is 

no required minimum percentage local 

contribution, the Department ‘‘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, 

priority 2 requires an applicant to 

provide, in its application, evidence that 

the applicant will provide, from nonTIF funds over the course of the fiveyear 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. 

With regard to the concern that the 

need for an increasing annual match 

may not materialize if actual need for 

compensation payments decreases from 

one year to another, we note that the 

costs of implementing a PBCS involve 

more than the performance-based 

compensation payments themselves. 

Beyond this, should the level of a 

grantee’s contribution to supplemental 

staff compensation costs decrease from 

year to year because an LEA’s overall 

level of compensation payments under 

its PBCS also decreases, the Department 

will be able to work with the grantee to 

adjust the level of match so that it 

corresponds to the amount of TIF funds 

needed for compensation payments 

compared to the amount that had been 

budgeted and anticipated. 

Changes: None. 

Compensation Plans 

Comment: Three commenters stated 

that there is no research to support 

paying bonuses to individual teachers 

who increase student test scores and 

urged the Department to revise the final 

notice to encourage school-wide 

incentive systems. On the other hand, 

one commenter objected to mixed-group 

compensation, largely for the reason 

cited in the NPP—that the incentive for 

individuals to perform better potentially 

is weakened if their compensation 

depends on the performance of others. 

Discussion: The NPP proposed to 

allow, and not require, a grantee to use 

individual, group, or mixed-group 

incentives in its PBCS, and the 

Department sees no reason to prohibit 

any of these approaches, as each may 

have benefits and advantages depending 

on local circumstances. Moreover, 

permitting a variety of incentive models 

will encourage greater innovation and 

provide data to help determine which 

models work best and under what 

circumstances. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the final notice 

permit an applicant to focus its PBCS on 

certain subjects or grade levels (or both) 

because, the commenter claimed, 

focusing on high-need subject areas 

could have greater impact than systems 

targeting other subjects. Another 

commenter asked whether an LEA could 

focus a PBCS on particular staff or 

schools (e.g., new teachers or 

elementary schools). 

Discussion: Applicants have 

flexibility under the final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria to design their PBCSs to reflect 

and meet local needs, including the 

selection of subjects and grade levels 

that will be included in the PBCSs. For 

example, an applicant with growth (as 

defined in this notice) or value-added 

data for certain subjects and grades 

would be permitted to develop a PBCS 

covering only teachers and principals 

responsible for those subjects and 

grades. An applicant also could choose 

to include only certain high-need 

schools, such as elementary schools, in 

its PBCS. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter urged that 

the final notice allow the use of TIF 

funds to pay at least a portion of master, 

mentor, or lead teacher salaries, while 

another recommended allowing 

payment of salaries for principal 

coaches. 

Discussion: As discussed in the NPP, 

the notice inviting applications (NIA) 

will demonstrate the Department’s 

commitment to limiting the use of TIF 

funding awarded in the Main TIF 

competition to paying the salary of only 

one master, mentor, lead teacher, or 

academic coach per school. Paying for 

more than one such salary per school 

could significantly reduce the resources 

available for the performance-based 

incentives and rewards that are by law 

the primary focus of the TIF program. 

That said, grantees may use TIF funds 

for bonuses paid to such staff if the staff 

assume additional responsibilities 

under the PBCS. TIF Evaluation 

grantees, on the other hand, will receive 

at least $1 million in additional funding 

over their five-year grant period that 

they can use to pay other TIF-related 

costs, and these funds may be used to 

pay the salaries of multiple master 

teachers, mentors, lead teachers or 

academic coaches in participating 

schools. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that the Department clarify that 

incentives for taking on additional 

responsibilities and leadership roles 

could include financial incentives, such 

as salary increases and bonus payments. 

Discussion: The Application 

Requirements require each applicant to 

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). This language 

encompasses both financial and nonfinancial incentives. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asserted 

that LEA-wide PBCSs are essential to 

obtain the ‘‘complete buy-in’’ from both 

local unions and school boards 

necessary for successful outcomes; this 

commenter recommended that the final 

notice allow use of TIF funds to support 

a PBCS for an entire LEA, not just 

specific schools within an LEA. In such 

cases, the commenter added, the PBCS 

could support teacher quality and 

improved student achievement broadly 

across an LEA while providing specific 

incentives for hard-to-staff schools and 

high-need students. 

Discussion: While the Department 

does not dispute the potential 

advantages of LEA-wide PBCSs, the 

statutory authority for the TIF program 

does not allow TIF funds to be used for 

incentive payments in such broad-based 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
28730 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 98 / Friday, May 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

systems. Instead, TIF funds may be used 

only for incentives and rewards 

provided to teachers, principals, and 

other school personnel who work in 

high-need schools (as defined in this 

notice) within an LEA. TIF funds also 

may be used more generally to help 

develop and implement the tools and 

systems required for a LEA-wide PBCS; 

however, incentive payments to 

teachers, principals, and other school 

personnel who work in non-high-need 

schools (as defined in this notice) must 

be paid for with non-TIF funds. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that meeting TIF program requirements 

could be difficult for resource-poor 

high-need schools and might have a 

negative impact on other reform efforts. 

Discussion: The Department 

recognizes that meeting all the 

requirements of the TIF program, as 

proposed in the NPP and described in 

this final notice, may be challenging for 

many high-need schools (as defined in 

this notice). However, while TIF funds 

are specifically intended to help highneed schools overcome such challenges, 

the Department believes that the 

development and implementation of an 

appropriate PBCS necessitates the 

requirements proposed in the NPP and 

retained in this final notice. 

