Vol. 79 Wednesday, 

No. 232 December 3, 2014 

Part II 

Department of Education 

34 CFR Parts 612 and 686 

Teacher Preparation Issues; Proposed Rule 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71820 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1See, for example, Tennessee Higher Education 

Commission, ‘‘Report Card on the Effectiveness of 

Teacher Training Programs,’’ Nashville, TN (2010); 

Dan Goldhaber, et al. ‘‘The Gateway to the 

Profession: Assessing Teacher Preparation Programs 

Based on Student Achievement.’’ Economics of 

Education Review, 34 (2013), pp. 29–44. 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Parts 612 and 686 

[Docket ID ED–2014–OPE–0057] 

RIN 1840–AD07 

Teacher Preparation Issues 

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary 

Education, Department of Education. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes new 

regulations to implement requirements 

for the teacher preparation program 

accountability system under title II of 

the Higher Education Act of 1965, as 

amended (HEA), that would result in 

the development and distribution of 

more meaningful data on teacher 

preparation program quality (title II 

reporting system). The Secretary also 

proposes to amend the regulations 

governing the Teacher Education 

Assistance for College and Higher 

Education (TEACH) Grant Program 

under title IV of the HEA so as to 

condition TEACH Grant program 

funding on teacher preparation program 

quality and to update, clarify, and 

improve the current regulations and 

align them with title II reporting system 

data. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before February 2, 2015. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

or via postal mail, commercial delivery, 

or hand delivery. We will not accept 

comments by fax or by email. To ensure 

that we do not receive duplicate copies, 

please submit your comments only one 

time. In addition, please include the 

Docket ID at the top of your comments. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

www.regulations.gov to submit your 

comments electronically. Information 

on using Regulations.gov, including 

instructions for accessing agency 

documents, submitting comments, and 

viewing the docket, is available on the 

site under ‘‘Are you new to the site?’’ 

• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, 

or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver 

your comments about these proposed 

regulations, address them to Sophia 

McArdle, U.S. Department of Education, 

1990 K Street NW., Room 8017, 

Washington, DC 20006. 

Privacy Note: The Department’s policy is 

to make all comments received from 

members of the public available for public 

viewing in their entirety on the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. 

Therefore, commenters should be careful to 

include in their comments only information 

that they wish to make publicly available. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Sophia McArdle, U.S. Department of 

Education, 1990 K Street NW., Room 

8017, Washington, DC 20006. 

Telephone: (202) 219–7078 or by email: 

sophia.mcardle@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

Service (FRS), toll free, at 1–800–877– 

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Purpose of This Regulatory Action 

Section 205 of the HEA requires 

States and institutions of higher 

education (IHEs) annually to report on 

various characteristics of their teacher 

preparation programs. These reporting 

requirements exist in part to ensure that 

members of the public, prospective 

teachers and employers (districts and 

schools), and the States, IHEs, and 

programs themselves have accurate 

information on the quality of these 

teacher preparation programs. These 

requirements also provide an impetus to 

States and IHEs to make improvements 

where they are needed and recognize 

excellence where it exists. Thousands of 

new teachers enter the profession every 

year, and their students depend on 

having well-prepared teachers. 

Research from States such as 

Louisiana, Tennessee, North Carolina, 

and Washington has concluded that a 

teacher’s preparation program 

significantly impacts the learning gains 

of a teacher’s students.1 Statutory 

reporting requirements on teacher 

preparation program quality for States 

and IHEs are broad. The Department’s 

existing reporting framework has not 

ensured sufficient quality feedback to 

various stakeholders on program 

performance. States must report on the 

criteria they use to assess whether 

teacher preparation programs are lowperforming or at-risk of being found to 

be low-performing, but it is difficult to 

identify programs deserving of 

recognition or in need of remediation or 

closure because few of the reporting 

requirements ask for information 

indicative of program quality. The 

Secretary is committed to ensuring that 

the measures by which States judge the 

quality of teacher preparation programs 

reflect the true quality of these programs 

and provide information that facilitates 

program self-improvement, and by 

extension, student achievement. 

These proposed regulations would 

address shortcomings in the current 

system by defining the indicators of 

quality that States will use to assess the 

performance of their teacher preparation 

programs, including more meaningful 

indicators of program inputs and 

program outcomes, such as the ability of 

the program’s graduates to produce 

gains in student learning (understanding 

that not all students will learn at the 

same rate). To maintain alignment with 

definitions we use in other 

Departmental initiatives and to maintain 

consistency for the various entities that 

work with the Department, including 

States and school districts, we propose 

definitions that are almost identical to 

definitions used in initiatives such as 

ESEA Flexibility, the Teacher Incentive 

Fund, and Race to the Top. These 

proposed regulations would build on 

current State systems and create a 

much-needed feedback loop to facilitate 

program improvement and provide 

valuable information to prospective 

teachers, potential employers, and the 

general public. 

These proposed regulations would 

also link assessments of program 

performance under title II to eligibility 

for the Federal TEACH Grant program. 

The TEACH Grant program, authorized 

by section 420M of the HEA, provides 

grants to eligible IHEs, which in turn, 

use the funds to provide grants of up to 

$4,000 annually to eligible teacher 

preparation candidates who agree to 

serve as full-time teachers in high-need 

fields and schools for not less than four 

academic years within eight years after 

completing their courses of study. If a 

TEACH Grant recipient fails to complete 

his or her service obligation, the grant 

is converted into a Federal Direct 

Unsubsidized Stafford Loan and must 

be repaid with interest. 

Pursuant to section 420L(1)(A) of the 

HEA, a teacher preparation program 

must provide high-quality teacher 

preparation in order to be eligible to 

award TEACH Grants. However, of the 

38 programs identified by States as 

‘‘low-performing’’ or ‘‘at-risk,’’ 22 

programs were based in IHEs 

participating in the TEACH Grant 

program. These proposed regulations 

would limit TEACH Grant eligibility to 

only those programs that States have 

identified as ‘‘effective’’ or higher. 

Please refer to the Background and 

Significant Proposed Regulations 

sections of this preamble for a more 

complete discussion of the purpose of 

this regulatory action. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71821 

Summary of the Major Provisions of 

This Regulatory Action: The proposed 

regulations would— 

• Establish necessary definitions, 

requirements for IHEs and States on the 

quality of teacher preparation programs, 

and requirements that States develop 

measures for assessing teacher 

preparation performance. The proposed 

regulations would support the 

Administration’s goal of measuring 

program performance based on 

meaningful indicators. 

• Establish required indicators that 

States must use to report on teacher 

preparation program performance and, 

in doing so, ensure that the quality of 

teacher preparation programs is judged 

on reliable and valid indicators of 

program performance. 

• Establish the required areas States 

must consider in identifying lowperforming and at-risk teacher 

preparation programs, the actions States 

must take with respect to those 

programs, and the consequences for a 

low-performing program that loses State 

approval or financial support. These 

proposed regulations would also 

establish the conditions under which a 

program that loses State approval or 

financial support would regain its 

eligibility for title IV, HEA funding. 

• Establish a link between the State’s 

classification of a teacher preparation 

program under the title II reporting 

system and that program’s identification 

as ‘‘high-quality’’ for TEACH Grant 

eligibility purposes. The proposed 

regulations would support Congress’s 

intent and the Administration’s goal of 

ensuring that only high-quality teacher 

preparation programs may award 

TEACH Grants. 

• Establish provisions that would 

allow TEACH Grant recipients to satisfy 

the requirements of their agreement to 

serve by teaching in a high-need field 

that was designated as high-need at the 

time of the grant. 

• Establish conditions that would 

allow TEACH Grant recipients to 

discharge the requirements of their 

agreements to serve if they are totally 

and permanently disabled. The 

proposed regulations would also 

establish conditions that would allow 

these recipients to regain eligibility for 

new TEACH Grants under certain 

circumstances. 

Please refer to the Significant 

Proposed Regulations section of this 

preamble for a more complete 

discussion of the major provisions 

contained in this NPRM. Please refer to 

the Delayed Implementation Date and 

Revised Reporting Calendar section of 

this preamble for a schedule of when 

these regulations would affect State and 

institutional reporting. 

Costs and Benefits 

Chart 1 summarizes the proposed 

regulations and related benefits, costs, 

and transfers that are discussed in more 

detail in the Regulatory Impact Analysis 

section of this preamble. Significant 

benefits of these proposed regulations 

include an improved accountability 

system that would enable prospective 

teachers to make more informed choices 

about their enrollment in a teacher 

preparation program and employers of 

prospective teachers to make more 

informed hiring decisions. Further, the 

proposed regulations would also create 

incentives for States and IHEs to 

monitor and continuously improve the 

quality of their teacher preparation 

programs, informed by more meaningful 

data. Most importantly, elementary and 

secondary school students would 

benefit from these proposed regulations 

because the feedback loop created 

would lead to better prepared, higher 

quality teachers in classrooms, 

especially for students in high-need 

schools and communities who are 

disproportionately taught by newer 

teachers. 

The net budget impact of the 

proposed regulations is approximately 

$0.67 million in reduced costs over the 

TEACH Grant cohorts from 2014 to 

2024. We estimate that the total cost 

annualized over 10 years of these 

regulations would be between $42.0 

million and $42.1 million (see the 

Accounting Statement section of this 

document). 

Invitation To Comment 

As discussed in the section of this 

notice entitled Negotiated Rulemaking, 

through a series of three regional 

hearings and four negotiated rulemaking 

sessions, there has been significant 

public participation in developing this 

notice of proposed rulemaking. In 

accordance with the requirements of the 

Administrative Procedure Act, the 

Department invites you to submit 

comments regarding these proposed 

regulations. To ensure that your 

comments have maximum effect in 

developing the final regulations, we 

urge you to identify clearly the specific 

section or sections of the proposed 

regulations that each of your comments 

addresses and to arrange your comments 

in the same order as the proposed 

regulations. 

We invite you to assist us in 

complying with the specific 

requirements of Executive Order 12866 

and 13563 and their overall requirement 

of reducing regulatory burden that 

might result from these proposed 

regulations. Please let us know of any 

further ways we could reduce potential 

costs or increase potential benefits 

while ensuring the effective, efficient, 

and faithful administration of the title II 

reporting system and TEACH Grant 

program. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect all public comments 

regarding these proposed regulations by 

accessing Regulations.gov. You may also 

inspect comments, in person, in room 

number 8022, 1990 K Street NW., 

Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 

4:00 p.m. Washington, DC time, Monday 

through Friday of each week except 

Federal holidays. Please contact the 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Assistance to Individuals With 

Disabilities in Reviewing the 

Rulemaking Record 

On request we will provide an 

appropriate accommodation or auxiliary 

aid to an individual with a disability 

who needs assistance to review the 

comments or other documents in the 

public rulemaking record for these 

proposed regulations. If you want to 

schedule an appointment for this type of 

accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 

contact the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Negotiated Rulemaking 

Section 492 of the HEA requires the 

Secretary, before publishing any 

proposed regulations for programs 

authorized by title IV of the HEA, to 

obtain public involvement in the 

development of the proposed 

regulations. After obtaining advice and 

recommendations from individuals and 

representatives of groups involved in, or 

affected by, the proposed regulations, 

the Secretary must further develop the 

proposed regulations through a 

negotiated rulemaking process. In 

addition, section 207(c) of the HEA 

requires the Secretary to submit any 

proposed regulations implementing 

section 207(b)(2) to a negotiated 

rulemaking process. These proposed 

regulations would implement section 

207(b)(2) of the HEA, which provides 

that any teacher preparation program 

from which a State has withdrawn 

approval or terminated financial 

support due to low performance may 

not accept or enroll any student who 

receives aid under title IV of the HEA 

in the IHE’s teacher preparation 

program. 

All proposed regulations that the 

Department publishes must conform to 

final agreements resulting from the 

negotiated rulemaking process unless 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71822 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

the Secretary reopens the process or 

provides a written explanation to the 

participants stating why the Secretary 

has decided to depart from the 

agreements. Further information on the 

negotiated rulemaking process may be 

found at: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/

highered/reg/hearulemaking/hea08/negreg-faq.html. 

The Department developed a list of 

proposed regulatory changes from 

advice and recommendations submitted 

by individuals and organizations in 

testimony at a series of three public 

hearings and four roundtable 

discussions held on: 

May 12, 2011, at Tennessee State 

University in Nashville, Tennessee 

(roundtable only); 

May 16–17, 2011, at Pacific Lutheran 

University in Tacoma, Washington; 

May 19–20, 2011, at Loyola 

University, Lake Shore Campus in 

Chicago, Illinois; and 

May 26–27, 2011, at the College of 

Charleston in Charleston, South 

Carolina. 

In addition, the Department accepted 

written comments on possible 

regulatory changes submitted directly to 

the Department by interested parties 

and organizations. Transcripts of all 

regional meetings and a summary of all 

comments received orally and in writing 

are posted as background material in the 

Regulations.gov docket and may also be 

accessed at http://www2.ed.gov/policy/

highered/reg/hearulemaking/2011/

hearings.html. Staff within the 

Department also identified issues for 

discussion and negotiation by the 

negotiated rulemaking committee. 

On October 26, 2011, the Department 

published a notice in the Federal 

Register (76 FR 66248) announcing our 

intent to establish a negotiated 

rulemaking committee to prepare 

proposed regulations under titles II and 

IV of the HEA. The notice requested 

nominations of individuals for 

membership on the committee who 

could represent the interests of key 

stakeholders. 

To develop proposed regulations, the 

Teacher Preparation Issues Committee 

(the Committee) met in three face-toface sessions that took place on: January 

18–20, 2012; February 27–29, 2012; and 

April 3–5, 2012. The Committee met in 

an additional fourth session that was 

conducted via a webinar on April 12, 

2012. 

At the first meeting, the Committee 

agreed on the protocols for the 

negotiations. The protocols provided 

that, for each community identified as 

having interests that were significantly 

affected by the subject matter of the 

negotiations, the non-Federal 

negotiators would represent the 

constituency listed before their names 

in the protocols to the negotiated 

rulemaking process. 

The Committee was made up of the 

following members: 

Eric Mann, Sandpoint High School, 

Idaho, and Eric Gregoire (alternate), 

Boston University School of Education, 

representing postsecondary students. 

Katie Hartley, Miami East Junior High, 

Ohio, and Qualyn McIntyre (alternate), 

Atlanta Urban Teacher Residency, 

representing teachers. 

Segun Eubanks, National Education 

Association, and James Alouf 

(alternate), Association of Teacher 

Educators, representing organizations 

that represent teachers and teacher 

educators. 

Joseph Pettibon, Texas A&M 

University, and David Smedley 

(alternate), The George Washington 

University, representing financial aid 

administrators at postsecondary 

institutions. 

Julie Karns, Rider University, and 

Karl Brockenbrough (alternate), Bowie 

State University, representing business 

officers and bursars at postsecondary 

institutions. 

George Noell, Louisiana State 

University, and Vance Rugaard 

(alternate), Tennessee Office of 

Licensing, representing State officials. 

Glenn DuBois, Virginia Community 

Colleges, and Ray Ostos (alternate), 

Maricopa Community College, 

representing two-year public 

institutions. 

David Steiner, Hunter College, and 

Ronald Marx (alternate), University of 

Arizona, representing four-year public 

institutions. 

David Prasse, Loyola University 

Chicago, and Mary Kay Delaney 

(alternate), Meredith College, 

representing private nonprofit 

institutions. 

Meredith Curley, University of 

Phoenix, and Bonnie Copeland 

(alternate), Walden University, 

representing private for-profit 

institutions. 

Cindy O’Dell, Salish Kootenai 

College, representing tribal institutions. 

Leontye Lewis, Fayetteville State 

University, and VerJanis Peoples 

(alternate), Southern University of 

Louisiana, representing Historically 

Black Colleges and Universities 

(HBCUs). 

Beverly Young, California State 

University System, and Michael 

Morehead (alternate), New Mexico State 

University, representing HispanicServing Institutions (HSIs). 

Heather Harding, Teach for America, 

and Diann Huber (alternate), iteachU.S., 

representing operators of programs for 

alternative routes to teacher 

certification. 

Jim Cibulka, National Council for the 

Accreditation of Teacher Education and 

the Council for Accreditation of 

Educator Preparation, and Frank Murray 

(alternate), Teacher Education 

Accreditation Council and the Council 

for Accreditation of Educator 

Preparation, representing accrediting 

agencies. 

Sarah Almy, Education Trust, and 

Charmaine Mercer (alternate), 

Communities for Teaching Excellence, 

representing elementary and secondary 

students and parents. 

Thalia Nawi, Denver Teacher 

Residency, Denver Public Schools, 

representing school and local education 

agency (LEA) officials. 

Sophia McArdle, U.S. Department of 

Education, representing the Federal 

Government. 

The Committee’s protocols provided 

that the Committee would operate by 

consensus, defined to mean unanimous 

agreement; that is, no dissent by any 

member of the Committee. Under the 

protocols, if the Committee reached 

final consensus, the Department would 

use the consensus language in the 

proposed regulations and members of 

the Committee and the organizations 

whom they represented would refrain 

from commenting negatively on the 

package. 

During its meetings, the Committee 

reviewed and discussed drafts of the 

proposed regulations. At the final 

meeting in April 2012, the Committee 

did not reach consensus on the 

proposed regulatory changes discussed 

at that meeting, which are now the 

subject of the proposed regulations in 

this NPRM. 

More information on the work of this 

Committee may be found at: http://

www2.ed.gov/policy/highered/reg/

hearulemaking/2011/teacherprep.html. 

This NPRM proposes regulations 

relating to the teacher preparation 

program accountability system under 

title II of the HEA and the TEACH Grant 

program under title IV of the HEA as 

discussed by the Committee. 

Background 

In title II of the HEA, as amended in 

2008 by the Higher Education 

Opportunity Act (Pub. L. 110–315), 

Congress enacted detailed public 

reporting requirements for States and 

IHEs that conduct traditional or 

alternative route teacher preparation 

programs. Section 205(a) requires each 

IHE that conducts a teacher preparation 

program and that enrolls students 

receiving Federal assistance provided 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71823 

2See the Secretary’s annual reports at: https://

title2.ed.gov/Public/SecReport.aspx. 

under the HEA to report annually on 

specified information about its teacher 

preparation programs to its State and 

the general public. Similarly, section 

205(b) requires each State that receives 

HEA funding to report annually to the 

Secretary and the general public 

specified information about those 

teacher preparation programs, as well as 

other information about State 

certification or licensure requirements 

and the teaching needs of LEAs. Section 

205(c) requires the Secretary to report 

annually to Congress on the content of 

these State reports, including a 

comparison of States’ efforts to improve 

the quality of the current and future 

teaching force. 

These IHE and State reporting 

requirements cover a wide range of 

information about a State’s teacher 

preparation programs and new teacher 

certification or licensure process. IHEs 

must report on areas that include the 

characteristics of students’ clinical 

experiences, pass rates of students who 

take assessments needed to become 

teachers, and how well the programs are 

meeting their goals in specified areas, 

such as addressing needs of English 

language learners and students with 

special education needs. States must 

also report on their certification or 

licensure procedures, the validity and 

reliability of assessments that the State 

requires for teacher certification or 

licensure, the availability of alternative 

route programs, the pass rates for 

students of each teacher preparation 

program on the State certification and 

licensure assessments, and the students’ 

scaled scores on those assessments. 

In section 205(b)(1)(F) of the HEA, 

Congress required States to continue 

annually to provide a ‘‘description of 

their criteria for assessing the 

performance of teacher preparation 

programs within institutions of higher 

education in the State’’ and required 

that ‘‘[s]uch criteria shall include 

indicators of the academic content 

knowledge and teaching skills of 

students enrolled in such programs.’’ As 

with all other elements of these reports, 

States must report their criteria for 

assessing the performance of teacher 

preparation programs ‘‘in a uniform and 

comprehensible manner that conforms 

to the definitions and methods 

established by the Secretary’’ (HEA 

§ 205(b)). Further, section 207(a) of the 

HEA requires States to disclose in their 

annual reports those teacher preparation 

programs that they had identified as 

either low-performing or at-risk of being 

considered low-performing, and to 

provide technical assistance to those 

they identified as low-performing. 

Section 207(b) requires the loss of 

Federal financial support to any teacher 

preparation program for which the State 

has withdrawn its approval or 

terminated State financial support. 

Section 205(c) directs the Secretary to 

establish regulations to ensure the 

validity, reliability, integrity and 

accuracy of data submitted. 

The statutory reporting requirements 

for States and IHEs in section 205(a) and 

(b) are thus extensive, with a chief 

purpose of improving the overall quality 

of teacher preparation programs and the 

programs’ ability to produce teachers 

who are well-prepared to teach when 

they enter the classroom. See, e.g., H. 

Rep. 100–803, the House-Senate 

conference report accompanying H.R. 

4137, which was enacted as Pub. L. 

110–315. 

Notwithstanding the focus that 

Congress has placed on improving the 

quality of new teachers produced by 

teacher preparation programs and 

improving or closing programs that are 

low-performing, these State and IHE 

reporting requirements have not 

produced information that is 

sufficiently helpful to programs, the 

public, or the Secretary in improving 

low-performing teacher preparation. To 

date, the Department has relied 

exclusively upon each State to establish, 

implement, and report upon its own 

criteria and indicators thereof for 

determining the effectiveness of teacher 

preparation programs in that State and 

for identifying and improving lowperforming teacher preparation 

programs. In 2011, the most recent year 

for which data are available, States 

identified only 38 teacher preparation 

programs as low-performing or at-risk. 

Twenty-nine of these programs were 

identified as at-risk and nine were 

designated as low-performing. Thirtytwo of the 38 low-performing or at-risk 

teacher preparation programs were 

located in traditional teacher 

preparation institutions, and six were 

alternative route teacher preparation 

programs not based at an IHE. 

Additionally, of the 38 programs 

identified by States as low-performing 

or at-risk, 22 were based in IHEs that 

participate in the TEACH Grant 

Program. Over the last dozen years, 34 

States have never identified a single 

low-performing or at-risk program at a 

single IHE.2

The data that are collected and 

reported have not led to an 

identification of significant 

improvements in teacher preparation 

program performance in part because 

the data are not based on meaningful 

indicators of program effectiveness. 

Rather than focusing on outcome 

measures of program quality, the title II 

reporting system currently relies on 

States to establish their own indicators 

of program effectiveness, while at the 

same time directing States and IHEs to 

fill out annual questionnaires having a 

combined total of almost 600 fields. 

There are more than 400 fields in the 

State report card (SRC) and more than 

150 fields in the institutional report 

card (IRC). These questions focus 

heavily on teacher preparation program 

inputs—such as admission requirements 

(including whether a program applicant 

must submit a resume as a condition of 

admission), student demographic 

information, and clock-hour 

requirements for participation in the 

program’s supervised clinical 

experience—and not on outcomes or 

program impact. 

Through these proposed regulations, 

the Department aims to provide teacher 

preparation programs, local educational 

agencies (LEAs), prospective teachers, 

and the general public with access to 

more meaningful indicators of teacher 

preparation program performance. 

These indicators would be based not 

only on program inputs but also 

program outcomes, including the ability 

of the program’s graduates to produce 

gains in student learning. These 

indicators would also include 

employment outcomes such as 

placement and retention rates of 

program graduates and survey data from 

past graduates and their employers. 

Creating a feedback loop between school 

districts and higher education will not 

only facilitate program improvement, 

but will also provide information that 

can be used, for example, by potential 

employers to guide their hiring 

decisions and by prospective teachers to 

guide their application decisions. 

The Department also intends to use 

information gathered through the title II 

reporting system to determine 

institutional and program eligibility for 

the Federal TEACH Grant program. 

Authorized under title IV of the HEA, 

the TEACH Grant program provides aid 

to students at IHEs who are preparing to 

become teachers. Pursuant to section 

420L(1)(a) of the HEA, eligible IHEs 

must provide ‘‘high-quality’’ teacher 

preparation services at the 

baccalaureate, post-baccalaureate, or 

master’s degree level to be eligible for 

TEACH Grants (see 34 CFR part 686 for 

the regulations governing this program). 

In exchange for a TEACH Grant, a 

student must teach in a low-income 

school and in a high-need field for four 

years. The student must complete the 

service obligation within eight years of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71824 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

completing the program for which the 

student obtained the grant, or the 

student’s TEACH Grant converts to a 

Federal Direct Unsubsidized Stafford 

Loan. 

The term ‘‘high-quality teacher 

preparation program,’’ which is used in 

section 420L(1)(A) of the HEA and 

throughout part 686 pertaining to the 

TEACH Grant program, is not currently 

defined by statute or in the TEACH 

Grant program regulations. The 

Department seeks to define ‘‘highquality teacher preparation program’’ in 

part because, of the 38 programs 

identified by States as ‘‘low-performing’’ 

or ‘‘at-risk,’’ 22 programs were based in 

IHEs participating in the TEACH Grant 

program. Further, based on data from 

national surveys and existing teacher 

loan forgiveness programs, the 

Department currently estimates that 

approximately 75 percent of 

participating students will not complete 

the required service obligation. The 

Department intends to limit TEACH 

Grants to students enrolled in teacher 

preparation programs deemed by States 

to be of ‘‘effective’’ quality or higher in 

part because we believe that a larger 

percentage of TEACH Grant recipients 

will be able to fulfill their service 

obligations if they have been prepared 

by strong teacher preparation programs 

that: (1) Provide to prospective teachers 

the knowledge and skills necessary to 

succeed in the classroom; and (2) have 

high placement and retention rates. 

Summary of Proposed Changes 

These proposed regulations would 

establish specific indicators that States 

would use to assess and report on the 

quality of teacher preparation programs 

under the title II reporting system. The 

indicators would ensure the collection 

of more meaningful data that can be 

used to improve teacher preparation 

programs. These proposed regulations 

also would amend the TEACH Grant 

program regulations to link TEACH 

Grant program eligibility to the 

determinations of quality made and 

reported by States under the title II 

reporting system. 

These proposed regulations would 

address teacher preparation issues by: 

• Establishing definitions for the 

terms ‘‘at-risk teacher preparation 

program,’’ ‘‘candidate accepted into a 

teacher preparation program,’’ 

‘‘candidate enrolled in a teacher 

preparation program,’’ ‘‘content and 

pedagogical knowledge,’’ ‘‘effective 

teacher preparation program,’’ 

‘‘employer survey,’’ ‘‘employment 

outcomes,’’ ‘‘exceptional teacher 

preparation program,’’ ‘‘high-need 

school,’’ ‘‘low-performing teacher 

preparation program,’’ ‘‘new teacher,’’ 

‘‘quality clinical preparation,’’ ‘‘recent 

graduate,’’ ‘‘rigorous teacher candidate 

entry and exit qualifications,’’ ‘‘student 

achievement in non-tested grades and 

subjects,’’ ‘‘student achievement in 

tested grades and subjects,’’ ‘‘student 

growth,’’ ‘‘student learning outcomes,’’ 

‘‘survey outcomes,’’ ‘‘teacher evaluation 

measure,’’ ‘‘teacher placement rate,’’ 

‘‘teacher preparation entity,’’ ‘‘teacher 

preparation program,’’ ‘‘teacher 

retention rate,’’ and ‘‘teacher survey’’ 

(see proposed § 612.2(d)). 

• Establishing reporting requirements 

for IHEs on the quality of their teacher 

preparation programs (see proposed 

§ 612.3). 

• Establishing reporting requirements 

for States on the quality of teacher 

preparation programs, and requirements 

that States develop measures for 

assessing the performance of teacher 

preparation programs in consultation 

with stakeholders (see proposed 

§ 612.4). 

• Establishing requirements related to 

the indicators States must use to report 

on teacher preparation program 

performance (see proposed § 612.5). 

• Establishing requirements related to 

the areas States must consider in 

identifying low-performing and at-risk 

teacher preparation programs and the 

actions States must take with respect to 

those programs (see proposed § 612.6). 

• Establishing the consequences for a 

low-performing teacher preparation 

program that loses State approval or 

financial support (see proposed § 612.7). 

• Providing for the conditions under 

which a low-performing teacher 

preparation program that has lost State 

approval or financial support may 

regain its eligibility for title IV, HEA 

funding and may resume accepting and 

enrolling students who receive title IV, 

HEA funds (see proposed § 612.8). 

• Adding or amending definitions of 

the terms ‘‘classification of instructional 

programs,’’ ‘‘educational service 

agency,’’ ‘‘high-quality teacher 

preparation program,’’ ‘‘school or 

educational service agency serving lowincome students (low-income school),’’ 

‘‘TEACH Grant-eligible institution,’’ 

‘‘TEACH Grant-eligible program,’’ 

‘‘TEACH Grant-eligible science, 

technology, engineering, and 

mathematics (STEM) program’’ and 

‘‘teacher preparation program’’ to 

§ 686.2. 

• Using the States’ determination of 

teacher preparation program quality 

under proposed §§ 612.4 and 612.5 to 

determine whether a teacher 

preparation program is a ‘‘high-quality 

teacher preparation program’’ for the 

purpose of establishing TEACH Grant 

eligibility (see proposed definition of 

‘‘high-quality teacher preparation 

program’’ in § 686.2(e)). 

• Establishing a requirement that to 

continue to be TEACH Grant-eligible, a 

science, technology, engineering, or 

mathematics (STEM) program must not 

be identified by the Secretary as having 

fewer than sixty percent of its TEACH 

Grant recipients completing at least one 

year of teaching that fulfills the service 

obligation pursuant to § 686.40 within 

three years of completing the program 

(see proposed definition of ‘‘TEACH 

Grant-eligible science, technology, 

engineering, or mathematics (STEM) 

program’’ in § 686.2(e)). 

• Clarifying the conditions under 

which TEACH Grant recipients may 

receive additional TEACH Grants to 

complete a teacher preparation program, 

even if that program is no longer 

considered a TEACH Grant-eligible 

teacher preparation program or a 

TEACH Grant-eligible STEM program 

under these proposed regulations (see 

proposed § 686.3(c)). 

• For teaching service performed on 

or after July 1, 2010, providing that a 

TEACH Grant recipient who otherwise 

meets the requirements of his or her 

agreement to serve may satisfy the 

requirement to teach in a high-need 

field if that field was listed, as of the 

date the grant recipient signed the 

agreement to serve or received the 

TEACH Grant, in the Department’s 

annual Teacher Shortage Area 

Nationwide Listing (Nationwide List) 

for the State in which the grant recipient 

begins teaching (see proposed § 686.12). 

• Establishing the conditions under 

which a student would be eligible to 

receive a new TEACH Grant if the 

student’s previous TEACH Grant was 

discharged based on total and 

permanent disability (see proposed 

§ 686.11(d)). 

• Amending the provisions for 

discharging a TEACH Grant recipient’s 

service obligation based on total and 

permanent disability to conform to 

changes made to the discharge process 

in the title IV, HEA loan programs (see 

proposed § 686.42(b)). 

Significant Proposed Regulations 

We discuss substantive issues under 

the sections of the proposed regulations 

to which they pertain. Generally, we do 

not address the regulatory provisions 

that are technical or otherwise minor in 

effect. 

Part 612—Title II Reporting System 

Subpart A—Scope, Purpose and 

Definitions 

Statute: Sections 205 through 208 of 

the HEA establish the teacher 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71825 

preparation program accountability 

system through which IHEs and States 

report on the performance of their 

teacher preparation programs. 

Current Regulations: None. 

Proposed Regulations: In proposed 

subpart A of part 612, we describe the 

scope and purpose of part 612 and 

define key terms. In proposed § 612.2(a), 

(b) and (c), we identify those definitions 

from 34 CFR parts 600 and 668, and 34 

CFR 77.1, respectively, that would 

apply to part 612. In proposed 

§ 612.2(d), we define: ‘‘at-risk teacher 

preparation program,’’ ‘‘candidate 

accepted into a teacher preparation 

program,’’ ‘‘candidate enrolled in a 

teacher preparation program,’’ ‘‘content 

and pedagogical knowledge,’’ ‘‘effective 

teacher preparation program,’’ 

‘‘employer survey,’’ ‘‘employment 

outcomes,’’ ‘‘exceptional teacher 

preparation program,’’ ‘‘high-need 

school,’’ ‘‘low-performing teacher 

preparation program,’’ ‘‘new teacher,’’ 

‘‘quality clinical preparation,’’ ‘‘recent 

graduate,’’ ‘‘rigorous teacher candidate 

entry and exit qualifications,’’ ‘‘student 

achievement in non-tested grades and 

subjects,’’ ‘‘student achievement in 

tested grades and subjects,’’ ‘‘student 

growth,’’ ‘‘student learning outcomes,’’ 

‘‘survey outcomes,’’ ‘‘teacher evaluation 

measure,’’ ‘‘teacher placement rate,’’ 

‘‘teacher preparation entity,’’ ‘‘teacher 

preparation program,’’ ‘‘teacher 

retention rate,’’ and ‘‘teacher survey.’’ 

Reasons: We have included proposed 

§ 612.1 to summarize the purpose of 

new part 612 and to lay out the 

organization of the part. Proposed 

§ 612.2 defines key terms that are used, 

but not defined, in title II of the HEA as 

well as other important terms that are 

introduced in this part. We discuss our 

reasoning for each proposed term under 

the section of the regulations in which 

the term would first be used, except for 

the terms ‘‘content and pedagogical 

knowledge,’’ ‘‘quality clinical 

preparation,’’ and ‘‘rigorous teacher 

candidate entry and exit qualifications,’’ 

all of which are discussed in the 

Reasons section for proposed § 612.5. 

Subpart B—Reporting Requirements 

§ 612.3 What are the regulatory reporting 

requirements for the institutional report 

card? 

Statute: Section 205(a) of the HEA 

requires that each IHE that conducts a 

traditional teacher preparation program 

or an alternative route to State 

certification or licensure program and 

enrolls students receiving Federal 

assistance under the HEA annually 

report on the quality of its teacher 

preparation to the State and the general 

public in a uniform and comprehensible 

manner that conforms with the 

definitions and methods established by 

the Secretary. Section 205(a)(1), (a)(2) 

and (a)(4) of the HEA identify the 

minimum content requirements for the 

IRC. 

Current Regulations: None. 

Proposed Regulations: Under 

proposed § 612.3, according to a revised 

reporting calendar, starting October 1, 

2017, and annually thereafter, each IHE 

that conducts a traditional teacher 

preparation program or an alternative 

route to State certification or licensure 

program and enrolls students receiving 

Federal financial assistance under the 

HEA would be required to report to the 

State and general public on the quality 

of its teacher preparation using an 

institutional report card prescribed by 

the Secretary. As suggested by several 

non-Federal negotiators, the IHE would 

be required to provide this information 

to the general public by prominently 

and promptly posting the IRC 

information on the IHE’s Web site, and, 

if applicable, on the teacher preparation 

program portion of the IHE’s Web site. 

The IHE could also provide that 

information in promotional materials it 

makes available to prospective students 

and others. 

Reasons: This section would codify in 

regulations the statutory requirement 

governing reporting by IHEs that 

conduct a traditional teacher 

preparation program or an alternative 

route to State certification or licensure 

program. There are no current 

regulations that do this. The Department 

is not proposing regulations related to 

the specific reporting requirements for 

the IRC. Rather, the Secretary would 

continue to prescribe the specific 

reporting requirements for IHEs in the 

IRC itself. Being an information 

collection instrument, the IRC is subject 

to a separate approval process that 

includes an opportunity for public 

comment under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act, 44 U.S.C. 3501 et seq. 

While annual title II reporting is 

required by section 205(a) of the HEA, 

the mechanisms IHEs use to report are 

determined by the State. However, to 

ease reporting burdens, the Department 

developed the IRC system. The IRC 

system is an online tool that States, 

IHEs, and other organizations with 

State-approved teacher preparation 

programs can use to fulfill the annual 

reporting requirements on teacher 

preparation and other matters mandated 

by title II of the HEA. 

As explained in the Delayed 

Implementation Date and Revised 

Reporting Calendar discussion under 

§ 612.4, we are proposing to revise the 

reporting calendar in order to ensure 

that the public and programs receive 

more timely feedback on program 

performance. Thus, we are proposing 

that institutional reporting will occur in 

October of each calendar year covering 

data from the prior academic year, 

rather than (as currently) April of the 

following calendar year. In order to have 

time to prepare for this change, the first 

year for this new reporting schedule 

will be in 2017 covering data from the 

2016–2017 academic year. Prior to 

October 2017, IHEs will continue to 

report, as currently, in April of each 

calendar year covering data from the 

prior academic year. 

In proposed § 612.3(b), we would 

require IHEs to prominently and 

promptly post the IRC information on 

the IHE’s Web site and, if applicable, on 

the teacher preparation program’s 

portion of the IHE’s Web site. This 

proposed requirement is also based on 

information we obtained during the 

negotiated rulemaking process. NonFederal negotiators stated that a 

reasonable way for IHEs to share the IRC 

information with the general public was 

for IHEs to post the information 

promptly and prominently on their Web 

sites, thus providing easy access for 

anyone seeking report card information. 

We agreed. 

In proposed § 612.3(c), we would 

clarify that at its discretion, an IHE may 

also provide the IRC information to the 

general public in promotional materials 

it makes available to prospective 

students and others. While regulatory 

language is not needed to permit IHEs 

to do so, we propose to include this 

provision because we believe that many 

people rely on promotional materials 

instead of, or in addition to, Web sites 

in their decision-making process, and 

we wish to specifically encourage IHEs 

to consider providing as much 

information as possible in their 

promotional materials. 

§ 612.4 What are the regulatory reporting 

requirements for the State report card? 

Statute: Section 205(b)(1) of the HEA 

provides that each State that receives 

funds under the HEA must report 

annually, in a State report card, on the 

quality of teacher preparation in the 

State, both for traditional teacher 

preparation programs and for alternative 

routes to State certification or licensure 

programs. Each State must report this 

information to the Secretary and make 

it widely available to the general public 

in a uniform and comprehensible 

manner that conforms to the definitions 

and methods established by the 

Secretary. By virtue of the definition of 

‘‘State’’ in section 103(16) of the HEA, 

the statutory reporting requirements 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71826 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

apply to each of the 50 States of the 

United States, the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico, the District of Columbia, 

Guam, American Samoa, the United 

States Virgin Islands, the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands, and the freely associated states 

of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, 

the Federated States of Micronesia, and 

the Republic of Palau. 

Section 205(b)(1)(A) through (b)(1)(L) 

of the HEA lists the minimum content 

requirements for the State report card. 

In particular, section 205(b)(1)(F) 

requires each State to include in its 

State report card a description of the 

State’s criteria for assessing the 

performance of teacher preparation 

programs within IHEs in the State. This 

provision further requires that the 

criteria include indicators of the 

academic content knowledge and 

teaching skills of students enrolled in 

the teacher preparation programs. 

Section 200(23) of the HEA defines the 

term ‘‘teaching skills’’ as those skills 

that enable a teacher, among other 

competencies, to effectively convey and 

explain academic content. In addition, 

section 205(b)(1) authorizes the 

Secretary to include other reporting 

elements in the State report card beyond 

those set forth in paragraphs (b)(1)(A) 

through (b)(1)(L). 

Finally, section 205(c) requires the 

Secretary to prescribe regulations to 

ensure the reliability, validity, integrity, 

and accuracy of the data submitted in 

the institutional and State report cards, 

and section 208(a) requires the Secretary 

to ensure that States and IHEs use fair 

and equitable methods in reporting the 

data required by the institutional and 

State report cards. 

Current Regulations: None. 

Proposed Regulations 

Proposed § 612.4(a)—General State 

Report Card Reporting 

The Department proposes to add new 

§ 612.4(a) to require that, beginning on 

April 1, 2018, and annually thereafter, 

each State that receives funds under the 

HEA report to the Secretary and the 

general public, using a SRC prescribed 

by the Secretary, (1) the quality of all 

approved teacher preparation programs 

in the State, including distance 

education programs, whether or not 

they enroll students receiving Federal 

assistance under the HEA, and (2) all 

other information consistent with 

section 205(b)(1) of the HEA. As 

explained further in the discussion of 

Pilot Reporting, during the first 

reporting year for this regulation, States 

would be permitted to pilot the new 

reporting requirements and would not 

be required to classify programs in at 

least four levels of program performance 

using the indicators in proposed § 612.5, 

although a State could do so at its 

option. Regardless of whether a State 

chooses to pilot program classification 

according to the new requirements, 

States would nevertheless be required to 

identify low-performing programs and 

programs at risk of being lowperforming, using current indicators, as 

required by section 207(a) of the HEA. 

Each State would be required to post the 

SRC information on the State’s Web site. 

Proposed § 612.4(b)—Reporting of 

Information on Teacher Preparation 

Program Performance 

Under proposed § 612.4(b), the 

Department would identify specific 

content requirements, criteria, and data 

that a State would use, beginning in 

April 2019 and annually thereafter, to 

assess the performance of each teacher 

preparation program in addition to the 

reporting elements expressly identified 

in section 205(b) of the HEA. The 

Department proposes to define a 

number of terms used in those proposed 

requirements in § 612.2(d). Because the 

definitions affect the discussion that 

follows of proposed regulations to 

govern assessments of the performance 

of teacher preparation programs, we first 

note two proposed definitions— 

‘‘teacher preparation entity’’ and 

‘‘teacher preparation program’’—that 

identify the universe of affected 

programs. ‘‘Teacher preparation entity’’ 

would be defined as an IHE or other 

organization that is authorized by the 

State to prepare teachers. ‘‘Teacher 

preparation program’’ would be defined 

as a program, whether traditional or 

alternative route, offered by a teacher 

preparation entity that leads to a 

specific State teacher certification or 

licensure in a specific field. 

Additionally, under § 612.2(d), we 

propose definitions for the terms ‘‘new 

teacher’’ and ‘‘recent graduate.’’ We 

propose to define the term ‘‘new 

teacher’’ as a recent graduate or 

alternative route participant who, 

within the last three title II reporting 

years, has received a level of 

certification or licensure that allows 

him or her to serve in that State as a 

teacher of record. Under the definition, 

States would only be required to report 

on the student learning outcomes, 

employment outcomes, and survey 

outcomes of new teachers who teach K– 

12 students unless, in the State’s 

discretion, the State chooses to define 

‘‘new teacher’’ to include teachers of 

preschool students, and thereby include 

reporting on the student learning 

outcomes, employment outcomes, and 

survey outcomes of such teachers. The 

term ‘‘recent graduate’’ would refer to 

an individual whom a teacher 

preparation program has documented as 

having met all the requirements of a 

teacher preparation program within the 

last three title II reporting years. The 

definition would provide that 

documentation may take the form of a 

degree, institutional certificate, program 

credential, transcript, or other written 

proof of having met the program’s 

requirements. The definition would also 

clarify that whether an individual has 

been hired as a full-time teacher or been 

recommended to the State for initial 

certification or licensure may not be 

used as a criterion for determining who 

is a recent graduate. 

Proposed § 612.4(b)(1)—Meaningful 

Differentiations in Teacher Preparation 

Program Performance 

Under proposed § 612.4(b)(1), 

beginning in April, 2019 and annually 

thereafter, each State would be required 

to report how it has made meaningful 

differentiations of teacher preparation 

program performance using at least four 

performance levels: ‘‘low-performing,’’ 

‘‘at-risk,’’ ‘‘effective,’’ and ‘‘exceptional’’ 

that are based on the indicators in 

proposed § 612.5 including, in 

significant part, employment outcomes 

for high-need schools and student 

learning outcomes. At its discretion, a 

State could choose to identify teacher 

preparation program performance using 

more than these four levels. 

The Department would define key 

classifications and related terms. First, 

the Department would include in 

§ 612.2(d) definitions of the terms 

‘‘exceptional teacher preparation 

program,’’ ‘‘effective teacher preparation 

program,’’ ‘‘at-risk teacher preparation 

program,’’ and ‘‘low-performing teacher 

preparation program.’’ These definitions 

would reflect that those performance 

levels are based upon the State’s 

assessment of the teacher preparation 

program’s performance using, at a 

minimum, the teacher preparation 

program performance indicators in 

proposed § 612.5. Second, the 

Department would define the term 

‘‘student learning outcomes’’ as data, for 

each teacher preparation program in a 

State, on the aggregate learning 

outcomes of students taught by new 

teachers that are calculated by the State 

using one or both of the following: 

‘‘student growth’’ and ‘‘teacher 

evaluation measures,’’ both of which 

also would be defined in proposed 

§ 612.2(d). Finally, the Department 

would define the term ‘‘high-need 

school’’ as used in the requirement for 

‘‘employment outcomes for high-need 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71827 

schools’’ as the placement and retention 

rates calculated for high-need schools as 

those terms would be defined in 

proposed § 612.2(d). For a complete 

discussion of these terms, please see the 

discussion under proposed § 612.5. 