Changes: None. 

Incentives 

Comment: Two commenters asked for 

clarification regarding the size of 

incentive payments required by the TIF 

program; in particular, the commenters 

wanted to know if there is any research 

suggesting an appropriate incentive 

amount, or if the overall average of 5 

percent of teacher salaries suggested in 

the TIF Evaluation requirements was the 

minimum required amount. 

Discussion: The Department is not 

aware of any definitive research 

regarding the optimal size of incentive 

payments for an effective PBCS and 

believes that a wide range of such 

payment amounts may be effective, 

depending on local circumstances and 

market conditions. The figure of 5 

percent of the average teacher salary 

was provided only as an example; 

perhaps more important was the 

suggestion that creating meaningful 

differences in performance could 

require that the top-performing teachers 

and principals receive 3 times this 

average amount, or 15 percent of a 

salary. In any case, this final notice, like 

the NPP, makes clear in priority 1 that 

the Department is not requiring a 

minimum incentive amount, but expects 

applicants to clearly explain why the 

amounts they choose for their PBCSs are 

‘‘high enough to create change in the 

behavior of current and prospective 

teachers and principals.’’ 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended providing additional 

flexibility with respect to the types and 

amounts of incentives used in an LEA’s 

PBCS. In particular, the commenters 

highlighted the importance of nonfinancial incentives such as professional 

development, time for collaboration and 

leadership opportunities, uncertainty 

about the precise level of financial 

incentive needed to change educator 

behavior and performance, and local 

market needs and requirements. 

Discussion: An applicant has 

flexibility to design its PBCS so that 

financial incentives and rewards are 

provided in combination with other 

incentives and support. In particular, as 

proposed in the NPP and finalized in 

this notice, the TIF program not only 

encourages, but also requires, highquality professional development that is 

linked to the specific measures of 

teacher and principal effectiveness 

included in the PBCS, as well as 

opportunities to take on additional 

responsibilities and leadership roles (as 

defined in this notice). 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter urged the 

Department to consider allowing TIF 

grantees to pay incentives only after 

positive student outcomes are obtained. 

Discussion: The priorities and 

requirements proposed in the NPP and 

announced in this final notice require 

grantees to develop and implement 

PBCSs that pay incentives based on 

improved student learning. Under 

paragraph (a) of priority 1, the PBCS 

must give significant weight to student 

growth (as defined in this notice) in 

determining and rewarding teacher and 

principal effectiveness. However, other 

important goals of the TIF program, 

such as encouraging effective teachers 

and principals to work in the most 

challenging schools and recruiting and 

retaining teachers for hard-to-staff 

subjects and specialty areas, may 

require incentive payments independent 

of improved student outcomes, because 

the positive outcome desired is 

improved recruitment and retention of 

effective teachers and principals. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters 

recommended allowing incentive pay 

and other additional compensation for 

teachers who obtain further education, 

professional development, national 

certification, or who work in 

challenging schools, or serve as mentors 

or on school improvement committees. 

Discussion: The recommended factors 

described by the commenters are 

permitted as supplemental multiple 

measures that may be used when 

evaluating teacher and principal 

effectiveness under paragraph (c) of 

Priority 1. However, because such 

evaluations must give significant weight 

to student growth (as defined in this 

notice), these factors alone could not be 

the only measures used for 

compensating a teacher or principal 

under the proposed PBCS. 

Changes: None. 

Definition of High-Need School 

Comment: Two commenters agreed 

with the definition of high-need school 

proposed in the NPP, which defines 

such a 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. 

However, several other commenters 

recommended that the definition be 

changed to reflect the 40-percent 

poverty threshold used for schoolwide 

program eligibility under title I, part A 

of the ESEA. Other commenters also 

recommended that the definition be 

structured to consider academic need, 

and not just poverty status, to determine 

the eligibility of schools to participate in 

TIF-funded projects. For example, one 

commenter suggested that schools and 

LEAs in ESEA improvement status 

should be eligible for participation 

under the TIF program, regardless of 

poverty status. One commenter 

recommended using the persistently 

lowest-achieving schools definition 

from the SIG program. Two commenters 

urged the Department to change the 

definition so that high-need status is 

based only on academic factors. Finally, 

other commenters recommended 

defining need for the purposes of the 

TIF program at the LEA level rather than 

at the school level, as well as giving 

LEAs flexibility to determine need, 

particularly in cases where a school may 

miss the poverty threshold by one or 

two percentage points. 

Discussion: The Department gave 

careful consideration to the alternative 

definitions of high-need school 

recommended by commenters, but 

ultimately decided to retain the 

definition of high-need school that was 

proposed in the NPP. In Title I, Part A 

of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, as amended, 

Congress authorized the lower 40- 

percent schoolwide program threshold 

in order to expand flexibility for schools 

to participate in Title I schoolwide 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 98 / Friday, May 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 28731 

programs. However, the purpose of our 

definition of a high-need school in the 

NPP is to focus the limited funding that 

Congress has appropriated for TIF on 

assisting schools that serve the neediest 

communities. We are very concerned 

that lowering the poverty threshold for 

this program from 50 to 40 percent 

eligibility for free-and reduced-price 

lunch subsidies, as some commenters 

desire, will dilute the program’s 

emphasis on helping such schools use 

PBCSs as one means to help increase 

student academic achievement. 

Moreover, the available data shows that 

even at the 50-percent poverty 

threshold, a regrettably large number of 

LEAs and States, in all parts of the 

Nation and in both urban and rural 

areas, will be able to identify enough 

high-need schools to support 

participation in the TIF program. 

Incorporating academic measures would 

dilute this focus on high-poverty 

schools, as many schools identified for 

improvement under the ESEA are lowpoverty schools. Also, schools may be 

identified for ESEA improvement due to 

the performance of one or two relatively 

small subgroups of students, rather than 

the broader weaknesses in student 

achievement more commonly associated 

with our neediest schools. Finally, 

defining need at the LEA level would be 

inconsistent with the statutory authority 

for the TIF program, which clearly 

requires that the need for TIF program 

funds be measured at the school and not 

the LEA level. 

Changes: None. 

Definition of Student Achievement 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

adding industry-recognized certificates 

and college credit to the alternative 

measures of student learning in the 

definition of student achievement. 

Discussion: Paragraph (b) of the 

definition of student achievement 

permits the use of alternative measures 

of student learning, which could 

include those suggested by the 

commenter, provided that they are 

rigorous and comparable across schools. 

Therefore, we do not believe that a 

change to the definition is necessary. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter urged the 

Department to delete from the definition 

of student achievement the requirement 

that alternative measures of student 

learning must be ‘‘rigorous and 

comparable across schools,’’ because the 

requirement effectively limits other 

measures to assessment results. 

Discussion: The Department declines 

to make the requested change because 

ensuring that alternative measures of 

student learning are rigorous and 

comparable across schools is essential if 

student achievement data based on such 

measures are to be part of a fair, valid, 

and reliable teacher evaluation system. 

Using non-comparable achievement 

data could result in unfair teacher 

ratings. 

Changes: None. 

Definition of Student Growth 

Comment: One commenter argued 

that applicants for the TIF program 

should be able to use ‘‘status’’ measures 

of student achievement to evaluate 

teacher effectiveness if the LEAs in 

which the PBCS is to be implemented 

are in States that do not currently have 

assessment systems capable of 

measuring student growth (as defined in 

this notice). 

Discussion: Student achievement 

alone, as measured, for example, on the 

annual assessments required by the 

ESEA, is not sufficient for measuring the 

change in individual student 

achievement over time, which is an 

essential element of the teacher 

evaluation systems required by the TIF 

program. For this reason, all TIF 

applicants must be able to measure 

individual student growth (as defined in 

this notice), and may not use the 

‘‘snapshot’’ of student achievement 

provided by ESEA assessments as a 

substitute for measuring growth (as 

defined in this notice). 

Changes: None. 

Definition of Additional 

Responsibilities and Leadership Roles 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

the proposed definition of additional 

responsibilities and leadership roles in 

the NPP is too prescriptive. Another 

commenter recommended that the 

Department change this definition so 

that it is targeted specifically at 

improving teacher capacity and is 

linked to increasing student 

achievement, rather than studentfocused activities, such as tutoring or 

mentoring individual students. 

Discussion: The Department believes 

that the definition of additional 

responsibilities and leadership roles is 

sufficiently broad to provide applicants 

with flexibility to define which duties 

and roles satisfy the definition. 

Moreover, as we acknowledged in the 

NPP, the list of additional 

responsibilities and leadership 

opportunities in the definition is not 

intended to be exhaustive, and we 

encourage applicants to develop 

opportunities for additional 

responsibilities and leadership roles (as 

defined in this notice) for their teachers, 

principals, and, at the applicant’s 

discretion, other school personnel. 

Changes: None. 

Selection Criteria 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended adding a new selection 

criterion related to sustainability, to 

encourage and reward the creation of 

LEA consortia that support PBCS 

sustainability. Another commenter 

suggested that an applicant’s previous 

progress and achievements in 

developing or implementing a PBCS 

should be taken into account in scoring 

applications. 

Discussion: The Department believes 

that the sustainability goal 

recommended by the commenter is 

amply supported by priorities 2 and 3, 

related to financial sustainability and 

comprehensive approaches needed for 

PBCSs, and that adding an additional 

sustainability requirement to the 

selection criteria is unnecessary. We 

also believe that, in general, applicants 

that have started or completed various 

elements of a PBCS will likely be in a 

position to submit stronger applications 

than applicants that have not, and that 

therefore there is no need to give 

additional weight or priority to these 

‘‘early adopters.’’ 

Changes: None. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: In reviewing the proposed 

selection criteria, the Department 

determined that in order to address 

criterion (b)(i), applicants would have to 

explain how the effectiveness of 

teachers, principals, and other 

personnel (in those sites in which the 

grantee wishes to expand the PBCS to 

additional staff in its schools) would be 

determined. However, the notice of 

proposed priorities did not specifically 

provide for applicants to submit this 

information. In order to ensure that peer 

reviewers may review this key 

information, the Department has 

decided to request it as part of the 

selection criteria. 

Changes: The Department has added 

sub-criterion (b)(1)(iii) to the selection 

criterion that asks applicants to provide 

a clear explanation of how teachers, 

principals, and other personnel (in 

those sites in which the grantee wishes 

to expand the PBCS to additional staff 

in its schools) are determined to be 

‘‘effective’’ for the purposes of the 

proposed PBCS. 

Comment: None. 

Discussion: In reviewing the proposed 

selection criteria, the Department has 

determined that it is necessary to 

change (b)(1)(ii) to request an 

applicant’s proposed methodology for 

determining the effectiveness of 

teachers, principals, and other 

personnel (in those sites in which the 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
28732 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 98 / Friday, May 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

grantee wishes to expand the PBCS to 

additional staff in its schools) using 

measures of student growth (as defined 

in this notice) instead of student 

achievement (as defined in this notice). 