Proposed § 612.4(b)(2)—Satisfactory or 

Higher Student Learning Outcomes for 

Programs Identified as Effective or 

Higher 

Under proposed § 612.4(b)(2), a State 

would not be permitted to identify a 

teacher preparation program as having a 

performance level of effective or higher 

unless the State determined the program 

had satisfactory or higher student 

learning outcomes. Our proposed 

regulation reflects the recommendation 

of non-Federal negotiators and ensures 

that States consider student 

performance when they classify 

programs by levels of performance. 

Proposed § 612.4(b)(3)—Disaggregated 

Data, Assurances of Accreditation or 

Quality of Program Characteristics, 

Weighting, and Rewards or 

Consequences 

Under proposed § 612.4(b)(3)(i), each 

State would, for each teacher 

preparation program in its State, (1) 

report disaggregated data that 

corresponds to each of the indicators in 

proposed § 612.5, and (2) provide an 

assurance that the teacher preparation 

program is either accredited by a 

specialized agency pursuant to 

§ 612.5(a)(4)(i), or produces teacher 

candidates with quality clinical 

preparation and content and 

pedagogical knowledge, and who have 

met rigorous teacher candidate entry 

and exit qualifications. Each of these 

terms (‘‘quality clinical preparation,’’ 

‘‘content and pedagogical knowledge,’’ 

and ‘‘rigorous teacher candidate entry 

and exit qualifications’’) would be 

defined in § 612.2(d). The definitions of 

each of these terms reflect the specific 

and detailed suggestions of non-Federal 

negotiators. For a complete discussion 

of these terms, please see the discussion 

under proposed § 612.5. 

Under proposed § 612.4(b)(3)(ii) and 

(iii), each State would be required to 

report how it weighted the teacher 

preparation program performance 

indicators in proposed § 612.5, and the 

State-level rewards or consequences 

associated with each teacher 

preparation program performance level. 

Proposed § 612.4(b)(4) Reporting the 

Performance of All Teacher Preparation 

Programs 

Under proposed § 612.4(b)(4), except 

for certain programs subject to proposed 

§ 612.4(b)(4)(ii)(D) or (E), each State 

would ensure that all of its teacher 

preparation programs are represented in 

the SRC. In this regard, each State 

would be required to report annually 

and separately on the performance of 

each teacher preparation program that 

produces a total of 25 or more new 

teachers in a title II reporting year. 

Proposed § 612.4(b)(4) would permit a 

State, at its discretion, to establish a 

program size threshold lower than 25. 

For example, a State might determine 

that it has the capacity to report on 

programs with 15 new teachers. 

Proposed § 612.4(b)(4)(ii) describes 

the reporting requirements for teacher 

preparation programs in the State that 

do not meet the program size threshold 

of 25 new teachers in a title II reporting 

year (or such lower program size 

threshold that the State chooses to use). 

States would annually report 

performance results for these programs, 

using one of three methods. Under 

proposed § 612.4(b)(4)(ii)(A), a State 

could aggregate teacher preparation 

program performance data among 

teacher preparation programs that are 

operated by the same teacher 

preparation entity and are similar to or 

broader than the program. For example, 

if a teacher preparation entity had two 

different special education programs 

and both had 13 new teachers, the State 

could combine performance results of 

the two programs and report them as a 

single teacher preparation program with 

26 new teachers, which would meet the 

program size threshold of 25 (or a lower 

program size threshold, at the State’s 

discretion). 

Alternatively, under proposed 

§ 612.4(b)(4)(ii)(B), the State could 

report on a teacher preparation 

program’s performance by aggregating 

performance data for that program over 

multiple years, up to a total of four 

years, until the size threshold is met. 

For example, if a teacher preparation 

program had ten new teachers each 

year, the State could combine 

performance results of that year with the 

results of the preceding two years and 

report the results as a single teacher 

preparation program with 30 new 

teachers, which would meet the 

program size threshold of 25 (or a lower 

program size threshold, at the State’s 

discretion). 

Under § 612.4(b)(4)(ii)(C), States also 

could use a combination of both of these 

methods if neither method alone would 

be sufficient to permit the State to meet 

the program size threshold (or for a 

State that chooses a lower program size 

threshold, to permit the State to meet 

the lower program size threshold) 

described in § 612.4(b)(4)(i). 

Proposed § 612.4(b)(4)(ii)(D) would 

allow States to refrain from reporting 

data on any program that cannot meet 

the program size threshold (or the 

State’s lower program size threshold) for 

reporting using one of the three options. 

Finally, proposed § 612.4(b)(4)(ii)(E) 

would exempt States from reporting 

data under § 612.4(b) on a particular 

teacher preparation program in cases 

where reporting of such data would be 

inconsistent with Federal or State 

privacy and confidentiality laws and 

regulations. 

Proposed § 612.4(b)(5)—Procedures for 

Assessing and Reporting Teacher 

Preparation Program Performance Data 

Under proposed § 612.4(b)(5), each 

State would be required to report, 

beginning on April 1, 2018, and every 

four years thereafter, and at any other 

time that the State makes substantive 

changes to either the weighting of the 

indicators or the procedures for 

assessing and reporting the performance 

of each teacher preparation program in 

the State described in § 612.4(c)(2). 

These procedures would be established 

by the State in consultation with a 

group of stakeholders in accordance 

with § 612.4(c)(1). 

Proposed § 612.4(c)—Fair and Equitable 

Methods 

To assist in the development of the 

State’s procedures for assessing and 

reporting teacher preparation program 

performance, each State would be 

required under § 612.4(c)(1) to consult 

with a representative group of 

stakeholders, including, at a minimum, 

representatives of leaders and faculty of 

traditional and alternative route teacher 

preparation programs; students of 

teacher preparation programs; 

superintendents; school board members; 

elementary and secondary school 

leaders and instructional staff; 

elementary and secondary school 

students and their parents; IHEs that 

serve high proportions of low-income or 

minority students, or English language 

learners; advocates for English language 

learners and students with disabilities; 

and officials of the State’s standards 

board or other appropriate standards 

body. In developing its procedures in 

consultation with stakeholders as 

provided by § 612.4(c)(1), each State 

would be required under § 612.4(c)(2) to 

address (a) its weighting of the 

indicators identified in proposed 

§ 612.5, (b) its process for aggregating 

data such that all teacher preparation 

programs would be represented in the 

SRC, (c) State-level rewards or 

consequences associated with each 

teacher preparation program 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71828 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

designation, and (d) the method by 

which teacher preparation programs 

may challenge the accuracy of their 

performance data and program 

classification. Under proposed 

§ 612.4(c)(2), each State would also be 

required to examine the quality of the 

data collection and reporting activities it 

conducts and modify those activities as 

appropriate to improve deficiencies. 

Proposed § 612.4(d)—Inapplicability to 

Certain Insular Areas 

Proposed § 612.4(d) would provide 

that the regulatory reporting 

requirements in § 612.4(b) and (c) 

regarding indicators of academic 

content knowledge and teaching skills 

would not apply to the insular areas of 

American Samoa, the Commonwealth of 

the Northern Mariana Islands, and the 

freely associated States of the Republic 

of the Marshall Islands, the Federated 

States of Micronesia, the Republic of 

Palau, Guam, and the United States 

Virgin Islands. 

Reasons 

Proposed § 612.4(a)—General State 

Report Card Reporting 

Proposed § 612.4 would codify in 

regulations the statutory requirement 

that States that receive funds under the 

HEA report annually to the Secretary, in 

a SRC prescribed by the Secretary, on 

(1) the quality of all approved teacher 

preparation programs in the State for 

both traditional teacher preparation 

programs and alternative routes to State 

certification or licensure programs, and 

(2) basic data about teaching in the 

State, and make this information widely 

available to the general public. 

Scope of Programs Covered by Reporting 

Because section 205(b)(1) of the HEA 

requires each State to report data on all 

teacher preparation programs in its 

State, we have included language in 

§ 612.4(a) to underscore that this 

requirement applies to all teacher 

preparation programs, regardless of 

whether they enroll students receiving 

Federal assistance under the HEA, or 

whether they are traditional or 

alternative route programs. Our goal is 

for States to report equivalent 

information needed for program 

improvement, transparency, and 

accountability for all teacher 

preparation programs in the State, 

including both traditional and 

alternative route programs. We invite 

comment specifically on whether the 

proposed regulation would adequately 

provide alternative route programs with 

the information about their participants 

and graduates that they need in order to 

facilitate program improvement, and 

whether the proposed regulation 

provides equivalent accountability for 

both traditional and alternative route 

programs. 

We are specifically interested in the 

potential scenario in which an IHE is 

deemed to be the ‘‘teacher preparation 

entity,’’ as defined in § 612.2(d), for an 

alternative route program or provider in 

a particular State because the IHE is 

authorized by the State to recommend 

teacher candidates for certification, 

while the alternative route provider is 

not. We invite comment on whether, in 

such a scenario, the State would be able 

to report separately on the performance 

of alternative route program participants 

who are enrolled at an IHE-based 

teacher preparation program so as to 

provide sufficient transparency and 

accountability at the program level not 

only to the IHE-based teacher 

preparation program that is enrolling 

the alternative route program 

participants, but also to the alternative 

route program itself, which in this 

scenario would not be a teacher 

preparation entity as defined in § 612.2. 

If commenters do not believe that a 

State could report separately on the 

performance of alternative route 

program participants, we invite 

comment on whether there are other 

data, or changes that should be made to 

the proposed regulations, that would 

provide adequate transparency and 

accountability for both the IHE-based 

teacher preparation program and the 

alternative route program, and whether 

States have the capacity to report such 

data. 

In addition, during the negotiated 

rulemaking process, some non-Federal 

negotiators stated that it was not clear 

whether States had to report on the 

performance of distance education 

programs under this requirement. NonFederal negotiators requested that we 

specify in the regulations that distance 

education programs must be included in 

a State’s reporting. We have therefore 

included language in § 612.4(a) to 

clarify that, for purposes of State 

reporting, States must report on distance 

learning programs that are being 

provided in the State. 

Further, as addressed in our 

explanations for proposed § 612.4(b), 

annual State reporting of indicators and 

criteria for assessing program 

performance would extend to all teacher 

preparation programs—whether or not 

they are within IHEs. Section 

205(b)(1)(F) of the HEA provides for 

such reporting only for programs within 

IHEs. However, the introductory 

language in section 205(b)(1) provides 

that the content of the SRC is not 

limited to the elements Congress has 

prescribed, and also expressly includes 

alternative route providers in the 

reporting system. Because the Secretary 

believes it is important that States report 

on the performance of all of their 

teacher preparation programs— 

including programs that are not based at 

IHEs—using the same criteria, we 

propose to extend the State’s reporting 

requirements in §§ 612.4(b)(1) and 612.5 

to cover all teacher preparation 

programs in the State. 

Delayed Implementation Date and 

Revised Reporting Calendar 

Because the proposed regulations 

make changes to current State reporting 

obligations under title II of the HEA, we 

believe that it is appropriate to provide 

a year for States and institutions to 

design and set-up their data reporting 

systems. Such set-up would take place 

during the 2015–2016 academic year. 

During the negotiated rulemaking, a 

number of non-Federal negotiators 

indicated that the minimum amount of 

time States would need to set up the 

new processes and systems would be six 

months. Thus, this delay will provide 

sufficient time for States that do not 

already have the processes and systems 

necessary to implement the new 

reporting to develop processes and 

systems to do so. We are also proposing 

to implement a new reporting calendar. 

Currently, institutions report to States in 

April about data from the prior 

academic year, and States report to the 

Department the following October. 

Under these regulations, beginning in 

October 2017, we are proposing to 

require annual institutional reporting on 

data from the prior academic year in 

October of each calendar year, rather 

than April of the following calendar 

year, and annual State reporting in April 

of the following calendar year rather 

than October. We believe that this 

revised reporting calendar will ensure 

more timely feedback on program 

performance to programs and the 

public, and thus more rapid program 

improvement. 

Pilot Reporting Year 

The system design and set-up period 

during the 2015–2016 academic year 

would be followed by a pilot reporting 

year for State report cards in April 2018. 

The pilot reporting year cycle would 

begin with the institutional report card 

in October 2017 (for data pertaining to 

IHE programs and new teachers in the 

2016–2017 academic year) and the pilot 

State report card would be due in April 

2018. During the pilot reporting year, 

States would publically report new data 

required by the regulations, but would 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71829 

not be required to use the data to assign 

programs to one of four levels of 

performance (exceptional, effective, atrisk for low-performing, or lowperforming). As required by section 

207(a) of the HEA, States would still be 

required to identify programs that are atrisk of being low-performing or lowperforming, but States would not be 

required to use the indicators in 

proposed § 612.5 to make such 

determinations, although a State could 

do so at its option. 

Additionally, during the pilot 

reporting year, any State ratings of 

program performance would not have 

implications for that program’s 

eligibility to participate in the TEACH 

Grant program. As discussed further 

under proposed § 686.2 Definitions in 

the explanation of the term ‘‘highquality teacher preparation program,’’ to 

ensure adequate time for program 

improvement, no program would be in 

danger of losing eligibility to participate 

in the TEACH Grant program until the 

program is rated as lower than 

‘‘effective’’ for two out of the previous 

three reporting years. Thus, a program 

could first lose eligibility to participate 

in the TEACH Grant program in July, 

2020, if the program received a rating of 

lower than ‘‘effective’’ in both the 

State’s April 2019 and April 2020 report 

cards. 

In summary, the Department is 

proposing that pilot reporting by States 

under these regulations occur in the 

State report cards due in April 2018, 

over two years from the expected date 

that final regulations take effect in 2015, 

and that full reporting by States under 

these regulations for the State report 

cards begin in April 2019, over three 

years from the expected date that the 

final regulations take effect. Finally, the 

Department is proposing that programs 

would first be ineligible to participate in 

the TEACH Grant program in July 2020, 

if they receive two consecutive ratings 

of lower than ‘‘effective’’ under the 

proposed regulations, four years from 

the expected date the final regulations 

take effect. The following table 

summarizes the timeline for the 

implementation of the reporting 

requirements in the proposed 

regulations by teacher preparation 

program cohort and reporting year. The 

Department particularly invites 

comment on whether this timetable is 

reasonable. 

IMPLEMENTATION DATES

Academic Year in which data systems 

are designed and set up.

2015–16.

Academic year in which data is collected............................... 2016–17 ............... 2017–18 ............... 2018–19 ............... 2019–20. 

Student Learning ................................. .............................. C1 ........................ C1,2 ..................... C1,2,3 .................. Rolling. 

Job Placement .................................... .............................. C1 ........................ C1,2 ..................... C1,2,3 .................. Rolling. 

Job Retention ...................................... .............................. C1 ........................ C1,2 ..................... C1,2,3 .................. Rolling. 

Program Completer Survey ................ .............................. C1 ........................ C2 ........................ C3 ........................ Rolling. 

Cohort Employer (CE) Survey ............ .............................. CE of C1 .............. CE of C2 .............. CE of C3 .............. Rolling. 

Year in Which Data Reported in State 

Report Card.

.............................. April 2018 Pilot 

Report.

April 2019 Full Report.April 2020 Full Report.April 2021 Full Report. 

Required Required Required 

Report all new 

data required by 

regulations.

Report all new 

data required by 

regulations.

Report all new 

data required by 

regulations.

Identify and report 

low-performing 

or at-risk programs (does not 

have to be 

based on new 

data).

Optional ................

Report program 

performance ratings based on 

new data.

Report 4-level program performance ratings 

based on new 

data.

Ratings do not impact TEACH 

Grant eligibility 

for the 2019– 

2020 Award 

Year.

Report 4-level program performance ratings 

based on new 

data.

Ratings could impact TEACH 

Grant eligibility 

for 2020–2021 

Award Year (if 

second rating of 

lower than effective).

C1: Cohort 1, graduates from teacher preparation program in 2016, earliest first year of teaching is 2016–2017 academic year. 

C2: Cohort 2, graduates from teacher preparation program in 2017, earliest first year of teaching is 2017–2018 academic year. 

C3: Cohort 3, graduates from teacher preparation program in 2018, earliest first year of teaching is 2018–2019 academic year. 

CE: Cohort employer. 

Making the State Report Card Available 

on the State’s Web Site 

Non-Federal negotiators stated that it 

was reasonable to require States to make 

their report card information widely 

available to the general public by 

posting the information on the State 

Web site. We find this request 

reasonable in light of the statutory 

directive in section 205(a)(1) of the 

HEA. Accordingly, proposed 

§ 612.4(a)(2) would require the State to 

make its SRC information widely 

available to the general public by 

posting it on its Web site. 

Program-Level Reporting 

Under the current title II reporting 

system, a teacher preparation program is 

defined as a State-approved course of 

study, the completion of which signifies 

that an enrollee has met all of the State’s 

educational or training requirements for 

initial certification or licensure to teach 

in the State’s elementary, middle, or 

secondary schools. A teacher 

preparation program may be either a 

traditional program or an alternative 

route to certification program, as 

defined by the State. It may be within 

or outside an IHE. Additionally, for the 

purposes of current title II reporting, all 

traditional teacher preparation programs 

at a single IHE are considered to be a 

single program. Likewise, under the 

current title II reporting system, all 

alternative route to initial teacher 

certification programs administered by 

any IHE or organization are considered 

to be a single program. As a result, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71830 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

States (and IHEs in their own report 

cards) currently do not provide data on 

individual teacher preparation programs 

offered by a single IHE, such as an 

elementary education program or a 

secondary mathematics program. 

Many non-Federal negotiators stated 

that collecting and reporting data at the 

level of the individual teacher 

preparation program would assist IHEs 

and alternative route providers in 

improving specific programs. Reporting 

at this level would also aid prospective 

students and employers in making 

informed choices about the quality of 

particular teacher preparation programs. 

Non-Federal negotiators stated that 

reporting at the individual program 

level would prevent the dilution of data 

on individual program quality by the 

‘‘averaging’’ effect of combined ratings 

for a number of teacher preparation 

programs within a single IHE or other 

teacher preparation program entity, and 

instead would reveal potential 

variations in program quality among 

different teacher preparation programs 

within a single IHE or entity. 

We agree with this view and believe 

that by requiring States to report on 

teacher preparation program 

performance at the individual program 

level, the proposed performance levels 

required under proposed § 612.4(b)(1) 

would be more meaningful to IHEs and 

the public. Knowing the performance 

classification of an individual teacher 

preparation program, rather than simply 

the combined performance rating of all 

such programs at an IHE, also would be 

much more useful to IHEs in deciding 

where to focus improvement efforts, and 

much more useful to the public in 

choosing a teacher preparation program. 

In addition, identification of teacher 

preparation program performance at the 

individual program level (e.g., early 

education, elementary education 

program or a secondary mathematics 

program) is necessary so that eligibility 

to participate in the TEACH Grant 

program is linked to high-quality 

teacher preparation programs consistent 

with the statutory directive of title IV. 

Finally, program level reporting ensures 

that teacher preparation programs that 

prepare teachers to work in particular 

educational settings (e.g., teachers of 

students with disabilities or English 

Language Learners), receive their own 

focus and can be compared to like 

programs. 

For these reasons, we propose to 

require States to report on performance 

at the individual teacher preparation 

program level, rather than on the overall 

performance of all of an entity’s teacher 

preparation programs. We would 

accomplish this by referring to a 

‘‘teacher preparation program’’ in 

proposed § 612.4 (and elsewhere in part 

612), and defining that term, as well as 

the term ‘‘teacher preparation entity’’ in 

§ 612.2, to differentiate between a 

program that leads to a specific State 

teacher certification in a specific field 

and an IHE or organization that is 

authorized by the State to prepare 

teachers. 

Proposed § 612.4(b)—Reporting of 

Information on Teacher Preparation 

Program Performance 

In proposed § 612.4(b), we would 

identify the minimum content reporting 

requirements for the SRC. This 

regulatory approach differs from how 

the Department currently implements 

the statutory SRC requirements under 

the title II reporting system, under 

which specific reporting requirements 

are established solely through the 

review of public comment under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act. We propose 

to codify the substantive framework of 

a State’s title II reporting obligations in 

new part 612 in order to clarify the 

effect these requirements would have, 

support TEACH program 

implementation, and to create a more 

meaningful reporting system to facilitate 

improvement in teacher preparation 

programs and services. 

Proposed § 612.4(b)(1)—Meaningful 

Differentiations in Teacher Preparation 

Program Performance 

Currently, States meet the reporting 

requirements that concern the quality of 

teacher preparation programs under title 

II of the HEA primarily by reporting and 

considering input-based measures (e.g., 

an admission criterion that asks whether 

a prospective student submits a 

resume). In fact, while States must 

report the criteria they use to identify 

programs that are low-performing or atrisk, the only data on program 

performance currently collected by the 

title II reporting system are input data. 

However, there is little empirical 

support to suggest that these measures 

are good predictors of a teacher’s 

eventual success in the classroom. 

The Department believes that this 

input-based reporting provides 

insufficient information with which to 

differentiate among the quality of 

teacher preparation programs. Because 

the Department strongly believes that 

reporting on teacher preparation 

program quality should consider 

multiple measures, especially outcome 

measures, we have structured the State 

reporting requirements in § 612.4(b) to 

require that States report criteria for 

assessing program performance that 

include specific outcome and inputbased indicators proposed in § 612.5. 

States would be required to report on 

their criteria for determining teacher 

preparation program performance and to 

differentiate teacher preparation 

program performance using these 

indicators. (We discuss our proposed 

outcome-based indicators in the 

preamble discussion related to proposed 

§ 612.5.) 

Specifically, under proposed 

§ 612.4(b)(1), following a pilot reporting 

year in 2018, beginning in April 2019 

and annually thereafter, States would be 

required to report a teacher preparation 

program’s performance using at least 

four performance levels (‘‘exceptional,’’ 

‘‘effective,’’ ‘‘at-risk,’’ or ‘‘lowperforming’’). We have proposed that 

States use at least four performance 

levels because two of these levels (atrisk and low-performing) are already 

identified in section 207(a) of the HEA 

as levels on which States must report, 

and a third level is identified by title IV 

of HEA, which provides that to be 

eligible to distribute TEACH Grants, 

IHEs must provide ‘‘high quality’’ 

teacher preparation. Several nonFederal negotiators suggested that only 

having three classifications (i.e., lowperforming, at-risk of being lowperforming, and high-quality) would not 

allow for meaningful distinctions of 

quality. Therefore, several non-Federal 

negotiators suggested, and we agree, that 

to permit identification of the best 

programs, at least one additional 

classification should be created by 

States to ensure meaningful 

differentiation between programs whose 

performance is satisfactory and those 

whose performance is truly exceptional. 

For reasons explained under proposed 

§ 612.6, the Secretary proposes that 

employment outcomes for high-need 

schools and student learning outcomes 

be included, in significant part, in 

determining teacher preparation 

program performance. 

Proposed § 612.4(b)(2)—Satisfactory or 

Higher Student Learning Outcomes for 

Programs Identified as Effective or 

Higher 

The Secretary proposes that States 

may identify the performance level for 

a teacher preparation program as 

effective or higher quality only if the 

program has satisfactory or higher 

student learning outcomes. The 

Secretary believes, and many nonFederal negotiators agreed, that a 

program’s ability to train future teachers 

who produce positive results in student 

learning is a clear and important 

standard of teacher preparation program 

quality. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71831 

In order to assess teacher preparation 

program performance in terms of 

student learning outcomes, States would 

need to collect data on student growth 

of students assigned to each new 

teacher, defined in proposed § 612.2 as 

the change in student achievement for 

an individual student between two or 

more points in time. For student 

learning outcomes, data would be 

calculated by the State using a student 

growth measure, a teacher evaluation 

measure, or both. 

Because many States are adopting 

comprehensive teacher evaluation 

systems that consider student growth in 

significant part, as well as other 

measures of a teacher’s instructional 

practice, we have proposed a definition 

of ‘‘student learning outcomes’’ in 

§ 612.2 that would give States the option 

of using the results of those evaluation 

systems in identifying a program’s 

performance level. To ensure that States 

weigh student learning outcomes as a 

significant part of the system, the nonFederal negotiators proposed language 

with which the Secretary agreed. Under 

that language, as noted at the outset of 

this discussion, States could only 

identify the quality of a teacher 

preparation program as effective or 

higher if the State determined that the 

program’s graduates produce student 

learning outcomes that are satisfactory 

or higher. The Department believes that 

this provision will encourage States to 

classify programs with the utmost 

integrity while still preserving State 

discretion as to the setting of 

performance levels. 

Proposed § 612.4(b)(3)—Disaggregated 

Data, Assurances of Accreditation on 

Quality of Program Characteristics, 

Weighting, and Rewards and 

Consequences 

Section 205(b)(1)(F) of the HEA 

requires that a State provide a 

description of its criteria for assessing 

the performance of teacher preparation 

programs, which must include 

indicators of the academic content 

knowledge and teaching skills of 

students enrolled in these programs. 

Section 207(a) requires the State to 

provide a list of IHEs with programs that 

are low-performing or at-risk of 

becoming low-performing. We believe 

that these two requirements provide 

insufficient information about the 

quality of teacher preparation programs 

in a State and focus only on the 

negative. As noted in our discussion of 

proposed § 612.4(b)(1), we believe States 

should be required to identify not only 

programs that are low-performers but 

also programs that are high-performers, 

with gradations of success, in order to 

recognize and reward excellence, help 

other programs learn from best 

practices, and facilitate faithful 

implementation of the TEACH Grant 

program. 

The Secretary further believes that to 

document the basis on which a State 

makes its determination of teacher 

preparation performance levels and to 

facilitate self-improvement by teacher 

preparation programs and entities, a 

State should be required to report data 

on each of the indicators in proposed 

§ 612.5, disaggregated for each teacher 

preparation program. These reports 

would include an assurance that the 

teacher preparation program is either 

accredited by a specialized agency 

recognized by the Secretary for 

accreditation of professional teacher 

education programs, or produces 

teacher candidates with content and 

pedagogical knowledge and quality 

clinical preparation who have met 

rigorous teacher candidate entry and 

exit qualifications. Non-Federal 

negotiators emphasized that specialized 

agencies base accreditation on these 

same factors regarding knowledge and 

entry and exit requirements, and thus, 

an assurance of such accreditation is 

tantamount to a State finding that the 

teacher preparation program has these 

other attributes. 

The availability of these data in State 

reports, which States and the Secretary 

would make available to the public, can 

help guide potential employers in their 

hiring decisions and prospective 

teachers in their application decisions. 

For example, a superintendent may be 

particularly interested in hiring teachers 

from programs with a history of placing 

teachers who stay in their positions. A 

prospective special education teacher 

may want to look at which special 

education programs in the State have 

the highest success rates in placing 

program graduates. 

More generally, the Secretary also 

believes that a State should be required 

to include in its State report card its 

weighting of the various indicators of 

program performance included in 

proposed § 612.5. This information will 

show how that State arrived at its 

overall assessment of a teacher 

preparation program’s performance and 

provide a way for the Secretary and the 

public to understand the relative value 

that a State places on each of the 

indicators of program quality. This 

reporting also will be an important 

transparency tool that will permit 

programs and the general public to 

understand how States make their 

performance-level determinations. 

Lastly, the Secretary believes that as 

a further mechanism for making the 

State assessment of teacher preparation 

performance levels more meaningful, 

States should be required to identify any 

State-level rewards or consequences 

associated with each teacher 

preparation program performance level. 

Proposed § 612.4(b)(4)—Reporting the 

Performance of All Teacher Preparation 

Programs 

Proposed § 612.4(b)(4)(i) would 

require separate reporting of the 

performance of any teacher preparation 

program that annually produces 25 or 

more new teachers, and establishes 

permissible procedures for data 

aggregation that would result in 

reporting on all of the State’s teacher 

preparation programs (except for those 

programs that are particularly small and 

for which aggregation procedures 

cannot be applied or where State or 

Federal privacy or confidentiality laws 

and regulations prevent it). In 

developing this proposed requirement, 

the Department considered the current 

processes used by States that already 

assess teacher preparation program 

performance using student growth data 

for students of new teachers from those 

programs. Those States use program size 

thresholds that range from as few as 10 

to as many as 25 new teachers. The 

proposed regulations would set a 

program size threshold for reporting of 

25, which we believe would ensure that 

each State will report results each year 

for the largest number of programs 

consistent with what the State would 

find to be logistically feasible and 

statistically valid. The Secretary 

specifically invites comment on an 

appropriate program size threshold. 

While proposed § 612.4(b)(4) would 

not require separate annual reporting on 

the effectiveness of individual teacher 

preparation programs that produce 24 or 

fewer new teachers, we recognize that 

some States may find it logistically 

feasible and statistically valid to 

establish a lower threshold, and may 

prefer to do so in order to recognize the 

quality of smaller teacher preparation 

programs. In order to encourage these 

States to do so, the provision would 

expressly permit a State to report the 

effectiveness of these smaller programs 

by allowing a State to set a program size 

threshold lower than 25. 

We also recognize, however, that the 

smaller the size of a teacher preparation 

program, the greater the challenge of 

generating data on program 

effectiveness that can be valid and 

reliable and meet the reporting 

threshold. Because we strongly believe 

that it is important that States report 

annually to the public, and to IHEs and 

other entities that operate teacher 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71832 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

preparation programs, on the quality of 

these smaller programs, we have 

proposed alternative methods through 

which States could report performance 

of programs that annually produce a 

number of new teachers that is fewer 

than 25 (or whatever lower program size 

threshold the State establishes). As 

proposed in § 612.4(b)(4)(ii)(A)–(C), 

these methods involve annually meeting 

the program size threshold of 25 (or any 

lower threshold a State establishes) by 

aggregating performance data for each of 

these smaller programs with 

performance data (1) of like programs 

that the teacher preparation entity 

operates (thus, in effect, reporting on a 

broader-based teacher preparation 

program), (2) for the same program 

generated over multiple years for up to 

four years, or (3) generated under a 

combination of these first two methods. 

For this second method, we have 

proposed to set a four-year cap on the 

number of years over which such 

aggregation may occur so that the 

performance levels are not based on 

data that are too old to be a reflection 

of current program performance. The 

Department particularly invites 

comment on whether such a cap should 

exist, and if so, how many years should 

be aggregated to report data on a single 

program. 

We believe that a State’s use of these 

alternative methods would produce 

more reliable and valid measures of 

quality for each of these smaller 

programs and reasonably balance the 

need annually to report on program 

performance with the special challenges 

of generating a meaningful annual 

snapshot of program quality for 

programs that annually produce few 

new teachers. Even with multiple 

options for reporting on smaller teacher 

preparation programs, we recognize that 

it is possible that some States will still 

be unable to aggregate the program 

performance data for some small 

programs based on a program size 

threshold of 25 or such lower size 

threshold as a State may establish. 

Through proposed § 612.4(b)(4)(ii)(D), 

we would accommodate this situation 

by not requiring that a State include 

performance information on these 

particular programs in their annual 

State report until aggregation allows 

reporting with validity, reliability, 

accuracy, and integrity commensurate 

with the program size threshold of 25 or 

such lower threshold the State has 

chosen to use. 

Finally, we recognize that reporting 

data on program performance under 

§ 612.4(b)(4) could be inconsistent with 

Federal or State privacy and 

confidentiality laws or regulations. For 

example, in cases where a teacher is 

both a participant in an alternative route 

teacher preparation program and 

concurrently enrolled as a student in an 

IHE, data regarding that student/teacher 

could be considered education records 

and, therefore, implicate the Family 

Educational Rights and Privacy Act, 20 

U.S.C. 1232g. Additionally, States may 

have privacy laws that protect 

employment records, including 

protections that could implicate data 

related to a number of the measures 

outlined in this proposed regulation. 

Because we do not intend the proposed 

regulations to require reporting that 

would be inconsistent with these other 

legal requirements, proposed 

§ 612.4(b)(4)(ii)(E) would provide that a 

State would not need to report on the 

performance of a particular program in 

the SRC if doing so would be 

inconsistent with Federal or State 

privacy and confidentiality laws or 

regulations. 

Proposed § 612.4(b)(5)—Implementing 

Procedures Established by the State 

While requiring each State to report 

on both the level of performance of each 

teacher preparation program and the 

data the State used to determine the 

program’s level of performance is 

important, so too is the transparency of 

the process the State used to make these 

determinations. For this reason, we 

propose in § 612.4(b)(5) to have States 

report periodically on the procedures 

they used to make decisions about 

program performance. Specifically, we 

propose that States report annually (1) 

their procedures for assessing and 

reporting the performance of each 

teacher preparation program, (2) the 

weighting they apply to the indicators 

identified in proposed § 612.5 to 

determine each teacher preparation 

program’s resulting performance level, 

(3) their procedures under 

§ 612.4(b)(4)(ii) for aggregating data for 

small programs, (4) State-level rewards 

or consequences associated with the 

designated performance levels, and (5) 

their provision of appropriate 

opportunities for programs to challenge 

the accuracy of their performance data 

and classification of the program. 

We would require each State to report 

these procedures in its report card to be 

submitted by October 1, 2017, to inform 

the public at the outset how each State 

assessed teacher preparation program 

performance. We think it is reasonable 

to require States to review, and inform 

the public about any changes to, their 

procedures at least once every four 

years, and so would have the State 

report on this subject again every four 

years thereafter. In addition, to promote 

transparency, under proposed 

§ 612.4(b)(5)(ii), at any time a State 

made significant changes to its 

procedures for assessing program 

performance, we would have the State 

include a description of those 

significant changes in the next report 

card. 

Proposed § 612.4(c)—Fair and Equitable 

Methods 

Proposed § 612.4(c)(1) would require 

that each State consult with a 

representative group of stakeholders 

when developing procedures for 

assessing and reporting the performance 

of each teacher preparation program in 

the State under § 612.4. This wideranging consultation process was 

suggested by non-Federal negotiators as 

the best way for a State to develop fair 

and equitable procedures for assessing 

and reporting the performance of each 

teacher preparation program. 

Consistent with the non-Federal 

negotiators’ recommendations, 

§ 612.4(c)(1)(i) identifies those entities 

and groups that are likely to be affected 

by the way a State assesses and reports 

teacher preparation program 

performance under these proposed 

regulations. Those stakeholders would 

minimally include leaders and faculty 

of traditional and alternative route 

teacher preparation programs; students 

of teacher preparation programs; 

superintendents; school board members; 

elementary and secondary school 

leaders and instructional staff; 

elementary and secondary school 

students and their parents; IHEs that 

serve high proportions of low-income or 

minority students, or English language 

learners; advocates for English language 

learners and students with disabilities; 

and officials of the State’s standards 

board or other appropriate standards 

body. Each State would consult with 

these stakeholders as it develops its 

system and makes decisions about its 

procedures for assessing and reporting 

teacher preparation program 

performance. The Secretary also agrees 

with many non-Federal negotiators that 

requiring States to have a process by 

which teacher preparation programs can 

challenge data accuracy and 

performance-level classification, and to 

consult with stakeholders on that 

process, will help to ensure fair and 

equitable treatment of teacher 

preparation programs and the reliability, 

validity, integrity, and accuracy of the 

data reported about such programs. 

Proposed § 612.4(c)(2) would require 

each State to examine the quality of its 

data collection and reporting activities 

and to modify the data collection and 

reporting activities, as appropriate. We 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71833 

3A value-added model is a statistical technique 

developed by researchers to estimate a teacher’s 

unique contribution to student achievement. 

Briefly, VAM predicts (estimates) student 

achievement based on prior student test scores and 

other observable characteristics and then takes the 

difference between the predicted student test score 

and the actual student score and attributes this 

difference to the teacher. 

developed these proposed regulatory 

provisions in response to feedback 

received during the negotiated 

rulemaking sessions. A number of nonFederal negotiators suggested that we 

build into our regulations this type of 

State review process to ensure the 

continued fairness of the process for 

collecting and analyzing data required 

under §§ 612.4(b) and 612.5, and 

thereby further promote the reliability, 

validity, integrity, and accuracy of the 

data relating to teacher preparation 

program quality reported in the SRC. 

Proposed § 612.4(d)—Inapplicability to 

Certain Insular Areas 

Finally, we propose that the reporting 

requirements in § 612.4(b) and (c) 

regarding reporting of a teacher 

preparation program’s indicators of 

academic content knowledge and 

teaching skills would not apply to the 

insular areas of American Samoa, the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands, the freely associated states of 

the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the 

Federated States of Micronesia, the 

Republic of Palau, Guam and the United 

States Virgin Islands. We believe that 

these entities are so small that the cost 

of reporting data relating to these 

entities’ small teacher preparation 

programs is unwarranted. 

§ 612.5 What indicators must a State 

use to report on teacher preparation 

program performance for purposes of 

the State report card? 

Statute: Section 205(b)(1)(F) of the 

HEA requires each State to include in its 

State report card a description of the 

State’s criteria for assessing the 

performance of teacher preparation 

programs within IHEs in the State. This 

provision further requires that the 

criteria include indicators of the 

academic content knowledge and 

teaching skills of students enrolled in 

the teacher preparation programs. 

Section 200(23) of the HEA defines the 

term ‘‘teaching skills’’ as those skills 

that enable a teacher, among other 

competencies, to effectively convey and 

explain academic content. Each State 

must report the information identified 

in section 205(b)(1)(F) to the Secretary 

and make it widely available to the 

general public in a uniform and 

comprehensible manner that conforms 

to the definitions and methods 

established by the Secretary. 

Current Regulations: None. 

Proposed Regulations: Proposed 

§ 612.5(a) would require that, for 

reporting purposes under proposed 

§ 612.4, a State must assess, for each 

teacher preparation program in the 

State, indicators of academic content 

knowledge and teaching skills of new 

teachers or recent graduates from that 

program. As discussed earlier in this 

preamble, we would define the term 

‘‘new teacher’’ to mean a recent 

graduate or alternative route participant 

who, within the last three title II 

reporting years, has received a level of 

certification or license that allows him 

or her to serve in that State as a teacher 

of record for K–12 students and, at a 

State’s discretion, for preschool students 

(see proposed § 612.2(d)). We would 

define ‘‘recent graduate’’ to mean an 

individual whom a teacher preparation 

program has documented as having met 

all the requirements of a teacher 

preparation program within the last 

three title II reporting years, without 

regard to whether the individual has 

passed a licensure examination, been 

hired as a full-time teacher, or been 

recommended to the State for initial 

certification or licensure (see proposed 

§ 612.2(d)). 

In proposed § 612.5(a)(1) through 

(a)(4), we identify those indicators that 

a State would be required to use to 

assess the academic content knowledge 

and teaching skills of new teachers from 

each of the teacher preparation 

programs in the State’s jurisdiction. 

While a State would be able to use 

additional indicators and establish its 

own ‘‘cut-scores,’’ it would be required 

to use the following indicators of 

teacher preparation program 

performance: (i) Student learning 

outcomes (ii) employment outcomes, 

(iii) survey outcome data, and (iv) an 

assurance that the program is accredited 

by a specialized accreditation entity 

recognized by the Secretary for 

accreditation of professional teacher 

education programs, or an assurance by 

the State that the teacher preparation 

program provides teacher candidates 

with content and pedagogical 

knowledge and quality clinical 

preparation who have met rigorous 

teacher candidate entry and exit 

qualifications. In proposed § 612.2(d), 

we would define several key terms used 

in proposed § 612.5(a), including 

‘‘student learning outcomes,’’ 

‘‘employment outcomes,’’ ‘‘survey 

outcomes,’’ ‘‘content and pedagogical 

knowledge,’’ ‘‘quality clinical 

preparation,’’ and ‘‘rigorous teacher 

candidate entry and exit qualifications.’’ 

Student Learning Outcomes 

The first required indicator of 

academic content knowledge and 

teaching skills would be student 

learning outcomes (see proposed 

§ 612.5(a)(1)). ‘‘Student learning 

outcomes’’ would be defined as data on 

the aggregate learning outcomes of 

students taught by new teachers (as that 

term would be defined in § 612.2(d)) 

trained by each teacher preparation 

program in the State. The State would 

choose to calculate the data on student 

learning outcomes using measures of 

student growth (as that term would be 

defined in § 612.2(d)), teacher 

evaluation measures (as that term would 

be defined in § 612.2(d)), or both. 

Definitions of ‘‘student growth’’ and 

‘‘teacher evaluation measure’’ would 

also be added to proposed § 612.2. 

‘‘Student growth’’ would be defined as 

the change in student achievement in 

tested grades and subjects and the 

change in student achievement in nontested grades and subjects for an 

individual student between two or more 

points in time. This could be a simple 

comparison of achievement between 

two points in time or a more complex 

‘‘value-added model’’ 3 that some States 

already use to assess teacher preparation 

program performance based on levels of 

student growth associated with new 

teachers from those programs. 

For the purpose of determining 

student growth, definitions of ‘‘student 

achievement in tested grades and 

subjects’’ and ‘‘student achievement in 

non-tested grades and subjects’’ would 

also be included in proposed § 612.2. 

Under the former, for grades and 

subjects in which assessments are 

required under section 1111(b)(3) of the 

ESEA, student achievement would be 

determined using (a) a student’s score 

on the State’s assessments under section 

1111(b)(3) of the ESEA, and, (b) as 

appropriate, other measures of student 

learning described in the definition of 

‘‘student achievement in non-tested 

grades and subjects’’ that are rigorous 

and comparable across schools and 

consistent with State requirements. 

Under the definition of ‘‘student 

achievement in non-tested grades and 

subjects,’’ for grades and subjects that 

do not require assessments under 

section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA, student 

achievement would be determined by 

measures of student learning and 

performance, such as students’ results 

on pre-tests and end-of-course-tests, 

objective performance-based 

assessments, student learning 

objectives, student performance on 

English language proficiency 

assessments, and other measures of 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71834 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

4On September 23, 2011, the Department invited 

each State educational agency (SEA) to request 

flexibility on behalf of itself, its LEAs, and schools, 

in order to better focus on improving student 

learning and increasing the quality of instruction. 

This voluntary opportunity has provided to 

educators and State and local leaders flexibility 

regarding specific requirements of the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) in exchange 

for rigorous and comprehensive State-developed 

plans designed to improve educational outcomes 

for all students, close achievement gaps, increase 

equity, and improve the quality of instruction. In 

particular, States requesting flexibility committed 

to, by the 2014–15 school year, developing, 

adopting, piloting, and implementing teacher and 

principal evaluation and support systems that, 

among other things, use multiple valid measures in 

determining performance levels, including as a 

significant factor data on student growth for all 

students. As of September 1, 2014, the Secretary has 

granted 43 States, the District of Columbia, 

California Office to Reform Education (CORE), and 

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico flexibility on key 

provisions of the ESEA in exchange for Statedeveloped plans to prepare all students for college 

and career, focus aid on the neediest students, and 

support effective teaching and leadership. States 

with waivers include Alabama, Arizona, Arkansas, 

Colorado, Connecticut, Delaware, Florida, Georgia, 

Hawaii, Idaho, Illinois, Indiana, Kansas, Kentucky, 

Louisiana, Maine, Maryland, Massachusetts, 

Michigan, Minnesota, Mississippi, Missouri, 

Nevada, New Hampshire, New Jersey, New Mexico, 

New York, North Carolina, Ohio, Oregon, 

Pennsylvania, Rhode Island, South Carolina, South 

Dakota, Tennessee, Texas, Utah, Virginia, West 

Virginia, and Wisconsin. Three additional requests, 

from Iowa, Wyoming, and the Department of the 

Interior’s Bureau of Indian Education, are still 

under review. 

student achievement, that are rigorous 

and comparable across schools and 

consistent with State requirements. 

In order to create as much consistency 

as possible for States, LEAs, and other 

entities that work with the Department 

of Education, these definitions are 

nearly identical to the ones used in 

other Department initiatives, including 

ESEA flexibility,4 the Teacher Incentive 

Fund, and the Race to the Top program. 

Under the proposed definition of 

‘‘student learning outcomes’’ in 

proposed § 612.2, a State would be 

permitted to choose an alternative 

approach to calculating data on 

aggregate student learning outcomes of 

students using a ‘‘teacher evaluation 

measure.’’ We would define a ‘‘teacher 

evaluation measure’’ as the percentage 

of new teachers (as that term would be 

defined in § 612.2(d)), by grade span 

and subject level, rated at each 

performance level under an LEA teacher 

evaluation system consistent with 

statewide parameters that differentiates 

teachers on an annual basis using at 

least three performance levels and 

multiple valid measures in determining 

the performance levels. For the purpose 

of this definition, ‘‘multiple valid 

measures’’ of performance level would 

include data on student growth (as that 

term would be defined in § 612.2(d)) for 

all students as a significant factor as 

well as observations based on rigorous 

teacher performance standards and 

other measures of professional practice. 

Employment Outcomes 

The second indicator of the academic 

content knowledge and teaching skills 

of new teachers and recent graduates 

would be their employment outcomes 

(see proposed § 612.5(a)(2)). Under 

proposed § 612.2(d), we would define 

‘‘employment outcomes’’ to include the 

teacher placement rate (as the term 

‘‘teacher placement rate would be 

defined in § 612.2(d)), the teacher 

placement rate calculated for high-need 

schools (as the term ‘‘high-need 

schools’’ would be defined in 

§ 612.2(d)), the teacher retention rate (as 

that term would be defined in 

§ 612.2(d)), and the teacher retention 

rate calculated for high-need schools (as 

the term ‘‘high-need schools’’ would be 

defined in § 612.2(d)). The Department 

proposes to include in § 612.2(d) 

definitions for the terms ‘‘teacher 

placement rate,’’ ‘‘teacher retention 

rate,’’ and ‘‘high-need school.’’ 

‘‘Teacher placement rate’’ would be 

defined as the combined non-duplicated 

percentage (calculated annually and 

pursuant to § 612.5(a)) of new teachers 

(as that term would be defined in 

§ 612.2(d)) and recent graduates (as that 

term would be defined in § 612.2(d)) 

who have been hired in a full-time 

teaching position for the grade level, 

span, and subject area in which the 

teachers were prepared. Under this 

definition, one or more of the following 

could, at the State’s discretion, be 

excluded from the calculation of teacher 

placement rate, provided that the State 

uses a consistent approach to assess and 

report on all of its preparation programs: 

(a) New teachers or recent graduates 

who have taken teaching positions in 

another State, (b) new teachers or recent 

graduates who have taken teaching 

positions in private schools, (c) new 

teachers or recent graduates who have 

taken teaching positions that do not 

require State certification, or (d) new 

teachers or recent graduates who have 

enrolled in graduate school or entered 

military service. 

‘‘Teacher retention rate’’ would be 

defined as any of the following three 

rates (calculated annually and pursuant 

to § 612.5(a)) as determined by the State, 

provided that the State uses a consistent 

approach to assess and report on all 

teacher preparation programs in the 

State. The first rate would be the 

percentage of new teachers (as that term 

would be defined in § 612.2(d)) who 

have been hired in full-time teaching 

positions and who have served for 

periods of at least three consecutive 

school years within five years of being 

granted a level of certification that 

allows them to serve as teachers of 

record. The second rate would be the 

percentage of new teachers who have 

been hired in full-time teaching 

positions and reached a level of tenure 

or other equivalent measure of retention 

within five years of being granted a level 

of certification that allows them to serve 

as teachers of record. The third rate 

would be one hundred percent less the 

percentage of new teachers who have 

been hired in full-time teaching 

positions and whose employment was 

not continued by their employer for 

reasons other than budgetary constraints 

within five years of being granted a level 

of certification that allows the teachers 

to serve as teachers of record. In 

addition, under this proposed definition 

of ‘‘teacher retention rate,’’ a State 

would have the discretion to exclude 

one or more of the following from the 

calculation of the teacher retention rate, 

provided that the State uses a consistent 

approach to assess and report on all of 

its teacher preparation programs: (a) 

New teachers who have taken teaching 

positions in other States, (b) new 

teachers who have taken teaching 

positions in private schools, (c) new 

teachers who are not retained due to 

market conditions or circumstances 

particular to the LEA and beyond the 

control of teachers or schools, or (d) 

new teachers who have enrolled in 

graduate school or entered military 

service. 

‘‘High-need school’’ would be defined 

by using the definition of ‘‘high-need 

school’’ from section 200(11) of the 

HEA. Specifically, under proposed 

§ 612.2(d), ‘‘high-need school’’ would be 

defined as a school that, based on the 

most recent data available, meets one or 

both of the following definitions. First, 

a ‘‘high-need school’’ is in the highest 

quartile of schools in a ranking of all 

schools served by a local educational 

agency, ranked in descending order by 

percentage of students from low-income 

families enrolled in such schools, as 

determined by the local educational 

agency based on a single or a composite 

of two or more of the following 

measures of poverty: (a) The percentage 

of students aged 5 through 17 in poverty 

counted; (b) the percentage of students 

eligible for a free or reduced price 

school lunch under the Richard B. 

Russell National School Lunch Act; (c) 

the percentage of students in families 

receiving assistance under the State 

program funded under part A of title IV 

of the Social Security Act; and (d) the 

percentage of students eligible to receive 

medical assistance under the Medicaid 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71835 

program. Additionally, or alternatively, 

a school may be considered a ‘‘highneed school,’’ if, in the case of an 

elementary school, the school serves 

students not less than 60 percent of 

whom are eligible for a free or reduced 

price school lunch under the Richard B. 

Russell National School Lunch Act; or 

in the case of any other school that is 

not an elementary school, the other 

school serves students not less than 45 

percent of whom are eligible for a free 

or reduced price school lunch under the 

Richard B. Russell National School 

Lunch Act. 

Proposed § 612.5(a)(2) would clarify 

that, in using the employment outcomes 

measure as an indicator of academic 

content knowledge and teaching skills 

of new teachers and recent graduates, a 

State could, at its discretion, assess 

traditional and alternative route teacher 

preparation programs differently based 

on whether there are differences in the 

programs that affect employment 

outcomes, provided that varied 

assessments result in equivalent levels 

of accountability and reporting. 

Survey Outcomes 

The third indicator of the academic 

content knowledge and teaching skills 

of new teachers produced by a teacher 

preparation program would be survey 

outcome data (see proposed 

§ 612.5(a)(3)). Under proposed 

§ 612.2(d), we would define the term 

‘‘survey outcomes’’ as qualitative and 

quantitative data collected through 

survey instruments, including, but not 

limited to, a teacher survey (as that term 

would be defined in § 612.2(d)) and an 

employer survey (as that term would be 

defined in § 612.2(d)), designed to 

capture perceptions of whether new 

teachers (as that term would be defined 

in § 612.2(d)) who are employed as 

teachers in their first year of teaching in 

the State where the teacher preparation 

program is located have the skills 

needed to succeed in the classroom. 

‘‘Teacher survey’’ would be defined as 

a survey of new teachers (as that term 

would be defined in § 612.2(d)) serving 

in full-time teaching positions for the 

grade level, span, and subject area in 

which the teachers were prepared that 

is designed to capture their perceptions 

of whether the preparation that they 

received was effective. 

‘‘Employer survey’’ would be defined 

as a survey of employers or supervisors 

designed to capture their perceptions of 

whether the new teachers (as that term 

would be defined in § 612.2(d)) they 

employ or supervise, who attended 

teacher preparation programs in the 

State where the teachers are employed 

or supervised, were effectively 

prepared. 

Accreditation or State Approval To 

Provide Teacher Candidates With 

Content and Pedagogical Knowledge 

and Quality Clinical Preparation and as 

Having Rigorous Teacher Candidate 

Entry and Exit Qualifications 

The fourth indicator of academic 

content knowledge and teaching skills 

of a program’s new teachers, reflected in 

proposed § 612.5(a)(4), would be a 

determination of whether (a) the teacher 

preparation program is accredited by a 

specialized accrediting agency 

recognized by the Secretary for 

accreditation of professional teacher 

education programs or, alternatively, (b) 

that the program: 

• Produces teacher candidates with 

content and pedagogical knowledge (as 

that term would be defined in 

§ 612.2(d)); 

• Produces teacher candidates with 

quality clinical preparation (as that term 

would be defined in § 612.2(d)); and 

• Produces teacher candidates who 

have met rigorous teacher candidate 

entry and exit qualifications (as that 

term would be defined in § 612.2(d)). 

To implement this requirement, the 

Department proposes to include in 

proposed § 612.2(d) definitions of the 

terms ‘‘content and pedagogical 

knowledge,’’ ‘‘quality clinical 

preparation,’’ and ‘‘rigorous teacher 

candidate entry and exit qualifications.’’ 

‘‘Content and pedagogical 

knowledge’’ would be defined as an 

understanding of (a) the central 

concepts and structures of the discipline 

in which a teacher has been trained, and 

(b) how to create effective learning 

experiences that make the discipline 

accessible and meaningful for all 

students, including a distinct set of 

instructional skills to address the needs 

of English language learners and 

students with disabilities, in order to 

assure mastery of the content by the 

students, as described in applicable 

professional, State, or institutional 

standards. 

‘‘Quality clinical preparation’’ would 

be defined as training that integrates 

content, pedagogy, and professional 

coursework around a core of pre-service 

clinical experiences that at a minimum 

must (a) be provided, at least in part, by 

qualified clinical instructors who meet 

established qualification requirements 

and who use a training standard that is 

made publicly available; (b) include 

multiple clinical or field experiences, or 

both, that serve diverse, rural, or 

underrepresented student populations, 

including English language learners and 

students with disabilities, and that are 

assessed using a performance-based 

protocol to demonstrate candidate 

mastery of content and pedagogy; and 

(c) require that teacher candidates use 

research-based practices, including 

observation and analysis of instruction, 

collaboration with peers, and effective 

use of technology for instructional 

purposes. 

‘‘Rigorous teacher candidate entry and 

exit qualifications’’ would be defined as 

teacher candidate qualifications 

established by a teacher preparation 

program using, at a minimum—(a) 

rigorous entrance requirements based on 

multiple measures, and (b) rigorous exit 

criteria based on an assessment of 

candidate performance that relies on 

validated professional teaching 

standards and measures of candidate 

effectiveness including, at a minimum, 

measures of curriculum planning, 

instruction of students, appropriate 

plans and modifications for all students, 

and assessment of student learning. 

Other Indicators Predictive of a 

Teacher’s Effect on Student Performance 

Under proposed § 612.5(b), among the 

indicators of academic content 

knowledge and teaching skills of new 

teachers and recent graduates it uses for 

purposes of reporting each teacher 

preparation program’s performance 

under § 612.4, a State could, at its 

discretion, include other indicators 

predictive of a teacher’s effect on 

student performance, such as student 

survey results, provided that the State 

uses a consistent approach for all of its 

teacher preparation programs. 

Just as we exclude American Samoa, 

the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands, the freely associated 

states of the Republic of the Marshall 

Islands, the Federated States of 

Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, 

Guam, and the United States Virgin 

Islands from reporting on the indicators 

of academic content knowledge and 

teaching skills used to determine a 

program’s level of performance in 

proposed § 612.4(b) and (c), proposed 

§ 612.5(c) makes the required use of the 

indicators described in proposed 

§ 612.5(a) and (b) inapplicable to these 

jurisdictions as well. 

Summary of Proposed § 612.5 

Under proposed § 612.5, in 

determining the performance of each 

teacher preparation program, each State 

(except for insular areas identified in 

proposed § 612.5(c)) would need to use 

student learning outcomes, employment 

outcomes, survey outcomes, and the 

program characteristics described above 

as its indicators of academic content 

knowledge and teaching skills of the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71836 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

5See, for example, Tennessee Higher Education 

Commission, ‘‘Report Card on the Effectiveness of 

Teacher Training Programs,’’ Nashville, TN (2010); 

Dan Goldhaber, et al. ‘‘The Gateway to the 

Profession: Assessing Teacher Preparation Programs 

Based on Student Achievement.’’ Economics of 

Education Review, 34 (2013), pp. 29–44. 

program’s new teachers or recent 

graduates. In addition, the State could 

use other indicators of its choosing, 

provided the State uses a consistent 

approach for all of its teacher 

preparation programs and these other 

indicators are predictive of a teacher’s 

effect on student performance. Also, as 

discussed above under proposed 

§ 612.4(b)(1), each State would need to 

classify the performance of each teacher 

preparation program using at least four 

performance levels—low-performing, atrisk, effective, and exceptional—and 

meaningfully differentiate those 

classification levels. 

Reasons: 

Proposed § 612.5(a) would define how 

each State would implement its 

statutory responsibility to include in its 

report card a description of the criteria 

the State uses to assess the performance 

of teacher preparation programs in the 

State, which must include indicators of 

the academic content knowledge and 

teaching skills of students enrolled in 

the teacher preparation programs. (See 

section 205(b)(1)(F) of the HEA.) 

Proposed § 612.5(b) would also describe 

other indicators that a State would be 

permitted to use to evaluate the 

program’s performance, which could 

include any indicator that is predictive 

of the effect of the new teachers it 

produces on student performance. We 

define these other indicators in this way 

consistent with the general agreement of 

non-Federal negotiators that the true 

performance of any teacher preparation 

program should be assessed in terms of 

how well the teachers it produces 

perform. 

In defining these indicators of teacher 

preparation program performance in 

this way, the Department would be (1) 

exercising its responsibility under 

section 205(b) of the HEA to have States 

report ‘‘in a uniform and 

comprehensible manner that conforms 

with the definitions [of terms] and 

methods established by the Secretary’’; 

(2) establishing those indicators of 

academic content knowledge and 

teaching skills that would best ensure 

the reliability, validity, integrity, and 

accuracy of the data submitted in the 

SRCs consistent with section 205(c) of 

the HEA; and (3) ensuring that States 

and IHEs use fair and equitable methods 

in reporting the data required by the IRC 

and SRC consistent with section 208(a) 

of the HEA. Moreover, we are proposing 

that States base their assessment of a 

teacher preparation program’s 

performance on all of these measures of 

new teachers’ and recent graduates’ 

academic content knowledge and 

teaching skills because, as explained in 

the discussion of each measure that 

follows, each measure offers a different 

lens on whether the program has 

succeeded in providing new teachers 

and recent graduates with the content 

knowledge and teaching skills they 

need, and because the Department 

believes that using multiple measures 

provides more valid and reliable 

assessments of program quality. In 

implementing this proposed 

requirement, States would exercise their 

own reasonable discretion on just how 

these measures would be implemented 

and weighted in order to determine 

performance levels. 

Under proposed § 612.5, the 

Department would require that each 

State utilize these indicators for ‘‘new 

teachers’’ and, where applicable, 

‘‘recent graduates’’ who have completed 

any teacher preparation program in its 

State. As explained previously, in 

proposed § 612.2 we would define a 

‘‘new teacher’’ as a recent graduate or 

alternative route participant who, 

within the last three title II reporting 

years, received a level of certification or 

licensure that would allow him or her 

to serve in the State as a teacher of 

record for K–12 students and, at the 

State’s discretion, for preschool 

students. We would define ‘‘recent 

graduate’’ as an individual whom a 

teacher preparation program has 

documented as meeting all the 

program’s requirements within the last 

three title II reporting years, without 

regard to whether the individual has 

been hired as a full-time teacher, has 

passed a licensure examination, or has 

been recommended to the State for 

initial certification or licensure. 

We propose this definition of ‘‘recent 

graduate’’ because an individual could 

meet all of a teacher preparation 

program’s requirements, but never be 

hired as a full-time teacher or be 

recommended to the State for initial 

certification or licensure. This 

distinction between new teachers and 

recent graduates is necessary in order to 

accurately track teacher placement rates. 

Without this distinction, a State could 

define a ‘‘recent graduate’’ as including 

only those who have received their 

teaching license or certificate and begun 

to teach, thereby nullifying the intended 

ability of that indicator to capture a 

program’s ability to prepare teacher 

candidates who actually go on to 

become teachers. 

In the following paragraphs, we 

explain our rationale for proposing the 

specific indicators we have included in 

proposed § 612.5, why we believe they 

are valid and reliable indicators of the 

academic content knowledge and 

teaching skills of teacher preparation 

program graduates, and why we believe 

these required and optional State 

indicators proposed in § 612.5(b) will 

reflect with integrity the level of the 

program’s performance. 

Rationale for Student Learning 

Outcomes 

The Secretary believes that student 

learning outcomes should be included 

in the criteria States report and use 

under section 205(b)(1)(F) of the HEA to 

determine teacher preparation program 

performance. That provision requires 

each State to identify in its report card 

the criteria it is using to identify the 

performance of each teacher preparation 

program within an IHE in the State, 

including its indicators of the academic 

knowledge and teaching skills of the 

program’s students. We would 

supplement the required content of the 

SRC by having States report this same 

information for all teacher preparation 

programs in the State—whether 

operated by an IHE or another entity. 

Research from Tennessee and the 

State of Washington has shown that a 

teacher’s preparation program has a 

significant effect on the learning gains of 

a teacher’s Kindergarten through 12th 

grade (K–12) students. In Tennessee, for 

example, the most effective teacher 

preparation programs produced 

graduates who were two to three times 

more likely to be in the top quintile of 

teacher effectiveness scores in the State, 

while the least effective programs 

produced graduates who were two to 

three times more likely to be in the 

bottom quintile. In Washington, the topperforming teacher preparation 

programs produced new teachers who, 

on average, raised K–12 student 

achievement by an amount equal to 

levels seen in classes that are 20 percent 

smaller. In both of these States, as well 

as in Louisiana and North Carolina, 

which also track data linking student 

growth to the programs where the 

students’ teachers were prepared, some 

teacher preparation programs 

consistently produce new teachers who 

are able to achieve strong student 

learning gains, while other programs 

consistently produce teachers associated 

with lower levels of growth. We believe 

that evidence from these States provides 

a strong basis for including student 

learning outcomes as an indicator of 

academic content knowledge and 

teaching skills of teachers produced by 

a teacher preparation program.5


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71837 

6Council for the Accreditation of Educator 

Preparation, ‘‘Annual Reporting and CAEP 

Monitoring,’’ (2013). http://caepnet.org/

accreditation/standards/annual-reporting-andcaep-monitoring/. 

We believe that for the purpose of title 

II reporting, States are well positioned 

to be able to include by April 1, 2018, 

student growth in tested grades and 

subjects of the new teachers that come 

from the program in the data they 

annually report on a teacher preparation 

program, and be able to incorporate 

student learning outcomes into the 

program’s overall performance measure 

by April 1, 2019. For example, all 50 

States and the District of Columbia 

received State Fiscal Stabilization Fund 

(SFSF) awards designed to fund, in part, 

the collection and reporting of student 

growth data relating to individual 

teachers in tested grades and subjects by 

the end of 2013. We believe this will 

enable States to meet the April 1, 2018, 

reporting deadline for student growth in 

tested grades and subjects, as the 2018 

SRC will report primarily on data from 

the 2016–2017 academic year. 

Having identified student learning 

outcomes as a required indicator in 

proposed § 612.5(a), we have proposed 

a definition that includes relevant data 

on student growth, which States could 

reliably use to assess the academic 

content knowledge and the teaching 

skills of new teachers. In particular, we 

are mindful of the definition of the term 

‘‘teaching skills’’ in section 200(23) of 

the HEA, which includes those skills 

that enable a teacher to increase student 

learning, achievement, the ability to 

apply knowledge, and to effectively 

convey and explain academic subject 

matter. Our proposed indicator of 

student learning outcomes reflects both 

of these key aspects of the definition of 

‘‘teaching skills,’’ which is itself an 

important element of the criteria 

required by section 205(b)(1)(F) for 

assessing teacher preparation program 

performance. 

Specifically, under this measure as 

defined in proposed § 612.2(d), States 

would calculate a program’s student 

learning outcomes for each new teacher 

using (1) aggregate student growth data 

for students taught by new teachers, (2) 

a teacher evaluation measure that as 

defined in § 612.2(d) must, in significant 

part, include data on student growth for 

all students, or (3) both. Where a State 

has already adopted measures of student 

growth as part of a comprehensive 

teacher evaluation system, we would 

permit the State to build its indicators 

of academic content knowledge and 

teaching skills linked to student 

learning outcomes from data provided 

by these existing teacher evaluation 

systems. In this regard, we believe that 

comprehensive teacher evaluations 

provide richer and more accurate 

information on teacher quality than 

student growth data alone. Our 

proposed definition of ‘‘teacher 

evaluation measure’’ would ensure that 

these evaluations are meaningful by 

requiring that they (1) differentiate 

teachers on a regular basis using at least 

three performance levels, (2) use 

multiple valid measures in determining 

each teacher’s performance level, and 

(3) include, as a significant factor, data 

on student growth for all students and 

other measures of professional practice. 

We recognize that not all State 

evaluation systems currently meet our 

proposed definition, and that States may 

prefer to use a stand-alone measure of 

student growth. Alternatively, or in 

addition, provided that a State’s existing 

measures of student growth are part of 

a comprehensive teacher evaluation 

system, a State may use the results of its 

teacher evaluation system as its 

indicator of student learning outcomes. 

Rationale for Employment Outcomes 

The employment outcomes indicator 

in proposed § 612.5(a)(2) would 

measure the effectiveness of a teacher 

preparation program in carrying out 

another of its pivotal missions— 

preparing and placing recent graduates 

as new teachers consistent with local 

school needs. Under our proposed 

regulatory framework, a program’s 

employment outcomes would be 

determined based on its teacher 

placement rate, teacher placement rate 

calculated for high-need schools, 

teacher retention rate, and teacher 

retention rate calculated for high-need 

schools. These measures would identify 

the extent to which a program is 

successfully placing new teachers who 

stay in the profession. The requirement 

to report disaggregated employment 

outcome measures for high-need schools 

reflects the need to ensure transparency 

about which programs are encouraging 

placement at high-need schools and 

which schools’ recent graduates are 

succeeding in these placements as 

reflected by retention rates. 

We believe that the use of the 

employment outcomes indicator is 

necessary for assessing the effectiveness 

of teacher preparation programs for 

several reasons. The goal of teacher 

preparation programs is to provide 

prospective teachers with the skills and 

knowledge needed to pursue a teaching 

career and remain successfully 

employed as a teacher, and to produce 

graduates who meet the needs of local 

educational agencies. Therefore, the rate 

at which a program’s graduates become 

and remain employed as teachers is a 

critical indicator of program quality for 

prospective students, as well as 

policymakers and the general public. 

Acknowledging this, non-federal 

negotiators suggested including teacher 

placement and retention as indicators of 

program performance because such 

measures reflect employment outcomes 

for teacher preparation programs 

consistent with local educational agency 

needs. 

We understand that teacher 

placement rates and teacher retention 

rates are affected by some 

considerations outside of the program’s 

control. Individual teachers may decide 

to leave the teaching profession either 

before they begin to teach or afterwards. 

Such decisions may be due to family 

considerations, working conditions at 

their school, or other reasons that do not 

necessarily reflect upon the quality of 

their teacher preparation program or the 

level of content knowledge and teaching 

skills of the program’s graduates. 

However, we believe that programs that 

persistently produce teachers who fail 

to find jobs or, once teaching, fail to 

remain in teaching, may not be 

providing the level of content 

knowledge and teaching skills that new 

teachers need to succeed in the 

classroom. Correspondingly, we believe 

that high placement and retention rates 

suggest that a teacher preparation 

program’s graduates do have the 

requisite content knowledge and 

teaching skills that enable them to 

demonstrate sufficient competency to 

find a job, earn positive reviews, and 

stay in the profession. 

This view is also evidenced by higher 

education accrediting agencies’ use of 

employment outcomes as an indicator of 

program performance. For example, in 

2013, the Council for the Accreditation 

of Educator Preparation (CAEP) adopted 

new accreditation standards and annual 

monitoring and reporting requirements, 

which include the ‘‘ability of completers 

to be hired in education positions for 

which they were prepared’’ as a 

measure of program outcome and 

consumer information.6 The rate of 

teacher retention is thus included in the 

accreditation standards and the 

accompanying report urges 

‘‘collaboration with States on 

preparation measures of common 

interest, such as employment and 

retention rates.’’ Several other 

institutional and programmatic 

accrediting agencies also use 

employment outcomes to assess a 

program’s quality, including the 

American Bar Association and the 

Council on Education for Public Health. 

In addition, some States use 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71838 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

7Southern Regional Education Board, ‘‘Essential 

Elements of State Policy for College Completion: 

Outcomes-Based Funding,’’ (2012). http://

publications.sreb.org/2012/Outcomes_Based_

Funding.pdf. 

8National Postsecondary Education Cooperative, 

‘‘Information Required to Be Disclosed Under the 

Higher Education Act of 1965: Suggestions for 

Dissemination (Updated),’’ Washington, DC. (2009). 

http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2010/2010831rev.pdf. 

9Richard M. Ingersoll and David Perda, ‘‘Is the 

Supply of Mathematics and Science Teachers 

Sufficient?’’ American Education Research Journal 

(May 2010). http://aer.sagepub.com/content/47/3/

563. 

10New York Board of Regents, ‘‘Teacher Demand 

and Supply Reports,’’ (2013). http://

www.regents.nysed.gov/meetings/2013Meetings/

November2013/TeacherSupplyDemandReports.pdf. 

11American Federation of Teachers Teacher 

Preparation Task Force, ‘‘Raising the Bar: Aligning 

and Elevating Teacher Preparation and the 

Teaching Profession,’’ (2012). http://

files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED538664.pdf. 

12Barnes et al, ‘‘The Cost of Teacher Turnover in 

Five School Districts: A Pilot Study,’’ National 

Commission on Teaching and America’s Future 

(2007). http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/

ED497176.pdf. 13US Department of Education, ‘‘State and Local 

Implementation of the No Child Left Behind Act: 

Volume VIII—Teacher Quality Under NCLB,’’ 

(2009). http://www2.ed.gov/rschstat/eval/teaching/

nclb-final/report.pdf. 14Richard Ingersoll, ‘‘Teacher Turnover and 

Teacher Shortages: An Organizational Analysis,’’ 

American Educational Research Journal (2001). 

http://www.gse.upenn.edu/pdf/rmi/

TeacherTurnoverTeacherShortages-RMI-Fall2001.pdf. 

employment outcomes in performancebased higher education funding 

formulas.7

Congress has also recognized the 

importance of employment outcome 

information in connection with higher 

education programs generally, including 

with respect to teacher preparation 

programs specifically. For example, 

under section 485(a)(1)(R) of the HEA, 

institutions ‘‘must make available to 

current and prospective students 

information regarding the placement in 

employment of, and types of 

employment obtained by, graduates of 

the institution’s degree or certificate 

programs.’’ In addition, ‘‘an institution 

that advertises job placement rates as a 

means of recruiting students to enroll 

must make these rates available to 

prospective students, at or before the 

time the prospective student applies for 

enrollment.’’ 8 Additionally, the Title II 

Teacher Quality Partnership (TQP) 

Program requires, under section 

204(a)(2) of the HEA, that grant 

applicants establish an evaluation plan 

that includes strong and measurable 

performance objectives, including 

objectives and measures for ‘‘increasing 

teacher retention in the first three years 

of a teacher’s career.’’ In addition to 

TQP, retention metrics are included in 

the statutory requirements for several 

Department grant programs such as 

Transition to Teaching, Teachers for a 

Competitive Tomorrow, and the 

National Professional Development 

Program. 

Congress has also included statutory 

requirements intended to ensure that 

teacher preparation programs produce 

new teachers who will address areas of 

need in local educational agencies and 

States. Congress’s expectations are 

manifested in statutory requirements 

that each program provide assurances to 

the Secretary in its IRC that it is training 

prospective teachers to fill these needs 

(sections 205(a)(1)(A)(ii) and 206 of the 

HEA). Specifically, IHEs that conduct 

teacher preparation programs are 

required to provide an assurance in the 

institutional report card that the IHE is 

providing training to prospective 

teachers that ‘‘responds to the identified 

needs of the local educational agencies 

or States where the institution’s 

graduates are likely to teach based on 

past hiring and recruitment trends.’’ 

The Department believes that teacher 

placement and retention data can 

provide important information on 

whether there is a labor market 

alignment between the new teachers 

and the teacher preparation program’s 

ability to place teachers in areas of 

teacher shortage and high-need fields 

and in schools serving high-need 

populations. Currently, research shows 

that there are important mismatches in 

the teacher labor market. For example, 

one study found that there is a sufficient 

supply of qualified teachers to 

compensate for teacher turnover in 

English, but not for math and science. 

Additionally, principals were roughly 

ten percentage points more likely to 

report serious difficulties filling math 

and science vacancies than English 

vacancies.9 New York State also 

reported that while elementary 

education accounted for 44 percent of 

the initial teaching certifications 

awarded, only 17 percent of certified 

program completers received an 

elementary and early childhood job 

placement in the State within two years. 

This contrasts with an in-subject 

placement rate of 63 percent for teachers 

of foreign languages, 59 percent for 

teachers of English as a second 

language, and 50 percent for secondary 

science teachers, suggesting a significant 

demand and supply mismatch by 

teaching area in the State.10 The 

Department believes that requiring 

reporting on placement and retention 

rates will promote greater transparency 

about this mismatch where it exists in 

order to help IHEs and policymakers 

better understand and address this 

problem. 

In regard to teacher retention, we 

believe that this measure reflects, to a 

significant extent, the degree to which 

teachers are adequately prepared for the 

schools that employ them. In a survey 

of American Federation of Teachers 

members, 50 percent indicated that their 

teacher preparation program did not 

adequately prepare them for the 

challenges of teaching in the ‘‘real 

world.’’ 11 This lack of preparation is a 

concern not only because of the 

potential impact on the learning 

outcomes of the students taught by such 

teachers, but because the Department 

believes that inadequately prepared 

teachers are less likely to remain in the 

classroom, and teacher attrition entails 

significant costs for States, districts, and 

schools. Although hard to quantify, 

research suggests that a conservative 

estimate of the cost of teacher turnover 

is 30 percent of the leaving teacher’s 

salary.12 By requiring reporting on 

teacher retention rates by program, the 

Department believes that employers will 

be able to better understand which 

teacher preparation programs have 

strong track records for placing recent 

graduates as new teachers who stay, and 

succeed, in the classroom. This 

information will in turn help employers 

make informed hiring decisions and 

may ultimately help districts reduce 

teacher turnover rates and cut some of 

the high costs associated with such 

turnover. 

The requirement to report 

disaggregated employment outcome 

measures for high-need schools reflects 

the need to ensure transparency about 

which programs are encouraging 

placement at high-need schools and 

which programs’ recent graduates are 

succeeding in these placements as 

reflected by retention rates. High-need 

schools face unique challenges and 

experience much higher vacancy and 

attrition rates, compared to other 

schools. More than 90 percent of high 

minority concentration districts 

reported challenges recruiting qualified 

applicants to teach math and science 

compared with roughly 40 percent of 

low minority districts.13 High-poverty 

schools have some of the highest rates 

of attrition among public schools, and 

high-poverty schools experience 

roughly 50 percent higher turnover rates 

than low-poverty schools.14 In addition 

to experiencing larger proportions of 

teachers leaving the profession, four 

times as many math and science 

teachers transfer from high-poverty 

schools to low-poverty schools than 

transfer from low-poverty schools to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71839 

15Richard Ingersoll and Henry May, ‘‘The 

Magnitude, Destinations, and Determinants of 

Mathematics and Science Teacher Turnover,’’ 

Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis (2012). 

http://epa.sagepub.com/content/34/4/435. 

16Barnes et al, ‘‘The Cost of Teacher Turnover in 

Five School Districts: A Pilot Study,’’ National 

Commission on Teaching and America’s Future 

(2007). http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/

ED497176.pdf. 

high-poverty schools. Similarly, threeand-a-half times as many math and 

science teachers transfer from urban to 

suburban schools as transfer from 

suburban to urban schools.15 A limited 

body of research also suggests that 

differences in turnover rates result in a 

higher relative cost to high-need schools 

than their more advantaged 

counterparts.16

Recognizing these unique challenges 

faced by high-need schools, we believe 

that it is essential to promote 

transparency in the reporting of 

employment outcomes through 

disaggregated information about highneeds schools and requiring that it be 

factored in significant part in a 

program’s performance rating. In turn, 

this transparency will inform program 

improvement and encourage teacher 

preparation programs to increase their 

employment retention rates in highneed schools, such as by strengthening 

their partnerships with high-need 

schools and districts. 

In our discussions about employment 

outcomes during negotiated rulemaking, 

we spent a considerable amount of time 

examining questions and issues 

concerning the calculation of teacher 

placement and retention rates for 

different types of programs. 

For example, both the Department 

and non-Federal negotiators agreed that, 

in order to minimize the burden 

associated with calculating teacher 

placement and teacher retention rates 

and to better focus the data collection, 

States should be allowed to include or 

exclude, at their discretion, certain 

categories of new teachers from the 

teacher placement and teacher retention 

rate calculations for their teacher 

preparation programs, provided that 

each State uses a consistent approach to 

assess and report on all of the teacher 

preparation programs in the State. These 

categories include teachers who leave 

the State, teach in private schools or 

other settings that do not require State 

certification or licensure, are not 

retained due to market conditions or 

other circumstances particular to the 

LEA and beyond the control of the 

teachers or schools, or join the military 

or enroll in graduate school. 

We anticipate that States will have 

varying circumstances and capacities 

that would make it difficult for some 

States to provide data regarding these 

categories of teachers, while other States 

would like to analyze this data. For 

example, some States may have systems 

in place to track teachers in private 

schools and others may not, and some 

States have strong relationships with 

nearby States where a substantial 

proportion of out-of-state graduates 

work and others may not. For this 

reason, the definitions of ‘‘teacher 

placement rate’’ and ‘‘teacher retention 

rate’’ allow a State to exclude one or 

more of these categories from its 

calculations, provided that the State 

uses a consistent approach to assess and 

report on all of the teacher preparation 

programs in the State. The Department, 

however, encourages States to develop 

appropriate data linkages across States, 

when possible, to capture teachers that 

are employed outside of the State in 

which their teacher preparation 

programs are located. 

Some non-Federal negotiators argued 

that, because teacher placement rates 

and teacher retention rates could vary 

based solely on the kind, rather than 

quality, of a teacher preparation 

program, States should be permitted to 

assess teacher placement and teacher 

retention rates for traditional programs 

differently than the way they assess 

them for alternative route programs. The 

Department agreed that this flexibility 

would be appropriate if there are 

differences in the programs that affect 

employment outcomes (such as 

employment requirements for entry into 

an alternative route program). Therefore, 

in proposed § 612.5(a)(2), States are 

permitted, at their discretion, to assess 

traditional and alternative route teacher 

preparation programs differently based 

on whether there are differences in the 

programs that affect employment 

outcomes, provided that varied 

assessments result in equivalent levels 

of accountability and reporting. 

To achieve equivalent standards of 

accountability in assessments of 

employment outcomes for traditional 

programs and alternative route 

programs, States could employ a variety 

of approaches. For example, a State 

might choose to use a single uniform 

standard for all teacher preparation 

programs in the State, but apply that 

standard differently to traditional 

programs (relative to other traditional 

programs) compared to alternative route 

programs (relative to other alternative 

route programs). Thus, when assessing 

teacher retention rates, for example, a 

State might choose to apply a uniform 

standard to all teacher preparation 

programs in the State (i.e., to achieve an 

‘‘exceptional’’ designation of program 

quality, a program would need to 

produce a retention rate in the top 

quartile of like programs), or it might 

apply that standard differently for 

traditional versus alternative route 

programs (i.e., to attain top quartile 

status a traditional program would need 

to meet an 80 percent retention rate 

threshold relative to other traditional 

programs, while to reach top quartile 

status an alternative route program 

would need to meet a 60 percent 

retention rate threshold relative to other 

alternative route programs). 

Alternatively, in assessing 

employment outcomes a State might 

choose to weight indicators differently 

for traditional programs versus 

alternative route programs in order to 

achieve equivalent standards of 

accountability. Thus, in States where 

employment is a prerequisite to entry 

into alternative route programs, a State 

might recognize that, by definition, all 

alternative route programs would have 

nearly 100 percent placement rates, 

thereby reducing the value of placement 

rate as a valid and reliable indicator of 

such programs’ performance. 

Accordingly, because all alternative 

route programs in that context would, 

by definition, have similarly high 

placement rates, when assessing and 

reporting on employment outcomes 

under § 612.5, a State could assess 

alternative route programs relative to 

other alternative route programs in 

order to effectively or explicitly reduce 

the weight given to placement rate as an 

indicator of program quality. In doing 

so, by necessity, the relative weight of 

other indicators of program 

performance, which might prove more 

valid and reliable in that context, would 

increase. 

Non-Federal negotiators were initially 

divided on whether teacher retention 

was an accurate measure of teacher 

preparation program quality. However, 

given these allowances for calculating 

teacher retention, the various ways a 

State might calculate this measure, and 

State discretion in relative weighting of 

this indicator as compared to other 

indicators, a majority of the non-Federal 

negotiators eventually expressed 

support for using the measure as one of 

a comprehensive set of indicators of the 

academic content knowledge and 

teaching skills of a program’s new 

teachers and recent graduates as part of 

a State’s criteria for assessing teacher 

preparation program performance. 

Rationale for Survey Outcomes 

We propose to use survey outcome 

data as an indicator of academic content 

knowledge and teaching skills of new 

teachers from teacher preparation 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71840 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

17Council for the Accreditation of Educator 

Preparation, ‘‘CAEP Accreditation Standards,’’ 

(2013). http://caepnet.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/ 

final_board_approved1.pdf. 

18 ‘‘Evaluation Instruments/Program Resources,’’ 

Committee on Accreditation of Educational 

Programs for the Emergency Medical Services 

Professions. http://coaemsp.org/Evaluations.htm. 

19 ‘‘Standardized Graduate and Employer 

Surveys,’’ Committee on Accreditation for 

Education in Neurodiagnostic Technology. http://

coa-end.org/?page_id=27. 

20See, for example, ‘‘Graduate/Employer Survey 

Data,’’ California State University-Fullerton, College 

of Education. http://ed.fullerton.edu/about-us/

accreditation-and-assessment/assessments/

graduateemployer-survey-data/. 

programs that we would require States 

to assess under proposed § 612.5(a) in 

determining program performance. 

Specifically, through this indicator, 

States would examine whether 

employers and the new teachers 

themselves are satisfied that a teacher 

preparation program has provided new 

teachers with the skills needed to 

succeed in the classroom. Survey 

outcome data would provide another, 

more qualitative measure for examining 

the effectiveness of a teacher 

preparation program in producing new 

teachers with requisite academic 

content and teaching skills. 

Two of the major national 

organizations focused on teacher 

preparation are now incorporating this 

kind of survey data as an indicator of 

program quality. The National Council 

on Teacher Quality (NCTQ) relies on the 

use of surveys in its rankings of teacher 

preparation programs. In its recently 

adopted accreditation standards, 

CAEP—which serves as the accreditor of 

the largest number of teacher 

preparation programs—requires in its 

standards that teacher preparation 

programs measure employer and 

completer satisfaction and recommend 

valid and reliable surveys as a method 

of collecting these data. Just as research 

shows that K–12 student surveys are a 

valid means for assessing aspects of 

teacher effectiveness,17 the use of 

satisfaction surveys by employers and 

program completers, as required by the 

CAEP standards, is aimed at assessing 

‘‘the results of preparation at the point 

where they most matter—in classrooms 

and schools.’’ CAEP has also 

recommended the development of 

common survey items and instruments 

for employers and completers and 

suggests that it could participate in the 

validation of survey instruments. 

Specifically, CAEP believes that ‘‘much 

efficiency might be gained through 

CAEP collaboration with states on 

preparation measures of common 

interest, such as employment and 

retention rates, and perhaps completer 

and employer surveys.’’ The use of 

surveys is thus a practice that is 

becoming increasingly prevalent and 

one that the Department expects to 

contribute to future research on teacher 

preparation program quality. 

In addition, it is important to note 

that graduating student and employer 

surveys are also employed in the higher 

education world more broadly, 

including by accrediting agencies. For 

example, the Committee on 

Accreditation of Educational Programs 

for the Emergency Medical Services 

Professions requires its accredited 

programs to conduct surveys of each 

group of graduating students and the 

employers of those graduates within 6– 

12 months after graduation using 

required graduate survey and employer 

survey items.18 Also, the Committee on 

Accreditation for Education in 

Neurodiagnostic Technology requires all 

accredited programs to survey both 

graduates and employers of graduates 

six months following graduation using, 

at a minimum, all items contained in its 

graduate and employer surveys.19

Finally, many IHEs conduct graduate 

and alumni surveys, as well as employer 

surveys, to help improve their 

programs.20

We believe that this indicator is a 

useful measure of teacher preparation 

program quality because many teachers 

report entering the profession feeling 

unprepared for classroom realities. 

Collecting survey data from new 

teachers and their employers would 

provide important qualitative 

information about a teacher’s ability to 

transfer the knowledge and skills 

acquired in their preparation program to 

their classrooms. We believe it is 

important to collect this information 

from both teachers and their employers 

because each group represents a 

different perspective on the quality of 

the teacher’s preparation. We propose 

that the survey outcome data would be 

collected through, at a minimum, 

surveys of new teachers and surveys of 

employers and supervisors of new 

teachers, in each case for those new 

teachers in their first year of teaching 

who attended a teacher preparation 

program in the State where the new 

teachers are employed or supervised. 

Non-Federal negotiators discussed at 

great length the potential burden to 

States in requiring the use of survey 

outcomes as an indicator of academic 

content knowledge and teaching skills 

of new teachers. Some non-Federal 

negotiators expressed concern about the 

potential costs and burdens associated 

with the requirement. 

During the negotiations, non-Federal 

negotiators broadly rejected a proposal 

by the Department that the Department 

take responsibility for, including 

responsibility for costs of, conducting 

the surveys of new teachers and their 

employers and supervisors. These nonFederal negotiators believed that States 

are better positioned to know what data 

should be collected and why. Given the 

reaction of the non-Federal negotiators, 

the Department is not proposing to take 

on this responsibility. 

Rationale for Accreditation or State 

Approval To Provide Teacher 

Candidates With Content and 

Pedagogical Knowledge and Quality 

Clinical Preparation and as Having 

Rigorous Teacher Candidate Entry and 

Exit Qualifications 

The required indicators of teachers’ 

academic content knowledge and 

teaching skills in proposed § 612.5(a)(1) 

through (a)(3) are outcome-based 

measures that we believe will provide 

strong and clear evidence of the quality 

of each teacher preparation program. 

During negotiations, many non-Federal 

negotiators expressed the view that 

States should also assess the quality of 

teacher preparation programs based on 

indicators of program inputs that 

provide signals of the program’s quality 

before outcome data are available. In 

addition, outcome indicators measure 

results but do not suggest a cause for 

favorable or unfavorable results, nor do 

they inform programs about steps they 

should take in order to improve. For 

these reasons, we added input measures 

recommended by non-Federal 

negotiators as an additional indicator of 

content knowledge and teaching skills 

that States would use to determine a 

program’s quality. 

Specifically, we propose in 

§ 612.5(a)(4) that, for purposes of its 

reporting indicators of, and data on, the 

performance of each teacher preparation 

program under proposed § 612.4, a State 

must include as an indicator whether 

the teacher preparation program either 

is accredited by a specialized 

accrediting agency that the Secretary 

recognizes for accrediting professional 

teacher education programs or, 

consistent with § 612.4(b)(3)(i)(B), the 

program produces teacher candidates 

with content and pedagogical 

knowledge and quality clinical 

preparation, who have met rigorous 

entry and exit qualifications. NonFederal negotiators also told us that 

accrediting agencies base accreditation 

on these same factors regarding 

knowledge, clinical preparation, and 

entry and exit requirements, and thus, 

an accreditation is tantamount to a 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71841 

21Thomas Kane and Douglas Staiger, ‘‘Gathering 

Feedback for Teaching: Combining High-Quality 

Observations with Student Surveys and 

Achievement Gains,’’ Bill and Melinda Gates 

Foundation Measures of Effective Teaching (MET) 

Project (January, 2012). http://www.metproject.org/ 

downloads/MET Gathering Feedback Practioner 

Brief.pdf. 