The Department would like to be 

consistent in promoting student growth 

(as defined in this notice) as a 

significant component of an applicant’s 

measure of effectiveness, as noted 

throughout the notice as well as in 

selection criterion (b)(1). Given this 

change, under selection criterion 

(b)(1)(ii), the Department has also 

removed the reference to norm- and 

criterion-referenced statewide 

assessment scores as valid and reliable 

measures of student growth. This 

reference is redundant with the 

definition of student growth (as defined 

in this notice), which references student 

achievement as a student’s score on the 

State’s assessments under the ESEA. 

Changes: Under selection criterion 

(b)(1)(ii), the term student achievement 

(as defined in this notice) has been 

replaced with student growth (as 

defined in this notice) and the statement 

regarding norm- and criterionreferenced statewide assessment scores 

has been removed. 

Final Priorities 

Types of Priorities 

When inviting applications for a 

competition using one or more 

priorities, we designate the type of each 

priority as absolute, competitive 

preference, or invitational through a 

notice in the Federal Register. The 

effect of each type of priority follows: 

Absolute priority: Under an absolute 

priority, we consider only applications 

that meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(3)). 

Competitive preference priority: 

Under a competitive preference priority, 

we 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)). 

Invitational priority: Under an 

invitational priority, we are particularly 

interested in applications that meet the 

priority. However, we do not give an 

application that meets the priority a 

preference over other applications (34 

CFR 75.105(c)(1)). 

Final Priorities 

The Secretary establishes the 

following priorities for the TIF program. 

We may apply these priorities in any 

year in which this program is in effect. 

All of the priorities are applicable under 

both the Main TIF competition and the 

TIF Evaluation competition. 

Absolute Priorities 

Priority 1 (Absolute)—Differentiated 

Levels of Compensation for Effective 

Teachers and Principals 

To meet this 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 coherent and integrated 

approach of the local educational 

agency (LEA) 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 and principal 

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 (as 

defined in this notice), 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 (as 

defined in this notice) 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 in order to 

ultimately improve student outcomes. 

Priority 2 (Absolute)—Fiscal 

Sustainability of the Performance-Based 

Compensation System (PBCS) 

To meet this 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 has 

accepted the responsibility to provide 

such performance-based compensation 

to teachers, principals, and other 

personnel (in those sites in which the 

grantee wishes to expand the PBCS to 

additional staff in its schools) who earn 

it 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, 

principals, and other personnel (in 

those sites in which the grantee wishes 

to expand the PBCS to additional staff 

in its schools) in those project years in 

which the LEA provides such payments 

as part of its PBCS. 

Priority 3 (Absolute)—Comprehensive 

Approaches to the Performance-Based 

Compensation System (PBCS) 

To meet this absolute priority, the 

applicant must provide, in its 

application, evidence that the proposed 

PBCS is aligned with a coherent and 

integrated strategy for strengthening the 

educator workforce, including in the use 

of data and evaluations for professional 

development and retention and tenure 

decisions in the LEA or LEAs 

participating in the project during and 

after the end of the TIF project period. 

Competitive Preference Priorities 

(Priorities 4 through 6) Priority 4 

(Competitive Preference)—Use of ValueAdded Measures of Student 

Achievement 

To meet this competitive preference 

priority, the applicant must 

demonstrate, in its application, that the 

proposed PBCS for teachers, principals, 

and other personnel (in those sites in 

which the grantee wishes to expand the 

PBCS to additional staff in its schools) 

will use a value-added measure of the 

impact on student growth (as defined in 

this notice) as a significant factor in 

calculating differentiated levels of 

compensation provided to teachers, 

principals, and other personnel (in 

those sites in which the grantee wishes 

to expand the PBCS to additional staff 

in its schools). 

Under this priority, the applicant 

must also demonstrate that it has a plan 

to ensure that, as part of the PBCS, it has 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 98 / Friday, May 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 28733 

1Successful applicants that receive Teacher 

Incentive Fund program grant awards must ensure 

that the program’s PBCS, including the necessary 

data systems, complies with the Family Educational 

Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA), including the 

regulations in 34 CFR Part 99, as well as any 

applicable State and local requirements regarding 

privacy. 

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) clearly explain the 

chosen value-added model to teachers 

to enable them to use the data generated 

through the model to improve classroom 

practices. 

Priority 5 (Competitive Preference)— 

Increased Recruitment and Retention of 

Effective Teachers to Serve High-Need 

Students and in Hard-to-Staff Subjects 

and Specialty Areas in High-Need 

Schools 

To meet this competitive preference 

priority, the applicant must demonstrate 

in its application that its proposed PBCS 

is designed to assist high-need schools 

(as defined in this notice) 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. The 

applicant must provide an explanation 

for how it will determine that a teacher 

filling a vacancy is effective or likely to 

be effective. In addition, applicants 

must demonstrate, in their applications, 

the extent to which the subjects or 

specialty areas they propose to target are 

hard-to-staff. Lastly, applicants must 

demonstrate, in their applications, that 

they will implement a process for 

effectively communicating to teachers 

which of the LEA’s schools are highneed and which subjects and specialty 

areas are considered hard-to-staff. 