State’s assurance that the teacher 

preparation program has these 

attributes. Accordingly, programs that 

receive such accreditation would 

already be determined to have satisfied 

the indicator. 

The non-Federal negotiators proposed 

these two options not only to give States 

discretion in how they determined that 

a program had these input qualities, but 

also to provide them with a way to 

determine that alternative route 

programs, which often are not eligible 

for specialized accreditation, have these 

input qualities and so may be 

designated as exceptional teacher 

preparation programs using the same 

indicators as other programs. 

The Department agrees with the 

suggestions of the non-Federal 

negotiators and believes that use of 

multiple input-based measures in the 

assessment of teacher preparation 

program quality would complement the 

outcome-based measures in proposed 

§ 612.5(a)(1)–(3). 

Rationale for Other Indicators Predictive 

of a Teacher’s Effect on Student 

Performance 

Under proposed § 612.5(b), a State 

also could use other indicators of 

academic content knowledge and 

teaching skills predictive of a teacher’s 

effect on student performance to assess 

a teacher preparation program’s 

performance. However, in order to be 

able to compare programs as reflected in 

proposed § 612.5(b), if a State utilizes 

such other indicators, we believe the 

State should apply the same indicators 

for all of its teacher preparation 

programs. This would ensure consistent 

evaluation of a State’s teacher 

preparation programs. 

The Department believes that the 

indicators of academic content 

knowledge and teaching skills that 

States are required to collect and report 

under these proposed regulations would 

significantly improve the reliability, 

validity, integrity, and accuracy of 

teacher preparation program 

performance evaluation. However, the 

Department acknowledges that future 

research may show that other indicators 

beyond those that are required could 

provide additional information on 

teacher preparation program 

performance. For example, recent 

research has found that results from 

surveying students can provide 

additional reliability in measuring 

teacher performance, especially when 

included in a combined measure, and 

that these data may provide more robust 

feedback for teachers of non-tested 

grades and subjects.21 This proposed 

regulatory provision would permit a 

State, at its discretion, to use this or 

other such indicators. 

§ 612.6 What must a State consider in 

identifying low-performing teacher 

preparation programs or at-risk teacher 

preparation programs, and what 

regulatory actions must a State take 

with respect to those programs 

identified as low-performing? 

Statute: Section 205(b)(1)(F) of the 

HEA requires that the State include in 

its annual report card a description of 

the State’s criteria for assessing the 

performance of teacher preparation 

programs within IHEs in the State, 

including the indicators of the academic 

content knowledge and teaching skills 

of students enrolled in the teacher 

preparation programs. Furthermore, 

section 205(b) of the HEA provides that 

States must report not less than the 

information specified in section 

205(b)(1)(A) through (b)(1)(L) of the 

HEA, and requires States to provide this 

information in a uniform and 

comprehensible manner that conforms 

with the definitions and methods 

established by the Secretary. 

In addition, section 207(a) of the HEA 

requires States to identify lowperforming teacher preparation 

programs in the State, and provide to 

the Secretary in the report card an 

annual list of low-performing teacher 

preparation programs as well as those 

programs at risk of being placed on the 

low-performing teacher preparation 

program list. Section 207(a) of the HEA 

further requires a State to provide 

technical assistance to low-performing 

teacher preparation programs. 

Current Regulations: None. 

Proposed Regulations: Under 

proposed § 612.6(a), we would require 

States to use criteria that, at a minimum, 

include the indicators of academic 

content knowledge and teaching skills 

from proposed § 612.5, including, in 

significant part, employment outcomes 

for high-need schools and student 

learning outcomes when determining 

whether a teacher preparation program 

should be identified as a lowperforming teacher preparation program 

or an at-risk teacher preparation 

program. (Consistent with our approach 

in proposed §§ 612.4 and 612.5, the 

required use of these indicators would 

not apply to the identification of lowperforming or at-risk teacher 

preparation programs by American 

Samoa, the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands, the freely 

associated states of the Republic of the 

Marshall Islands, the Federated States of 

Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, 

Guam, and the United States Virgin 

Islands). 

Under proposed § 612.6(b), States 

would also be required to provide 

technical assistance to improve the 

performance of any teacher preparation 

program in its State that has been 

identified as a low-performing teacher 

preparation program. Technical 

assistance may include, but would not 

be limited to: Providing programs with 

information on the specific indicators 

used to determine the program’s rating 

(e.g., specific areas of weakness in 

student learning, job placement and 

retention, and new teacher or employer 

satisfaction); assisting programs to 

address the rigor of their entry and exit 

criteria; helping programs identify 

specific areas of curriculum or clinical 

experiences that correlate with gaps in 

graduates’ preparation; helping identify 

potential research and other resources to 

assist program improvement (e.g., 

evidence of other successful 

interventions, other university faculty, 

other teacher preparation programs, 

nonprofits with expertise in educator 

preparation and teacher effectiveness 

improvement, accrediting organizations, 

or higher education associations); and 

sharing best practices from exemplary 

programs. 

Reasons: This section implements the 

statutory requirement that States 

conduct an assessment to identify lowperforming teacher preparation 

programs in the State and help those 

programs to improve their performance 

by providing technical assistance to 

them. So that proposed § 612.6 reflects 

all applicable requirements, we also 

would reiterate the relevant requirement 

under proposed § 612.4(b)(1) that the 

State’s criteria include, at a minimum, 

the indicators of academic content 

knowledge and teaching skills from 

§ 612.5, including, in significant part, 

employment outcomes for high-need 

schools and student learning outcomes. 

The Department includes a requirement 

to factor in the placement and retention 

of new teachers in high-need schools, in 

significant part, in determining teacher 

preparation performance because the 

Secretary believes that a program’s 

ability to train future teachers who 

succeed in high-need schools is a 

critical standard for assessing a teacher 

preparation program’s effectiveness. The 

Secretary believes that a State’s reliance 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71842 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

in significant part on employment 

outcomes in high-need schools will 

encourage teacher preparation programs 

to improve and strengthen their efforts 

to prepare new teachers for high-need 

schools, and thus, will help to address 

unmet demand and improve learning 

outcomes in such schools, which is the 

primary policy objective of the TEACH 

Grant program. With respect to student 

learning outcomes, consistent with the 

approach the Department has taken in 

promoting educator evaluation systems 

in programs and initiatives such as 

ESEA Flexibility, Race to the Top, and 

the Teacher Incentive Fund, the 

Secretary believes that the performance 

of teacher preparation programs should 

also weight student outcomes, in 

significant part, because, as with 

educator evaluation systems, student 

outcomes are an important, but not 

exclusive, factor for measuring 

performance. 

The statute also requires that States 

identify programs that are at-risk of 

being identified as low-performing, and 

proposed § 612.6 would state this 

requirement as well. 

Subpart C—Consequences of 

Withdrawal of State Approval or 

Financial Support 

§ 612.7 What are the consequences for 

a low-performing teacher preparation 

program that loses the State’s approval 

or the State’s financial support? 

Statute: Section 207(b) of the HEA 

describes the consequences that occur 

when a teacher preparation program, 

that the State finds to be low-performing 

based on its assessment of program 

performance, loses State approval or 

financial support. Low-performing 

teacher preparation programs that have 

lost State approval or financial support 

are ineligible for funding awarded by 

the Department for professional 

development activities. In addition, 

these teacher preparation programs may 

not accept or enroll any student who 

receives HEA title IV student financial 

assistance. Further, the affected teacher 

preparation program must provide 

transitional support, including remedial 

services if necessary, for students 

enrolled when the loss of State approval 

or financial support occurs. 

Current Regulations: None. 

Proposed Regulations: Proposed 

§ 612.7(a)(1) and (a)(2) would codify in 

regulations the statutory requirements 

that a teacher preparation program from 

which the State has withdrawn its 

approval or terminated its financial 

support because of the State’s 

identification of the program as a lowperforming teacher preparation 

program— 

(a) Is ineligible for professional 

development funding awarded by the 

Department, and 

(b) is not permitted to include any 

candidate accepted into the teacher 

preparation program (as defined in 

proposed § 612.2(d)) or any candidate 

enrolled in the teacher preparation 

program (as defined in proposed 

§ 612.2(d)) who receives HEA title IV, 

student financial assistance in the IHE’s 

teacher preparation program as of the 

date that the State’s approval was 

withdrawn or the State’s financial 

support was terminated. In proposed 

§ 612.2(d), we would define the term 

‘‘candidate accepted into a teacher 

preparation program’’ as an individual 

who has been admitted into a teacher 

preparation program but who has not 

yet enrolled in any coursework that the 

IHE has determined to be part of that 

teacher preparation program. In that 

section, we would also define the term 

‘‘candidate enrolled in a teacher 

preparation program’’ as an individual 

who has been accepted into a teacher 

preparation program and is in the 

process of completing required 

coursework but has not completed the 

teacher preparation program. 

Under proposed § 612.7(a)(3), any 

teacher preparation program from which 

the State has withdrawn its approval or 

terminated its financial support because 

of the State’s identification of the 

program as a low-performing teacher 

preparation program would also be 

required to provide transitional support 

(including remedial services, if 

necessary) to students enrolled in the 

teacher preparation program at the IHE 

at the time of the withdrawal of 

approval or termination of financial 

support for a period of time no longer 

than 150 percent of the published length 

of the program, but not less than the 

period of time a student continues in 

the program (up to 150 percent of the 

published program length). 

Proposed § 612.7(b) would describe 

the requirements that apply to any IHE 

administering a teacher preparation 

program that has lost State approval or 

financial support based on being 

identified by the State as a lowperforming teacher preparation 

program. First, under proposed 

§ 612.7(b)(1), such an IHE would be 

required to notify the Secretary of the 

loss of State approval or financial 

support within 30 days of such 

designation. Second, under proposed 

§ 612.7(b)(2), the IHE would be required 

to immediately notify each affected 

student that the IHE is no longer eligible 

to provide funding to them under title 

IV, HEA commencing with the next 

payment period. Finally, under 

proposed § 612.7(b)(3), the IHE would 

be required to disclose on its Web site 

and in promotional materials that it 

makes available to prospective students 

the fact that the teacher preparation 

program has been identified by the State 

as a low-performing teacher preparation 

program, has lost State approval or 

financial support, and that students 

accepted or enrolled in that program 

may not receive title IV, HEA funding. 

Reasons: Proposed § 612.7(a) 

implements the statutory requirement 

that low-performing teacher preparation 

programs that have lost State approval 

or financial support are ineligible for 

funding for professional development 

activities awarded by the Department, 

may not accept or enroll any student 

who receives title IV student financial 

assistance, and must provide 

transitional support for students 

enrolled when the loss of State approval 

or financial support occurred. 

In proposed § 612.7(a)(3), we would 

require a teacher preparation program 

that has lost State approval or financial 

support under this part to provide 

affected students (such as students 

currently enrolled in the teacher 

preparation program) with transitional 

support for a period of time no longer 

than 150 percent of the published 

program length, but not less than the 

period of time a student continues in 

the program (up to 150 percent of the 

published program length). We expect 

such transitional support to include 

such services as remedial services, 

career counseling, or assistance with 

locating another teacher preparation 

program for the student. 

Regulations governing satisfactory 

academic progress under § 668.34(b), 

which apply to all title IV federal 

student aid, establish a maximum 

timeframe of no longer than 150 percent 

of the published length of the 

educational program relative to the pace 

at which a student must progress 

through his or her educational program 

to ensure that the student will complete 

the program within the maximum 

timeframe. To be consistent with the 

maximum timeframe used for other title 

IV Federal student aid programs, the 

Secretary believes that the transitional 

support under this section should also 

be provided for a period of time no 

longer than 150 percent of the published 

program length. Hence, we propose this 

same timeframe for transitional support 

in § 612.7(a)(3). 

In addition, given the consequences 

students face when a teacher 

preparation program loses State 

approval or financial support, it is 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71843 

22See, for example, 34 CFR 600.40(d)(1), which 

requires that any IHE that has lost institutional 

eligibility to enroll students receiving title IV aid 

notify the Secretary within 30 days. 

imperative that any IHE administering 

such a program make this information 

widely available and do so promptly. 

For this reason, and to be consistent 

with other notifications related to HEA 

title IV programs, we would require 

such an IHE to notify the Secretary 

within 30 days.22 This notification is 

necessary and reasonable because the 

students in the affected program would 

no longer be eligible for title IV, HEA 

funding, and the Department would 

need to take action to ensure that no 

further title IV, HEA funds are disbursed 

to students accepted or enrolled in the 

affected teacher preparation program. In 

addition, because a student enrolled or 

accepted for enrollment in such a 

program would be unable to receive title 

IV, HEA funding if he or she remains 

with the program, we would require 

under proposed § 612.7(b)(2) that IHEs 

administering such a program 

immediately notify each student who is 

enrolled or accepted into the lowperforming teacher preparation program 

and who receives title IV, HEA financial 

assistance that, commencing the next 

payment period, the IHE is no longer 

eligible to provide such funding to 

students enrolled or accepted into the 

low-performing teacher preparation 

program. Finally, we would require any 

IHE administering a teacher preparation 

program that has been identified as lowperforming and has lost State approval 

or financial support to disclose that 

information on its Web site and in any 

promotional materials it makes available 

to prospective students so that 

prospective students and employers 

have current information about program 

quality in order to make informed 

choices. 

§ 612.8 How does a low-performing 

teacher preparation program regain the 

eligibility to accept or enroll students 

receiving Title IV, HEA funds after loss 

of the State’s approval or the State’s 

financial support? 

Statute: Section 207(b)(4) of the HEA 

provides that a low-performing teacher 

preparation program, from which the 

State has withdrawn State approval or 

terminated the State’s financial support 

but which has sufficiently improved its 

performance, shall have its eligibility for 

title IV, HEA funds reinstated upon the 

State’s determination of improved 

performance. 

Current Regulations: None. 

Proposed Regulations: Under 

proposed § 612.8(a), a low-performing 

teacher preparation program that has 

lost State approval or financial support 

may have its title IV eligibility and its 

eligibility for Department funding for 

professional development activities 

reinstated if it can demonstrate (1) 

improved teacher preparation program 

performance, as determined by the State 

based on the teacher preparation 

program performance indicators under 

proposed § 612.5 and (2) reinstatement 

by the State of its approval or financial 

support. In proposed § 612.8(b), we 

would clarify that, to meet the 

requirements of proposed § 612.8(a), the 

IHE must submit an application to the 

Secretary with supporting 

documentation that would allow the 

Secretary to determine that the teacher 

preparation program that had previously 

lost State approval or financial support 

based on poor performance has 

improved performance as measured 

using the indicators in proposed § 612.5, 

and that the State has reinstated its 

approval or financial support. 

Reasons: This section would 

implement the statutory provision that 

low-performing teacher preparation 

programs that have lost State approval 

or financial support can regain 

eligibility to accept or enroll students 

receiving title IV, HEA funding by 

demonstrating improved performance, 

as determined by the State. Consistent 

with the State’s reporting of the 

performance level of each teacher 

preparation program, as required under 

proposed § 612.4, we would link 

improved performance under this 

requirement with the State’s 

determination of the performance level 

of the teacher preparation program, 

using the indicators under proposed 

§ 612.5 and the State’s decision to 

reinstate approval or financial support 

of the program. Because reinstatement 

of the authority to award financial 

assistance under title IV of the HEA 

would require the Secretary’s approval, 

proposed § 612.8(b) would provide the 

process by which an IHE would submit 

an application for reinstatement to the 

Secretary that will enable the Secretary 

to determine that the teacher 

preparation program previously 

identified by the State as lowperforming has met the requirements 

under proposed § 612.8(a). The 

Secretary will evaluate an IHE’s 

application to participate in the title IV, 

HEA programs consistent with 34 CFR 

600.20. In the event that an IHE is not 

granted eligibility to participate in the 

title IV, HEA programs, that IHE may 

submit additional evidence to 

demonstrate to the satisfaction of the 

Secretary that it is eligible to participate 

in the title IV, HEA programs. 

Part 686—Teacher Education 

Assistance for College and Higher 

Education (TEACH) Grant Program 

Subpart A—Scope, Purpose and General 

Definitions 

§ 686.2 Definitions 

High-Quality Teacher Preparation 

Program and TEACH Grant-Eligible 

STEM Program 

Statute: Section 420L(1)(A) of the 

HEA provides that in order to be eligible 

to participate in the TEACH Grant 

program, an IHE must, among meeting 

other requirements, provide ‘‘highquality teacher preparation and 

professional development services, 

including extensive clinical experience 

as part of pre-service preparation’’ as 

determined by the Secretary. 

Current Regulations: Section 686.2 

provides definitions for key terms used 

for 34 CFR part 686. It does not 

currently include a definition of ‘‘highquality teacher preparation’’ or ‘‘TEACH 

Grant-eligible STEM program.’’ 

Proposed Regulations: The 

Department proposes to include in 

proposed § 686.2(e) (current § 686.2(d)) 

a definition for the term ‘‘high-quality 

teacher preparation program’’ to mean a 

teacher preparation program that (1) for 

purposes of the 2020–2021 title IV HEA 

award year, a State has classified as 

effective or of higher quality under 

proposed § 612.4 in either or both the 

April 2019 and/or the April 2020 State 

Report Card and for purposes of the 

2021–2022 title IV HEA award year and 

subsequent award years, a State has 

classified as effective or of higher 

quality under proposed § 612.4, 

beginning with the April 2019 State 

Report Card, for two out of the previous 

three years, (2) meets the exception from 

State reporting of teacher preparation 

performance under 34 CFR 

612.4(b)(4)(ii)(D) or (b)(4)(ii)(E), or (3) is 

a TEACH Grant-eligible science, 

technology, engineering, or mathematics 

(STEM) program at a TEACH Granteligible institution. We propose to 

define a TEACH Grant-eligible STEM 

program as a program in one of the 

physical, life, or computer sciences; 

technology; engineering; or mathematics 

as identified by the Secretary that has 

not been identified by the Secretary as 

having fewer than 60 percent of its 

TEACH Grant recipients completing at 

least one year of teaching that fulfills 

the service obligation pursuant to 

§ 686.40 within three years of 

completing the program for the most 

recent three years for which data are 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71844 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

23See, for example, Tennessee Higher Education 

Commission, ‘‘Report Card on the Effectiveness of 

Teacher Training Programs,’’ Nashville, TN (2010); 

Dan Goldhaber, et al. ‘‘The Gateway to the 

Profession: Assessing Teacher Preparation Programs 

Based on Student Achievement.’’ Economics of 

Education Review, 34 (2013), pp. 29–44. 

available. The definition of ‘‘teacher 

preparation program’’ is discussed 

elsewhere in this notice. 

In proposed § 686.2(d), we would also 

add a cross-reference to the definition of 

the term ‘‘effective teacher preparation 

program’’ in proposed 34 CFR part 612. 

Reasons: The term ‘‘high-quality 

teacher preparation program’’ is not 

explicitly defined in either the statute or 

the TEACH Grant program regulations. 

Currently, TEACH Grants are awarded 

at more than 800 of the approximately 

2,124 IHEs that house a teacher 

preparation program without, for many 

of these programs, a specific 

determination of teacher preparation 

program quality being made. In 

addition, some IHEs with teacher 

preparation programs that have been 

designated by States as low-performing 

or at-risk of being low-performing are 

currently awarding TEACH Grants. 

Under the proposed definition of 

‘‘high-quality teacher preparation 

program,’’ the Secretary would 

determine that a program is a highquality teacher preparation program 

only if it has been classified by the State 

to be an effective teacher preparation 

program or of higher quality under 

§ 612.4 in either or both the April 2019 

and/or the April 2020 State Report Card 

for the 2020–2021 title IV HEA award 

year and in two out of the previous 

three years beginning with the April 

2019 State Report Card for the 2021– 

2022 title IV HEA award year; meets the 

exception from State reporting of 

teacher preparation program 

performance under 34 CFR 

612.4(b)(4)(ii)(D) or (b)(4)(ii)(E); or is a 

TEACH Grant-eligible science, 

technology, engineering, or mathematics 

(STEM) program at a TEACH Granteligible institution. ‘‘Effective or of 

higher quality’’ under this definition 

refers to teacher preparation program 

performance levels of effective or higher 

as defined in proposed part 612. New 

§ 686.2(d) includes a cross-reference to 

the definition of the term ‘‘effective 

teacher preparation program’’ in part 

612 to clarify what we mean by this 

term in the context of part 686. The 

proposed language refers to a program 

being classified as ‘‘effective or of higher 

quality’’ rather than as an ‘‘effective 

teacher preparation program’’ or 

‘‘exceptional teacher preparation 

program’’ because States have discretion 

to classify teacher preparation programs 

in performance levels other than the 

four required in part 612. For example, 

a State could create a performance level 

above effective, but below exceptional. 

For the purpose of TEACH Grant 

eligibility, we intend to require only 

that a program has been identified as at 

least an ‘‘effective teacher preparation 

program.’’ 

The Department believes that the 

proposed definition of high-quality 

teacher preparation program, which 

would connect the assessment of 

teacher preparation program quality 

under the title II reporting system in 

proposed part 612 with TEACH Grant 

program funding, would help ensure 

that TEACH Grants are awarded only to 

students in high-quality teacher 

preparation programs. Research from 

States that have linked student 

achievement data to teacher preparation 

programs such as Louisiana, Tennessee, 

North Carolina, and Washington State 

show there are significant and lasting 

differences in quality between teacher 

preparation programs, and that highquality programs can consistently 

produce teachers who obtain larger 

student achievement gains than teachers 

from other preparation programs.23 For 

example, in 2003–2004, the Louisiana 

Board of Regents began examining the 

growth in achievement of K–12 students 

and linking the growth in student 

learning to teacher preparation 

programs. They began by using 

achievement data for students from ten 

school districts, and, over time, have 

added all school districts in the State 

and all public and private universities 

with teacher preparation programs. 

They have found that some teacher 

preparation programs prepare new 

teachers who are equivalent to 

experienced teachers, while other 

programs prepare new teachers whose 

effectiveness is at or below other new 

teachers. 

Tennessee passed legislation in 2007 

requiring the State Board of Education 

to analyze the effectiveness of teacher 

preparation programs. Annually, the 

Tennessee Higher Education 

Commission produces ‘‘report cards’’ on 

each teacher preparation program in the 

State with information such as teacher 

preparation program placement and 

retention rates and the student growth 

of K–12 students taught by teacher 

preparation program graduates. 

The proposed definition of ‘‘highquality teacher preparation program’’ 

includes teacher preparation programs 

that meet the exception from State 

reporting of teacher preparation 

program performance under 34 CFR 

612.4(b)(4)(ii)(D), which exempts 

programs unable to meet the threshold 

size, or 34 CFR 612.4(b)(4)(E), which 

exempts programs if reporting of their 

performance data would be inconsistent 

with Federal or State confidentiality 

laws or regulations. We believe that 

programs that meet one or both of these 

exceptions should not be excluded from 

TEACH Grant eligibility because of their 

small size or the fact that they are 

subject to privacy laws or regulations 

that would temporarily delay them from 

reporting on their performance until 

they reach an acceptable program size 

threshold by enrolling more students or 

aggregating across programs or years 

under proposed 612.4(b)(4)(ii). 

Under this proposed definition for 

high-quality teacher preparation 

program, the levels of program 

performance as reported in State report 

cards in both the April 2019 and the 

April 2020 State Report Card for the 

2020–2021 title IV HEA award year 

would determine TEACH Grant 

eligibility for the 2020–2021 academic 

year. Subsequently, beginning with the 

2021–2022 title IV HEA award year, a 

program’s eligibility would be based on 

the level of program performance 

reported in the State Report Card for 

two out of three years. For example, 

program eligibility for the 2021–2022 

title IV HEA award year, would be based 

on the level of performance reported in 

the April 2019, 2020, and 2021 State 

Report Cards. The State Report Card 

ratings from April 2018 (if the State 

exercised its option to report the ratings 

using the new indicators) and April 

2019 would not immediately impact 

TEACH Grant eligibility. Instead, the 

loss of TEACH Grant eligibility for lowperforming or at-risk programs would 

become effective July 1, 2020. In 

addition, the proposed definition of 

‘‘high-quality teacher preparation 

program’’ would include a TEACH 

Grant-eligible STEM program at a 

TEACH Grant-eligible institution. A 

TEACH Grant-eligible STEM program 

would be defined, in part, as an eligible 

program, as defined in 34 CFR 668.8, in 

one of the physical, life, or computer 

sciences; technology; engineering; or 

mathematics as identified by the 

Secretary. This definition is consistent 

with the definition that was used in the 

National Science and Mathematics 

Access to Retain Talent Grant (National 

SMART Grant) Program’s definition of 

SMART Grant-eligible program. 

To meet the proposed definition of a 

TEACH Grant-eligible STEM program, a 

program also must, over the most recent 

three years for which data are available, 

not have been identified by the 

Secretary as having fewer than sixty 

percent of its TEACH Grant recipients 

complete at least one year of teaching 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71845 

24Robert Floden and Marco Meniketti, ‘‘Research 

on the Effects of Coursework in the Arts and 

Sciences and in the Foundations of Education,’’ 

Studying Teacher Education: The Report of the 

AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education, 

Mahwah, NJ (2006): 261–308. 

25 Ibid. 

26Sharon Anderson, ‘‘Teacher Career Choices: 

Timing of Teacher Careers Among 1992–93 

Bachelor’s Degree Recipients, Postsecondary 

Education Descriptive Analysis Report,’’ National 

Center for Education Statistics, Institute of 

Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education, 

Washington, DC (2008). http://nces.ed.gov/

pubs2008/2008153.pdf. 

that fulfills the service obligation 

pursuant to § 686.40 within three years 

of completing the STEM program. In 

addition, the definition of TEACH 

Grant-eligible STEM program would 

specify that the Secretary will publish 

an annual list of TEACH Grant-eligible 

STEM programs identified by 

Classification of Instructional Program 

(CIP) codes as defined in the proposed 

regulations. Publishing this list will 

enable the public to determine easily 

whether a specific STEM program is 

eligible to participate in the TEACH 

Grant program. 

If otherwise eligible, a student who 

intends to be a teacher may receive a 

TEACH Grant if the student majors in 

one of the STEM areas identified by the 

Secretary using the CIP codes 

promulgated by the National Center for 

Education Statistics (which generally 

include programs in the physical, life, 

or computer sciences; technology; 

engineering; or mathematics). Majoring 

in a STEM field allows a prospective 

teacher to develop content knowledge in 

that field. Research has found that a 

teacher’s content specialization in 

mathematics or science has a positive 

impact on student achievement in those 

subjects.24 One way to encourage STEM 

majors to become teachers is to make 

TEACH Grants available to them. Note 

that while research shows that math and 

science teachers benefit from obtaining 

a content-area degree rather than a 

degree in education, research on other 

content areas such as history and 

English language arts does not show a 

similar relationship between content 

area degrees and teaching success.25

To ensure that all eligible programs 

provide high-quality teacher 

preparation, we believe it is appropriate 

to require that, over the most recent 

three years for which data are available, 

the Secretary has not identified that 

fewer than sixty percent of a STEM 

program’s TEACH Grant recipients have 

taught full-time as a highly-qualified 

teacher in a high-need field in a lowincome school in accordance with 

§ 686.40 for at least one year within 

three years of completing the STEM 

program. The Secretary believes that 

sixty percent is the appropriate 

percentage because we believe TEACH 

Grant recipients in the STEM fields 

should enter the teaching profession at 

the same rates that education majors 

secure a teaching placement within ten 

years of receiving their bachelor’s 

degree.26 The Department acknowledges 

that the overall rate of teaching is not 

the same as teaching in a high-need 

field in a low-income school, as is 

required under TEACH, but we think 

the rate is nonetheless reasonable 

because TEACH is designed to support 

students who have committed to 

fulfilling their service obligations, and 

because TEACH recipients are highachieving students who attended highquality programs. We have chosen a 

three-year window in order to allow 

students time to complete their content 

training and to enter into and complete 

a teacher preparation program. For 

example, we expect that some of these 

students would need to enroll in and 

complete a Master’s degree to earn a 

teaching license. A three-year window 

would allow these students time to 

complete a Master’s degree and then 

begin fulfilling their TEACH Grant 

service obligations. 

The Secretary requests comments 

about this framework and particularly 

on the three-year window and on 

whether the sixty percent placement 

rate is a reasonable and realistic 

placement rate, or whether another rate, 

such as seventy-five percent, would be 

more reasonable or could be supported 

with research, data, or other analysis. 

The Secretary also requests comments 

about whether the definition of the term 

‘‘high-quality teacher preparation 

program’’ should include other content 

majors, such as foreign language 

programs, at a TEACH Grant-eligible 

institution. In particular, we invite 

comment as to whether strong empirical 

evidence exists that demonstrates that 

having a teacher with a content 

specialization in those fields leads to 

positive effects on student achievement 

in those subjects. 

TEACH Grant-Eligible Institution 

Statute: Section 420(L)(1) of the HEA 

provides that an eligible IHE for TEACH 

Grant program purposes is an IHE as 

defined in section 102 of the HEA that 

is financially responsible and that 

provides high-quality teacher 

preparation and professional 

development services, including 

extensive clinical experience as part of 

pre-service preparation; pedagogical 

coursework or assistance in the 

provision of such coursework, including 

the monitoring of student performance, 

and formal instruction related to the 

theory and practices of teaching; and 

supervision and support services to 

teachers, or assistance in the provision 

of such services, including mentoring 

focused on developing effective 

teaching skills and strategies. 

Section 420L(2) of the HEA defines 

‘‘post-baccalaureate’’ as a program of 

instruction for individuals who have 

completed a baccalaureate degree, that 

does not lead to a graduate degree, and 

that consists of courses required by a 

State in order for a teacher candidate to 

receive a professional certification or 

licensing credential that is required for 

employment as a teacher in an 

elementary school or secondary school 

in that State, except that such term does 

not include any program of instruction 

offered by an eligible IHE that offers a 

baccalaureate degree in education. 

Current Regulations: Current 

§ 686.2(d) defines a ‘‘TEACH Granteligible institution’’ as an eligible 

institution as defined in 34 CFR part 

600 that meets financial responsibility 

standards established in 34 CFR part 

668, subpart L, or that qualifies under 

alternative standards in 34 CFR 668.175, 

and that meets one of the following four 

options: 

Option 1: The IHE provides a highquality teacher preparation program at 

the baccalaureate or master’s degree 

level that is either (a) accredited by a 

specialized accrediting agency 

recognized by the Secretary for the 

accreditation of professional teacher 

education programs or (b) is approved 

by a State and includes a minimum of 

10 weeks of full-time pre-service 

clinical experience, or its equivalent, 

and provides either pedagogical 

coursework or assistance in the 

provision of such coursework. 

To meet Option 1, the IHE must also 

provide supervision and support 

services to teachers, or assist in the 

provision of services to teachers, such as 

identifying and making available 

information on effective teaching skills 

or strategies; identifying and making 

information on effective practices in the 

supervision and coaching of novice 

teachers available; and mentoring 

focused on developing effective 

teaching skills and strategies. 

Option 2: The IHE provides a twoyear program acceptable for full credit 

in a baccalaureate teacher preparation 

program under Option 1 in this section 

or acceptable for full credit in a 

baccalaureate degree program in a highneed field under Option 3 (described in 

the following paragraph). 

Option 3: The IHE provides a 

baccalaureate degree that, in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71846 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

combination with other training or 

experience, will prepare an individual 

to teach in a high-need field and has 

entered into an agreement with an IHE 

under Option 1 or Option 4 to provide 

courses necessary for students to begin 

a teaching career. 

Option 4: The IHE provides a postbaccalaureate program of study. 

Proposed Regulations: The 

Department proposes to amend the 

definition of ‘‘TEACH Grant-eligible 

institution’’ in current § 686.2(d) to 

provide that, to be TEACH Granteligible, an IHE must provide at least 

one teacher preparation program at the 

baccalaureate or master’s degree level 

that is a high-quality teacher 

preparation program, as that term would 

be defined in proposed § 668.2(e). (Note 

that we would redesignate current 

§ 686.2(d) as proposed § 686.2(e), and 

the definition of ‘‘TEACH Grant-eligible 

institution’’ would now be in § 686.2(e). 

We would remove from paragraph 

(1)(i) of the current definition of 

‘‘TEACH Grant-eligible institution’’ in 

current § 686.2(d) the requirement that 

an IHE provide a program that (1) is 

accredited by a specialized accrediting 

agency or (2) is approved by a State and 

includes a minimum of 10 weeks of fulltime pre-service clinical experience, and 

provides either pedagogical coursework 

or assistance in the provision of such 

coursework. The substance of this 

removed language would be captured in 

the proposed indicators of teacher 

preparation program performance 

determined under proposed 

§§ 612.5(a)(4)(i) and (a)(4)(ii), 

respectively, and reported under the 

title II reporting system under proposed 

§ 612.4(b)(3)(i)(B). We believe that these 

requirements, while important, should 

be part of a broader examination of a 

program’s quality and not considered 

separate from other measures. For a full 

discussion of these proposed provisions, 

please refer to the preamble discussion 

related to proposed §§ 612.4 and 612.5 

earlier in this notice. 

In paragraph (iii) of the proposed 

definition of ‘‘TEACH Grant-eligible 

institution,’’ we would include any 

eligible IHE that offers a TEACH Granteligible science, technology, engineering 

or mathematics (STEM) program (as 

defined in proposed § 686.2(e)). In 

addition to offering a TEACH Granteligible STEM program, such an IHE 

would be required to have an agreement 

with an IHE that either provides at least 

one high-quality teacher preparation 

program at the baccalaureate or master’s 

degree level that also provides 

supervision and support services to 

teachers or assists in the provision of 

services to teachers, or that provides a 

high-quality teacher preparation 

program that is a post-baccalaureate 

program of study to provide courses 

necessary for students in the TEACH 

Grant-eligible STEM program to begin a 

career in teaching. 

We propose removing from the 

definition of TEACH Grant-eligible 

institution in current § 686.2(d) 

paragraphs (2)(ii) and (3) so that a 

financially responsible IHE that (1) 

offers only a two-year program 

acceptable for full credit in a 

baccalaureate degree program in a highneed field in a TEACH-Grant eligible 

institution or (2) offers only a 

baccalaureate degree that in 

combination with other training or 

experience will prepare an individual to 

teach in a high-need field would no 

longer be considered a TEACH Granteligible institution. However, a 

financially responsible IHE that offers a 

two-year program acceptable for full 

credit in a TEACH Grant-eligible 

program offered by an IHE described in 

paragraph (1) of the definition of 

TEACH Grant-eligible institution, or a 

TEACH Grant-eligible STEM program, 

offered by an IHE described in 

paragraph (iii) of the definition of 

TEACH Grant-eligible institution, would 

be considered a TEACH Grant-eligible 

institution. 

Finally, we propose amending 

paragraph (4) (to be redesignated as 

paragraph (iv)) of the definition of 

‘‘Teach Grant-eligible institution’’ to 

provide that, for a post-baccalaureate 

program of study to meet the definition, 

it must be a high-quality teacher 

preparation program. 

Reasons: The Department is 

proposing these changes in order to 

consistently implement—at the prebaccalaureate, baccalaureate, and postbaccalaureate levels—the requirement 

that, to be a TEACH-Grant eligible 

institution, an IHE must provide highquality teacher preparation. We explain 

in the previous section the reasons for 

our focus on high-quality teacher 

preparation under part 686. We also 

explain in the previous section why 

TEACH Grant-eligible STEM programs 

at TEACH Grant-eligible institutions 

meet the proposed definition of highquality teacher preparation program. 

An IHE that is an eligible institution 

as defined in 34 CFR part 600 and meets 

the financial responsibility standards 

established in 34 CFR part 668, subpart 

L, or that qualifies under an alternative 

standard in 34 CFR 668.175 would be 

considered a TEACH Grant-eligible 

institution if it provides a TEACH 

Grant-eligible STEM program and has 

entered into an agreement with an IHE 

described in paragraph (i) or (iv) under 

the definition of TEACH Grant-eligible 

institution to provide courses necessary 

for its students to begin a career in 

teaching. While teacher preparation 

programs are evaluated under the title II 

reporting system, TEACH Grant-eligible 

STEM programs would not be evaluated 

under the title II reporting system. In 

order to ensure that TEACH Granteligible STEM programs provide their 

students with a pathway to teaching, 

proposed paragraph (iii) of the 

definition of Teach Grant-eligible 

institution in proposed § 686.2(e) would 

require that the relevant TEACH Granteligible STEM program enter into an 

agreement with an IHE described in 

paragraphs (i) or (iv) of the definition 

(an IHE with a teacher preparation 

program or a post-baccalaureate 

program) to provide courses necessary 

for its students to begin a career in 

teaching. TEACH Grant recipients 

would, therefore, have access to 

necessary teacher preparation training 

to supplement and enhance their 

substantive knowledge and ensure they 

are prepared to teach. 

TEACH Grant-eligible program 

Statute: The HEA does not define the 

term ‘‘TEACH Grant-eligible program.’’ 

Current Regulations: Current 

§ 686.2(d) defines ‘‘TEACH Granteligible program’’ as an eligible 

program, as defined in 34 CFR 668.8, 

that is a program of study designed to 

prepare an individual to teach as a 

highly-qualified teacher in a high-need 

field and leads to a baccalaureate or 

master’s degree, or is a postbaccalaureate program of study. A twoyear program of study acceptable for full 

credit toward a baccalaureate degree is 

considered to be a program of study that 

leads to a baccalaureate degree. 

Proposed Regulations: The 

Department proposes to amend the 

definition of ‘‘TEACH Grant-eligible 

program’’ under current § 686.2(d). 

(Note that we would redesignate current 

§ 686.2(d) as proposed § 686.2(e), and 

the definition of ‘‘TEACH Grant-eligible 

program’’ would now be in § 686.2(e).) 

A TEACH Grant-eligible program would 

no longer be defined simply as a 

program of study. Rather, under our 

proposed revisions to the definition, to 

be a TEACH Grant-eligible program, the 

program would have to be a high-quality 

teacher preparation program (as that 

term would be defined in proposed 

§ 686.2(e)) that is designed to prepare an 

individual to teach as a highly-qualified 

teacher in a high-need field and leads to 

a baccalaureate or master’s degree, or is 

a post-baccalaureate program of study. 

Further, under the proposed definition 

of ‘‘TEACH Grant-eligible program,’’ a 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71847 

two-year program of study acceptable 

for full credit toward a baccalaureate 

degree must be in a high-quality teacher 

preparation program (as that term would 

be defined in proposed § 686.2(e)) to be 

considered a program of study that leads 

to a baccalaureate degree. 

Reasons: The Department is 

proposing these changes in order to 

implement the statutory requirement 

that to be a TEACH-Grant eligible 

program, the program must be a highquality teacher preparation program. 

Simply offering a baccalaureate, 

master’s, or post-baccalaureate degree is 

not sufficient for a program to be 

deemed ‘‘high-quality.’’ The Secretary 

believes determinations of quality 

should be based on indicators of 

effectiveness linked to the academic 

content and teaching skills of new 

teachers from teacher preparation 

programs, specifically the indicators 

that States use to evaluate programs 

under part 612. The importance of 

focusing on high-quality teacher 

preparation programs is discussed 

further under the heading ‘‘High-quality 

teacher preparation program and 

TEACH Grant-eligible STEM program.’’ 

Educational Service Agency and School 

or Educational Service Agency Serving 

Low-Income Students (Low-Income 

School) 

For a discussion related to the 

proposed additions of the defined terms 

‘‘educational service agency’’ and 

‘‘school or educational service agency 

serving low-income students (lowincome school),’’ please refer to our 

preamble discussion under the heading 

‘‘Service Obligations for the TEACH 

Grant program: Teaching Service 

Performed for an Educational Service 

Agency (34 CFR 686.2, 686.12, 686.32, 

686.40, and 686.43),’’ later in this 

document. 

§§ 686.3(c), 686.11(a)(1)(iii), and 

686.37(a)(1) Duration of Student 

Eligibility for TEACH Grants 

Statute: Section 420M(d)(1) and (d)(2) 

of the HEA include a number of TEACH 

Grant eligibility provisions, including a 

provision stating that the maximum 

amount an undergraduate or postbaccalaureate student may receive in 

TEACH Grants is $16,000 and that the 

maximum amount a graduate student 

may receive in TEACH Grants is $8,000. 

However, neither this section nor any 

other section of the statute addresses the 

duration of student eligibility for 

TEACH Grants when a previously 

eligible TEACH Grant program is no 

longer considered TEACH Granteligible. 

Current Regulations: Current 

§ 686.3(a) provides that an 

undergraduate or post-graduate student 

enrolled in a TEACH Grant-eligible 

program may receive the equivalent of 

up to four Scheduled Awards (as 

defined in § 686.2(d)) during the period 

the student is completing the first 

undergraduate program of study and 

first post-baccalaureate program of 

study. Current § 686.3(b) provides that a 

graduate student is eligible to receive 

the equivalent of up to two Scheduled 

Awards during the period required for 

the completion of a TEACH Granteligible master’s degree program of 

study. Current § 686.3 does not address 

duration of student eligibility for a 

student who is enrolled in a TEACH 

Grant-eligible program or a TEACH 

Grant-eligible STEM program that loses 

eligibility subsequent to the student’s 

receipt of a TEACH Grant. 

Proposed Regulations: The 

Department proposes to revise current 

§ 686.3 by adding a new paragraph (c). 

This new paragraph would clarify that 

an otherwise eligible student who 

received a TEACH Grant for enrollment 

in a TEACH Grant-eligible program or a 

TEACH Grant-eligible STEM program 

would remain eligible to receive 

additional TEACH Grants to complete 

that program even if the program the 

student was enrolled in was 

subsequently no longer considered a 

TEACH Grant-eligible program or a 

TEACH Grant-eligible STEM program. 

Additionally, otherwise eligible 

students who received a TEACH Grant 

for enrollment in a program before July 

1 of the year these proposed regulations 

become effective would remain eligible 

to receive additional TEACH Grants to 

complete that program even if the 

program the student enrolled in is not 

a TEACH Grant-eligible program under 

proposed § 686.2(e). 

Consistent with this change to 

proposed § 686.3, we would also amend 

current § 686.11(a)(1)(iii) to add that an 

otherwise eligible student who received 

a TEACH Grant and who is completing 

a program under proposed § 686.3(c) 

would be eligible to receive a TEACH 

Grant. 

Finally, we would amend current 

§ 686.37(a)(1), as it relates to 

institutional reporting requirements, to 

require that an IHE provide to the 

Secretary information about the 

eligibility of each TEACH Grant 

recipient awarded a TEACH Grant 

under proposed § 686.3(c). 

Reasons: In the proposed regulations, 

program eligibility is linked to title II 

reporting and, to be eligible, STEM 

programs must maintain a certain 

percentage of students who fulfill a year 

of the service obligation within three 

years of graduating. As a result, program 

eligibility may change from year to year. 

The Secretary believes that a student 

who begins a TEACH Grant-eligible 

program or TEACH Grant-eligible STEM 

program and receives a TEACH Grant 

should not be penalized if the program 

the student attends is subsequently not 

considered to be a TEACH Grant-eligible 

program or a TEACH Grant-eligible 

STEM program. In such a case, we 

believe that the student should continue 

to be eligible to receive a TEACH Grant 

under proposed §§ 686.3(c) and 

686.11(a)(1)(iii). Because a student who 

receives one TEACH Grant is obligated 

to fulfill the requirements of the 

agreement to serve—generally that the 

student teach full-time as a highlyqualified teacher in a high-need field in 

a low-income school for four years 

within eight years after the student 

completes his or her program—the 

Secretary believes it would be unfair to 

deny a student additional TEACH 

Grants to complete a program that lost 

TEACH Grant eligibility after the 

student received a TEACH Grant for that 

program and incurred a service 

obligation. 

We would also make corresponding 

changes to student eligibility 

requirements for the TEACH Grant 

program as well as to institutional 

reporting requirements for students 

receiving TEACH Grants under these 

circumstances to reflect this provision. 

Service Obligations for the TEACH 

Grant Program: Teaching Service 

Performed for an Educational Service 

Agency (§§ 686.2, 686.12, 686.32, 

686.40, and 686.43) 

Statute: Section 420N(b) of the HEA 

requires that a TEACH Grant recipient, 

as a condition of receiving a TEACH 

Grant, serve as a full-time highlyqualified teacher in a high-need field at 

an elementary or secondary school 

serving low-income children (lowincome school) for not less than four 

academic years within eight years of 

completing the course of study for 

which the recipient received a TEACH 

Grant. 

A ‘‘low-income school’’ is described 

in section 465(a)(2)(A) of the HEA as: 

(1) A public or other nonprofit private 

elementary or secondary school or an 

educational service agency that has been 

determined by the Secretary, after 

consultation with the State educational 

agency in the State in which the school 

is located, to be a school in which the 

number of children meeting a measure 

of poverty under section 1113(a)(5) of 

the ESEA exceeds 30 percent of the total 

number of children enrolled in such 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71848 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

school, and is in a school district of an 

LEA that is eligible for assistance under 

part A, title I of the ESEA; or 

(2) a public or other nonprofit private 

elementary school or secondary school 

or location operated by an educational 

service agency that has been determined 

by the Secretary, after consultation with 

the State educational agency of the State 

in which the educational service agency 

operates, to be a school or location at 

which the number of children taught 

who meet a measure of poverty under 

section 1113(a)(5) of the ESEA exceeds 

30 percent of the total number of 

children taught at such school or 

location. 

The Higher Education Opportunity 

Act of 2008 (Public Law 110–315) 

(HEOA) amended section 465(a)(2)(A) of 

the HEA to include educational service 

agencies in the description of a lowincome school, and added a new section 

481(f) that provides that the term 

‘‘educational service agency’’ has the 

meaning given the term in section 9101 

of the ESEA. 

Current Regulations: The current 

regulations governing the TEACH Grant 

program do not reflect the fact that a 

TEACH Grant recipient may fulfill his 

or her service obligation to teach in a 

low-income school by teaching in a 

school or location operated by an 

educational service agency. 

Proposed Regulations: In proposed 

§ 686.2(e) (current § 686.2(d)), the 

Department proposes to define 

‘‘educational service agency’’ to mean a 

regional public multiservice agency 

authorized by State statute to develop, 

manage, and provide services or 

programs to LEAs, as defined in section 

9101 of the ESEA, as amended. 

In proposed § 686.2(e) (current 

§ 686.2(d)), we would also remove the 

term ‘‘school serving low-income 

students (low-income school)’’ and its 

definition and replace them with the 

term ‘‘school or educational service 

agency serving low-income students 

(low-income school)’’ and its definition. 

We would make conforming changes in 

other provisions that currently refer to 

‘‘school serving low-income students 

(low-income school).’’ Specifically, we 

would amend §§ 686.12(b)(1)(i) and 

(b)(2) (Agreement to serve); 

686.32(a)(3)(ii), (c)(4)(iii), and (c)(4)(v) 

(Counseling requirements); 686.40(b) 

and (f) (Documenting the service 

obligation); and 686.43(a)(1) (Obligation 

to repay the grant), to add references to 

an ‘‘educational service agency’’ as 

appropriate, to make it clear that a 

TEACH Grant recipient can satisfy his 

or her agreement to serve in a lowincome school by teaching in a school 

or location operated by an educational 

service agency. 

Reasons: We are proposing to amend 

§§ 686.2, 686.12, 686.32, 686.40, and 

686.43 of the TEACH Grant program 

regulations to reflect the statutory 

change made by the HEOA to section 

465(a)(2)(A) of the HEA that allows a 

TEACH Grant recipient to satisfy his or 

her service obligation to teach in a lowincome school by teaching in an 

educational service agency, and we are 

adopting the definition of that term from 

section 9101 of the ESEA as required by 

section 481(f) of the HEA. A TEACH 

Grant recipient can satisfy his or her 

service obligation by teaching in a Head 

Start program provided by an 

educational service agency at an 

elementary school or secondary school 

or other location that meets the poverty 

requirement. 

Service Obligations for the TEACH 

Grant Program: Teaching in a HighNeed Field (§§ 686.12 and 686.32) 

Statute: As stated in the previous 

discussion, section 420N(b) of the HEA 

requires a TEACH Grant recipient to 

serve as a full-time highly-qualified 

teacher in a high-need field at a lowincome school as a condition of 

receiving a TEACH Grant. Section 

420N(b)(1)(C) of the HEA describes 

high-need fields as mathematics, 

science, foreign languages, bilingual 

education, special education, reading 

specialist, or another field documented 

as high-need by the Federal 

Government, State government, or LEA, 

and approved by the Secretary. 

The HEOA added section 420N(d)(1) 

to the HEA to provide that, for fields 

documented as high-need by the Federal 

Government, State government, or LEA, 

and approved by the Secretary, a 

TEACH Grant recipient may fulfill his 

or her service obligation by teaching in 

a field that was designated as high-need 

when the recipient applied for the grant, 

even if the field is no longer designated 

as high-need when the recipient begins 

teaching. This change became effective 

on July 1, 2010. 

Current Regulations: The definition of 

‘‘high-need field’’ in current § 686.2 is 

similar to the statutory definition of the 

term included in section 420N(b)(1)(C) 

of the HEA. As in section 420N(b)(1)(C) 

of the HEA, in the definition of ‘‘highneed field’’ in current § 686.2(d), a highneed field that is not specified in the 

regulation must be documented as highneed by the Federal Government, State 

government, or LEA, and approved by 

the Secretary, in order for it to be 

determined a high-need field. The 

definition of ‘‘high-need field’’ in 

current § 686.2(d) also specifies that the 

high-need field must be listed in the 

Department’s annual Teacher Shortage 

Area Nationwide Listing (Nationwide 

List) in accordance with 34 CFR 

682.210(q), to be included as a highneed field. 

Under current § 686.12(d), a TEACH 

Grant recipient may satisfy his or her 

service obligation by teaching in a highneed field that is listed in the 

Nationwide List only if that field is 

designated by a State as high-need and 

included in the Nationwide List at the 

time the recipient begins qualifying 

teaching in that field in that State. 

Under current § 686.40(c)(2), if a grant 

recipient begins qualified full-time 

teaching service in a State in a highneed field designated by that State and 

listed in the Nationwide List and in 

subsequent years that high-need field is 

no longer designated by the State in the 

Nationwide List, the grant recipient will 

be considered to continue to perform 

qualified full-time teaching service in 

satisfaction of his or her agreement to 

serve. 

Proposed Regulations: We propose to 

add a new paragraph (d) to current 

§ 686.12 to reflect the statutory change 

made by the HEOA to section 

420N(d)(1) of the HEA. 

Specifically, proposed § 686.12(d) 

would provide that, in order for a grant 

recipient’s teaching service in a highneed field listed in the Nationwide List 

to count toward satisfying the 

recipient’s service obligation, the highneed field in which he or she prepared 

to teach must be listed in the 

Nationwide List for the State in which 

the grant recipient begins teaching in 

that field— 

(1) At the time the grant recipient 

begins qualifying teaching service in 

that field (even if that field subsequently 

loses its high-need designation for that 

State); or 

(2) For teaching service performed on 

or after July 1, 2010, at the time the 

grant recipient begins qualifying 

teaching service in that field or when 

the grant recipient signed the agreement 

to serve or received the TEACH Grant 

(even if that field subsequently loses its 

high-need designation for that State 

before the grant recipient begins 

qualifying teaching service). 

The proposed regulations would also 

make technical changes to 

§ 686.32(a)(3)(iii)(B) and (c)(4)(iv)(B), 

regarding initial and exit counseling 

provided to a TEACH Grant recipient, to 

reflect the statutory change to section 

420N(d)(1) of the HEA and to be 

consistent with proposed § 686.12(d). 

Reasons: Proposed § 686.12(d) would 

implement the statutory change to 

section 420N(d)(1) of the HEA by the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71849 

HEOA discussed above. To implement 

this provision of the HEA, we are 

proposing regulations, in § 686.12(d), 

that interpret the term ‘‘when the 

recipient applied for the grant’’ to relate 

to the date when the recipient signed 

the agreement to serve or received the 

TEACH Grant, because the use of two 

dates provides both the Department and 

the TEACH Grant recipient with the 

most flexibility. Currently, the 

Department already tracks the date the 

recipient signs the agreement to serve, 

and the date a grant recipient receives 

a TEACH Grant. 

While we did consider using the date 

the TEACH Grant recipient filed a Free 

Application for Federal Student Aid 

(FAFSA) for this determination, we 

declined to take this approach because 

the Department’s TEACH Grant 

servicing system does not currently 

contain the FAFSA filing date, and 

adding this information to the TEACH 

Grant servicing system would require 

expensive changes. We do not believe 

these system changes are necessary in 

light of other alternatives available. 

We believe that permitting the use of 

either date is also beneficial for TEACH 

Grant recipients. The Nationwide List is 

published on an award year basis, and 

it is possible that the date a grant 

recipient signs the agreement to serve 

and the date he or she receives the grant 

could fall in different award years. 

Using either date provides the grant 

recipient with a choice of which 

Nationwide List to use in determining 

which high-need field to pursue as a 

course of study. The TEACH Grant 

recipient can also be assured that, when 

the grant recipient begins teaching, 

service done in that high-need field will 

qualify as eligible service. 

Eligibility for a New TEACH Grant After 

Receiving a Discharge of the TEACH 

Grant Agreement to Serve Based on 

Total and Permanent Disability 

(§ 686.11) 

Statute: Section 420N(d)(2) of the 

HEA authorizes the Secretary to 

establish categories of extenuating 

circumstances under which a TEACH 

Grant recipient who is unable to fulfill 

all or part of the recipient’s service 

obligation may be excused from 

fulfilling that portion of the recipient’s 

service obligation. 

Current Regulations: Current 

§ 686.42(b) provides that a TEACH 

Grant recipient’s agreement to serve is 

discharged if the recipient becomes 

totally and permanently disabled, as 

that term is defined in 34 CFR 

682.200(b), and applies for, and satisfies 

the eligibility requirements for, a total 

and permanent disability discharge of a 

Direct Loan in accordance with 34 CFR 

685.213. The TEACH Grant eligibility 

requirements in current § 686.11 do not 

address the eligibility of a TEACH Grant 

recipient for a new TEACH Grant after 

receiving a discharge of the agreement 

to serve based on total and permanent 

disability. 

Proposed Regulations: We propose to 

add a new paragraph to § 686.11 to 

address the eligibility of a TEACH Grant 

recipient for a new TEACH Grant after 

receiving a discharge of the agreement 

to serve based on total and permanent 

disability. Proposed § 686.11(d) would 

provide that, if a student’s previous 

TEACH Grant service obligation or title 

IV, HEA loan was discharged based on 

total and permanent disability, the 

student is eligible to receive a new 

TEACH Grant only if the student: 

• Obtains a certification from a 

physician that the student is able to 

engage in substantial gainful activity as 

defined in 34 CFR 685.102(b); 

• Signs a statement acknowledging 

that neither the service obligation for 

the TEACH Grant the student receives 

nor any previously discharged service 

agreement on which the grant recipient 

is required to resume repayment in 

accordance with § 686(d)(1)(iii) can be 

discharged in the future on the basis of 

any impairment present when the new 

grant is awarded, unless that 

impairment substantially deteriorates 

and the grant recipient applies for, and 

meets the eligibility requirements for, a 

discharge in accordance with 34 CFR 

685.213; and 

• For a situation in which the student 

receives a new TEACH Grant within 

three years of the date that any previous 

TEACH Grant service obligation or title 

IV loan was discharged due to a total 

and permanent disability in accordance 

with § 686.42(b), 34 CFR 

685.213(b)(7)(i)(B), 34 CFR 

674.61(b)(6)(i)(B), or 34 CFR 

682.402(c)(6)(i)(B), the grant recipient 

acknowledges that he or she is once 

again subject to the terms of the 

previously discharged TEACH Grant 

agreement to serve in accordance with 

§ 686.42(b)(5) before receiving the new 

grant and resumes repayment on the 

previously discharged loan in 

accordance with § 685.213(b)(47), 34 

CFR 674.61(b)(6), or 34 CFR 

682.402(c)(6). 

Reasons: We are proposing to add 

eligibility requirements that require a 

TEACH Grant recipient to be subject to 

the terms of a previously discharged 

TEACH Grant agreement to serve, and to 

resume repayment on any previously 

discharged loan before receiving a new 

TEACH Grant, because the receipt of a 

new TEACH Grant, which requires the 

grant recipient to work as a teacher, 

amounts to an implicit 

acknowledgement that the recipient is 

able to engage in substantial gainful 

activity and is therefore no longer 

totally and permanently disabled. We 

are also proposing to add eligibility 

requirements to address this situation in 

order to make the TEACH Grant 

program regulations consistent with and 

conform to the rules governing borrower 

eligibility for a new HEA, title IV loan 

after receiving a total and permanent 

disability discharge on a prior loan. 

Discharge of the TEACH Grant 

Agreement To Serve Based on the Total 

and Permanent Disability of the TEACH 

Grant Recipient (§ 686.42(b)) 

Statute: Section 420N(d)(2) of the 

HEA provides the Secretary with 

regulatory authority to establish 

categories of extenuating circumstances 

under which a TEACH Grant recipient 

who is unable to fulfill all or part of his 

or her service obligation may be excused 

from fulfilling that portion of the service 

obligation. 

Current Regulations: Current 

§ 686.42(b) provides for a discharge of 

the service obligation if the TEACH 

Grant recipient applies for, and satisfies 

the eligibility requirements for, a total 

and permanent disability discharge of a 

Direct Loan in 34 CFR 685.213. 

Proposed Regulations: We propose to 

remove current § 686.42(b)(2), which 

provides that the eight-year time period 

in which the grant recipient must 

complete the service obligation remains 

in effect during the conditional 

discharge period described in 34 CFR 

685.213(c)(3) unless the grant recipient 

is eligible for a suspension based on a 

condition that is a qualifying reason for 

leave under the Family Medical Leave 

Act. 

We would also remove current 

§ 686.42(b)(3), which requires that 

interest continues to accrue on each 

TEACH Grant disbursement unless and 

until the grant recipient’s agreement to 

serve is discharged by the Secretary. 

In addition, we would remove current 

§ 686.42(b)(4) and modify current 

§ 686.42(b)(2) to provide that, if at any 

time the Secretary determines that the 

grant recipient does not meet the 

requirements of the three-year period 

following the discharge in 34 CFR 

685.213(b)(5), the Secretary will notify 

the grant recipient that the grant 

recipient’s obligation to satisfy the terms 

of the agreement to serve is reinstated. 

Finally, we would add new 

§ 686.42(b)(3) to clarify that the 

Secretary’s notification under 

§ 686.42(b)(2) would include the reason 

or reasons for reinstatement, provide 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71850 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

27 Kelly, D., Xie, H., Nord, C.W., Jenkins, F., Chan, 

J.Y., and Kastberg, D. ‘‘Performance of U.S. 15-YearOld Students in Mathematics, Science, and Reading 

Literacy in an International Context: First Look at 

PISA 2012 (NCES 2014–024),’’ U.S. Department of 

Education, National Center for Education Statistics, 

Washington, DC (2013). http://nces.ed.gov/

pubs2014/2014024rev.pdf. 

28William Sanders and June C. Rivers, 

‘‘Cumulative and Residual Effects of Teachers on 

Future Student Academic Achievement,’’ Research 

report, Knoxville, TN, University of Tennessee, 

Value-Added Research and Assessment Center, 

(1996); Steven G. Rivkin, Eric A. Hanushek, and 

Thomas A. Kane, ‘‘Teachers, Schools, and 

Academic Achievement.’’ Econometrica 73, No. 2 

(2005): 417–58; Jonah Rockoff, ‘‘The Impact of 

Individual Teachers on Student Achievement: 

Evidence from Panel Data.’’ American Economic 

Review 94, No. 2 (2004): 247–52. 

information on how the grant recipient 

may contact the Secretary if the grant 

recipient has questions about the 

reinstatement or believes that the 

agreement to serve was reinstated based 

on incorrect information, inform the 

grant recipient that interest accrual will 

resume on TEACH Grant disbursements 

made prior to the date of the discharge, 

and inform the TEACH Grant recipient 

that he or she must satisfy the service 

obligation within the portion of the 

eight-year period that remained after the 

date of the discharge. 

Reasons: The current total and 

permanent disability discharge 

provisions in § 686.42(b) of the TEACH 

Grant regulations are modeled on the 

Direct Loan Program regulations and 

provide that, if a TEACH Grant recipient 

becomes totally and permanently 

disabled, the grant recipient’s service 

obligation is discharged if the TEACH 

Grant recipient applies for, and satisfies 

the same eligibility requirements for, a 

total and permanent disability discharge 

of a Direct Loan in 34 CFR 685.213. 

Much like a Direct Loan borrower who 

cannot repay his or her loan because of 

a total and permanent disability, a 

disabled TEACH Grant recipient cannot 

comply with the service obligation 

because he or she cannot work and earn 

money. The Department processes 

TEACH Grant applications for total and 

permanent disability in the same 

manner it processes applications for the 

Federal Family Education Loan (FFEL) 

and Direct Loan programs. On 

November 1, 2012, we published final 

regulations that amended the Perkins, 

FFEL, and Direct Loan program 

regulations (77 FR 66088) to streamline 

the total and permanent disability 

discharge application process and 

provide more detailed information in 

the various notifications received by the 

borrower. We are proposing to amend 

the provisions authorizing the discharge 

of a TEACH Grant recipient’s agreement 

to serve based on total and permanent 

disability to conform to the changes to 

the discharge process set forth in the 

November 1, 2012 final regulations. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) for 

Teacher Preparation Proposed 

Regulations 

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 the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive 

Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as an action likely to 

result in regulations 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 ‘‘economically significant’’ 

regulations); 

(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 

stated in the Executive order. 

This proposed regulatory action is a 

significant regulatory action subject to 

review by OMB under section 3(f) of 

Executive Order 12866. 

We have also reviewed these 

regulations pursuant to Executive Order 

13563, published on January 21, 2011 

(76 FR 3821), which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor their regulations to impose 

the least burden on society, consistent 

with obtaining regulatory objectives, 

taking into account, among other things, 

and to the extent practicable, the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than 

specifying the behavior or manner of 

compliance that regulated entities must 

adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including providing economic 

incentives to encourage the desired 

behavior, such as user fees or 

marketable permits, or providing 

information upon which choices can be 

made by the public. 

We emphasize as well that Executive 

Order 13563 requires agencies ‘‘to use 

the best available techniques to quantify 

anticipated present and future benefits 

and costs as accurately as possible.’’ In 

its February 2, 2011, memorandum (M– 

11–10) on Executive Order 13563, the 

Office of Information and Regulatory 

Affairs within the Office of Management 

and Budget emphasized that such 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing these proposed 

regulations only upon a reasoned 

determination that their benefits justify 

their costs and we selected, in choosing 

among alternative regulatory 

approaches, those approaches that 

maximize net benefits. Based on this 

analysis and the reasons stated in the 

preamble, the Department believes that 

these proposed regulations are 

consistent with the principles in 

Executive Order 13563. 

In this Regulatory Impact Analysis we 

discuss the need for regulatory action, 

the potential costs and benefits, net 

budget impacts, assumptions, 

limitations, and data sources, as well as 

regulatory alternatives we considered. 

Although the majority of the costs 

related to information collection are 

discussed within this RIA, elsewhere in 

this NPRM under Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995, we also identify and further 

explain burdens specifically associated 

with information collection 

requirements. 

I. Need for Regulatory Action 

Recent international assessments of 

science, reading, and math knowledge 

have revealed that the United States is 

significantly behind other countries in 

preparing students to compete in the 

global economy.27 Although many 

factors influence student achievement, a 

large body of research has used valueadded analysis to demonstrate that 

teacher quality is the largest in-school 

factor affecting student achievement.28


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71851 

29For more information on approaches to valueadded analysis, see also: Henry I. Braun, ‘‘Using 

Student Progress to Evaluate Teachers: A Primer on 

Value-Added Models.’’ Princeton, NJ, Educational 

Testing Service (2005); William J. Sanders, 

‘‘Comparisons Among Various Educational 

Assessment Value-Added Models,’’ Presentation at 

the Power of Two—National Value-Added 

Conference, Battelle for Kids, Columbus, OH, 

(October 16, 2006). 

30Eric A. Hanushek, ‘‘The Trade-Off between 

Child Quantity and Quality,’’ Journal of Political 

Economy, 100, No. 1 (1992): 84–117. 

31 Douglas Harris and Timothy Sass, ‘‘Teacher 

Training, Teacher Quality, and Student 

Achievement.’’ Journal of Public Economics 95, 

(2011): 798–812; Daniel Aaronson, Lisa Barrow, and 

William Sanders, ‘‘Teachers and Student 

Achievement in the Chicago Public High Schools.’’ 

Journal of Labor Economics 25, No. 1 (2007): 95– 

135; Donald J. Boyd, et al., ‘‘The Narrowing Gap in 

New York City Teacher Qualifications and its 

Implications for Student Achievement in HighPoverty Schools,’’ Journal of Policy Analysis and 

Management 27, No. 4 (2008): 793–818. 

32 Donald J. Boyd, et al., ‘‘Teacher Preparation 

and Student Achievement.’’ Educational Evaluation 

and Policy Analysis 31, No. 4 (2009): 416–440. 

33Cory Koedel, et al., ‘‘Teacher Preparation 

Programs and Teacher Quality: Are There Real 

Differences Across Programs?’’ Working Paper 79, 

Washington, DC: National Center for Longitudinal 

Data Education Research (2012); Gary T. Henry, et 

al., ‘‘Teacher Preparation Program Effectiveness 

Report.’’ Research brief, Chapel Hill, NC: Carolina 

Institute for Public Policy (2011); Dan Goldhaber, et 

al., ‘‘The Gateway to the Profession: Assessing 

Teacher Preparation Programs Based on Student 

Achievement,’’ Economics of Education Review, 

34(2013), pp. 29–44. 

34Tennessee Higher Education Commission. 

‘‘Report Card on the Effectiveness of Teacher 

Training Programs, 2010’’ Knoxville, TN: Tennessee 

Higher Education Commission (2010). 

35 Kristin A. Gansle, et al., ‘‘Value Added 

Assessment of Teacher Preparation in Louisiana: 

2005–2006 to 2008–2009,’’ Technical report, Baton 

Rouge, LA: Louisiana State University (2010). 

36 Ibid. 

37 Dan Goldhaber, et al., ‘‘The Gateway to the 

Profession: Assessing Teacher Preparation Programs 

Based on Student Achievement.’’ Economics of 

Education Review, 34 (2013), pp. 29–44. 

38 Ibid. 1.5 times the difference between students 

eligible for free or reduced price lunch is 

approximately 12 percent of a standard deviation, 

while 2.3 times the difference is approximately 19 

percent of a standard deviation. 

39Cory Koedel, et al., ‘‘Teacher Preparation 

Programs and Teacher Quality: Are There Real 

Differences Across Programs?’’ Working Paper 79, 

Washington, DC: National Center for Longitudinal 

Data Education Research (2012). 

40 Ibid. 

41 Ibid. 

42 Ibid. 

43See Kata Mihaly, et al., ‘‘Where You Come 

From or Where You Go? Distinguishing Between 

School Quality and the Effectiveness of Teacher 

Preparation Program Graduates.’’ Working Paper 63, 

Washington, DC: National Center for Analysis of 

Longitudinal Data in Education Research (2012), for 

a discussion of issues and considerations related to 

using school fixed effects models to compare the 

effectiveness of teachers from different teacher 

preparation programs who are working in the same 

school. 

45CAEP Accreditation Standards as Approved by 

the CAEP Board of Directors, 2013. Council for the 

Accreditation of Educator Preparation. http://

caepnet.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/final_board_

approved1.pdf. 

We use ‘‘value-added’’ analysis and 

related terms to refer to statistical 

methods that use changes in the 

academic achievement of students over 

time to isolate and estimate the effect of 

particular factors, such as family, 

school, or teachers, on changes in 

student achievement.29 One study 

found that the difference between 

having a teacher who performed at a 

level one standard deviation below the 

mean and a teacher who performed at a 

level one standard deviation above the 

mean was equivalent to student learning 

gains of a full year’s worth of 

knowledge.30

A number of factors are associated 

with teacher quality, including 

academic content knowledge, in-service 

training, and years of experience, but 

researchers and policymakers have 

begun to examine whether some of these 

student achievement discrepancies can 

be explained by differences in the 

preparation their teachers received 

before entering the classroom.31 An 

early influential study on this topic 

found that the effectiveness of teachers 

in public schools in New York City who 

were prepared through different teacher 

preparation programs varied in 

statistically significant ways, as 

measured by the value added by these 

teachers.32

Subsequent studies have examined 

the value-added scores of teachers 

prepared through different teacher 

preparation programs in, Missouri, 

Louisiana, North Carolina, Tennessee, 

and Washington.33 Many of these 

studies have found statistically 

significant differences between teachers 

prepared at different preparation 

programs. For example, State officials in 

Tennessee and Louisiana have worked 

with researchers to examine whether 

student achievement could be used to 

inform teacher preparation program 

accountability. After controlling for 

observable differences in students, 

researchers in Tennessee found that the 

most effective teacher preparation 

programs in that State produced 

graduates that were two to three times 

more likely than other new teachers to 

be in the top quintile of teachers in a 

particular subject area, as measured by 

increases in the achievement of their 

students, with the least-effective 

programs producing teachers that were 

equally likely to be in the bottom 

quintile.34 Analyses based on Louisiana 

data on student growth linked to the 

programs that prepared students’ 

teachers found few statistically 

significant differences in teacher 

effectiveness.35 Although these findings 

did not achieve statistical significance, 

three teacher preparation programs 

produced new teachers who appeared, 

on average, to be as effective as teachers 

with at least two years of experience, 

based on growth in student achievement 

in four or more content areas.36 A study 

analyzing differences between teacher 

preparation programs in Washington 

based on the value-added scores of their 

graduates also found few statistically 

significant differences, but the authors 

argued that the differences were 

educationally meaningful.37 In math, 

the average difference between teachers 

from the highest performing program 

and the lowest performing program was 

approximately 1.5 times the difference 

in performance between students 

eligible for free or reduced-price 

lunches and those who are not, while in 

reading the average difference was 2.3 

times larger.38

In contrast to these findings, Koedel et 

al. found very small differences in 

effectiveness between teachers prepared 

at different programs in Missouri.39 The 

vast majority of variation in teacher 

effectiveness was within programs, 

instead of between programs.40

However, the authors note that the lack 

of variation between programs in 

Missouri could reflect a lack of 

competitive pressure to spur innovation 

within traditional teacher preparation 

programs.41 A robust evaluation system 

that included outcomes could spur 

innovation and increase differentiation 

between teacher preparation 

programs.42

The Department acknowledges that 

there is debate in the research 

community about the specifications that 

should be used when conducting valueadded analyses of the effectiveness of 

teachers prepared through different 

preparation programs,43 but also 

recognizes that the field is moving in 

the direction of weighing value-added 

analyses in assessments of teacher 

preparation program quality. 

Thus, despite the methodological 

debate in the research community, 

CAEP,44 a union of two formerly 

independent national accrediting 

agencies, the National Council for 

Accreditation of Teacher Education 

(NCATE) and the Teacher Education 

Accreditation Council (TEAC), has 

developed new standards that require, 

among other measures, evidence that 

students completing a teacher 

preparation program contribute to an 

expected level of student growth.45 The 

new standards are currently voluntary 

for the more than 900 education 

preparation providers who participate 

in the education preparation 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71852 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

46Statement by Mary Brabeck Board Chair, 

Council for the Accreditation of Educator 

Preparation (CAEP) and Gale and Ira Drukier Dean 

and Professor of Applied Psychology Steinhardt 

School of Culture, Education, and Human 

Development, New York University Before the 

Senate Committee on Health, Education, Labor and 

Pensions Teacher Preparation: Ensuring a Quality 

Teacher in Every Classroom March 25, 2014. 

47U.S. Department of Education, National Center 

for Education Statistics, ‘‘Projections of Education 

Statistics to 2020,’’ Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Education (2011): Table 16. 

48Charles T. Clotfelter, Helen F. Ladd, and Jacob 

Vigdor, ‘‘Teacher Credentials and Student 

Achievement: Longitudinal Analysis with Student 

Fixed Effects.’’ Economics of Education Review 26, 

no. 6 (2010): 673–682; Dan Goldhaber, ‘‘Everyone’s 

Doing It, But What Does Teacher Testing Tell Us 

about Teacher Effectiveness?’’ The Journal of 

Human Resources 42, no. 4 (2007): 765–794; 

Richard Buddin and Gema Zamarro, ‘‘Teacher 

Qualifications and Student Achievement in Urban 

Elementary Schools.’’ Journal of Urban Economics 

66, no. (2009): 103–115. 

49 Goldhaber, 2007. 

50National Council on Teacher Quality, State 

Teacher Policy Yearbook, 2011. Washington, DC: 

National Council on Teacher Quality (2011). For 

more on licensure tests, see U.S. Department of 

Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and 

Policy Development, Policy and Program Studies 

Service, Recent Trends in Mean Scores and 

Characteristics of Test-Takers on Praxis II Licensure 

Tests. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 

Education (2010). 

51U.S. Department of Education, Office of 

Postsecondary Education, ‘‘Preparing and 

Credentialing the Nation’s Teachers: The 

Secretary’s Ninth Report on Teacher Quality,’’ 

Washington, DC, 2013. https://title2.ed.gov/Public/ 

TitleIIReport13.pdf. 

accreditation system. Participating 

institutions account for nearly 60% of 

the providers of educator preparation in 

the United States, and their enrollments 

account for nearly two-thirds of newly 

prepared teachers. The new standards 

will be required for accreditation 

beginning in 2016.46 The standards are 

an indication that the effectiveness 

ratings of teachers trained at teacher 

preparation programs are increasingly 

being used as a way to evaluate teacher 

preparation program performance. The 

research on teacher preparation program 

effectiveness is relevant to the 

elementary and secondary schools that 

rely on teacher preparation programs to 

recruit and select talented individuals 

and prepare them to become future 

teachers. In 2011–2012 (the most recent 

year for which data are available), 

203,701 individuals completed either a 

traditional teacher preparation program 

or an alternative route program. The 

National Center for Education Statistics 

(NCES) projects that by 2020, States and 

districts will need to hire as many as 

350,000 teachers each year due to 

teacher retirement and attrition and 

increased student enrollment.47 In order 

to meet the needs of schools and 

districts, States may have to expand 

traditional and alternative route 

programs to prepare more teachers, find 

new ways to recruit and train qualified 

individuals, or reduce the need for new 

teachers by reducing attrition or 

developing different staffing models. 

Better information on the quality of 

teacher preparation programs could 

help State and local educational 

agencies to make sound staffing 

decisions. 

Despite research suggesting that the 

academic achievement of students 

taught by graduates of different teacher 

preparation programs may vary with 

regard to their teacher’s program, 

analyses linking student achievement to 

teacher preparation programs have not 

been conducted and made available 

publicly for teacher preparation 

programs in all States. Congress has 

recognized the value of assessing and 

reporting on the quality of teacher 

preparation, and requires States and 

IHEs to report detailed information 

about the quality of teacher preparation 

programs in the State under the HEA. 

When reauthorizing the title II reporting 

system, members of Congress noted a 

goal of having teacher preparation 

programs explore ways to assess the 

impact of their programs’ graduates on 

student academic achievement. In fact, 

the report accompanying the House Bill 

(H. Rep. 110–500) included the 

following statement, ‘‘[i]t is the intent of 

the Committee that teacher preparation 

programs, both traditional and those 

providing alternative routes to state 

certification, should strive to increase 

the quality of individuals graduating 

from their programs with the goal of 

exploring ways to assess the impact of 

such programs on student’s academic 

achievement.’’ 

Moreover, in roundtable discussions 

and negotiated rulemaking sessions held 

by the Department, stakeholders 

repeatedly expressed concern that the 

current title II reporting system provides 

little meaningful data on the quality of 

teacher preparation programs or the 

impact of those programs’ graduates on 

student achievement. Currently, States 

must annually calculate and report data 

on more than 400 data elements, and 

IHEs must report on more than 150 

elements. While some information 

requested in the current reporting 

system is statutorily required, other 

elements—such as whether the IHE 

requires a personality test prior to 

admission—are neither required by 

statute nor provide information that is 

particularly useful to the public. Thus, 

stakeholders stressed at the negotiated 

rulemaking sessions that the current 

system is too focused on inputs and that 

outcome-based measures would provide 

more meaningful information. 

Similarly, even some of the statutorily 

required data elements in the current 

reporting system do not provide 

meaningful information on program 

performance and how program 

graduates are likely to perform in a 

classroom. For example, the HEA 

requires IHEs to report both scaled 

scores on licensure tests and pass rates 

for students who complete their teacher 

preparation programs. Yet existing 

research provides mixed findings on the 

relationship between licensure test 

scores and teacher effectiveness.48 This 

may be because most licensure tests 

were designed to measure the 

knowledge and skills of prospective 

teachers but not necessarily to predict 

classroom effectiveness.49 The 

predictive value of licensure exams is 

further eroded by the significant 

variation in State pass/cut scores on 

these exams, with many States setting 

pass scores at a very low level. The 

National Council on Teacher Quality 

found that every State except 

Massachusetts sets its pass/cut scores on 

content assessments for elementary 

school teachers below the average score 

for all test takers, and most States set 

pass/cut scores at the 16th percentile or 

lower.50 Further, even with low pass/cut 

scores, some States allow teacher 

candidates to take licensure exams 

multiple times. Some States also permit 

IHEs to exclude students who have 

completed all program coursework but 

have not passed licensure exams when 

the IHEs report pass rates on these 

exams for individuals who have 

completed teacher preparation programs 

under the current title II reporting 

system. This may explain, in part, why 

States and IHEs reported an average 

pass rate on licensure or certification 

exams of 96 percent for individuals who 

completed traditional teacher 

preparation programs in the 2009–10 

academic year, a less than reliable 

indicator of program quality.51

Thus, while the current title II 

reporting system produces detailed and 

voluminous data about teacher 

preparation programs, the data convey 

suboptimal indications of program 

quality as measured by how program 

graduates will perform in a classroom. 

This lack of meaningful data prevents 

school districts, principals, and 

prospective teacher candidates from 

making informed choices, creating a 

market failure due to imperfect 

information. 

On the demand side, school districts 

lack information about the past 

performance of teachers from different 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71853 

52Richard M Ingersoll, ‘‘Is There Really a Teacher 

Shortage?’’ University of Washington Center for the 

Study of Teaching and Policy, (2003). http://

depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/Shortage-RI09-2003.pdf. 

53Ronald F. Ferguson and Helen F. Ladd, ‘‘How 

and Why Money Matters: An Analysis of Alabama 

Schools,’’ In H. F. Ladd (Ed.), Holding Schools 

Accountable: Performance-based Reform in 

Education. Washington, DC: The Brookings 

Institution (1996): 265–298; Eric Hanushek, et al., 

‘‘The Market for Teacher Quality.’’ Working Paper 

11154, Cambridge, MA: National Bureau for 

Economic Research (2005); Robert Gordon, Thomas 

J. Kane, and Douglas O. Staiger, ‘‘Identifying 

Effective Teachers Using Performance on the Job.’’ 

Discussion Paper 2006–01, Washington, DC: The 

Hamilton Project, The Brookings Institution (2006); 

Charles T. Clotfelter, Helen F. Ladd, and Jacob L. 

Vigdor, ‘‘How and Why Do Teacher Credentials 

Matter for Student Achievement?’’ Working Paper 

2, Washington, DC: National Center for Analysis of 

Longitudinal Data in Education Research (2007); 

Thomas J. Kane, Jonah E. Rockoff, and Douglas O. 

Staiger, ‘‘What Does Certification Tell Us About 

Teacher Effectiveness? Evidence from New York 

City.’’ Economics of Education Review 27, no. 6 

(2008): 615–31. 

54U.S. Department of Education, National Center 

for Education Statistics, Baccalaureate and Beyond 

Longitudinal Study. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Education (2009). 

55U.S. Department of Education, National Center 

for Education Statistics, Digest of Education 

Statistics, 2011. Washington, DC: U.S. Department 

of Education (2012): Table 79. 

56U.S. Department of Education, Office of 

Postsecondary Education, ‘‘Preparing and 

Credentialing the Nation’s Teachers: The 

Secretary’s Ninth Report on Teacher Quality,’’ 

Washington, DC, 2013 https://title2.ed.gov/Public/

TitleIIReport13.pdf. 

57 Ibid. 

58 Ibid. 

59Several studies have found that inexperienced 

teachers are far more likely to be assigned to highpoverty schools, including Donald J. Boyd, et al., 

‘‘The Narrowing Gap in New York City Teacher 

Qualifications and Its Implications for Student 

Achievement in High-Poverty Schools.’’ Working 

Paper 10, Washington, DC: National Center for 

Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education 

Research (2007); Charles T. Clotfelter, et al., ‘‘HighPoverty Schools and the Distribution of Teachers 

and Principals.’’ Working Paper 1, Washington, DC: 

National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data 

in Education Research (2007); Tim R. Sass, et al., 

‘‘Value Added of Teachers in High-Poverty Schools 

and Lower-Poverty Schools.’’ Working Paper 52, 

Washington, DC: National Center for Analysis of 

Longitudinal Data in Education Research (2010). 

teacher preparation programs and may 

rely on inaccurate assumptions about 

the quality of teacher preparation 

programs when recruiting and hiring 

new teachers. An accountability system 

that provided information about how 

teacher preparation program graduates 

are likely to perform in a classroom and 

how likely they are to stay in the 

classroom would be valuable to school 

districts and principals seeking to 

efficiently recruit, hire, train, and retain 

high-quality educators. Such a system 

could help to reduce teacher attrition, a 

particularly important problem because 

many new teachers do not remain in the 

profession, with more than a quarter of 

new teachers leaving the teaching 

profession altogether within three years 

of becoming classroom teachers.52 High 

teacher turnover rates are problematic 

because research has demonstrated that, 

on average, student achievement 

increases considerably with more years 

of teacher experience in the first three 

through five years of teaching.53

On the supply side, when considering 

which program to attend, prospective 

teachers lack comparative information 

about the placement rates and 

effectiveness of program graduates. 

Teacher candidates may enroll in a 

program without the benefit of 

information on employment rates postgraduation, employer and graduate 

feedback on program quality, and, most 

importantly, without understanding 

how well the program prepared 

prospective teachers to be effective in 

the classroom. NCES data indicate that 

66 percent of certified teachers who 

received their bachelor’s degree in 2008 

borrowed an average of $22,905 to 

finance their undergraduate 

education.54 The average base salary for 

full-time teachers with a bachelor’s 

degree in their first year of teaching in 

public elementary and secondary 

schools is $34,800.55 Thus, two-thirds of 

prospective teacher candidates may 

incur debt equivalent to 65 percent of 

their starting salary in order to attend 

teacher preparation programs without 

access to reliable indicators of how well 

these programs will prepare them for 

classroom teaching or help them find a 

teaching position in their chosen field. 

A better accountability system with 

more meaningful information would 

enable prospective teachers to make 

more informed choices while also 

enabling and encouraging States, IHEs, 

and alternative route providers to 

monitor and continuously improve the 

quality of their teacher preparation 

programs. 

The lack of meaningful data also 

prevents States from restricting program 

credentials to programs with the 

demonstrated ability to prepare more 

effective teachers, or accurately 

identifying low-performing and at-risk 

teacher preparation programs and 

helping these programs improve. Not 

surprisingly, States have not identified 

many programs as low-performing or atrisk based on the data currently 

collected. In the latest title II reporting 

requirement submissions, the majority 

of States did not classify any teacher 

preparation programs as low-performing 

or at-risk.56 Eleven States and the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico reported 

teacher preparation programs that were 

low-performing or at-risk. Twenty-nine 

of these programs were identified as atrisk and nine were designated as lowperforming. Of the 38 programs 

identified by States as low-performing 

or at-risk, 22 were based in IHEs that 

participate in the TEACH Grant 

program. Thirty-nine States did not 

identify a single low-performing 

program.57 Since these reporting 

requirements were established twelve 

years ago, thirty-four States have never 

identified a single IHE with an at-risk or 

low-performing program.58 Under the 

proposed regulations, every State would 

collect and report more meaningful 

information about teacher preparation 

program performance which would 

enable them to target scarce public 

funding more efficiently through direct 

support to more effective teacher 

preparation programs and State 

financial aid to prospective students 

attending those programs. 

Similarly, under the current title II 

reporting system, the Federal 

government is unable to ensure that 

financial assistance for prospective 

teachers is used to help students attend 

programs with the best record for 

producing effective classroom teachers. 

The proposed regulations would help 

accomplish this by ensuring that 

program performance information is 

available for all teacher preparation 

programs in all States and restricting 

eligibility for Federal TEACH grants to 

programs that are rated at least 

‘‘effective.’’ 

Most importantly, elementary and 

secondary students, especially those 

students in high-need schools and 

communities who are 

disproportionately taught by recent 

teacher preparation program graduates, 

would be the ultimate beneficiaries of 

an improved teacher preparation 

program accountability system.59 Such a 

system would better focus State and 

Federal resources on promising teacher 

candidates while informing teacher 

candidates and potential employers 

about high-performing teacher 

preparation programs and enabling 

States to more effectively identify and 

improve low-performing teacher 

preparation programs. Such an 

accountability system would thereby 

increase the likelihood of a quality 

teacher in every classroom. 

Recognizing the benefits of improved 

information on teacher preparation 

program quality and associated 

accountability, several States have 

already developed and implemented 

systems that map teacher effectiveness 

data back to teacher preparation 

programs. The proposed regulations 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71854 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

60The applications and Scopes of Work for States 

that received a grant under Phase One or Two of 

the Race to the Top Fund are available online at: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/

awards.html. 

would help ensure that all States 

generate useful data that are accessible 

to the public to support efforts to 

improve teacher preparation programs. 

The Department’s plan to improve 

teacher preparation has three core 

elements: (1) Reduce the reporting 

burden on IHEs while encouraging 

States to make use of data on teacher 

effectiveness to build an effective 

teacher preparation accountability 

system driven by meaningful indicators 

of quality (title II accountability system); 

(2) reform targeted financial aid for 

students preparing to become teachers 

by directing scholarship aid to students 

attending higher-performing teacher 

preparation programs (TEACH Grants); 

and (3) provide more support for IHEs 

that prepare high-quality teachers from 

diverse backgrounds. 

The proposed regulations address the 

first two elements of this plan. 

Improving institutional and State 

reporting and State accountability 

builds on the work that States like 

Louisiana and Tennessee have already 

started, as well as work that is 

underway in States receiving grants 

under Phase One or Two of the Race to 

the Top Fund.60 All of these States have, 

will soon have, or plan to have 

statewide systems that track the 

academic growth of a teacher’s students 

by the teacher preparation program from 

which the teacher graduated and, as a 

result, will be better able to identify the 

teacher preparation programs that are 

producing effective teachers and the 

policies and programs that need to be 

strengthened to scale those effects. 

Consistent with feedback the 

Department has received from 

stakeholders, under the proposed 

regulations States would assess the 

quality of teacher preparation programs 

according to the following indicators: 

(1) Student learning outcomes of 

students taught by graduates of teacher 

preparation programs (as measured by 

aggregating learning outcomes of 

students taught by graduates of each 

teacher preparation program); (2) job 

placement and retention rates of these 

graduates (based on the number of 

program graduates that are hired into 

teaching positions and whether they 

stay in those positions); and (3) survey 

outcomes for surveys of program 

graduates and their employers (based on 

questions about whether or not 

graduates of each teacher preparation 

program are prepared to be effective 

classroom teachers). 