Priority 6 (Competitive Preference)— 

New Applicants to the Teacher 

Incentive Fund 

To meet this competitive preference 

priority, an applicant must be a new 

applicant to the TIF program. For the 

purposes of this priority, a new 

applicant is (1) an eligible entity that 

has not previously been awarded a grant 

under the TIF program, or (2) a 

nonprofit organization that previously 

received funding through TIF, as part of 

a partnership with one or more LEAs or 

SEAs, but that is applying to work with 

a different group of eligible LEAs or 

SEAs than it worked with under any 

previous TIF grant. Under this 

competitive preference priority, a 

current nonprofit grantee may not 

propose to use new TIF funds to 

compensate for any activities related to 

the development and implementation of 

its PBCS in LEAs and high-need schools 

(as defined in this notice) already served 

under the current grant. Rather, a 

nonprofit organization that is a current 

TIF grantee may only use new TIF funds 

for the costs of implementing the PBCS 

in high-need schools (as defined in this 

notice) that have not previously 

received TIF funds. 

Final Main TIF Competition 

Requirements 

The Secretary establishes the 

following requirements for the Main TIF 

competition. We may apply these 

requirements in any year in which this 

program is in effect. 

Selection of Competition. An 

applicant may submit an application for 

either the Main TIF competition or the 

TIF Evaluation competition. Each 

applicant must identify in its 

application the competition for which it 

is applying. Decisions regarding awards 

for the TIF Evaluation program will be 

made prior to doing so for the Main TIF 

competition, so that applicants not 

funded in the TIF Evaluation 

competition will still be eligible for 

funding under 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 the five core elements 

that follow; or 

(b) If the applicant cannot 

demonstrate in its application that it has 

in place each of the 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, in its application, 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 its PBCS; 

(b) The involvement and support of 

teachers, principals, and other 

personnel (including input from 

teachers, principals, and other 

personnel 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; 

(c) Rigorous, transparent, and fair 

evaluation systems for teachers and 

principals that differentiate 

effectiveness using multiple rating 

categories that take into account student 

growth (as defined in this notice) 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 or leadership 

standards and the LEA’s coherent and 

integrated approach to strengthening the 

educator workforce; (2) provide for 

observations of each teacher or principal 

at least twice 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 1 that 

can link student achievement (as 

defined in this notice) 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, is— 

(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 at the start of the 

project; and 

(b) Prohibited from using TIF program 

funds to provide incentive payments to 

teachers, principals, and other 

personnel (in those sites in which the 

grantee wishes to expand the PBCS to 

additional staff in its schools) 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
28734 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 98 / Friday, May 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

2For the purposes of the TIF Evaluation 

competition, an ‘‘LEA’’ includes consortia and 

intermediary units, so long as they are considered 

an LEA under State law. 

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 (as defined in 

this notice) participating in the 

applicant’s proposed PBCS or LEAwide; 

(2) Be targeted to individual teachers’ 

and principals’ needs as identified in 

the evaluation process; 

(3) Provide— 

(a) Those teachers and principals in 

participating TIF schools 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 (as defined in this 

notice); 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 (as defined in this notice), 

and (2) successfully assume additional 

responsibilities and leadership roles (as 

defined in this notice); 

(4) Support teachers and principals to 

better understand and use the measures 

of effectiveness in the PBCS to improve 

practice and student achievement (as 

defined in this notice); and 

(5) Include a process for regularly 

assessing the effectiveness of this 

professional development in improving 

teacher and leadership practice to 

increase student achievement (as 

defined in this notice) 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 highneed 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 (as defined in this 

notice) must be school-level data; the 

Department will not accept LEA- or 

State-level data for purposes of 

documenting whether a school is a highneed school (as defined in this notice). 

Additional Eligibility Requirement. 

Each applicant that currently 

participates in a TIF project must 

confirm in its application either that— 

(a) Its proposed PBCS would be 

available to educators in high-need 

schools (as defined in this notice) in 

which the LEA does not currently make 

a TIF-supported PBCS available; or 

(b) If the applicant’s current TIF 

project serves only principals or only 

teachers, its proposed project would add 

teachers or principals, respectively, who 

work in high-need schools (as defined 

in this notice) and who are not eligible 

for performance-based compensation 

under the applicant’s current TIF 

project’s PBCS. 

If awarded a grant, the grantee must 

maintain its PBCS for teachers and 

principals in high-need schools (as 

defined in this notice) for the duration 

of the new TIF project period. An 

applicant may also propose to have 

other personnel (in those sites in which 

the grantee wishes to expand the PBCS 

to additional staff in its schools) who 

work in high-need schools (as defined 

in this notice) benefit from the PBCS. 

Final TIF Evaluation Competition 

Requirements 

In addition to the requirements and 

priorities for the Main TIF competition, 

which applicants for the TIF Evaluation 

competition are also required to meet, 

the Secretary includes the following 

requirements for the TIF Evaluation 

competition only: 

Budget Information. In exchange for 

its agreement to participate in the 

national TIF Evaluation, a successful 

applicant for the TIF Evaluation 

competition will receive a minimum of 

$1 million of additional funding over 

the 5-year grant period (above the 

amount of funding awarded to it to 

implement the PBCS proposed in its 

application) for the four pairs of schools 

selected to participate in the evaluation. 

For each additional pair of schools 

participating in the evaluation, a 

successful applicant will receive an 

additional $250,000, up to a maximum 

total additional award of $2 million. 