The proposed regulations would help 

provide meaningful information on 

program quality to prospective teacher 

candidates, school districts, States, and 

IHEs that administer traditional teacher 

preparation programs and alternative 

routes to State certification or licensure 

programs. The proposed regulations 

would make data available that also can 

inform academic program selection, 

program improvement, and 

accountability. 

During public roundtable discussions 

and subsequent negotiated rulemaking 

sessions, the Department consulted with 

representatives from the teacher 

preparation community, States, teacher 

preparation program students, teachers, 

and other stakeholders about the best 

way to produce more meaningful data 

on the quality of teacher preparation 

programs while also reducing the 

reporting burden on States and teacher 

preparation programs where possible. 

The proposed regulations specify three 

types of outcomes States would use to 

assess teacher preparation program 

quality, but States would retain 

discretion to select the most appropriate 

methods to collect and report these data. 

In order to give States and stakeholders 

sufficient time to develop these 

methods, the Department proposes to 

implement the requirements of these 

proposed regulations over several years. 

II. Summary of Proposed Regulations 

The Department seeks to add a new 

Part 612—Title II Reporting System to 

the Code of Federal Regulations (CFR) 

relating to the teacher preparation 

program accountability system under 

title II of the HEA. There are three 

subparts in proposed Part 612. Subpart 

A includes a section on the scope and 

purpose and definitions. Subpart B 

describes the requirements for 

institutional and State reporting on 

teacher preparation program quality. 

Subpart C addresses termination of title 

IV eligibility when a teacher preparation 

program is determined to be lowperforming, and how, after loss of the 

State’s approval or State’s financial 

support, a low-performing teacher 

preparation program may regain 

eligibility to accept or enroll students 

receiving title IV, HEA funds. 

In a related provision, the Department 

proposes to amend Part 686—Teacher 

Education Assistance for College and 

Higher Education (TEACH) Grant 

Program, to align applicable definitions 

with the proposed new Part 612—Title 

II Reporting System and strengthen 

institutional and program eligibility 

requirements for the TEACH Grant 

program to ensure that students who 

obtain TEACH grants are in high quality 

teacher preparation programs or high 

quality science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics (STEM) 

programs. 

The following table summarizes the 

key definitions and requirements in the 

proposed regulations and, for the 

sections applying to TEACH Grants, 

compares these requirements to the 

current regulations. 

Key issues Current law Proposed regulations 

At-risk teacher preparation 

program.

No regulations .................... Proposed § 612.2(d)—An ‘‘at-risk teacher preparation program’’ is defined as a 

teacher preparation program that is identified as at-risk of being identified as lowperforming by a State based on the State’s assessment of teacher preparation 

program performance under proposed § 612.4. 

Consultation with stakeholders.No regulations .................... Proposed § 614.2(c)(1)—Each State must establish, in consultation with a representative group of stakeholders, the procedures for assessing and reporting the 

performance of each teacher preparation program in the State. The information 

reported must include the weighting of indicators to be used, the method of aggregating programs, State-level rewards or consequences for designated performance levels, and opportunities for programs to appeal. 

Effective teacher preparation 

program.

No regulations .................... Proposed § 612.2(d)—An ‘‘effective teacher preparation program’’ is defined as a 

teacher preparation program that is identified as effective by a State based on 

the State’s assessment of teacher preparation program performance under proposed § 612.4. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71855 

Key issues Current law Proposed regulations 

Employment Outcomes ........ No regulations .................... Proposed § 612.2(d)—Data, measuring the teacher placement rate, the teacher 

placement rate calculated for high-need schools, the teacher retention rate, and 

the teacher retention rate calculated for high-need schools on the effectiveness 

of a teacher preparation program in preparing, placing, and supporting new 

teachers consistent with local education agency (LEA) needs. For purposes of 

assessing employment outcomes, a State may, in its discretion, assess traditional and alternative route teacher preparation programs differently based on 

whether there are differences in the programs that affect employment outcomes, 

provided that the varied assessments result in equivalent levels of accountability 

and reporting. 

Exceptional teacher preparation program.No regulations .................... Proposed § 612.2(d)—An ‘‘exceptional teacher preparation program’’ is defined as 

a teacher preparation program that is identified as exceptional by a State based 

on the State’s assessment of teacher preparation program performance under 

proposed § 612.4. 

High-need school ................. No regulations .................... Proposed § 612.2(d)—A ‘‘high-need school’’ would be defined as a school that, 

based on the most recent data available, is in the highest quartile of schools in a 

ranking of all schools served by a local educational agency, ranked in descending order by percentage of students from low-income families enrolled in such 

schools, as determined by the local educational agency based on a single or a 

composite of two or more of the following measures of poverty: (a) The percentage of students aged 5 through 17 in poverty counted; (b) the percentage of students eligible for a free or reduced price school lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act; (c) the percentage of students in families receiving assistance under the State program funded under part A of title IV of the Social Security Act; (d) the percentage of students eligible to receive medical assistance under the Medicaid program. Alternatively, a school may be considered a 

‘‘high-need school,’’ if, in the case of an elementary school, the school serves 

students not less than 60 percent of whom are eligible for a free or reduced price 

school lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act; or in the 

case of any other school that is not an elementary school, the other school 

serves students not less than 45 percent of whom are eligible for a free or reduced price school lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch 

Act. 

Low-performing teacher 

preparation program.

No regulations .................... Proposed § 612.2(d)—A ‘‘low-performing teacher preparation program’’ is defined 

as a teacher preparation program that is identified as low-performing by a State 

based on the State’s assessment of teacher preparation program performance 

under proposed § 612.4. 

New Teacher ........................ No regulations .................... Proposed § 612.2(d)—A ‘‘new teacher’’ is defined as a recent graduate or alternative route participant who, within the last three title II reporting years, has received a level of certification or licensure that allows him or her to serve in the 

State as a teacher of record for K–12 students and, at the State’s discretion, for 

preschool students. 

Recent Graduate .................. No regulations .................... Proposed § 612.2(d)—A ‘‘recent graduate’’ is defined as an individual documented 

as having met all the requirements of the teacher preparation program within the 

last three title II reporting years. 

Reporting Threshold (for 

performance of teacher 

preparation program).

No regulations .................... Proposed § 612.4—States must report annually on programs with 25 or more new 

teachers (program size threshold). At a State’s discretion, it can choose a lower 

number as the reporting threshold (lower program size threshold). For any teacher preparation program that produces fewer than the program size threshold or 

the lower program size threshold, the State must annually report on the program 

by aggregating data by using one of three prescribed methods. If aggregation 

under these methods would not yield the program size threshold or the lower 

program size, or if reporting such data would be inconsistent with Federal or 

State privacy and confidentiality laws and regulations, the State is not required to 

report data on that program. 

Reporting Timeframe ........... No regulations .................... Proposed § 612.3—Institutional reporting begins in October 2017 based on the 

2016–2017 academic year. 

Proposed § 612.4—Pilot State reporting begins in April 2018 based on data for new 

teachers in the 2016–2017 academic year. Full State reporting begins in April 

2019 based on data for new teachers in the 2017–2018 academic year. 

Student growth ..................... No regulations .................... Proposed § 612.2(d)—‘‘Student growth’’ is defined, for an individual student, as the 

change in student achievement in tested grades and subjects and the change in 

student achievement in non-tested grades and subjects between two or more 

points in time. 

Student learning outcomes .. No regulations .................... Proposed § 612.2(d)—‘‘Student learning outcomes’’ are defined, for each teacher 

preparation program in a State, as data on the aggregate learning outcomes of 

students taught by new teachers and calculated by the State using student 

growth, a teacher evaluation measure, or both. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71856 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Key issues Current law Proposed regulations 

Survey Outcomes ................ No regulations .................... Proposed § 612.2(d)—‘‘Survey outcomes’’ are defined as qualitative and quantitative data collected through survey instruments, including, but not limited to, a 

teacher survey and an employer survey, designed to capture perceptions of 

whether new teachers who are employed as teachers in their first year of teaching in the State where the teacher preparation program is located possess the 

skills needed to succeed in the classroom. 

Teacher evaluation measure No regulations .................... Proposed 612.2(d)—‘‘Teacher evaluation measure’’ is defined as, by grade span 

and subject area and consistent with statewide guidelines, the percentage of new 

teachers rated at each performance level under an LEA teacher evaluation system that differentiates teachers on a regular basis using at least three performance levels and multiple valid measures in determining each teacher’s performance level. For purposes of this definition, multiple valid measures of performance levels must include, as a significant factor, data on student growth for all 

students (including English language learners and students with disabilities), and 

other measures of professional practice (such as observations based on rigorous 

teacher performance standards or other measures which may be gathered 

through multiple formats and sources, such as teacher portfolios and student and 

parent surveys). 

Teacher placement rate ....... No regulations .................... Proposed § 612.2(d)—‘‘Teacher placement rate’’ is defined as the combined, nonduplicated percentage of new teachers and recent graduates who have been 

hired in a full-time teaching position for the grade level, span, and subject area in 

which they were prepared. States may choose to exclude (1) new teachers or recent graduates who have taken positions in another State, in private schools, or 

that do not require State certification or (2) new teachers or recent graduates 

who have enrolled in graduate school or entered military service. 

Teacher preparation entity ... No regulations .................... Proposed § 612.2(d)—‘‘Teacher preparation entity’’ is defined as an institution of 

higher education or other organization that is authorized by the State to prepare 

teachers. 

Teacher preparation program.No regulations .................... Proposed § 612.2(d)—‘‘Teacher preparation program’’ is defined as a program, 

whether traditional or alternative route, offered by a teacher preparation entity 

that leads to a specific State teacher certification or licensure in a specific field. 

Teacher retention rate ......... No regulations .................... Proposed § 612.2(d)—‘‘Teacher retention rate’’ is defined as any of the following 

rates, as determined by the State: (1) Percentage of new teachers hired in fulltime positions who have served for at least three consecutive school years within 

five years of being granted a level of certification that allows them to serve as 

teachers of record; (2) percentage of new teachers who have been hired in fulltime teaching positions that reached a level of tenure or other equivalent measures of retention within 5 years of being granted a level of certification that allows 

them to serve as teachers of record; or (3) 100% less the percentage of new 

teachers who have been hired in full-time teaching positions and whose employment was not continued by their employer for reasons other than budgetary constraints within five years of being granted a level of certification or licensure that 

allows them to serve as teachers of record. 

Institutional Report Card 

Annual Reporting ................. 20 U.S.C. 1022d—Required 

by statute with no current 

regulations. Under the 

statute, every institution 

of higher education that 

conducts a traditional 

teacher preparation program or alternative routes 

to State certification or licensure program and 

that enrolls students receiving Federal assistance under the HEA 

must report to the State 

and the general public on 

the quality of its teacher 

preparation programs. 

The statute specifies certain information the institution must report.

Proposed § 612.3—Restates general statutory requirement for annual reporting. 

Under a revised reporting calendar, beginning in October 2017 requires each institution to submit the institutional report card in October of each calendar year 

covering data from the prior academic year. Also requires each institution of 

higher education that is required to report under the statute to prominently and 

promptly post the institutional report card information on the institution’s Web site 

and, if applicable, on the teacher preparation program’s portion of the institution’s 

Web site. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71857 

Key issues Current law Proposed regulations 

State Report Card 

Reporting Requirements ...... 20 U.S.C. 1022d—No regulations. Each State that 

receives funds under this 

Act shall provide the Secretary, and make widely 

available to the general 

public, in a uniform and 

comprehensible manner 

that conforms with the 

definition and methods 

established by the Secretary, an annual State 

report card on the quality 

of teacher preparation in 

the State, both for traditional teacher preparation 

programs and for alternative routes to State 

certification or licensure 

programs. The statute 

specifies certain minimum information the 

State must report to the 

Secretary.

Proposed § 612.4—Restates general statutory requirement for annual reporting. 

Under a revised reporting calendar, beginning in April 2018 requires each State 

to submit the State report card in April of each calendar year covering data from 

the prior academic year. Also requires each State that is required to report under 

the statute to prominently and promptly post the State report card information on 

the State’s Web site. Also requires States to report: (1) Beginning in April 2019, 

meaningful differentiations in teacher preparation program performance using at 

least four performance levels—low-performing teacher preparation program, atrisk teacher preparation program, effective teacher preparation program, and exceptional teacher preparation program; (2) disaggregated data for each teacher 

preparation program of the indicators identified pursuant to § 612.5; (3) an assurance of accreditation by a specialized organization, or an assurance that the program produces teacher candidates with content and pedagogical knowledge and 

quality clinical preparation who have met rigorous teacher candidate entry and 

exit qualifications; (4) the State’s weighting of indicators in § 612.5 for assessing 

program performance; (5) State-level rewards or consequences associated with 

the designated performance levels; (6) the procedures established by the State 

in consultation with stakeholders, as described in § 612.4(c)(1) and the State’s 

examination of its data collection and reporting, as described in § 612.4(c)(2) in 

the report submitted in 2018 and every four years thereafter, and at any other 

time a State makes substantive changes to the weighting of the indicators and its 

procedures for assessing and reporting on the performance of each teacher 

preparation program in the State. 

Indicators of Program Performance.20 U.S.C. 1022d—Institutional report card includes licensure test 

pass rates and scaled 

scores. State report card 

requires State to report 

the criteria used to assess the performance of 

each teacher preparation 

program, including indicators of academic content 

knowledge and teaching 

skills of students enrolled 

in the program. No implementing regulations.

Proposed § 612.5—For purposes of reporting under § 612.4, a State must assess 

for each teacher preparation program within its jurisdiction, indicators of academic content knowledge and teaching skills of new teachers from that program. 

The indicators of academic content knowledge and teaching skills must include, 

at a minimum, (1) student learning outcomes, employment outcomes, and survey 

outcomes, and (2) whether the program is accredited by a specialized accrediting 

agency recognized by the Secretary for accreditation of professional teacher education programs or provides teacher candidates with content and pedagogical 

knowledge and quality clinical preparation and has rigorous teacher candidate 

entry and exit qualifications. 

Low-performing programs .... 20 U.S.C. 1022d—States 

must identify low-performing programs and 

programs at-risk of being 

identified as low-performing.

Proposed § 612.6—States must make meaningful differentiations of teacher preparation programs among at least four performance levels: (1) Exceptional, (2) effective, (3) at-risk, and (4) low-performing. In identifying low-performing or at-risk 

teacher preparation programs, the State must use criteria that, at a minimum, include the indicators of academic content knowledge and teaching skills from 

612.5, including, in significant part, employment outcomes for high-need schools 

and student learning outcomes. At a minimum, a State must provide technical 

assistance to improve the performance of each low-performing teacher preparation program in its State. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71858 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

61Unless otherwise specified, all hourly wage 

estimates for particular occupation categories were 

taken from Table 5: Full-time State and local 

government workers: Mean and median hourly, 

weekly, and annual earnings and mean weekly and 

annual hours, which was published by the Bureau 

of Labor Statistics based on data collected through 

the National Compensation Survey, 2010. This table 

provides the most recent published estimates of 

national average hourly wages for teachers and 

administrators in public elementary and secondary 

schools and is available on-line at: http://

www.bls.gov/ncs/ocs/sp/nctb1479.pdf. 

Key issues Current law Proposed regulations 

TEACH Grant Program 

Eligibility ............................... § 686.11—Undergraduate, 

post-baccalaureate and 

graduate students are eligible to receive a TEACH 

Grant if the student has 

submitted a complete application, signed an 

agreement to serve, is 

enrolled at a TEACH 

Grant-eligible institution 

in a TEACH Grant-eligible program, is completing coursework and 

other requirements necessary to begin a career 

in teaching or plans to 

before graduating, meets 

the relevant 3.25 GPA requirement or a score 

above the 75th percentile 

on a nationally-normed 

standardized admissions 

test.

§ 686.11—The proposed regulations would add to the current regulations that for a 

program to be TEACH Grant- eligible, it must be a high-quality teacher preparation program. That means that it must be a teacher preparation program that is 

classified by the State as effective or higher, or if it is a STEM program, at least 

sixty percent of its TEACH Grant recipients must complete at least one year of 

teaching that fulfills the service obligation under § 686.40 within three years of 

completing the program. Under the proposed definition for high-quality teacher 

preparation program, the levels of program performance as reported in State report cards in both the April 2019 and the April 2020 State Report Card for the 

2020–2021 title IV HEA award year would determine TEACH Grant eligibility for 

the 2020–2021 academic year. Subsequently, beginning with the 2021–2022 title 

IV HEA award year, a program’s eligibility would be based on the level of program performance reported in the State Report Card for two out of three years. 

The State Report Card ratings from April 2018 (if the State exercised its option to 

report the ratings using the new indicators) and April 2019 would not immediately 

impact TEACH Grant eligibility. Instead, the loss of TEACH Grant eligibility for 

low-performing or at-risk programs would become effective July 1, 2020. 

III. Regulatory Alternatives Considered 

The proposed regulations were 

developed with assistance from a 

negotiated rulemaking process in which 

different options were considered for 

several provisions. Among the 

alternatives the Department considered 

were various ways to reduce the volume 

of information States and teacher 

preparation programs are required to 

collect and report under the existing 

title II reporting system. One approach 

would have been to limit State reporting 

to items that are statutorily required. 

While this would reduce the reporting 

burden, it would not address the goal of 

enhancing the quality and usefulness of 

the data that are reported. Alternatively, 

by focusing the reporting requirements 

on student learning outcomes, 

employment outcomes, and teacher and 

employer survey data, and also 

providing States with flexibility in the 

specific methods they use to measure 

and weigh these outcomes, the proposed 

regulations would balance the desire to 

reduce burden with the need for more 

meaningful information. 

Additionally, during the negotiated 

rulemaking session, some non-Federal 

negotiators spoke of the difficulty States 

would have developing the survey 

instruments, administering the surveys, 

and compiling and tabulating the results 

for the employer and teacher surveys. 

The Department offered to develop and 

conduct the surveys to alleviate 

additional burden and costs on States, 

but the non-Federal negotiators 

indicated that they preferred that States 

and teacher preparation programs 

conduct the surveys. 

One alternative considered in carrying 

out the statutory directive to direct 

TEACH Grants to ‘‘high quality’’ 

programs was to limit eligibility only to 

programs that States classified as 

‘‘exceptional’’, positioning the grants 

more as a reward for truly outstanding 

programs than as an incentive for lowperforming and at-risk programs to 

improve. In order to prevent a program’s 

eligibility from fluctuating year-to-year 

based on small changes in evaluation 

systems that are being developed and to 

keep TEACH Grants available to a wider 

pool of students, including those 

attending teacher preparation programs 

producing satisfactory student learning 

outcomes, the Department and most 

non-Federal negotiators agreed that 

programs rated effective or higher 

would be eligible for TEACH Grants. 

The Department welcomes comments 

about the alternatives discussed here 

and will consider them in drafting the 

final regulations. 

IV. Discussion of Costs, Benefits and 

Transfers 

The Department has analyzed the 

costs of complying with the proposed 

requirements. Due to uncertainty about 

the current capacity of States in some 

relevant areas and the considerable 

discretion the proposed regulations 

would provide States (e.g., the 

flexibility States would have to 

determine the weights to give to the 

various indicators of teacher preparation 

program performance), we cannot 

evaluate the costs of implementing the 

proposed regulations with absolute 

precision. However, we estimate that 

the total annualized cost of these 

regulations would be between $42.0 

million and $42.1 million over ten years 

(see the Accounting Statement section 

of this document for further detail). 

Relative to these costs, the major benefit 

of these requirements, taken as a whole, 

would be better publicly available 

information on the effectiveness of 

teacher preparation programs that 

would be able to be used by prospective 

students in choosing programs to attend; 

employers in selecting teacher 

preparation program graduates to 

recruit, train, and hire; States in making 

funding decisions; and teacher 

preparation programs themselves in 

seeking to improve. The Department 

particularly invites comments on the 

cost estimates provided. 

The following is a detailed analysis of 

the estimated costs of implementing the 

specific proposed requirements, 

including the costs of complying with 

paperwork-related requirements, 

followed by a discussion of the 

anticipated benefits.61 The burden 

hours of implementing specific 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71859 

62Unless otherwise specified, for paperwork 

reporting requirements, we use a wage rate of 

$25.22, which is based on a weighted national 

average hourly wage for full-time Federal, State and 

local government workers in office and 

administrative support (75%) and managerial 

occupations (25%), as reported by the Bureau of 

Labor Statistics in the National Occupational 

Employment and Wage Estimates, May 2012. 

paperwork-related requirements are also 

shown in the tables in the Paperwork 

Reduction Act section of this notice. 

Title II Accountability System (HEA 

Title II Regulations) 

Section 205(a) of the HEA requires 

that each IHE that provides a teacher 

preparation program leading to State 

certification or licensure report on a 

statutorily enumerated series of data 

elements for the programs it provides. 

Section 205(b) of the HEA requires that 

each State that receives funds under the 

HEA provide to the Secretary and make 

widely available to the public 

information on the quality of traditional 

and alternative route teacher 

preparation programs that includes not 

less than the statutorily enumerated 

series of data elements it provides. The 

State must do so in a uniform and 

comprehensible manner, conforming 

with definitions and methods 

established by the Secretary. Section 

205(c) of the HEA directs the Secretary 

to prescribe regulations to ensure the 

validity, reliability, accuracy, and 

integrity of the data submitted. Section 

206(b) requires that IHEs assure the 

Secretary that their teacher training 

programs respond to the needs of LEAs, 

be closely linked with the instructional 

decisions new teachers confront in the 

classroom, and prepare candidates to 

work with diverse populations and in 

urban and rural settings, as applicable. 

Consistent with these statutory 

provisions, the Department proposes a 

number of regulations to ensure that the 

data reported by IHEs and States 

accurately report on the quality of all 

approved teacher preparation programs 

in the State. The following sections 

provide a detailed examination of the 

costs associated with each of these 

proposed regulatory provisions. 

Institutional Report Card Reporting 

Requirements 

The proposed regulations would 

require that beginning on October 1, 

2017, and annually thereafter, each IHE 

that conducts a traditional teacher 

preparation program or alternative route 

to State certification or licensure 

program and enrolls students receiving 

title IV, HEA funds, report to the State 

on the quality of its program using an 

IRC prescribed by the Secretary. 

Under the current IRC, IHEs typically 

report at the entity level, rather than the 

program level, such that an IHE that 

administers multiple teacher 

preparation programs typically gathers 

data on each of those programs, 

aggregates the data, and reports the 

required information as a single teacher 

preparation entity on a single report 

card. By contrast, the proposed 

regulations generally would require that 

States report on program performance at 

the individual program level. The 

Department estimates that the initial 

burden for each IHE to adjust its 

recordkeeping systems in order to report 

the required data separately for each of 

its teacher preparation programs would 

be 4 hours per IHE. In the most recent 

year for which data are available, 1,522 

IHEs submitted IRCs to the Department, 

for an initial estimated cost of 

$153,540.62 The Department further 

estimates that each of the 1,522 IHEs 

would need to spend 78 hours to collect 

the data elements required for the IRC 

for its teacher preparation programs, for 

an annual cumulative cost of 

$2,944,020. We estimate that entering 

the required information into the 

information collection instrument 

would require 13.65 hours per entity, 

for a total cost of $523,950 to the 1,522 

IHEs. 

The proposed regulations would also 

require that each IHE provide the 

information reported on the IRC to the 

general public by prominently and 

promptly posting the IRC on the IHE’s 

Web site and, if applicable, on the 

teacher preparation portion of the Web 

site. We estimate that each IHE would 

require 30 minutes to post the IRC for 

an annual cumulative cost of $19,190. 

The estimated total annual cost to IHEs 

to meet the proposed requirements 

concerning IRCs would be $3,670,600. 

State Report Card Reporting 

Requirements 

Section 205(b) of the HEA requires 

each State that receives funds under the 

Act to report annually to the Secretary 

on the quality of teacher preparation in 

the State, both for traditional teacher 

preparation programs and for alternative 

routes to State certification or licensure 

programs, and to make this report 

widely available to the general public. 

As described in greater detail under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act section of this 

notice, the Department estimates that 

the 50 States, the District of Columbia, 

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 

Guam, American Samoa, the United 

States Virgin Islands, the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands, and the Freely Associated 

States, which include the Republic of 

the Marshall Islands, the Federated 

States of Micronesia, and Republic of 

Palau would each need 235 hours to 

report the data required under the SRC, 

for an annual cumulative cost of 

$349,680. 

The Department proposes in 

§ 612.4(a)(2) of these regulations to 

require that States post the SRC on the 

State’s Web site. Because all States 

already have at least one Web site in 

operation, we estimate that posting the 

SRC on an existing Web site would 

require no more than half an hour at a 

cost of $25.22 per hour. For the 50 

States, the District of Columbia, the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, 

American Samoa, the United States 

Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of 

the Northern Mariana Islands, the Freely 

Associated States, which include the 

Republic of the Marshall Islands, the 

Federated States of Micronesia, and 

Republic of Palau the total annual 

estimated cost of meeting this 

requirement would be $740. 

Scope of State Reporting 

The costs associated with the 

reporting requirements in proposed 

§ 612.4(b) and (c) are discussed in the 

following paragraphs. The requirements 

regarding reporting of a teacher 

preparation program’s indicators of 

academic content knowledge and 

teaching skills would not apply to the 

insular areas of American Samoa, Guam, 

the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, 

the freely associated states of the 

Republic of the Marshall Islands, the 

Federated States of Micronesia, and the 

Republic of Palau. Due to their size and 

limited resources and capacity in some 

of these areas, we believe that the cost 

to these insular areas of collecting and 

reporting data on these indicators would 

not be warranted. 

Reporting of Information on Teacher 

Preparation Program Performance 

Under proposed § 612.4(b)(1), a State 

would be required to make meaningful 

differentiations in teacher preparation 

program performance using at least four 

performance levels—low-performing 

teacher preparation program, at-risk 

teacher preparation program, effective 

teacher preparation program, and 

exceptional teacher preparation 

program—based on the indicators in 

§ 612.5, including, in significant part, 

employment outcomes for high-need 

schools and student learning outcomes. 

Proposed § 612.4(b)(1) would also 

require that no teacher preparation 

program is deemed effective or higher 

unless it has satisfactory or higher 

student learning outcomes. Because 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71860 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

63Unless otherwise noted, all wage rates in this 

section are based on average hourly earnings as 

reported by in the May 2012 National Occupational 

Employment and Wage Estimates from the Bureau 

of Labor Statistics. Where hourly wages were 

unavailable, we estimated hourly wages using 

average annual wages from this source and the 

average annual hours worked from the National 

Compensation Survey, 2010. 

States would have the discretion to 

determine the meaning of ‘‘significant’’ 

and ‘‘satisfactory,’’ the Department 

assumes that States would consult with 

early adopter States or researchers to 

determine best practices for making 

such determinations and whether an 

underlying qualitative basis should exist 

for these terms. The Department 

estimates that State higher education 

authorities responsible for making Statelevel classifications of teacher 

preparation programs would require at 

least 35 hours to discuss methods for 

ensuring that meaningful 

differentiations are made in their 

classifications and defining 

‘‘significant’’ and ‘‘satisfactory.’’ To 

estimate the cost per State, we assume 

that the State employee or employees 

would likely be in a managerial position 

(with national average hourly earnings 

of $44.42), for a total one-time cost for 

the 50 States, the District of Columbia, 

and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 

of $80,840. 

Fair and Equitable Methods 

Under § 612.4(c)(1), the proposed 

regulations would require States to 

consult with a representative group of 

stakeholders to determine the 

procedures for assessing and reporting 

the performance of each teacher 

preparation program in the State. The 

proposed regulations specify that these 

stakeholders must include, at a 

minimum, representatives of leaders 

and faculty of traditional teacher 

preparation programs and alternative 

routes to State certification or licensure 

programs; students of teacher 

preparation programs; superintendents; 

school board members; elementary and 

secondary school leaders and 

instructional staff; elementary and 

secondary school students and their 

parents; IHEs that serve high 

proportions of low-income or minority 

students, or English language learners; 

advocates for English language learners 

and students with disabilities; and 

officials of the State’s standards board or 

other appropriate standards body. Since 

the proposed regulations would not 

prescribe any particular methods or 

activities, we expect that States would 

vary considerably in how they 

implement these requirements, 

depending on their population and 

geography and any applicable State laws 

concerning public meetings. 

In order to estimate the cost of 

implementing these requirements, we 

assume that the average State would 

need to convene at least three meetings 

with at least the following 

representatives from required categories 

of stakeholders: One administrator or 

faculty member from a traditional 

teacher preparation program, one 

administrator or faculty member from 

an alternative route teacher preparation 

program, one student from a traditional 

or alternative route teacher preparation 

program, one teacher or other 

instructional staff, one superintendent, 

one school board member, one student 

in elementary or secondary school and 

one of his or her parents, one 

administrator or faculty member from 

an IHE that serves high percentages of 

low-income or minority students, one 

representative of the interests of 

students who are English language 

learners, one representative of the 

interests of students with disabilities, 

and one official from the State’s 

standards board or other appropriate 

standards body. To estimate the cost of 

participating in these meetings for the 

required categories of stakeholders, we 

assume that each meeting would require 

four hours of each participant’s time 

and use the following national average 

hourly wages for full-time State and 

local government workers employed in 

these professions: Postsecondary 

education administrators, $45.75 (2 

stakeholders); elementary or secondary 

education administrators, $50.42 (1 

stakeholder); postsecondary teachers, 

$44.76 (1 stakeholder); primary, 

secondary, and special education school 

teachers, $40.93 (1 stakeholder). For the 

official from the State’s standards board 

or other appropriate standards body, we 

used the national average hourly 

earnings of $59.20 for chief executives 

employed by Federal, State, and local 

governments. For the representatives of 

the interests of students who are English 

language learners and students with 

disabilities, we use the national average 

hourly earnings of $59.13 for lawyers in 

educational services (including private, 

State, and local government schools). 

For the opportunity cost to the 

elementary and secondary school 

student, we use the Federal minimum 

wage of $7.25 per hour. For the 

opportunity cost for his parent, we use 

the average hourly wage for all workers 

of $22.01. We use the same assumed 

wage rate for the school board official. 

For the student from a traditional or 

alternative route teacher preparation 

program, we use the 25th percentile of 

hourly wage for all workers of $10.81. 

We also assume that at least two State 

employees in managerial positions (with 

national average hourly earnings of 

$44.42) would attend each meeting, 

with one budget or policy analyst to 

assist them (with national average 

hourly earnings of $33.35).63 Based on 

these participants, we estimate that 

meeting the stakeholder consultation 

requirements through meetings would 

have a cumulative cost of $334,860 for 

the 50 States, the District of Columbia, 

and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico. 

We invite comment on the extent to 

which States may have already 

established committees or other 

mechanisms that could be used to meet 

these requirements at little or no 

additional cost, as well as technologies 

that could reduce the cost of meeting 

these requirements. 

States would also be required to 

report on the State-level rewards or 

consequences associated with the 

designated performance levels and on 

the opportunities they provide for 

teacher preparation programs to 

challenge the accuracy of their 

performance data and classification of 

the program. Costs associated with 

implementing these requirements are 

estimated in the discussion of annual 

costs associated with the SRC. 

Procedures for Assessing and Reporting 

Performance 

Under proposed § 612.4(b)(4), a State 

would be required to ensure that teacher 

preparation programs in that State are 

included on the SRC, but with some 

flexibility due to the Department’s 

recognition that reporting on teacher 

preparation programs consisting of a 

small number of prospective teachers 

could present privacy and data validity 

issues. The Department estimates that 

each State would need up to 14 hours 

to review and analyze applicable State 

and Federal privacy laws and 

regulations and existing research or the 

practices of other States that set program 

size thresholds in order to determine the 

most appropriate aggregation level and 

procedures for its own teacher 

preparation program reporting, for an 

estimated, cumulative one-time cost to 

the 50 States, the District of Columbia, 

and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 

of $43,050, based on the average 

national hourly earnings for a lawyer 

employed full-time by a State or local 

government. 

Required Elements of the State Report 

Card 

For purposes of reporting under 

§ 612.4, each State would need to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71861 

64State Fiscal Stabilization Fund; Final 

Requirements, Definitions, and Approval Criteria. 

74 Federal Register 58436 (November 12, 2008). For 

a description of the relevant indicator for this 

assurance (indicator (b)(2)), see also the summary 

of the final requirements issued by the Department, 

available online at: www2.ed.gov/programs/

statestabilization/summary-requirements.doc. 

65Each State’s current application for SFSF 

funds, which includes assurances for all of the 

required SFSF indicators, is available online at: 

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/statestabilization/

resources.html. 

66State applications for ESEA Flexibility, 

approval letters, and other related materials are 

available online at: http://www.ed.gov/esea/

flexibility/requests. 

67U.S. Department of Education, National Center 

for Education Statistics, Schools and Staffing 

Survey (SASS), ‘‘Public School Teacher Data File,’’ 

2011–2012. 

68Race to the Top Technical Assistance Network. 

‘‘Measuring Student Growth for Teachers in NonTested Grades and Subjects: A Primer.’’ Technical 

brief, Washington, DC: ICF International, under 

contract with the U.S. Department of Education 

(2011). 

establish indicators that would be used 

to assess the academic content 

knowledge and teaching skills of the 

graduates of teacher preparation 

programs within its jurisdiction. At a 

minimum, States must base their 

assessments on student learning 

outcomes, employment outcomes, 

survey outcomes, and whether or not 

the program is accredited by a 

specialized accrediting agency 

recognized by the Secretary for 

accreditation of professional teacher 

education programs, or provides teacher 

candidates with content and 

pedagogical knowledge, and quality 

clinical preparation, and has rigorous 

teacher candidate entry and exit 

qualifications. 

States would be required to report 

these outcomes for teacher preparation 

programs within their jurisdiction, with 

the only exceptions being for small 

programs for which aggregation under 

paragraph § 612.4(b)(4)(ii) would not 

yield the program size threshold (or for 

a State that chooses a lower program 

size threshold, would not yield the 

lower program size threshold) for that 

program and for programs where 

reporting data would lead to conflicts 

with Federal or State privacy and 

confidentiality laws and regulations. 

Student Learning Outcomes 

In § 612.5, the proposed regulations 

would require that States assess the 

performance of teacher preparation 

programs based in part on data on the 

aggregate learning outcomes of students 

taught by new teachers prepared by 

those programs. States would have the 

option of calculating these outcomes 

using student growth, a teacher 

evaluation measure that includes 

student growth, or both. Regardless of 

whether they use student growth or a 

teacher evaluation measure to determine 

student learning outcomes, States would 

be required to link these data to new 

teachers and their teacher preparation 

programs. In the following analysis, we 

use available sources of information to 

assess the extent to which States appear 

to already have the capacity to measure 

student learning outcomes, using either 

student growth or teacher evaluation 

measures, and estimate the additional 

costs States that do not currently have 

this capacity might incur in order to 

meet the proposed requirements. 

Tested Grades and Subjects 

Student growth is defined in the 

proposed regulations as the change in 

student achievement in tested grades 

and subjects and the change in student 

achievement in non-tested grades and 

subjects for an individual student 

between two or more points in time. To 

calculate student growth for grades and 

subjects in which assessments are 

required under section 1111(b)(3) of the 

ESEA, States must use students’ scores 

on the State’s assessments under section 

1111(b)(3) of the ESEA and may include 

other measures of student learning, 

provided they are rigorous, comparable 

across schools, and consistent with 

State guidelines. 

In order to receive a portion of the 

$48.6 billion in grant funds awarded 

under the State Fiscal Stabilization 

Fund (SFSF), each State was required to 

provide several assurances to 

demonstrate its progress in advancing 

reforms in critical areas, including an 

assurance that it provides teachers of 

reading/language arts and mathematics 

in grades in which the State administers 

assessments in those subjects with 

student growth data on their current 

students.64 Because all States have 

provided this assurance, we assume that 

the States would not need to incur any 

additional costs to measure student 

growth for these grades and subjects and 

would only need to link these outcomes 

to teacher preparation programs by first 

linking the students’ teachers to the 

teacher preparation program from which 

they graduated.65 The costs of linking 

student outcomes to teacher preparation 

programs are discussed below. 

Non-tested Grades and Subjects 

As of June 23, 2014, the Secretary has 

approved requests by 42 States, the 

District of Columbia, and the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico for 

flexibility regarding specific 

requirements of NCLB in exchange for 

rigorous and comprehensive Statedeveloped plans designed to improve 

educational outcomes for all students, 

close achievement gaps, increase equity, 

and improve the quality of instruction, 

and the Department continues to work 

with another three States pursuing 

similar flexibility agreements.66 In its 

request for flexibility, each State has 

committed to implementing statewide 

comprehensive teacher evaluations and 

been required to demonstrate how the 

State would evaluate teachers in all 

grades and subjects, both tested and 

non-tested. Given this, and because the 

definition of a teacher evaluation 

measure in the proposed regulations 

aligns with the requirements for ESEA 

flexibility, the States that have been 

granted ESEA flexibility should not 

incur additional costs to measure 

student growth in non-tested grades and 

subjects because these States would be 

able to use the percentage of new 

teachers in these grades and subjects 

who are rated at each performance level 

to report student learning outcomes. 

To estimate the cost of measuring 

student growth for teachers in nontested grades and subjects in the eight 

States that have not been approved for 

ESEA flexibility, we need to estimate 

the number of new teachers in these 

States. We first determined, using NCES 

data from the 2011–2012 school year, 

that there are approximately 36,305 

teachers in these States who appear to 

meet the proposed definition of new 

teachers because they have fewer than 

four years of classroom teaching 

experience.67

While we believe it is unlikely that 

States will incur additional costs for 

measuring student growth for teachers 

in tested grades and subjects, for 

purposes of this cost estimate, we 

assume that all States will choose to 

implement the same process for all new 

teachers, regardless of their placement. 

This will likely generate an overestimate 

of actual costs that will be borne by the 

State. 

One method several States and 

districts are currently using to assess 

student growth for teachers of nontested grades and subjects is student 

learning objectives. The Race to the Top 

Technical Assistance Network defines 

student learning objectives as ‘‘a 

participatory method of setting 

measurable goals, or objectives, based 

on the specific assignment or class, such 

as the students taught, the subject 

matter taught, the baseline performance 

of the students, and the measurable gain 

in student performance during the 

course of instruction.’’ 68

States would not be required to use 

student learning objectives to measure 

student growth, but we use it in this 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71862 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

69These estimates are based on analysis and 

interpretation conducted by U.S. Department of 

Education staff and should not be attributed to the 

Rhode Island Department of Education. This 

analysis was based primarily on the timeline and 

checklist, which begins on page 23, http://

www.maine.gov/education/effectiveness/GuideSLORhode%20Island.pdf. 

70National Council on Teacher Quality, 2013 

State Teacher Policy Yearbook: National Summary 

Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher 

Quality (January 2014). States that require annual 

evaluations of all new teachers include California, 

Montana, Nebraska, North Dakota, and Wyoming. 

71 Ibid. According to this report, Vermont does 

not require annual evaluations of new teachers. 

analysis to estimate the costs a State 

would incur if they employed a similar 

method. To the extent that States 

employ different methods, the following 

estimates may overestimate or 

underestimate the costs involved. To 

estimate the cost of using student 

learning objectives to assess teachers in 

non-tested grades and subjects using 

student growth, we examined publiclyavailable State and district rubrics and 

guidelines. The guidance issued by the 

Rhode Island Department of Education 

included a detailed timeline and 

checklist that we used to develop an 

estimate of what it might cost the 

remaining States to develop and 

implement student learning 

objectives.69 The following estimate 

assumes that these States have no 

existing State or district-level structures 

in place to assess student learning 

outcomes. Based on the specific steps 

required in the Rhode Island guidance, 

we estimate that, for the average teacher, 

developing and measuring progress 

against student learning objectives 

would require 6.85 hours of the 

teacher’s time and 5.05 hours of an 

evaluator’s time. 

However, we believe that this 

estimate likely overstates the cost to 

States that already require annual 

evaluations of all new teachers because 

many of these evaluations would 

already encompass many of the 

activities in the framework. The 

National Council on Teacher Quality 

has reported that two of the eight States 

that have not received ESEA flexibility 

required annual evaluations of all new 

teachers and that those evaluations 

included at least some objective 

evidence of student learning.70 In these 

States, teachers and evaluators may 

require additional time to set 

appropriate targets and assess 

performance against those targets, but 

teachers and evaluators would already 

be meeting to discuss and assess the 

teacher’s effectiveness. In cases where 

there is an existing teacher evaluation 

structure or mechanism into which 

student learning objectives could be 

incorporated with relatively limited 

additional time required, we estimate 

that teachers and evaluators would only 

need to spend a combined three hours 

to develop and measure against student 

learning objectives for the 4,629 new 

teachers in these States, at an estimated 

total cost of $596,720. 

If the remaining State opted to use a 

framework similar to the guidance 

provided by Rhode Island, we estimate 

that the cost to this State of developing 

and measuring against student learning 

objectives for an estimated 31,676 

teachers would be $16,079,390.71 This 

estimate is based on an estimated 6.85 

hours for teachers at the national 

average hourly wage of $38.96 for public 

elementary and secondary teachers and 

a 5.05 hours for evaluators at a derived 

estimated hourly wage of $45.00, which 

assumes that the evaluator would be a 

more experienced teacher serving as an 

academic coach. 

We invite comments on these 

estimates and on the cost of calibrating 

existing student growth models to 

include these different types of student 

achievement data. Regardless of the 

method of assessing student growth for 

non-tested grades and subjects, States 

would need to link the teacher 

evaluation ratings or other indicators of 

student growth to the teacher 

preparation program from which the 

teacher graduated. The costs to States of 

making these linkages are discussed in 

the following section. 

Linking Student Learning Outcomes to 

Teacher Preparation Programs 

Whether using student scores on State 

assessments, teacher evaluation ratings, 

or other measures of student growth, 

under the proposed regulations States 

must link the student learning outcomes 

data back to the teacher, and then back 

to that teacher’s preparation program. 

The costs to States to comply with this 

requirement will depend, in part, on the 

data and linkages in their statewide 

longitudinal data system. Through the 

Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems 

(SLDS) program, the Department has 

awarded $575.7 million in grants to 

support data systems that, among other 

things, allow States to link student 

achievement data to individual teachers 

and to postsecondary education 

systems. Forty-seven States, the District 

of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico have already received at 

least one grant under this program to 

support the development of these data 

systems, so we expect the cost to these 

States of linking student learning 

outcomes to teacher preparation 

programs would be lower than for the 

remaining States. 

According to information from the 

SLDS program in June 2014, nine States 

currently link K–12 teacher data 

including data on both teacher/

administrator evaluations and teacher 

preparation programs to K–12 student 

data. An additional 11 States and the 

District of Columbia are currently in the 

process of establishing this linkage, and 

ten States and the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico have plans to add this 

linkage to their systems in the during 

their SLDS grant. Based on this 

information, it appears that 30 States, 

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and 

the District of Columbia either already 

have the ability to aggregate data on 

student achievement of students taught 

by program graduates and link those 

data back to teacher preparation 

programs or have committed to doing 

so; therefore, we do not estimate any 

additional costs for these States to 

comply with this aspect of the proposed 

regulations. 

During the negotiated rulemaking 

process and subsequent development of 

the proposed regulations, the 

Department consulted with experts 

familiar with the development of 

student growth models and longitudinal 

data systems. These experts indicated 

that the cost of calculating growth for 

students taught by individual teachers 

and aggregating these data according to 

the teacher preparation program that 

these teachers completed would vary 

among States. For example, in States in 

which data on teacher preparation 

programs are housed within different or 

even multiple different postsecondary 

data systems that are not currently 

linked to data systems for elementary 

through secondary education students 

and teachers, experts consulted by the 

Department suggested that a reasonable 

estimate of the cost of additional staff or 

vendor time to link and analyze the data 

would be $250,000 per State. For States 

that already have data systems that 

include data from elementary to 

postsecondary education levels, we 

estimate that the cost of additional staff 

or vendor time to analyze the data 

would be $100,000. Since we do not 

know enough about the data systems in 

the remaining 37 States and the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to 

determine whether they are likely to 

incur the higher or lower estimate of 

costs, we averaged the higher and lower 

figure. Accordingly we estimate that the 

remaining 20 States will need to incur 

an average cost of $175,000 to develop 

models to calculate growth for students 

taught by individual teachers and then 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71863 

72 Data Quality Campaign. ‘‘ED’s Notice of 

Intention to Develop Proposed Regulations 

Regarding Teacher Preparation Reporting 

Requirements: DQC Comments to Share Knowledge 

on States’ Data Capacity.’’ Available online at: 

www.dataqualitycampaign.org/files/

HEA%20Neg%20Regs%20formatted.pdf. 

73American Association of Colleges for Teacher 

Education, ‘‘The Changing Teacher Preparation 

Profession: A report from AACTE’s Professional 

Education Data System (PEDS),’’ (2013). 

link these data to teacher preparation 

programs for a total cost of $3,500,000. 

Employment Outcomes 

The Department proposes to require 

States to report employment outcomes, 

including data on both the teacher 

placement rate and the teacher retention 

rate and on the effectiveness of a teacher 

preparation program in preparing, 

placing, and supporting new teachers 

consistent with local educational needs. 

We have limited information on the 

extent to which States currently collect 

and maintain data on placement and 

retention for individual teachers. 

Under proposed § 612.4(b), States 

would be required to report annually, 

for each teacher preparation program, 

on the teacher placement rate, the 

teacher placement rate calculated for 

high-need schools, the teacher retention 

rate, and the teacher retention rate 

calculated for high-need schools. The 

Department proposes to define the 

teacher placement rate as the combined 

non-duplicated percentage of new 

teachers and recent graduates who have 

been hired in a full-time teaching 

position for the grade level, span, and 

subject area in which the new teacher or 

recent graduate was prepared. Highneed schools would be defined in 

proposed § 612.2(d) by using the 

definition of ‘‘high-need school’’ in 

section 200(11) of the HEA. The 

proposed regulations would give States 

discretion to exclude those new teachers 

or recent graduates from this measure if 

they are teaching in a private school, 

teaching in another State, enrolled in 

graduate school, or engaged in military 

service. States would also have the 

discretion to treat this rate differently 

for alternative route and traditional 

route providers. 

Proposed § 612.5(a)(2) and the 

definition of teacher retention rate in 

proposed § 612.2 would require a State 

to provide data on each teacher 

preparation program’s teacher retention 

rate, using one of the following 

approaches: (a) The percentage of new 

teachers who have been hired in fulltime teaching positions and served for 

periods of at least three consecutive 

school years within five years of being 

granted a level of certification that 

allows them to serve as teachers of 

record; (b) the percentage of new 

teachers who have been hired in fulltime teaching positions and reached a 

level of tenure or other equivalent 

measures of retention within five years 

of being granted a level of certification 

that allows them to serve as teachers of 

record; or (c) one hundred percent less 

the percentage of new teachers who 

have been hired in full-time teaching 

positions and whose employment was 

not continued by their employer for 

reasons other than budgetary constraints 

within five years of being granted a level 

of certification or licensure that allows 

them to serve as teachers of record. 

High-need schools would be defined in 

proposed § 612.2 by using the definition 

of ‘‘high-need school’’ from section 

200(11) of the HEA. The proposed 

regulations would give States discretion 

to exclude those new teachers or recent 

graduates from this measure if they are 

teaching in a private school (or other 

school not requiring State certification), 

another State, enrolled in graduate 

school, or serving in the military. States 

would also have the discretion to treat 

this rate differently for alternative route 

and traditional route providers. 

In its comments on the Department’s 

Notice of Intention to Develop Proposed 

Regulations Regarding Teacher 

Preparation Reporting Requirements, 

the Data Quality Campaign reported that 

50 States, the District of Columbia, and 

the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico all 

collect some certification information 

on individual teachers and that a subset 

of States collect the following specific 

information on teacher preparation or 

qualifications that is relevant to the 

requirements: Type of teacher 

preparation program (42 States), 

location of teacher preparation program 

(47 States), and year of certification (51 

States).72

Data from the SLDS program indicate 

that 24 States currently can link data on 

individual teachers with their teacher 

preparation programs, including 

information on their current 

certification status and placement. In 

addition, seven States are currently in 

the process of making these links, and 

ten States plan to add this capacity to 

their data systems, but have not yet 

established the link and process for 

doing so. Because these States would 

also maintain information on the 

certification status and year of 

certification of individual teachers, we 

assume they would already be able to 

calculate the teacher placement and 

retention rates for new teachers but may 

incur additional costs to identify recent 

graduates who are not employed in a 

full-time teaching position within the 

State. It should be possible to do this at 

minimal cost by matching rosters of 

recent graduates from teacher 

preparation programs against teachers 

employed in full-time teaching 

positions who received their initial 

certification within the last three years. 

Additionally, because States already 

maintain the necessary information in 

State databases to identify schools as 

‘‘high-need,’’ we do not believe there 

would be any appreciable additional 

cost associated with adding ‘‘high-need’’ 

flags to any accounting of teacher 

retention or placement rates in the State. 

We invite comment on what costs States 

would incur to do this. 

The remaining 11 States may need to 

collect additional information from 

teacher preparation programs and LEAs 

because they do not appear to be able 

to link information on the employment, 

certification, and teacher preparation 

program for individual teachers. If it is 

not possible to establish this link using 

existing data systems, States may need 

to obtain some or all of this information 

from teacher preparation programs or 

from the teachers themselves. The 

American Association of Colleges for 

Teacher Education reported that in 

2012, 495 of 717 institutions (or about 

70%) had begun tracking their graduates 

into job placements. Although half of 

those institutions have successfully 

obtained placement information, these 

efforts suggest that States may be able to 

take advantage of work already 

underway.73

For each of these 11 States, the 

Department estimates that 150 hours 

may be required at the State level to 

collect information about new teachers 

employed in full-time teaching 

positions (including designing the data 

request instruments, disseminating 

them, providing training or other 

technical assistance on completing the 

instruments, collecting the data, and 

checking their accuracy), and a total 

estimated cost to the eleven States of 

$83,190, based on the national average 

hourly wage for education 

administrators of $50.42. 

Survey Outcomes 

The Department also proposes to 

require States to report—again 

disaggregated for each teacher 

preparation program—qualitative and 

quantitative data from surveys of new 

teachers and their employers in order to 

capture their perceptions of whether 

new teachers who were prepared at a 

teacher preparation program in that 

State possess the skills needed to 

succeed in the classroom. The design 

and implementation of these surveys 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71864 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

74Email correspondence with officials from the 

Oregon Teacher Standards and Practices 

Commission between June 4 and 19, 2012. 

75The experts with whom we consulted did not 

provide estimates of the number of hours involved 

in the development of this type of survey. For the 

estimated burden hours for the Paperwork 

Reduction Act section, this figure represents 612 

hours at an average hourly wage rate of $40.83, 

based on the hourly wage for faculty at a public IHE 

and statisticians employed by State or local 

governments. 

76These cost estimates were based primarily on 

our consultation with a researcher involved in the 

development, implementation, and analysis of 

surveys of teacher preparation program graduates 

and graduates of alternative certification programs 

in New York City in 2004 as part of the Teacher 

Pathways Project. These survey instruments are 

available online at: www.teacherpolicyresearch.org/ 

TeacherPathwaysProject/Surveys/tabid/115/

Default.aspx. 

would be determined by the State, but 

we provide the following estimates of 

costs associated with possible options 

for meeting this requirement. 

Some States and IHEs currently 

survey graduates or recent graduates of 

teacher preparation programs. 

According to experts consulted by the 

Department, depending on the number 

of questions and the size of the sample, 

some of these surveys have been 

administered quite inexpensively. One 

State conducted a survey of a stratified 

random sample of approximately 50 

percent of its teacher preparation 

program graduates and estimated that it 

cost $5,000 to develop and administer 

the survey and $5,000 to analyze and 

report the data.74 Since these data will 

be used to assess and publicly report on 

the quality of each teacher preparation 

program, we expect that the cost of 

implementing the proposed regulations 

is likely to be higher, because States 

may need to survey a larger sample of 

teachers and their employers in order to 

capture information on all teacher 

preparation programs. 

Another potential factor in the cost of 

the teacher and employer surveys would 

be the number and type of questions. 

We have consulted with researchers 

experienced in the collection of survey 

data, and they have indicated that it is 

important to balance the burden on the 

respondent with the need to collect 

adequate information. In addition to 

asking teachers and their employers 

whether graduates of particular teacher 

preparation programs are adequately 

prepared before entering the classroom, 

States may also wish to ask about 

course-taking and student teaching 

experiences, as well as to collect 

demographic information on the 

respondent, including information on 

the school environment in which the 

teacher is currently employed. Because 

the researchers we consulted stressed 

that teachers and their employers are 

unlikely to respond to a survey that 

requires more than 30 minutes to 

complete, we assume that the surveys 

would not exceed this length. 

Based on our consultation with 

experts and previous experience 

conducting surveys of teachers through 

evaluations of Department programs or 

policies, we estimate that it would cost 

the average State approximately $25,000 

to develop the survey instruments, 

including instructions for the survey 

recipients, for a total cost to the 50 

States, the District of Columbia, and the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico of 

$1,300,000. However, we recognize that 

the cost would be lower for States that 

identify an existing instrument that 

could be adapted or used for this 

purpose.75 If States surveyed all 

individuals who completed teacher 

preparation programs in the previous 

year, we estimate that they would 

survey 203,701 teachers, based on the 

reported number of individuals 

completing teacher preparation 

programs, both traditional and 

alternative route programs, during the 

2011–2012 academic year. 

To estimate the cost of administering 

these surveys, we consulted researchers 

with experience conducting a survey of 

all recent graduates of teacher 

preparation programs in New York 

City.76 In order to meet the target of a 

70 percent response rate for that survey, 

the researchers estimated that their cost 

per respondent was $100, which 

included an incentive for respondents 

worth $25. We believe that it is unlikely 

that States will provide cash incentives 

for respondents to the survey, thus 

providing an estimate of $75 per 

respondent. However, since the time of 

data collection in that survey, there 

have been dramatic advances in the 

availability and usefulness of online 

survey software with a corresponding 

decrease in cost. As such, we believe 

that the $75 per respondent estimate 

may actually provide an extreme upper 

bound and may dramatically overestimate the costs associated with 

administering any such survey. For 

example, several prominent online 

survey companies offer survey hosting 

services for as little as $300 per year for 

unlimited questions and unlimited 

respondents. Using that total cost, and 

assuming surveys administered and 

hosted by the State and using the 

number of program graduates in 2013, 

the cost per respondent would range 

from $0.02 to $21.43, with an average 

cost per State of $0.97. We recognize 

that this would represent an extreme 

lower bound and many States are 

unlikely to see costs per respondent that 

low until the survey is fully integrated 

into existing systems. For example, 

States may be able to provide teachers 

with a mechanism, such as an online 

portal, to both verify their class rosters 

and complete the survey. Because 

teachers would be motivated to ensure 

that they were not evaluated based on 

the performance of students they did 

not teach, requiring new teachers to 

complete the survey in order to access 

their class rosters would increase the 

response rate for the survey and allow 

new teachers to select their teacher 

preparation program from a pull-down 

menu, reducing the amount of time 

required to link the survey results to 

particular programs. States could also 

have teacher preparation programs 

disseminate the new teacher survey 

with other information for teacher 

preparation program alumni or have 

LEAs disseminate the new teacher 

survey during induction or professional 

development activities. We believe that, 

as States incorporate these surveys into 

other structures, data collection costs 

will dramatically decline towards the 

lower bounds noted above. 

The California State School Climate 

Survey (CSCS) is one portion of the 

larger California School Climate, Health, 

& Learning Survey, designed to survey 

teachers and staff to address questions 

of school climate. While the CSCS is 

subsidized by the State of California, it 

is also offered to school districts outside 

of the State for a fee, ranging from $500 

to $1,500 per district, depending on its 

enrollment size. Applying this cost 

structure to all school districts 

nationwide with enrollment (as outlined 

in the Department’s Common Core of 

Data), costs would range from a low of 

$0.05 per FTE teacher to $500 per FTE 

teacher with an average of $21.29 per 

FTE. However, these costs are inflated 

by single-school, single-teacher districts, 

which are largely either charter schools 

or small, rural school districts unlikely 

to administer separate surveys. When 

removing single-school, single-teacher 

districts, the average cost per 

respondent decreases to $12.27. 

Given the cost savings associated with 

online administration of surveys and the 

likelihood that States will fold these 

surveys into existing structures, we 

believe that many of these costs are 

likely over-estimates of the actual costs 

that States will bear in administering 

these surveys. However, for purposes of 

estimating costs in this context, we use 

a rate of $30.33 per respondent, which 

represents a cost per respondent at the 

85th percentile of the CSCS 

administration and well above the 

maximum administration cost for 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71865 

77 Donald J. Boyd, et al., ‘‘Teacher Preparation 

and Student Achievement.’’ Educational Evaluation 

and Policy Analysis 31, No. 4 (2009): 416–440. 

78Tennessee Higher Education Commission, 

‘‘Report Card on the Effectiveness of Teacher 

Training Programs,’’ Nashville, TN (2010). 

79Thomas J. Kane, Jonah E. Rockoff, and Douglas 

O. Staiger, ‘‘What Does Certification Tell Us About 

Teacher Effectiveness? Evidence from New York 

City.’’ Economics of Education Review 27, no. 6 

(2008): 615–31.; Boyd, et al., 2009. 

popular consumer survey software. 

Using this estimate, we estimate that, if 

States surveyed a combined sample of 

203,701 teachers and an equivalent 

number of employers, the cumulative 

cost to the 50 States, the District of 

Columbia, and the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico of administering the survey 

of $8,649,540. 

If States surveyed all teacher 

preparation program graduates and their 

employers, assuming that both the 

teacher and employer surveys would 

take no more than 30 minutes to 

complete, that the employers are likely 

to be principals or district 

administrators, and a response rate of 70 

percent of teachers and employers 

surveyed, the total estimated burden for 

203,701 teachers and their 203,701 

employers of completing the surveys 

would be $2,918,120 and $3,594,720 

respectively, based on the national 

average hourly wage of $40.93 and 

$50.42 for elementary and secondary 

public school teachers and elementary 

and secondary school level 

administrators. These costs would vary 

depending on the extent to which a 

State determines that it can measure 

these outcomes based on a sample of 

new teachers and their employers. This 

may depend on the distribution of new 

teachers prepared by teacher 

preparation programs throughout the 

LEAs and schools within each State and 

also on whether or not some of this 

information is available from existing 

sources such as surveys of recent 

graduates conducted by teacher 

preparation programs as part of their 

accreditation process. 

Assurance of Accreditation 

Under proposed § 612.5(a)(4) States 

would be required to assure that each 

teacher preparation program in the State 

either: (a) Is accredited by a specialized 

accrediting agency recognized by the 

Secretary for accreditation of 

professional teacher education programs 

or (b) provides teacher candidates with 

content and pedagogical knowledge and 

quality clinical preparation, and has 

rigorous teacher candidate entry and 

exit standards. As discussed in greater 

detail in the Paperwork Reduction Act 

section of this notice, we estimate that 

the total cost to the 50 States, the 

District of Columbia, and the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico of 

providing these assurances for the 

estimated 13,404 teacher preparation 

programs nationwide for which States 

have already determined are accredited 

based on previous title II reporting 

submissions would be $676,100, 

assuming that 2 hours were required per 

teacher preparation program and using 

an estimated hourly wage of $25.22. 

Annual Reporting Requirements Related 

to State Report Card 

As discussed in greater detail in the 

Paperwork Reduction Act section of this 

notice, proposed § 612.4 includes 

several requirements for which States 

must annually report on the SRC. Using 

an estimated hourly wage of $25.22, we 

estimate that the total cost for the 50 

States, the District of Columbia, and the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to report 

the following required information in 

the SRC would be: Classifications of 

teacher preparation programs ($315,250, 

based on 0.5 hours per 25,000 

programs); assurances of accreditation 

($84,510, based on 0.25 hours per 

13,404 programs); State’s weighting of 

the different indicators in § 612.5 ($330 

annually, based on 0.25 hours per 

State); State-level rewards and 

consequences associated with the 

designated performance levels ($660 in 

the first year and $130 thereafter, based 

on 0.5 hours per State in the first year 

and 0.1 hours per State in subsequent 

years); method of program aggregation 

($130 annually, based on 0.1 hours per 

State); process for challenging data and 

program classification ($3,930 in the 

first year and $1,510 thereafter, based on 

3 hours per State in the first year and 

6 hours for 10 States in subsequent 

years); examination of data collection 

quality ($6,950, based on 5.3 hours per 

State annually), recordkeeping and 

publishing related to appeal decisions 

($6,950 annually, based on 5.3 hours per 

State). The sum of these annual 

reporting costs would be $420,220 for 

the first year and $419,690 in 

subsequent years, based on a cumulative 

burden hours of 16,662 hours in the first 

year and 16,642 hours in subsequent 

years. 

Under proposed § 612.5, States would 

also incur burden to enter the required 

aggregated information on student 

learning, employment, and survey 

outcomes into the information 

collection instrument for each teacher 

preparation program. Using the 

estimated hourly wage rate of $25.22, 

we estimate the following cumulative 

costs to the 50 States, the District of 

Columbia, and Puerto Rico to report on 

25,000 teacher preparation programs: 

Annual reporting on student learning 

outcomes ($1,576,250 annually, based 

on 2.5 hours per program); and annual 

reporting of employment outcomes 

($2,206,750 annually, based on 3.5 

hours per program); and annual 

reporting of survey outcomes ($630,500 

annually, based on 1 hour per program). 

Our estimate of the total annual cost of 

reporting these outcome measures on 

the SRC related to proposed § 612.5 is 

$4,413,500, based on 175,000 hours. 

Potential Benefits 

The principal benefits related to the 

evaluation and classification of teacher 

preparation programs under the 

proposed regulations are those resulting 

from the reporting and public 

availability of information on the 

effectiveness of teachers prepared by 

teacher preparation programs within 

each State. The Department believes 

that the information collected and 

reported as a result of these 

requirements will improve the 

accountability of teacher preparation 

programs, both traditional and 

alternative route to certification 

programs, for preparing teachers who 

are equipped to succeed in classroom 

settings and help their students reach 

their full potential. 

Research studies have found 

significant and substantial variation in 

teaching effectiveness among individual 

teachers and some variation has also 

been found among graduates of different 

teacher preparation programs.77 In 

Tennessee, some programs produced 

graduates who were two to three times 

more likely to be in the top quintile 

based on increases in student growth, 

while other programs produced 

graduates who were two to three times 

more likely to be in the bottom 

quintile.78 Because this variation in the 

effectiveness of graduates is not 

associated with any particular type of 

preparation program, the only way to 

determine which programs are 

producing more effective teachers is to 

link information on the performance of 

teachers in the classroom back to their 

teacher preparation programs.79 The 

proposed regulations do this by 

requiring States to link data on student 

learning outcomes, employment 

outcomes, and teacher and employer 

survey outcomes back to the teacher 

preparation programs, rating each 

program based on these data, and then 

making that information available to the 

public. 

The Department recognizes that 

simply requiring States to assess the 

performance of teacher preparation 

programs and report this information to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71866 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

80Stephen Sawchuk, ‘‘ ‘Value Added’ Concept 

Proves Beneficial to Teacher Colleges,’’ Education 

Week 31, no. 21, Published online on February 17, 

2012. http://www.edweek.org/ew/articles/2012/02/

17/21louisiana_ep.h31.html?qs=lafayette. 

81 Kristin A. Gansle, Jeanne M. Burns, and George 

Noell, ‘‘Value Added Assessment of Teacher 

Preparation Programs in Louisiana: 2007–2008 to 

2009–10: Overview of 2010–11 Results.’’ Research 

summary, Baton Rouge, LA: Louisiana Board of 

Regents (2011). 

the public will not produce increases in 

student achievement, but it is an 

important part of a larger set of policies 

and investments designed to attract 

talented individuals to the teaching 

profession; prepare them for success in 

the classroom; and support, reward, and 

retain effective teachers. In addition, the 

Department believes that, once 

information on the performance of 

teacher preparation programs is more 

readily available, a variety of 

stakeholders will become better 

consumers of these data, which will 

ultimately lead to improved student 

achievement by influencing the 

behavior of States seeking to provide 

technical assistance to low-performing 

programs, IHEs engaging in considered 

self-improvement efforts, prospective 

teachers seeking to train at the highest 

quality teacher preparation programs, 

and employers seeking to hire the most 

highly qualified new teachers. 

Louisiana has already adopted some 

of the proposed requirements and has 

begun to see improvements in teacher 

preparation programs. Based on data 

suggesting that the English Language 

Arts teachers prepared by the University 

of Louisiana at Lafayette were 

producing teachers who were less 

effective than other new teachers 

prepared by other programs, Louisiana 

identified the program in 2008 as being 

in need of improvement and provided 

additional analyses of the qualifications 

of the program’s graduates and of the 

specific areas where the students taught 

by program graduates appeared to be 

struggling.80 When data suggested that 

students struggled with essay questions, 

faculty from the elementary education 

program and the liberal arts department 

in the university collaborated to 

restructure the teacher education 

curriculum to include more writing 

instruction. Based on 2010–11 data, 

student learning outcomes for teachers 

prepared by this program are now 

comparable to other novice teachers in 

the State, and the program is no longer 

identified for improvement.81

This is one example, but it suggests 

that States can use data on student 

learning outcomes for graduates of 

teacher preparation programs to help 

these programs identify weaknesses and 

implement needed reforms in a 

reasonable amount of time. As more 

information becomes available and if 

the data indicate that some programs 

produce more effective teachers, LEAs 

seeking to hire new teachers will prefer 

to hire teachers from those programs. 

All things being equal, aspiring teachers 

will elect to pursue their degrees or 

certificates at teacher preparation 

programs with strong student learning 

outcomes and placement rates. 

TEACH Grants 

The proposed regulations link 

program eligibility for participation in 

the TEACH Grant program to the State 

assessment of program quality under 

part 612. Under proposed 

§§ 686.11(a)(iii) and 686.2(d), to be 

eligible to receive a TEACH Grant for a 

program, an individual must be enrolled 

in a high-quality teacher preparation 

program; that is a program that is 

classified by the State as effective or 

higher in either or both the April 2019 

and/or April 2020 State Report Card for 

the 2020–2021 title IV HEA award year 

or, classified by the State as effective or 

higher in two out of the previous three 

years, beginning with the April 2019 

State Report Card, for the 2021–2022 

title IV HEA award year, under 34 CFR 

612.4(b) or meets the ‘‘high-quality’’ 

standards for a STEM program. For a 

STEM program to meet the definition of 

‘‘high-quality teacher preparation 

program,’’ it must be at a TEACH Granteligible STEM program at a TEACH 

Grant-eligible institution. To be a 

TEACH Grant-eligible STEM program, 

the Secretary must not have identified 

that, over the most recent three years for 

which data are available, fewer than 

sixty percent of the program’s TEACH 

Grant recipients have taught full-time as 

a highly-qualified teacher in a high-need 

field in a low-income school in 

accordance with § 686.40 for at least one 

year within three years of completing 

the STEM program. 

In addition to the referenced benefits 

of improved accountability under the 

title II reporting system, the Department 

believes that the proposed regulations 

relating to TEACH Grants will also 

contribute to the improvement of 

teacher preparation programs. Linking 

program eligibility for TEACH Grants to 

the performance assessment by the 

States under the title II reporting system 

provides an additional factor for 

prospective students to consider when 

choosing a program and an incentive for 

programs to achieve a rating of effective 

or higher. 

In order to analyze the possible effects 

of the proposed regulations on the 

number of programs eligible to 

participate in the TEACH Grant program 

and the amount of TEACH Grants 

disbursed, the Department analyzed 

data from a variety of sources. This 

analysis focused on teacher preparation 

programs at IHEs. This is because, under 

the HEA, alternative route programs 

offered independently of an IHE are not 

eligible to participate in the TEACH 

Grant program. For the purpose of 

analyzing the effect of the proposed 

regulations on TEACH Grants, the 

Department estimated the number of 

teacher preparation programs based on 

data from the Integrated Postsecondary 

Education Data System (IPEDS) about 

program graduates in education-related 

majors as defined by the Category of 

Instructional Program (CIP) codes and 

award levels. For the purposes of this 

analysis, ‘‘teacher preparation 

programs’’ refers to programs in the 

relevant CIP codes that also have the 

IPEDS indicator flag for being a Stateapproved teacher education program. 

In order to estimate how many 

programs might be affected by a loss of 

TEACH Grant eligibility, the 

Department had to estimate how many 

programs will be individually evaluated 

under the proposed regulations, which 

encourage States to report on the 

performance of individual programs 

offered by IHEs rather than on the 

aggregated performance of programs at 

the institutional level as currently 

required. The estimated range of 

individual programs reflects the variety 

of thresholds that States may use in 

defining programs for evaluation. Under 

the proposed regulations, the States 

would be able to determine the level of 

aggregation at which to analyze 

programs at each IHE. One factor that 

States may consider in determining the 

level of aggregation for reporting on 

programs is the number of new teachers. 

All programs with 25 or more new 

teachers in a given reporting year 

(program size threshold) would be 

required to be reported on a stand-alone 

basis, with States having the discretion 

to set a lower threshold (lower program 

size threshold). For programs below the 

program size threshold of 25 (or lower, 

at a State’s discretion) in a given 

reporting year, the proposed regulations 

require aggregation across years or 

subject areas, so that all programs that 

meet the chosen program size threshold 

as reported by a State can be evaluated. 

States may refrain from including a 

program in the SRC if aggregation across 

years, across programs at the same IHE, 

or a combination of the two does not 

result in enough new teachers to meet 

the program size threshold in a given 

year, or if doing so would be 

inconsistent with State and Federal 

privacy and confidentiality laws and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71867 

regulations. While encouraged to define 

programs below the institutional level to 

improve the utility of the information, 

especially if the number of new teachers 

in each specialization supports it, the 

States could aggregate all programs, as 

appropriate and consistent with 

§ 612.4(b)(4), except those that meet the 

program size threshold and report them 

together. If all States took the approach 

of reporting at the institutional level 

when allowed by the program size 

threshold (Approach 1), the Department 

estimates that there would be 

approximately 7,123 programs. This is 

based on applying the proposed 25 new 

teachers-in-one-year threshold to 

programs at the six-digit CIP code and 

award level to IPEDS data, which results 

in 5,823 programs that meet the 

threshold and another 1,300 cases that 

would be reported at the institutional 

level (236 IHEs with no programs over 

25 new teachers and 1,064 IHEs with 

some programs above the threshold and 

others below it). Of these 7,123 

programs, approximately 4,723 

programs or 66 percent are at IHEs that 

have disbursed TEACH Grants between 

academic year (AY) 2008–09 to AY 

2010–11. 

Alternatively, the States could elect to 

report programs under a disaggregated 

approach that defines programs by the 

six-digit CIP code, award level, and no 

minimum number of graduates that 

results in an estimated 24,497 programs 

(Approach 2). This estimate may be 

reduced in any given year because 

States are not required to report on 

programs if doing so would be 

inconsistent with Federal or State 

privacy and confidentiality laws and 

regulations, and the number of programs 

affected by this provision will vary year 

to year. Of the 24,497 total estimated 

programs, approximately 16,721 are at 

IHEs that have participated in the 

TEACH Grant program and might be 

subject to a loss of funds if designated 

as low-performing or at-risk by the State 

in which they are located. 

Table 1 summarizes these two 

possible approaches to program 

definition that represent the opposite 

ends of the range of options available to 

the States. Based on IPEDS data, 

approximately 30 percent of programs 

defined at the six digit CIP code level 

have at least 25 new teachers when 

aggregated across three years, so States 

may add one additional year to the 

analysis or aggregate programs with 

similar features to push more programs 

over the threshold, pursuant to the 

regulations. The actual number of 

programs at IHEs reported on will likely 

fall between these two points 

represented by Approach 1 and 

Approach 2. In addition, as discussed 

earlier in this preamble, States will have 

to report on alternative certification 

teacher preparation programs that are 

not housed at IHEs, but they are not 

relevant for analysis of the effects on 

TEACH Grants because they are 

ineligible under the HEA and are not 

included in Table 1. The Department 

welcomes comments related to the 

estimate of the number of programs and 

will consider them in drafting the final 

regulations. 

TABLE 1—TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS AT IHES AND TEACH GRANT PROGRAM

Approach 1 Approach 2 

Total TEACH grant 

participating Total TEACH grant participating 

Public Total ...................................................................................................... 2,522 1,795 11,931 8,414 

4-year ........................................................................................................ 2,365 1,786 11,353 8,380 

2-year or less ............................................................................................ 157 9 578 34 

Private Not-for-Profit Total ............................................................................... 1,879 1,212 12,316 8,175 

4-year ........................................................................................................ 1,878 1,212 12,313 8,175 

2-year or less ............................................................................................ 1 ........................ 3 ........................

Private For-Profit Total .................................................................................... 67 39 250 132 

4-year ........................................................................................................ 59 39 238 132 

2-year or less ............................................................................................ 8 ........................ 12 ........................

Total ................................................................................................... 4,468 3,046 24,497 16,721 

Given the number of programs and 

their TEACH Grant participation status 

as described in Table 1, the Department 

examined IPEDS data and the 

Department’s budget estimates for 2015 

related to TEACH Grants to estimate the 

effect of the proposed regulations on 

TEACH Grants beginning with the 

FY2018 cohort when the regulations 

would be in effect. Based on prior 

reporting, only 37 IHEs (representing an 

estimated 129 programs) were identified 

as having a low-performing or at-risk 

program in 2010 and twenty-seven 

States have not identified any lowperforming programs in twelve years. 

Given prior identification of such 

programs and the fact that the States 

would continue to control the 

classification of teacher preparation 

programs subject to analysis, the 

Department does not expect a large 

percentage of programs to be subject to 

a loss of eligibility for TEACH Grants. 

Therefore, the Department evaluated the 

effects on the amount of TEACH Grants 

disbursed and recipients on the basis of 

the States classifying a range of three 

percent, five percent, or eight percent of 

programs to be low-performing or atrisk. These results are summarized in 

Table 2. Ultimately, the number of 

programs affected is subject to the 

program definition, rating criteria, and 

program classifications adopted by the 

individual States, so the distribution of 

those effects is not known with 

certainty. However, the maximum 

effect, whatever the distribution, is 

limited by the amount of TEACH Grants 

made and the percentage of programs 

classified as low-performing and at-risk 

that participate in the TEACH Grant 

program. The Department invites 

comments about the expected 

percentage of programs that will be 

found to be low-performing and at-risk 

and will take any comments or data 

received into consideration when 

analyzing the effects of the final 

regulations. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71868 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

82Robert Floden and Marco Meniketti, ‘‘Research 

on the Effects of Coursework in the Arts and 

Sciences and in the Foundations of Education,’’ 

Studying Teacher Education: The Report of the 

AERA Panel on Research and Teacher Education, 

Mahwah, NJ (2006): 261–308. 

83See, U.S. Department of Education, National 

Center for Education Statistics, Teacher Career 

Choices: Timing of Teacher Careers Among 1992– 

93 Bachelor’s Degree Recipients, Postsecondary 

Education Descriptive Analysis Report. 

Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education 

(2008). 

TABLE 2—ESTIMATED EFFECT IN 2018 ON PROGRAMS AND TEACH GRANT AMOUNTS OF DIFFERENT RATES OF

INELIGIBILITY

[Percentage of low-performing or at-risk programs] 

3% 5% 8% 

Programs: 

Approach 1 ........................................................................................................................... 134 223 357 

Approach 2 ........................................................................................................................... 735 1,225 1,960 

TEACH Grant Recipients ............................................................................................................. 1,051 1,751 2,802 

TEACH Grant Amount at Low-Performing or At-Risk programs ................................................. $3,032,769 $5,054,614 $8,087,383 

The estimated effects presented in 

Table 2 reflect assumptions about the 

likelihood of a program being ineligible 

and do not take into account the size of 

the program or participation in the 

TEACH Grant program. The Department 

had no program level performance 

information and treats the programs as 

equally likely to become ineligible for 

TEACH Grants. If in fact factors such as 

size or TEACH Grant participation were 

associated with high or low 

performance, the number of TEACH 

Grant recipients and TEACH Grant 

volume could deviate from these 

estimates. 

Finally, approximately 10 percent of 

TEACH Grant recipients are not 

enrolled in teacher preparation 

programs, but are majoring in such 

subjects as STEM, foreign languages, 

and history. The proposed regulations 

allow STEM programs at TEACH Granteligible institutions to participate in the 

TEACH Grant program provided that, 

over the most recent three years for 

which data are available, the Secretary 

has not identified that fewer than 60 

percent of the STEM program’s TEACH 

Grant recipients complete at least one 

year of teaching that fulfills the service 

obligation under § 686.40 within three 

years of completing their STEM 

program. Continuing eligibility for 

STEM programs supports the 

Department’s efforts to expand the pool 

of teachers in these crucial subjects and 

reflects research on the value of STEM 

subject matter expertise for STEM 

teachers.82 The requirement that 

programs have 60 percent of their 

TEACH Grant recipients complete at 

least one year of teaching that fulfills 

the service obligation under § 686.40 

should direct TEACH Grant funds to 

programs at IHEs that identify teacher 

candidates that follow up on their 

intention to teach. The Secretary 

believes that sixty percent is the 

appropriate percentage because it seems 

that TEACH grant recipients in the 

STEM fields should enter the teaching 

profession at the same rates as 

education majors and sixty percent of 

education majors teach within ten years 

of receiving their bachelor’s degree. We 

acknowledge that the overall rate of 

teaching is not the same as teaching in 

a high-need field in a low-income 

school, as is required under TEACH, but 

we think the rate is nonetheless 

reasonable because TEACH is designed 

to support future teachers, students who 

receive TEACH Grants commit to 

fulfilling their service obligations, and 

because TEACH recipients are highachieving students who attend highquality programs.83 We have chosen a 

three-year window in order to allow 

students time to complete their content 

training and to enter into and complete 

a teacher preparation program. For 

example, we expect that some of these 

students would need to enroll in and 

complete a Master’s degree to earn a 

teaching license. A three-year window 

would allow these students time to 

complete a Master’s degree and then 

begin fulfilling their TEACH Grant 

service obligations. The Secretary 

requests comments about this 

framework and particularly on whether 

such a framework is necessary to 

encourage STEM teachers who are 

receiving TEACH Grants to enter the 

teaching profession and teach in highneed schools. The Secretary also 

requests comments on the three-year 

window and on whether the sixty 

percent placement rate is a reasonable 

and realistic placement rate, or whether 

another rate, or no placement rate, 

would be more reasonable or could be 

supported with research, data, or other 

analysis. 

Whatever the amount of TEACH Grant 

volume at programs found to be 

ineligible, the effect on IHEs will be 

reduced from the full amounts 

represented by the estimated effects 

presented here as students could elect to 

enroll in other programs at the same IHE 

that retain eligibility because they are 

classified by the State as effective or 

higher. Another factor that would 

reduce the effect of the regulations on 

programs and students is that an 

otherwise eligible student who received 

a TEACH Grant for enrollment in a 

TEACH Grant-eligible program or 

TEACH Grant-eligible STEM program is 

eligible to receive additional TEACH 

Grants to complete the program, even if 

that program becomes no longer 

considered a TEACH Grant-eligible 

program or a TEACH Grant-eligible 

STEM program. 

For the broader set of IHEs, we would 

expect that over time a large portion of 

the TEACH Grant volume now 

disbursed to students at programs that 

will be categorized as low-performing or 

at-risk will be shifted to programs that 

remain eligible. The extent to which this 

happens will depend on other factors 

affecting the students’ enrollment 

decisions such as in-State status, 

proximity to home or future 

employment locations, and the 

availability of programs of interest, but 

the Department believes that students 

will take into account a program’s rating 

and the availability of TEACH Grants 

when looking for a teacher preparation 

program. As discussed in the Net 

Budget Impacts section of this notice, 

the Department expects that the 

reduction in TEACH Grant volume will 

taper off as States identify lowperforming and at-risk programs and 

those programs are improved or are no 

longer eligible for TEACH Grants. 

Because existing recipients as of the 

effective date will continue to have 

access to TEACH Grants, and incoming 

students will have notice and be able to 

consider the program’s eligibility for 

TEACH Grants in making an enrollment 

decision, the reduction in TEACH Grant 

volume that is classified as a transfer 

from students at ineligible programs to 

the Federal Government will be 

significantly reduced from the estimated 

range of $3.0 million to $8.3 million in 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71869 

Table 2 for the initial years the 

regulations are in effect. While we have 

no past experience with students’ 

reaction to a designation of a program as 

low-performing and loss of TEACH 

Grant eligibility, we assume that, to the 

extent it is possible, students would 

choose to attend a program rated 

effective or higher. For IHEs, the effect 

of the loss of TEACH Grant funds will 

depend on the student reaction and how 

many chose to enroll in an eligible 

program at the same IHE, choose to 

attend a different IHE, or make up for 

the loss of TEACH Grants by funding 

their program from other sources. 

In addition to the potential reduction 

in funds from the loss of TEACH Grant 

eligibility or the loss of title IV 

eligibility for programs that lose State 

approval or financial support, IHEs with 

teacher preparation programs may incur 

some reporting costs related to the 

TEACH Grant and title IV provisions in 

the proposed regulations. An IHE would 

have to confirm that its TEACH Granteligible STEM programs fall within the 

CIP codes on a list provided by the 

Department. We estimate that 1,000 

IHEs with TEACH Grant-eligible STEM 

programs would take 3 hours at a wage 

rate of $25.22 to complete this task for 

a total cost of $75,660. Additionally, 

while the Department does not 

anticipate that many programs will lose 

State approval or financial support, if 

this does occur, IHEs with such 

programs would have to notify enrolled 

and accepted students immediately, 

notify the Department within 30 days, 

and disclose such information on its 

Web site or promotional materials. The 

Department estimates that 50 IHEs 

would offer programs that lose State 

approval or financial support and would 

take 5.75 hours to make the necessary 

notifications and disclosures at a wage 

rate of $25.22 for a total cost of $7,250. 

Finally, some of the programs that lose 

State approval or financial support may 

apply to regain eligibility for title IV, 

HEA funds upon improved performance 

and restoration of State approval or 

financial support. The Department 

estimates that 10 IHEs with such 

programs would apply for restored 

eligibility and the process would require 

20 hours at a wage rate of $25.22 for a 

total cost of $5,040. 

The Secretary welcomes comments 

about the data and estimates presented 

here and will consider them in 

evaluating the final regulations. 

V. Net Budget Impacts 

The proposed regulations related to 

the implementation of the TEACH Grant 

program are estimated to have a net 

budget impact of $0.67 million in cost 

reduction over the 2014 to 2024 loan 

cohorts. These estimates were 

developed using the Office of 

Management and Budget’s (OMB) Credit 

Subsidy Calculator. The OMB calculator 

takes projected future cash flows from 

the Department’s student loan cost 

estimation model and produces 

discounted subsidy rates reflecting the 

net present value of all future Federal 

costs associated with awards made in a 

given fiscal year. Values are calculated 

using a ‘‘basket of zeros’’ methodology 

under which each cash flow is 

discounted using the interest rate of a 

zero-coupon Treasury bond with the 

same maturity as that cash flow. To 

ensure comparability across programs, 

this methodology is incorporated into 

the calculator and used Governmentwide to develop estimates of the Federal 

cost of credit programs. Accordingly, 

the Department believes it is the 

appropriate methodology to use in 

developing estimates for these proposed 

regulations. That said, in developing the 

following Accounting Statement, the 

Department consulted with OMB on 

how to integrate our discounting 

methodology with the discounting 

methodology traditionally used in 

developing regulatory impact analyses. 

Absent evidence of the impact of 

these proposed regulations on student 

behavior, budget cost estimates were 

based on behavior as reflected in 

various Department data sets and 

longitudinal surveys. Program cost 

estimates were generated by running 

projected cash flows related to the 

provision through the Department’s 

student loan cost estimation model. 

TEACH Grant cost estimates are 

developed across risk categories: 

Freshmen/sophomores at 4-year IHEs, 

juniors/seniors at 4-year IHEs, and 

graduate students. Risk categories have 

separate assumptions based on the 

historical pattern of behavior of 

borrowers in each category—for 

example, the likelihood of default or the 

likelihood to use statutory deferment or 

discharge benefits. 

As discussed in the Analysis of the 

Effect of the Proposed Regulations on 

TEACH Grants section of this notice, the 

proposed regulations could result in a 

reduction in TEACH Grant volume. 

Under the effective dates and data 

collection schedule in the proposed 

regulations, that reduction in volume 

would start with the 2020 TEACH Grant 

cohort. The Department assumes that 

the effect of the proposed regulations 

would be greatest in the first years they 

were in effect as the low-performing and 

at-risk programs are identified, removed 

from TEACH Grant eligibility, and 

helped to improve or replaced by better 

performing programs. Therefore, the 

percent of volume estimated to be at 

programs in the low-performing or atrisk categories is assumed to drop for 

future cohorts. As shown in Table 3, the 

net budget impact over the 2014–2024 

TEACH Grant cohorts is approximately 

$0.67 million in reduced costs. 

TABLE 3—ESTIMATED BUDGET IMPACT OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS

[PB 2015 TEACH grant volume and recipient estimates] 

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 

PB 2015 TEACH Grant: 

Recipients ..................................................................... 36,429 36,910 37,396 37,890 38,391 

Amount .......................................................................... 105,149,650 106,537,976 107,944,631 109,369,859 110,813,906 

Low Performing and At Risk: 

% ................................................................................... 5.00% 3.00% 1.50% 1.00% 0.75% 

Recipients ..................................................................... 1,821 1,107 561 379 288 

Amount .......................................................................... 5,257,483 3,196,139 1,619,169 1,093,699 831,104

Redistributed TEACH Grants: 

% ................................................................................... 75% 75% 75% 75% 75% 

Amount .......................................................................... 3,943,112 2,397,104 1,214,377 820,274 623,328 

Reduced TEACH Grant Volume: 

% ................................................................................... 25% 25% 25% 25% 25% 

262,874 199,759 134,931 136,712 69,259 

Estimated Budget Impact of Policy: 

Subsidy Rate ................................................................ 21.99% 22.44% 23.08% 23.08% 23.11% 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71870 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

TABLE 3—ESTIMATED BUDGET IMPACT OF PROPOSED REGULATIONS—Continued 

[PB 2015 TEACH grant volume and recipient estimates] 

2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 

Baseline Volume ........................................................... 105,149,650 106,537,976 107,944,631 109,369,859 110,813,906 

Revised Volume ............................................................ 103,835,279 105,738,941 107,539,839 109,096,434 110,606,130 

Baseline Cost ................................................................ 23,122,408 23,907,122 24,913,621 25,242,563 25,609,094 

Revised Cost ................................................................ 22,833,378 23,727,818 24,820,195 25,179,457 25,561,077 

Estimated Cost Reduction ............................................ 289,030 179,303 93,426 63,106 48,017 

The estimated budget impact 

presented in Table 3 is defined against 

the PB 2015 baseline costs for the 

TEACH Grant program, and the actual 

volume of TEACH Grants in 2020 and 

beyond will vary. The budget impact 

estimate depends on the assumptions 

about the percent of TEACH Grant 

volume at programs that become 

ineligible and the share of that volume 

that is redistributed or reduced as 

shown in Table 3. Finally, absent 

evidence of different rates of loan 

conversion at programs that will be 

eligible or ineligible for TEACH Grants 

when the proposed regulations are in 

place, the Department did not assume a 

different loan conversion rate as TEACH 

Grants shifted to programs rated 

effective or higher. However, given that 

placement and retention rates are one 

element of the program evaluation 

system, the Department does hope that, 

as students shift to programs rated 

effective or better, more TEACH Grant 

recipients will fulfill their service 

obligation. If this is the case and their 

TEACH Grants do not convert to loans, 

the students who do not have to repay 

the converted loans will benefit and the 

expected cost reductions for the Federal 

government may be reduced or reversed 

because more of the TEACH Grants will 

remain grants and no payment will be 

made to the Federal government for 

these grants. 