An applicant for the TIF Evaluation 

competition must provide, in its 

application, a proposed budget that 

indicates how it plans to use the 

additional funds the Department would 

award. While these additional funds 

must be used for TIF-related activities, 

examples of acceptable expenses 

include the costs of: 

(1) Academic coaches such as 

mathematics and reading coaches, and 

Master, Mentor, or Lead Teacher salaries 

beyond those the Department will 

otherwise fund under the Main TIF 

competition (the Department approves 

expenses related to one salary, per 

position, per high-need school (as 

defined in this notice) within the project 

scope); 

(2) Activities such as expenses related 

to release time for teachers to attend 

professional development beyond those 

the Department will otherwise fund 

under the Main competition (the 

Department does not allow for an 

unreasonable amount of substitute 

teacher salaries to compensate for this 

release time); 

(3) Support for the PBCS that would 

otherwise need to be paid with non-TIF 

funds in order to implement the 

applicant’s plan for fiscal sustainability 

under absolute priority 2; and 

(4) Costs associated with participating 

in the national evaluation, such as 

preparing administrative student 

records for use by the national 

evaluator. 

Incentive Amounts. Consistent with 

absolute priority 1, an applicant for the 

TIF Evaluation competition must 

demonstrate, in its application, that it 

will implement a PBCS that uses— 

(1) Incentive payments to principals 

based on differentiated levels of 

effectiveness in which— 

(a) 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 percent of 

the average principal salary); 

(b) The criteria for determining 

whether a principal is eligible for 

payment are challenging (e.g., payments 

are made to only those who perform 

significantly better than the current 

average performance among study 

schools within the LEA) 2 and 

(c) 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 98 / Friday, May 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 28735 

times the average principal payout, and 

the applicant’s documentation of cost 

projections is consistent with this 

expectation); and 

(2) Incentive payments to teachers 

based on differentiated levels of 

effectiveness in which— 

(a) 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 percent of 

the average teacher salary); 

(b) The criteria for determining 

whether a teacher is eligible for 

payment are challenging (e.g., payments 

are made only to those who perform 

significantly better than the current 

average performance among study 

schools within the LEA); and 

(c) 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 and a 1 percent 

across-the-board annual bonus in at 

least one LEA in accordance with the 

implementation plan developed by the 

Institute of Education Sciences (IES) 

evaluator, Mathematica Policy Research 

(http://www.mathematica-mpr.com/ 

education/tifgrantee.asp). Specifically, 

the IES evaluator will select by lottery 

one-half of the evaluation schools 

within the LEA (i.e., ‘‘Group 1’’) to 

implement the applicant’s proposed 

differentiated effectiveness incentive 

payment component of the PBCS. The 

other half of the schools within the LEA 

(i.e., ‘‘Group 2’’) participating in the 

evaluation will implement a 1 percent 

across-the-board annual bonus for 

teachers, principals, and other 

personnel (in those sites in which the 

grantee wishes to expand the PBCS to 

additional staff in its schools). The 

applicant must identify, in its 

application, the schools that are 

proposed for participation in the 

evaluation. 

In participating LEAs that have the 

five core elements in place at the time 

of the initial 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 five 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 TIF 

Evaluation random assignment plan, 

depending on the amount of planning 

time an applicant needs: 

Random assignment a Pay component of PBCSb

LEAs Ready for 2010–11 Implementation ........... Group 1 .................................. Differentiated pay implemented starting in 2010–11. 

Group 2 .................................. Across-the-board annual 1 percent bonus implemented starting in 2010–11 through 2014–15. 

LEAs Ready for 2011–12 Implementation ........... Group 1 .................................. Differentiated pay implemented starting in 2011–12. 

Group 2 .................................. Across-the-board annual 1 percent bonus implemented starting in 2011–12 through 2014–15. 

aFor each LEA, the IES evaluator will randomly assign the schools participating in the Evaluation into 2 groups (Groups 1 and 2). bThe 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. 

Commitment to Evaluation. An 

applicant for the TIF Evaluation 

competition must demonstrate, in its 

application, that each participating LEA 

and school is willing to participate in 

the TIF Evaluation. Documentation 

demonstrating this commitment must 

include, for each participating LEA— 

(1) 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. 

(2) A letter from the research office or 

research board of the participating LEA 

that expresses an agreement to comply 

with the TIF Evaluation requirements (if 

the LEA requires such research office 

approval). 

Advance Notice. Each applicant must 

agree, in its application, to work with 

the IES evaluator to notify all eligible 

schools participating in the TIF 

Evaluation at least two months prior to 

the assigned Group 1 implementation 

schedule. The Department will waive 

this advance notice for any applicants 

that are eligible to implement their 

PBCS in 2010–11 (i.e., meet the five core 

requirements) so long as the program is 

implemented according to the 

evaluator’s assigned group status (Note: 

The evaluator will be ready to assign 

group status immediately upon grant 

award, or if the applicant prefers, the 

applicant can discuss with Mathematica 

prior to grant award how to comply 

with the evaluation requirements by 

contacting Mathematica at http:// 

www.mathematica-mpr.com/education/ 

tifgrantee.asp). 

Implementation of All Nondifferentiated Effectiveness Incentive 

Components. Each applicant must agree, 

in its application, to implement the nondifferentiated effectiveness incentive 

components of its PBCS (e.g., bonuses 

for leadership or additional 

responsibilities and professional 

development activities) 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 (as defined in this 

notice) in an LEA that has students in 

tested subjects or grades (i.e., students 

in grades three through eight). At least 

two of the schools proposed to 

participate in the TIF Evaluation must 

be from within the same 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
28736 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 98 / Friday, May 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

schools all within the same LEA). 

Applicants that include multiple LEAs 

must meet the scope of schools 

requirement in at least one LEA. In 

addition, no LEA will have more than 

16 high-need schools (as defined in this 

notice) selected for the TIF Evaluation. 

An applicant that is a consortium of 

small LEAs or an intermediary unit that 

is considered an LEA under State law 

does not have to have eight eligible 

schools in a participating LEA provided 

that the consortium or intermediary unit 

serves a coordinating function (i.e., data 

are available from a centralized or 

coordinating entity). In this case, the 

minimum number of schools required 

for the consortium or intermediary unit 

is still eight, and within the eight, each 

school is at least paired with another 

school at the same grade level and 

within the same State. The Department 

will use the number of eligible schools, 

up to 16 per LEA, that a successful 

applicant makes available for the TIF 

Evaluation. 

Local Evaluation. In order to be 

eligible to receive points under the 

selection criteria, TIF Evaluation 

competition applicants must include a 

description of its local evaluation, 

demonstrated in its response to the 

selection criterion Quality of Local 

Evaluation. For the purposes of the TIF 

Evaluation competition, the score for 

this part of the application will not be 

used to rank the application. For the 

purposes of the Main TIF competition, 

if applicable, the score for this part of 

the application will be used to rank the 

application. If an applicant is selected 

under the TIF Evaluation competition, 

the local evaluation plan will not be 

reviewed and will not be applicable for 

program implementation. 

Final Definitions 

The Secretary establishes the 

following definitions for the TIF 

program. We may apply these 

definitions in any year in which this 

program is in effect. 

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; 

and 

(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 

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 learners. 

Additional responsibilities and 

leadership roles means additional duties 

teachers may voluntarily accept, such 

as: (1) Serving as master or mentor 

teachers who are chosen through a 

performance-based selection process 

(including through assessment of their 

teaching effectiveness and the ability to 

work effectively with other adults and 

students) and who have responsibilities 

to share effective instructional practices 

and/or to assess and improve the 

teaching effectiveness of other teachers 

in the school; (2) roles in induction and 

mentoring of novice teachers or highneed students (as defined in this notice); 

(3) tutoring students; or (4) roles 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. 

Selection Criteria 

The Secretary establishes the 

following selection criteria for 

evaluating an application under the TIF 

program. We may apply one or more of 

these criteria in any year in which this 

program is in effect. In the notice 

inviting applications, 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 (as defined 

in this notice) whose educators would 

be part of the PBCS have difficulty— 

(i) Recruiting highly qualified or 

effective teachers, particularly in hardto-staff subjects or specialty areas, such 

as mathematics, science, English 

language acquisition, and special 

education; and 

(ii) Retaining highly qualified or 

effective teachers and principals. 

(2) Student achievement (as defined 

in this notice) in each of the schools 

whose educators would be part of the 

PBCS is lower than in what the 

applicant determines are comparable 

schools in the LEA, or another LEA in 

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 is established. 

(b) Project design. The Secretary will 

consider the quality of the design of the 

proposed project. In determining the 

quality of the design of the proposed 

project, the Secretary will consider 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, 

principals, and other personnel (in 

those sites in which the grantee wishes 

to expand the PBCS to additional staff 

in its schools) in high-need schools (as 

defined in this notice) based upon their 

effectiveness as determined in 

significant part by student growth (as 

defined in this notice). With regard to 

the effectiveness of teachers, principals, 

and other personnel, the Secretary will 

consider whether— 

(i) The methodology the LEA or SEA 

proposes to use in its PBCS to determine 

the effectiveness of a school’s teachers, 

principals, and other personnel (in 

those sites in which the grantee wishes 

to expand the PBCS to additional staff 

in its schools) includes valid and 

reliable measures of student growth (as 

defined in this notice); 

(ii) The participating LEA would use 

the proposed PBCS to provide 

performance awards to teachers, 

principals, and other personnel (in 

those sites in which the grantee wishes 

to expand the PBCS to additional staff 

in its schools) that are of sufficient size 

to affect the behaviors of teachers, 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 98 / Friday, May 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 28737 

principals, and other personnel and 

their decisions as to whether to go to, 

or remain working in, the high-need 

school; and 

(iii) The applicant provides a clear 

explanation of how teachers, principals, 

and other personnel (in those sites in 

which the grantee wishes to expand the 

PBCS to additional staff in its schools) 

are determined to be ‘‘effective’’ for the 

purposes of the proposed PBCS. 

(2) Has the involvement and support 

of teachers, principals, and other 

personnel (in those sites in which the 

grantee wishes to expand the PBCS to 

additional staff in its schools), including 

input from teachers, and principals, and 

other personnel 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 levels of 

effectiveness using multiple rating 

categories that take into account data on 

student growth (as defined in this 

notice) 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 (as defined in this notice) 

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 

(as defined in this notice) 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. 

(d) Quality of Local Evaluation. In 

determining the quality of the local 

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 

(as defined in this notice), increasing 

the effectiveness of teachers, principals 

and other personnel (in those sites in 

which the grantee wishes to expand the 

PBCS to additional staff in its schools), 

and retaining and recruiting effective 

teachers, principals, and other 

personnel; 

(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. 

This notice does not preclude the 

Department 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 one or more of these priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria, we invite applications through a 

notice inviting applications published 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 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 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—both quantitative and 

qualitative—of this regulatory action, 

we have determined that the benefits of 

the final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria justify 

the costs. 

We have determined, also, that this 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

Need for Federal Regulatory Action 

These final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, 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 educational innovation. The 

authorizing language is very brief and 

provides only broad parameters 

governing the program. The final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria established in this 

notice provide greater clarity on the 

types of activities the Department seeks 

to fund, and permit the Department to 

fund projects that 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 in 

selecting grant recipients. The Secretary 

does not believe the use of those general 

criteria would be appropriate for the 

Main TIF grant and 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 establish those included in 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
28738 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 98 / Friday, May 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 

this notice. The final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria are those that the Secretary 

believes best capture the purposes of the 

program while clarifying what the 

Secretary expects the program to 

accomplish and ensuring that program 

activities are aligned with Departmental 

priorities. The final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria also provide eligible applicants 

with flexibility in selecting activities to 

apply to carry out under the program. 

The Secretary believes that the final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria thus appropriately 

balance a limited degree of specificity 

with broad flexibility in 

implementation. 

Summary of Costs and Benefits 

The Secretary believes that the final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria do not impose 

significant costs on eligible applicants. 

The Secretary also believes that the 

benefits of the final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria outweigh any associated costs. 

The Secretary believes that the final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria will result in the 

selection of high-quality applications to 

implement activities that are most likely 

to improve the quality of teaching and 

educational administration. The final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria are intended to 

provide clarity as to the scope of 

activities the Secretary expects to 

support with program funds and the 

expected burden of work involved in 

preparing an application and 

implementing a project under the 

program. Eligible applicants need to 

consider carefully the effort that will be 

required to prepare a strong application, 

their capacity to implement a project 

successfully, and their chances of 

submitting a successful application. 

The Secretary believes that the costs 

imposed on applicants by the final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria will be limited to 

paperwork burden related to preparing 

an application and that the benefits of 

the final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria 

outweigh any costs incurred by 

applicants. The costs of carrying out 

activities will be paid for with program 

funds and with matching funds. Thus, 

the costs of implementation are not a 

burden for any eligible applicants, 

including small entities. However, 

under the final selection criteria the 

Secretary will assess the extent to which 

an eligible applicant is able to sustain a 

project once Federal funding through 

the TIF program is no longer available. 

Thus, eligible applicants should 

propose activities that they will be able 

to sustain without funding from the 

program and, thus, in essence, should 

include in their project plan the specific 

steps they will take for sustained 

implementation of the proposed project. 

Accounting Statement 

As required by OMB Circular A–4 

(available at http://www.Whithouse.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 

final 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 final 

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.

$437.0. 

From Whom to Whom Federal Government 

to States, LEAs, 

and nonprofits. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995: 

The requirements and selection criteria 

established in this notice require the 

collection of information that is subject 

to review by OMB under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3520). The Department has received 

approval to submit the information 

collections described in this section for 

OMB review under emergency 

processing. 

We estimate that each applicant will 

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. Therefore, the total estimated 

cost for all applicants will be $892,800. 

Waiver of Congressional Review Act: 

These regulations have been 

determined to be major for purposes of 

the Congressional Review Act (CRA) (5 

U.S.C. 801, et seq.). Generally, under the 

CRA, a major rule takes effect 60 days 

after the date on which the rule is 

published in the Federal Register. 

Section 808(2) of the CRA, however, 

provides that any rule which an agency 

for good cause finds (and incorporates 

the finding and a brief statement of 

reasons therefore in the rule issued) that 

notice and public procedure thereon are 

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest, shall take effect at 

such time as the Federal agency 

promulgating the rule determines. 

These final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria are 

needed to implement the new TIF 

authority provided by the Departments 

of Labor, Health and Human Services, 

and Education, and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act, 2010 and the 

ARRA. The Department must award TIF 

funds authorized under both the 

Appropriations Act and the ARRA to 

qualified applicants by September 30, 

2010, or the funds will lapse. Even on 

an extremely expedited timeline, it is 

impracticable for the Department to 

adhere to a 60-day delayed effective 

date for the final priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria and make grant awards to 

qualified applicants by the September 

30, 2010 deadline. When the 60-day 

delayed effective date is added to the 

time the Department will need to 

receive applications (approximately 45 

days), review the applications 

(approximately 21 days), and finally 

approve applications (approximately 65 

days), the Department will not be able 

to award funds authorized under the 

Appropriations Act and ARRA to 

applicants by September 30, 2010. The 

delayed effective date would be 

impracticable and contrary to the public 

interest. The Department has therefore 

determined that, pursuant to section 

808(2) of the CRA, the 60-delay in the 

effective date generally required for 

congressional review is impracticable, 

contrary to the public interest, and 

waived for good cause. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

The Secretary certifies that this final 

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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 98 / Friday, May 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations 28739 

believes that the costs imposed on an 

applicant by the final priorities, 

requirements, definition, and selection 

criteria will be limited to paperwork 

burden related to preparing an 

application and that the benefits of 

implementing these proposals outweigh 

any costs incurred by the applicant. 

Participation in the TIF program is 

voluntary. For this reason, the final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria impose no burden on 

small entities unless they apply for 

funding under a TIF program using the 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria established in this 

notice. We expect that in determining 

whether to apply for TIF funds, an 

eligible entity will 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 will 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 146,802 nonprofit 

organizations that had an educational 

mission and reported revenue to the 

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) by 

January 2010, 142,357 (97 percent) had 

revenues of $5 million or less. 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 will 

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 the 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, 

definitions, and selection criteria 

established 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 final 

action. That is, the length of the 

applications those entities would 

submit in the absence of the final 

regulatory action and the time needed to 

prepare an application would likely be 

the same. 

Further, this final 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 final regulatory action will not 

have a significant economic impact on 

a small entity once it receives a grant 

because it will be able to meet the costs 

of compliance using the funds provided 

under this program and with any 

matching funds provided by privatesector partners. 

Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 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 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: 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: www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ 

index.html. 

Dated: May 18, 2010. 

Thelma Mele ́ndez de Santa Ana, 

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education. 

[FR Doc. 2010–12218 Filed 5–20–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with RULES2