In addition to the TEACH Grant 

provision, the proposed regulations 

include a provision that would make a 

program ineligible for title IV, HEA 

funds if the program was found to be 

low-performing and subject to the 

withdrawal of the State’s approval or 

termination of the State’s financial 

support. The Department assumes this 

will happen rarely and that the title IV 

funds involved would be shifted to 

other programs. Therefore, there is no 

budget impact associated with this 

provision. 

The Department welcomes comments 

on the assumptions and estimates 

presented in this section and will 

consider any received in developing the 

final regulations. 

VI. Accounting Statement 

As required by OMB Circular A–4 

(available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/ 

default/files/omb/assets/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 these proposed 

regulations. This table provides our best 

estimate of the changes in annual 

monetized costs, benefits, and transfers 

as a result of the proposed regulations. 

ACCOUNTING STATEMENT CLASSIFICATION OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES

Category Benefits 

Better and more publicly available information on the effectiveness of teacher preparation programs ................ Not Quantified 

Distribution of TEACH Grants to better performing programs ................................................................................ Not Quantified 

Category Costs 

7% 3% 

Institutional Report Card (set-up, annual reporting, posting on Web site) ............................................................. $3,557,591 $3,554,635 

State Report Card (Statutory requirements: Annual reporting, posting on Web site; Regulatory requirements: 

Meaningful differentiation, consulting with stakeholders, aggregation of small programs, assurance of accreditation, other annual reporting costs) ............................................................................................................ $1,582,038 $1,569,326 

Reporting Student Learning Outcomes (develop model to link aggregate data on student achievement to 

teacher preparation programs, modifications to student growth models for non-tested grades and subjects, 

and measuring student growth) ........................................................................................................................... $18,718,081 $18,650,716 

Reporting Employment Outcomes (placement and retention data collection directly from IHEs or LEAs) ........... $2,289,940 $2,289,940 

Reporting Survey Results (developing survey instruments, annual administration, and response costs) ............. $15,965,862 $15,940,841 

Identifying TEACH Grant-eligible STEM Programs ................................................................................................. $77,882 $79,339 

Category Transfers 

Reduced costs to the Federal government from TEACH Grants to prospective students at teacher preparation 

programs found ineligible ..................................................................................................................................... ¥$83,344 ¥$74,161 

VII. Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis 

These proposed regulations will affect 

IHEs that participate in the title IV, HEA 

programs, including TEACH Grants, 

alternative certification programs not 

housed at IHEs, States, and individual 

borrowers. The U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA) Size Standards 

define for-profit IHEs as ‘‘small 

businesses’’ if they are independently 

owned and operated and not dominant 

in their field of operation with total 

annual revenue below $7,000,000. The 

SBA Size Standards define nonprofit 

IHEs as small organizations if they are 

independently owned and operated and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71871 

not dominant in their field of operation, 

or as small entities if they are IHEs 

controlled by governmental entities 

with populations below 50,000. The 

revenues involved in the sector affected 

by these proposed regulations, and the 

concentration of ownership of IHEs by 

private owners or public systems means 

that the number of title IV, HEA eligible 

IHEs that are small entities would be 

limited but for the fact that the 

nonprofit entities fit within the 

definition of a small organization 

regardless of revenue. The potential for 

some of the programs offered by entities 

subject to the proposed regulations to 

lose eligibility to participate in the title 

IV, HEA programs led to the preparation 

of this Initial Regulatory Flexibility 

Analysis. 

Description of the Reasons That Action 

by the Agency Is Being Considered 

The Department has a strong interest 

in encouraging the development of 

highly trained teachers and ensuring 

that today’s children have a high quality 

and effective teachers in the classroom, 

and it seeks to help achieve this goal by 

promulgating these proposed 

regulations. Teacher preparation 

programs have operated without access 

to meaningful data that could inform 

them of the effectiveness of their 

teachers that graduate and go on to work 

in the classroom setting. 

The Department wants to establish a 

teacher preparation feedback 

mechanism premised upon teacher 

effectiveness. Under the proposed 

regulations, an accountability system 

would be established that would 

identify programs by quality so that 

high-performing teacher preparation 

programs could be recognized and 

rewarded and low-performing programs 

could be supported and improved. Data 

collected under the new system would 

help all teacher preparation programs 

make necessary corrections and 

continuously improve, while facilitating 

States’ efforts to reshape and reform 

low-performing and at-risk programs. 

Succinct Statement of the Objectives of, 

and Legal Basis for, the Regulations 

We are proposing these regulations to 

better implement the teacher 

preparation program accountability and 

reporting system under title II of the 

HEA and to revise regulations to 

implement the TEACH grant program. 

Our key objective is to revise Federal 

reporting requirements to reduce 

institutional burden, as appropriate, and 

have State reporting focus on the most 

important measures of teacher 

preparation program quality while tying 

TEACH Grant eligibility to assessments 

of program performance under the title 

II accountability system. The legal basis 

for these proposed regulations is 20 

U.S.C. 1022d, 1022f, and 1070g, et seq. 

Description of and, Where Feasible, an 

Estimate of the Number of Small 

Entities to Which the Regulations Will 

Apply 

The proposed regulations related to 

title II reporting affect a larger number 

of entities, including small entities, than 

the smaller number subject to the 

possible loss of TEACH Grant eligibility 

or title IV, HEA program eligibility. The 

Department has more data on teacher 

preparation programs housed at IHEs 

than on those independent of IHEs. 

Whether evaluated at the aggregated 

institutional level or the disaggregated 

program level, State approved teacher 

preparation programs are concentrated 

in the public and private not-for-profit 

sectors. For the provisions related to the 

TEACH Grant program and using the 

institutional approach with a threshold 

of 25 new teachers (or a lower threshold 

at the discretion of the State), since the 

IHEs will be reporting for all their 

programs, we estimate that 

approximately 56.4 percent of teacher 

preparation programs are at public 

IHEs—the vast majority of which would 

not be small entities, and 42.1 percent 

are at private not-for-profit IHEs. The 

remaining 1.5 percent are at private forprofit IHEs and of those with teacher 

preparation programs, approximately 11 

percent had reported FY 2012 total 

revenues under $7 million in IPEDS 

data. Based on IPEDS data, 

approximately 65 IHEs offering teacher 

preparation programs, seven of which 

participated in the TEACH Grant 

program in the past three years, are 

small entities as shown in Table 4. 

TABLE 4—TEACHER PREPARATION PROGRAMS AT SMALL ENTITIES

Total 

programs 

Programs at 

small entities % of Total 

Programs at 

TEACH grant 

participating 

small entities 

Public 

Approach 1 ............................................................................................... 2,522 17 1 14 

Approach 2 ............................................................................................... 11,931 36 0 34 

Private Not-for-Profit 

Approach 1 ............................................................................................... 1,879 1,879 100 1,212 

Approach 2 ............................................................................................... 12,316 12,316 100 8,175 

Private For-Profit 

Approach 1 ............................................................................................... 67 12 18 1 

Approach 2 ............................................................................................... 250 38 15 21 

Source: IPEDS 

Note: Table includes programs at IHEs 

only. 

The Department has no indication 

that programs at small entities are more 

likely to be ineligible for TEACH Grants 

or title IV, HEA funds. Since all private 

not-for-profit IHEs are considered to be 

small because none are dominant in the 

field, we would expect about 5 percent 

of TEACH Grant volume at teacher 

preparation programs at private not-forprofit IHEs to be at ineligible programs. 

In 2012–13, approximately 48 percent of 

TEACH Grant disbursements went to 

private not-for-profit IHEs, and by 

applying that to the estimated TEACH 

Grant volume in 2017 of $101,092,285, 

the Department estimates that TEACH 

Grant volume at private not-for-profit 

IHEs in 2017 would be approximately 

$48.5 million. At the five percent lowperforming or at-risk rate assumed in 

the TEACH Grants portion of the Cost, 

Benefits, and Transfers section of the 

Regulatory Impact Analysis, TEACH 

Grant revenues would be reduced by 

approximately $2.4 million at programs 

at private not-for-profit entities in the 

initial year the proposed regulations are 

in effect and a lesser amount after that. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71872 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Much of this revenue could be shifted 

to eligible programs within the IHE or 

the sector, and the cost to programs 

would be greatly reduced by students 

substituting other sources of funds for 

the TEACH Grants. 

Description of the Projected Reporting, 

Recordkeeping and Other Compliance 

Requirements of the Regulations, 

Including an Estimate of the Classes of 

Small Entities that Will Be Subject to the 

Requirement and the Type of 

Professional Skills Necessary for 

Preparation of the Report or Record 

In addition to the teacher preparation 

programs at IHEs included in Table 4, 

approximately 1,281 alternative 

certification programs offered outside of 

IHEs are subject to the reporting 

requirements in the proposed 

regulations. The Department assumes 

that a significant majority of these 

programs are offered by non-profit 

entities and are not dominant in the 

field, so all of the alternative 

certification teacher preparation 

programs are considered to be small 

entities. However, the reporting burden 

for these programs falls on the States. As 

discussed in the Paperwork Reduction 

Act section of this notice, the estimated 

total paperwork burden on IHEs would 

decrease by 103,051 hours. Small 

entities would benefit from this relief 

from the current institutional reporting 

requirements. 

Identification, to the Extent Practicable, 

of All Relevant Federal Regulations 

That May Duplicate, Overlap or Conflict 

With the Proposed Regulation 

The proposed regulations are unlikely 

to conflict with or duplicate existing 

Federal regulations. 

Alternatives Considered 

As described above, the Department 

participated in Negotiated Rulemaking 

in developing the proposed regulations 

and considered a number of options for 

some of the provisions including the 

definition of a teacher preparation 

program and the definition of a highquality teacher preparation program for 

purposes of TEACH Grant eligibility. No 

alternatives focused specifically on 

small entities. 

Clarity of the Regulations 

Executive Order 12866 and the 

Presidential memorandum ‘‘Plain 

Language in Government Writing’’ 

require each agency to write regulations 

that are easy to understand. 

The Secretary invites comments on 

how to make these proposed regulations 

easier to understand, including answers 

to questions such as the following: 

• Are the requirements in the 

proposed regulations clearly stated? 

• Do the proposed regulations contain 

technical terms or other wording that 

interferes with their clarity? 

• Does the format of the proposed 

regulations (grouping and order of 

sections, use of headings, paragraphing, 

etc.) aid or reduce their clarity? 

• Would the proposed regulations be 

easier to understand if we divided them 

into more (but shorter) sections? (A 

‘‘section’’ is preceded by the symbol 

‘‘§ ’’ and a numbered heading; for 

example, § 686.3 Duration of student 

eligibility.) 

• Could the description of the 

proposed regulations in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this preamble be more helpful in 

making the proposed regulations easier 

to understand? If so, how? 

• What else could we do to make the 

proposed regulations easier to 

understand? 

To send any comments that concern 

how the Department could make these 

proposed regulations easier to 

understand, see the instructions in the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

As part of its continuing effort to 

reduce paperwork and respondent 

burden, the Department provides the 

general public and Federal agencies 

with an opportunity to comment on 

proposed and continuing collections of 

information in accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) 

(44 U.S.C. 3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps 

ensure that: The public understands the 

Department’s collection instructions, 

respondents can provide the requested 

data in the desired format, reporting 

burden (time and financial resources) is 

minimized, collection instruments are 

clearly understood, and the Department 

can properly assess the impact of 

collection requirements on respondents. 

Sections 612.3, 612.4, 612.5, 612.6, 

612.7, 612.8, and 686.2 contain 

information collection requirements. 

Under the PRA, the Department has 

submitted a copy of these sections to 

OMB for its review. 

A Federal agency may not conduct or 

sponsor a collection of information 

unless OMB approves the collection 

under the PRA and the corresponding 

information collection instrument 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. Notwithstanding any other 

provision of law, no person is required 

to comply with, or is subject to penalty 

for failure to comply with, a collection 

of information if the collection 

instrument does not display a currently 

valid OMB control number. 

In the final regulations, we will 

display the control numbers assigned by 

OMB to any information collection 

requirements proposed in this NPRM 

and adopted in the final regulations. 

Start-Up and Annual Reporting Burden 

These proposed regulations execute a 

statutory requirement that IHEs and 

States establish an information and 

accountability system through which 

IHEs and States report on the 

performance of their teacher preparation 

programs. Because parts of the proposed 

regulation would require IHEs and 

States to establish or scale up certain 

systems and processes in order to 

collect information necessary for annual 

reporting, IHEs and States may incur 

one-time start-up costs for developing 

those systems and processes. The 

burden associated with start-up and 

annual reporting is reported separately 

in this statement. 

Section 612.3—Reporting Requirements 

for the Institutional Report Cards 

Section 205(a) of the HEA requires 

that each IHE that provides a teacher 

preparation program leading to State 

certification or licensure report on a 

statutorily enumerated series of data 

elements for the programs it provides. 

The Higher Education Opportunity Act 

of 2008 (HEOA) revised a number of the 

reporting requirements for IHEs. 

The proposed regulations under 

§ 612.3(a) would require that beginning 

on April 1, 2017, and annually 

thereafter, each IHE that conducts 

traditional or alternative route teacher 

preparation programs leading to State 

initial teacher certification or licensure 

and enrolls students receiving title IV, 

HEA funds report to the State on the 

quality of its programs using an IRC 

prescribed by the Secretary. 

Start-Up Burden 

Entity-Level and Program-Level 

Reporting 

Under the current IRC, IHEs typically 

report at the entity level rather than the 

program level. For example, if an IHE 

offers multiple teacher preparation 

programs in a range of subject areas (for 

example, music education and special 

education), that IHE gathers data on 

each of those programs, aggregates the 

data, and reports the required 

information as a single teacher 

preparation entity on a single report 

card. Under the proposed regulations 

and for the reasons discussed in the 

preamble to this notice of proposed 

rulemaking, reporting would now be 

required at the teacher preparation 

program level rather than at the entity 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71873 

level. No additional data must be 

gathered as a consequence of this 

regulatory requirement; instead, IHEs 

would simply report the required data 

before, rather than after, aggregation. 

As a consequence, IHEs would not be 

required to alter appreciably their 

systems for data collection. However, 

the Department acknowledges that in 

order to communicate disaggregated 

data, minimal recordkeeping 

adjustments may be necessary. The 

Department estimates that initial burden 

for each IHE to adjust its recordkeeping 

systems would be 4 hours per entity. In 

the most recent year for which data are 

available, 1,522 IHEs reported required 

data to the Department through the IRC. 

Therefore, the Department estimates 

that the one-time total burden for IHEs 

to adjust recordkeeping systems would 

be 6,088 hours (1,522 IHEs multiplied 

by 4 burden hours per IHE). 

Subtotal of Start-Up Burden Under 

§ 612.3 

The Department believes that IHEs’ 

experience during prior title II reporting 

cycles has provided sufficient 

knowledge to ensure that IHEs will not 

incur any significant start-up burden, 

except for the change from entity-level 

to program-level reporting described 

above. Therefore, the subtotal of start-up 

burden for § 612.3 is 6,088 hours. 

Annual Reporting Burden 

Changes to the Institutional Report Card 

For a number of years IHEs have 

gathered successfully, aggregated, and 

reported data on teacher preparation 

program characteristics, including those 

required under the HEOA, to the 

Department using the IRC approved 

under OMB control number 1840–0744. 

The required reporting elements of the 

IRC principally concern admissions 

criteria, student characteristics, clinical 

preparation, numbers of teachers 

prepared, accreditation of the program, 

and the pass rates and scaled scores of 

teacher candidates on State teacher 

certification and licensure 

examinations. 

The Department received numerous 

comments from non-Federal negotiators 

about the current IRC during the 

negotiated rulemaking process. The 

non-Federal negotiators provided advice 

based on first-hand experience with the 

IRC and from their knowledge of 

research on the relative predictive value 

of certain elements in the IRC. Based on 

these comments, the Department 

eliminated or changed many of the IRC 

elements to maximize the collection of 

useful, meaningful data while limiting 

the reporting burden on IHEs. 

Under the proposed regulations, IHEs 

would no longer be required to respond 

to certain elements in the IRC. We 

would eliminate a number of elements 

relating to admissions criteria (e.g., 

whether the IHE required a personality 

test or a recommendation for 

admission). In their place, we would 

add quantitative elements on the 

admission of students, including 

median incoming GPA and standardized 

test scores, if applicable. The 

Department was informed by nonFederal negotiators that IHEs already 

collect these data. Reporting them 

would both provide more useful data to 

the public and prospective students and 

still result in a net burden reduction in 

the number of elements reported by 

IHEs. 

Responding to the recommendations 

of non-Federal negotiators, the 

Department would further eliminate 

elements not required by statute that are 

burdensome to calculate, such as the 

average clock-hour requirements prior 

to clinical training, information on 

numbers of equivalent faculty, and 

prior-year pass rate and completer data 

that the Department is able to prepopulate. The Department would also 

change a number of elements requiring 

IHEs to provide lengthy narrative 

responses. Instead, IHEs could respond 

using drop-down menu choices. Most 

significantly, due to more effective 

technological integration with testing 

companies, the Department contractor 

responsible for the IRC will perform the 

entry for all testing data, representing a 

significant reduction in burden for IHEs. 

The Department also responded to 

guidance from the higher education and 

teaching communities that the current 

IRC did not provide sufficiently 

meaningful quantitative and comparable 

data on the performance of teacher 

preparation programs. The Department 

attempted to limit the reporting burden 

on IHEs while ensuring that statutorily 

required and meaningful elements 

would provide useful data on a 

quantitative and easily-comparable 

basis. The IRC required under the 

proposed regulations would not depart 

significantly from the existing IRC, 

except to the extent that elements would 

be eliminated or IHEs would report data 

already readily accessible. 

Given all of these reporting changes, 

the Department estimates that each IHE 

would require 68 fewer burden hours to 

prepare the revised IRC annually. The 

Department estimated that each IHE 

would require 146 hours to complete 

the current IRC approved by OMB. 

There would thus be an annual burden 

of 78 hours to complete the revised IRC 

(146 hours minus 68 hours in reduced 

data collection). The Department 

estimates that 1,522 IHEs would 

respond to the IRC required under the 

proposed regulations, based on 

reporting figures from the most recent 

year data are available. Therefore, 

reporting data using the IRC would 

represent a total annual reporting 

burden of 118,716 hours (78 hours 

multiplied by 1,522 IHEs). 

Entity-Level and Program-Level 

Reporting 

As noted in the start-up burden 

section of § 612.3, under the current 

IRC, IHEs report teacher preparation 

program data at the entity level. The 

proposed regulations would require that 

each IHE report disaggregated data at 

the teacher preparation program level. 

The Department believes this proposed 

regulatory requirement would not 

require any additional data collection or 

appreciably alter the time needed to 

calculate data reported to the 

Department. However, the Department 

believes that some additional reporting 

burden would exist for IHEs’ electronic 

input and submission of disaggregated 

data because each IHE typically houses 

multiple teacher preparation programs. 

Based on the most recent year of data 

available, the Department estimates that 

there are 22,312 teacher preparation 

programs at 1,522 IHEs nationwide. 

Based on these figures, the Department 

estimates that on average, each of these 

IHEs offers 14.65 teacher preparation 

programs. Because each IHE already 

collects disaggregated IRC data, the 

Department estimates it will take each 

IHE one additional hour to fill in 

existing disaggregated data into the 

electronic IRC for each teacher 

preparation program it offers. Because 

IHEs already have to submit an IRC for 

the IHE, the added burden for reporting 

on a program level would be 13.65 

hours (an average of 14.65 programs at 

one hour per program, minus the 

existing submission of one IRC for the 

IHE, or 13.65 hours). Therefore, each 

IHE will incur an average burden 

increase of 13.65 hours (1 hour 

multiplied by an average of 13.65 

teacher preparation programs at each 

IHE), and there will be an overall 

burden increase of 20,775 hours each 

year associated with this proposed 

regulatory reporting requirement (13.65 

multiplied by 1,522 IHEs). 

Posting on the Institution’s Web Site 

The proposed regulations would also 

require that the IHE provide the 

information reported on the IRC to the 

general public by prominently and 

promptly posting the IRC information 

on the IHE’s Web site. Because the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71874 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Department believes it is reasonable to 

assume that an IHE offering a teacher 

preparation program and 

communicating data related to that 

program by electronic means maintains 

a Web site, the Department presumes 

that posting such information to an 

already-existing Web site would 

represent a minimal burden increase. 

The Department therefore estimates that 

IHEs would require 0.5 hours (30 

minutes) to meet this requirement. This 

would represent a total burden increase 

of 761 hours each year for all IHEs (0.5 

hours multiplied by 1,522 IHEs). 

Subtotal of Annual Reporting Burden 

Under § 612.3 

Aggregating the annual burdens 

calculated under the preceding sections 

results in the following burdens: 

Together, all IHEs would incur a total 

burden of 118,716 hours to develop the 

systems needed to meet the 

requirements of the revised IRC, 20,775 

hours to report program-level data, and 

761 hours to post IRC data to their Web 

sites. This would constitute a total 

burden of 140,252 hours of annual 

burden nationwide. 

Total Institutional Report Card 

Reporting Burden 

Aggregating the start-up and annual 

burdens calculated under the preceding 

sections results in the following 

burdens: Together, all IHEs would incur 

a total start-up burden under § 612.3 of 

6,088 hours and a total annual reporting 

burden under § 612.3 of 140,252 hours. 

This would constitute a total burden of 

146,340 total burden hours under 

§ 612.3 nationwide. 

The burden estimate for the existing 

IRC approved under OMB control 

number 1840–0744 was 146 hours for 

each IHE with a teacher preparation 

program. When the current IRC was 

established, the Department estimated 

that 1,250 IHEs would provide 

information using the electronic 

submission of the form for a total 

burden of 182,500 hours for all IHEs 

(1,250 IHEs multiplied by 146 hours). 

Applying these estimates to the current 

number of IHEs that are required to 

report (1,522) would constitute a burden 

of 222,212 hours (1,522 IHEs multiplied 

by 146 hours). Based on these estimates, 

the revised IRC would constitute a net 

burden reduction of 75,872 hours 

nationwide (222,212 hours minus 

146,340 hours). 

Section 612.4—Reporting Requirements 

for the State Report Card 

Section 205(b) of the HEA requires 

that each State that receives funds under 

the HEA provide to the Secretary and 

make widely available to the public not 

less than the statutorily required 

specific information on the quality of 

traditional and alternative route teacher 

preparation programs. The State must 

do so in a uniform and comprehensible 

manner, conforming with definitions 

and methods established by the 

Secretary. Section 205(c) of the HEA 

directs the Secretary to prescribe 

regulations to ensure the validity, 

reliability, accuracy, and integrity of the 

data submitted. Section 206(b) requires 

that IHEs assure the Secretary that their 

teacher training programs respond to the 

needs of local educational agencies, be 

closely linked with the instructional 

decisions new teachers confront in the 

classroom, and prepare candidates to 

work with diverse populations and in 

urban and rural settings, as applicable. 

Executing the relevant statutory 

directives, the proposed regulations 

under § 612.4(a) would require that 

starting April 1, 2018, and annually 

thereafter, each State report on the SRC 

the quality of all approved teacher 

preparation programs in the State, 

whether or not they enroll students 

receiving Federal assistance under the 

HEA, including distance education 

programs. This new SRC, to be 

implemented in 2018, is an update of 

the current SRC. The State must also 

make the SRC information widely 

available to the general public by 

posting the information on the State’s 

Web site. 

Section 103(20) of the HEA and 

§ 612.2(d) of the proposed regulations 

define ‘‘State’’ to include nine locations 

in addition to the 50 States: The 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the 

District of Columbia, Guam, American 

Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, 

the Commonwealth of the Northern 

Mariana Islands, the Freely Associated 

States, which include the Republic of 

the Marshall Islands, the Federated 

States of Micronesia, and Republic of 

Palau. For this reason, all reporting 

required of States explicitly enumerated 

under § 205(b) of the HEA (and the 

related portions of the regulations, 

specifically §§ 612.4(a) and 612.6(b)), 

apply to these 59 States. However, 

certain additional regulatory 

requirements (specifically §§ 612.4(b), 

612.4(c), 612.5, and 612.6(a)) only apply 

to the 50 States of the Union, the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the 

District of Columbia. The burden 

estimates under those portions of this 

report apply to those 52 States. For a 

fuller discussion of the reasons for the 

application of certain regulatory 

provisions to different States, see the 

preamble to this notice of proposed 

rulemaking. 

Entity-Level and Program-Level 

Reporting 

As noted in the start-up and annual 

burden sections of § 612.3, under the 

current information collection process, 

data are collected at the entity level, and 

the proposed regulations would require 

data reporting at the program level. In 

2013, States reported to the Department 

for the first time on the number of 

programs offered in their States. In that 

collection, which covers the 2011–2012 

academic year, States reported that there 

were 25,000 teacher preparation 

programs offered, including 22,312 at 

IHEs and 2,688 through alternative route 

teacher preparation programs not 

associated with IHEs. Given that 2013 

was the first reporting year for this 

metric, it is possible that there is some 

error in the reporting. However, as 

noted in subsequent sections of this 

burden statement, these reported data 

are within the bounds of other estimates 

we have calculated. Because the 

remainder of the data reporting 

discussed in this burden statement is 

transmitted using the SRC, for those 

burden estimates concerning reporting 

on the basis of teacher preparation 

programs, the Department uses the 

estimate of 25,000 teacher preparation 

programs. 

Start Up and Annual Burden Under 

§ 612.4(a) 

Section 612.4(a) would codify State 

reporting requirements expressly 

referenced in section 205(b) of the HEA; 

the remainder of § 612.4 would provide 

for reporting consistent with the 

directives to the Secretary under 

Sections 205(b) and (c) and the required 

assurance described in Section 206(c). 

The HEOA revised a number of the 

reporting requirements for States. The 

requirements of the SRC are more 

numerous than those contained in the 

IRC, but the reporting elements required 

in both are similar in many respects. In 

addition, the Department has 

successfully integrated reporting to the 

extent that data reported by IHEs in the 

IRC is pre-populated in the relevant 

fields on which the States are required 

to report in the SRC. In addition to the 

elements discussed in § 612.3 of this 

burden statement regarding the IRC, 

under the statute a State must also 

report on its certification and licensure 

requirements and standards, state-wide 

pass rates and scaled scores, shortages 

of highly qualified teachers, and 

information related to low-performing 

or at-risk teacher preparation programs 

in the State. 

The SRC currently in use, approved 

under OMB control number 1840–0744, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71875 

84For an analysis of the basis for this reduction 

estimate, see the Department of Education 

Information Collection System at http://

edicsweb.ed.gov/ and select collection number 

04871 under ‘‘browse pending collections.’’ 

collects information on these elements. 

States have been successfully reporting 

information under this collection for 

many years. The burden estimate for the 

existing SRC was 911 burden hours per 

State. In the burden estimate for that 

SRC, the Department reported that 59 

States were required to report data, 

equivalent to the current requirements. 

This represented a total burden of 

53,749 hours for all States (59 States 

multiplied by 911 hours). This burden 

calculation was made on entity-level, 

rather than program-level, reporting (for 

a more detailed discussion of the 

consequences of this issue, see the 

sections on entity-level and programlevel reporting in §§ 612.3 and 612.4). 

However, because relevant programlevel data reported by the IHEs on the 

IRC will be pre-populated for States on 

the SRC, the burden associated with 

program-level reporting under § 612.4(a) 

will be minimal. Those elements that 

will require additional burden are 

discussed in the subsequent paragraphs 

of this section. 

Elements Changed in the State Report 

Card 

The Department received numerous 

comments from non-Federal negotiators 

regarding the SRC during the negotiated 

rulemaking process; many of the nonFederal negotiators have direct 

experience with the relative efficacy and 

burden of the various SRC reporting 

requirements. Based on these 

comments, the Department eliminated 

or changed a number of SRC elements 

to maximize the collection of 

meaningful data while minimizing 

burden. Under the proposed regulations, 

States would no longer be required to 

respond to certain elements in the SRC. 

We eliminated a number of elements 

relating to admissions criteria for 

programs (similar to those eliminated 

from the IRC). We would put in their 

place quantitative elements on the 

admission of students, including 

median incoming GPA and standardized 

test scores, if applicable. The 

Department was informed by nonFederal negotiators that schools already 

collect these data and reporting them 

would both provide more useful data 

and still result in a net burden reduction 

in the number of elements reported. 

Because the Department must 

continue to collect IRC and SRC data 

until the proposed reporting 

requirements are effective, the 

Department, prior to the development of 

this notice of proposed rulemaking, 

submitted a proposed information 

collection to OMB84 that reflected the 

basis for some of the proposed changes 

to the SRC. We calculated there that the 

estimated burden would be reduced 

from 911 hours per State to 250 hours 

per State. While the Department has not 

yet completed analyzing comments on 

this Information Collection Request 

(ICR), the burden decrease expected 

under that ICR is due in part to the 

elimination of a number of data fields. 

That revised burden estimate also 

reflects States’ experience with filling 

out the SRC (including, for example, 

databases of demographic data compiled 

by States) and pre-populating of 

previous years’ data. Most significantly, 

the burden reduction represents the 

successful technical integration between 

test companies and the Department’s 

title II contractor, such that all testrelated data are managed, calculated, 

and uploaded by the test companies and 

contractor, with no additional burden 

incurred by States. 

In addition to those changes reflected 

in the ICR sent to OMB, the Department, 

responding to the recommendations of 

non-Federal negotiators, also proposed 

to eliminate numerous other elements 

that are not required by statute, 

burdensome to calculate, and can be 

pre-populated (such as total program 

completers in prior years, certain 

specific requirements related to 

licensure requirements not indicative of 

program or teacher quality, and 

duplicative questions already asked in 

other portions of the SRC). The 

Department also proposes to change 

reporting some elements as lengthy 

narrative responses to drop-down 

menus. Elimination of these elements 

represents a significant burden 

reduction in reporting data using the 

SRC. The Department estimates that the 

elimination of these elements 

constitutes a burden reduction of 65 

hours for each State above the 

efficiencies identified in the information 

collection in the preceding paragraph. 

For filing the SRC, the total burden 

reduction is 80 percent for each State, 

equal to 726 hours of staff time annually 

(911 hours minus the 661 hours 

representing efficiencies identified in 

the proposed information collection, 

minus the 65 hours representing the 

additional burden reduction pursuant to 

the proposed regulations). New SRC 

filing burden time would be 185 hours 

per year for each State. 

At the request of non-Federal 

negotiators, the Department added some 

data fields to the SRC to reflect specific 

statutory provisions in § 205(b). These 

include additional demographic 

information, qualitative clinical data, 

and data on shortages of highly 

qualified teachers in specific subject 

areas. The Department estimates that 

providing this additional information 

would require an additional 50 hours 

for each State to gather and report. 

Using the above calculations, the 

Department estimates that the total 

reporting burden for each State would 

be 235 hours (185 hours for the revised 

SRC plus the additional statutory 

reporting requirements totaling 50 

hours). This would represent a 

reduction of 676 burden hours for each 

State to complete the requirements of 

the SRC, as compared to approved OMB 

collection 1840–0744 (911 burden hours 

under the current SRC compared to 235 

burden hours under the revised SRC). 

The total burden for States to report this 

information would be 13,865 hours (235 

hours multiplied by 59 States). 

Posting on the State’s Web Site 

The proposed regulations would also 

require that the State provide the 

information reported on the SRC to the 

general public by prominently and 

promptly posting the SRC information 

on the State’s Web site. Because the 

Department believes it is reasonable to 

assume that each State that 

communicates data related to its teacher 

preparation programs by electronic 

means maintains a Web site, the 

Department presumes that posting such 

information to an already-existing Web 

site would represent a minimal burden 

increase. The Department therefore 

estimates that States would require 0.5 

hours (30 minutes) to meet this 

requirement. This would represent a 

total burden increase of 29.5 hours each 

year for all IHEs (0.5 hours multiplied 

by 59 States). 

Subtotal § 612.4(a) Start-Up and Annual 

Reporting Burden 

As noted in the preceding discussion, 

there is no start-up burden associated 

solely with § 612.4(a). Therefore, the 

aggregate start-up and annual reporting 

burden associated with reporting 

elements under § 612.4(a) would be 

13,894.5 hours (235 hours multiplied by 

59 States plus 0.5 hours for each of the 

59 States). 

Reporting Required Under § 612.4(b) 

and § 612.4(c) 

The preceding burden discussion of 

§ 612.4 focused on burdens related to 

the reporting requirements required 

under section 205(b) of the HEA and 

codified in regulation at § 612.4(a). The 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71876 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

remaining burden discussion of § 612.4 

concerns regulatory reporting 

requirements required under 

§§ 612.4(b)–612.4(c). 

Start-Up Burden 

Meaningful Differentiations 

Under proposed § 612.4(b)(1), a State 

would be required to make meaningful 

differentiations in teacher preparation 

program performance using at least four 

performance levels—low-performing 

teacher preparation program, at-risk 

teacher preparation program, effective 

teacher preparation program, and 

exceptional teacher preparation 

program—based on the indicators in 

§ 612.5 and including, in significant 

part, employment outcome for highneed schools and student learning 

outcomes. 

The Department believes that State 

higher education authorities responsible 

for making State-level classifications of 

teacher preparation programs would 

require time to make meaningful 

differentiations in their classifications 

and determine whether alternative 

performance levels are warranted. States 

are required to consult with external 

stakeholders, review best practices by 

early adopter States that have more 

experience in program classification, 

and seek technical assistance. 

States would also have to determine 

how it would make such classifications. 

For example, a State may choose to 

classify all teacher preparation programs 

on an absolute basis using a cut-off 

score that weighs the various indicators, 

or a State may choose to classify teacher 

preparation programs on a relative basis, 

electing to classify a certain top 

percentile as exceptional, the next 

percentile as effective, and so on. In 

exercising this discretion, States may 

choose to consult with various external 

and internal parties and discuss lessons 

learned with those States already 

making such classifications of their 

teacher preparation programs. 

The Department estimates that each 

State would require 21 hours to make 

these determinations, and this would 

constitute a one-time total burden of 

1,092 hours (21 hours multiplied by 52 

States). 

As a part of the proposed regulation, 

a State would be required to classify 

each teacher preparation program on the 

basis of these differentiated performance 

levels using the indicators of academic 

content knowledge and teaching skills 

in § 612.5 (see the discussion of § 612.5 

for a detailed discussion of the burden 

associated with each of these 

indicators). 

The proposed regulatory requirement 

under § 612.4(b)(1) and § 612.4(b)(2) that 

States rely in significant part on 

employment outcomes in high-need 

schools and student learning outcomes 

and ensure that no program is deemed 

effective or higher unless it has 

satisfactory or higher student learning 

outcomes would not, in itself, create 

additional reporting requirements. (See 

discussion related to burden associated 

with reporting student learning 

outcomes in the start-up burden section 

of § 612.5.) However, States would have 

the discretion under this proposed 

regulation to determine the meaning of 

‘‘significant’’ and ‘‘satisfactory.’’ Similar 

to the consultative process described in 

the previous paragraphs of this section, 

a State may consult with early adopter 

States to determine best practices for 

making such determinations and 

whether an underlying qualitative basis 

should exist for these terms. The 

Department estimates that this decisionmaking process would take 14 hours for 

each State, and the one-time total 

burden associated with these 

determinations would be 728 hours (14 

hours multiplied by 52 States). 

Assurance of Specialized Accreditation 

Under proposed § 612.4(b)(3)(i)(A), a 

State would be required to provide for 

each teacher preparation program 

disaggregated data for each of the 

indicators identified pursuant to 

§ 612.5. See the start-up burden section 

of § 612.5 for a more detailed discussion 

of the burden associated with gathering 

the indicator data required to be 

reported under this regulatory section. 

See the annual reporting burden section 

of 612.4 for a discussion of the ongoing 

reporting burden associated with 

reporting disaggregated indicator data 

under this regulatory provision. No 

further burden exists beyond the burden 

described in these two sections. 

Under proposed § 612.4(b)(3)(i)(B), a 

State would be required to provide, for 

each teacher preparation program in the 

State, the State’s assurance that the 

teacher preparation program either: (a) 

Is accredited by a specialized agency or 

(b) provides teacher candidates with 

content and pedagogical knowledge, 

quality clinical preparation, and 

rigorous teacher entry and exit 

qualifications. See the start-up burden 

section of § 612.5 for a detailed 

discussion of the burden associated 

with gathering the indicator data 

required to be reported under this 

regulatory section. See the annual 

reporting burden section of § 612.4 for a 

discussion of the ongoing reporting 

burden associated with reporting these 

assurances. No further burden exists 

beyond the burden described in these 

two sections. 

Indicator Weighting 

Under proposed § 612.4(b)(3)(ii), a 

State would be required to provide its 

weighting of the different indicators in 

§ 612.5 for purposes of describing the 

State’s assessment of program 

performance. See the start-up burden 

section of § 612.4 on stakeholder 

consultation for a detailed discussion of 

the burden associated with establishing 

the weighting of the various indicators 

under § 612.5. See the annual reporting 

burden section of § 612.4 for a 

discussion of the ongoing reporting 

burden associated with reporting these 

relative weightings. No further burden 

exists beyond the burden described in 

these two sections. 

State-Level Rewards or Consequences 

Under proposed § 612.4(b)(3)(iii), a 

State would be required to provide the 

State-level rewards or consequences 

associated with the designated 

performance levels. See the start-up 

burden section of § 612.4 on stakeholder 

consultation for a more detailed 

discussion of the burden associated 

with establishing these rewards or 

consequences. See the annual reporting 

burden section of § 612.4 for a 

discussion of the ongoing reporting 

burden associated with reporting these 

relative weightings. No further burden 

exists beyond the burden described in 

these two sections. 

Aggregation of Small Programs 

Under proposed § 612.4(b)(4), a State 

would be required to ensure that all of 

its teacher preparation programs in that 

State are represented on the SRC. The 

Department recognized that many 

teacher preparation programs consist of 

a small number of prospective teachers 

and that reporting on these programs 

could present privacy and data validity 

issues. After discussion and input from 

various non-Federal negotiators during 

the negotiated rulemaking process, the 

Department elected to set a required 

reporting program size threshold of 25 

(for a more detailed discussion of this 

determination, see the general preamble 

discussion regarding § 612.4). However, 

the Department realized that, on the 

basis of research examining accuracy 

and validity relating to reporting small 

program sizes, some States may prefer to 

report on programs smaller than 25. 

Proposed § 612.4(b)(4)(i) permits States 

to report using a lower program size 

threshold. In order to determine the 

preferred program size threshold for its 

programs, a State may review existing 

research or the practices of other States 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71877 

that set program size thresholds to 

determine feasibility for its own teacher 

preparation program reporting. The 

Department estimates that such review 

would require 14 hours for each State, 

and this would constitute a one-time 

total burden of 728 hours (14 hours 

multiplied by 52 States). 

Under proposed § 612.4(b)(4), all 

teacher preparation entities would be 

required to report on the remaining 

small programs that do not meet the 

program size threshold the State 

chooses. States will be able to do so 

through a combination of two possible 

aggregation methods described in 

§ 612.4(b)(4)(ii). The preferred 

aggregation methodology is to be 

determined by the States after 

consultation with a group of 

stakeholders. For a detailed discussion 

of the burden related to this 

consultation process, see the start-up 

burden section of § 612.4, which 

discusses the stakeholder consultation 

process. Apart from the burden 

discussed in that section, no other 

burden is associated with this 

requirement. 

Stakeholder Consultation 

Under proposed § 612.4(c), a State 

would be required to consult with a 

representative group of stakeholders to 

determine the procedures for assessing 

and reporting the performance of each 

teacher preparation program in the 

State. This stakeholder group, composed 

of a variety of members representing 

viewpoints and interests affected by 

these proposed regulations, would 

provide input on a number of issues 

concerning the State’s discretion 

granted under these proposed 

regulations. There are four issues in 

particular on which the stakeholder 

group would advise the State— 

a. the relative weighting of the 

indicators identified in § 612.5; 

b. the preferred method for 

aggregation of data such that 

performance data for a maximum 

number of small programs are reported; 

c. the State-level rewards or 

consequences associated with the 

designated performance levels; and 

d. the appropriate process and 

opportunity for programs to challenge 

the accuracy of their performance data 

and program classification. 

The Department believes that this 

consultative process would require that 

the group convene at least three times 

to afford each of the stakeholder 

representatives multiple opportunities 

to meet and consult with the 

constituencies they represent. Further, 

the Department believes that members 

of the stakeholder group would require 

time to review relevant materials and 

academic literature and advise on the 

relative strength of each of the 

performance indicators under § 612.5, as 

well as any other matters requested by 

the State. 

These stakeholders would also require 

time to advise whether any of the 

particular indictors would have more or 

less predictive value for the teacher 

preparation programs in their State, 

given its unique traits. Finally, because 

some States have already implemented 

one or more components of the 

proposed regulatory indicators of 

program quality, these stakeholders 

would require time to review these 

States’ experiences in implementing 

similar systems. The Department 

estimates that the combination of 

gathering the stakeholder group 

multiple times, review of the relevant 

literature and other States’ experiences, 

and making determinations unique to 

their particular State would take 156 

hours for each State. This would 

constitute a one-time total of 8,736 

hours for all States (168 hours 

multiplied by 52 States). 

Subtotal of Start-Up Burden Under 

§ 612.4(b) and § 612.4(c) 

Aggregating the start-up burdens 

calculated under the preceding sections 

results in the following burdens: All 

States would incur a total burden of 

1,092 hours to make meaningful 

differentiations in program 

classifications, 728 hours to define the 

terms ‘‘significant’’ and ‘‘satisfactory’’ 

under these sections, 728 hours to 

determine the State’s aggregation of 

small programs, and 8,736 hours to 

complete the stakeholder consultation 

process. This would constitute a total 

burden of 11,284 hours of start-up 

burden nationwide. 

Annual Reporting Burden 

Classification of Teacher Preparation 

Programs 

The bulk of the State burden 

associated with assigning programs 

among classification levels would be in 

gathering and compiling data on the 

indicators of program quality that 

compose the basis for the classification. 

Once a State has made a determination 

of how a teacher preparation program 

would be classified at a particular 

performance level, applying the data 

gathered under § 612.5 to this 

classification basis would be 

straightforward. The Department 

estimates that States would require 0.5 

hours (30 minutes) to apply alreadygathered indicator data to existing 

program classification methodology. 

The total burden associated with 

classification of all teacher preparation 

programs using meaningful 

differentiations would be 12,500 hours 

each year (0.5 hours multiplied by 

25,000 teacher preparation programs). 

Disaggregated Data on Each Indicator in 

§ 612.5 

Under proposed § 612.4(b)(3)(i)(A), 

States would be required to report on 

the indicators of program performance 

in proposed § 612.5. For a fuller 

discussion of the burden related to the 

reporting of this requirement, see the 

annual reporting burden section of 

§ 612.5. Apart from the burden 

discussed in this section, no other 

burden is associated with this 

requirement. 

Indicator Weighting 

Under proposed § 612.4(b)(3)(ii), 

States would be required to report the 

relative weight it places on each of the 

different indicators enumerated in 

§ 612.5. The burden associated with this 

reporting is minimal: After the State, in 

consultation with a group of 

stakeholders, has made the 

determination about the percentage 

weight it will place on each of these 

indicators, reporting this information on 

the SRC is a simple matter of inputting 

a number for each of the indicators. 

Under the proposed regulations at 

§ 612.5, this would minimally require 

the State input eight general indicators 

of quality. Note: the eight indicators 

are— 

a. associated student learning 

outcome results; 

b. teacher placement results; 

c. teacher retention results; 

d. teacher placement rate calculated 

for high-need school results; 

e. teacher retention rate calculated for 

high-need school results; 

f. teacher satisfaction survey results; 

g. employer satisfaction survey 

results; and 

h. assurance of specialized 

accreditation or assurance of content 

and pedagogical knowledge, quality 

clinical preparation, and rigorous entry 

and exit standards. 

This reporting burden would not be 

affected by the number of teacher 

preparation programs in a State, because 

such weighting would apply equally to 

each program. Although the State would 

have the discretion to add indicators, 

the Department does not believe that 

transmission of an additional figure 

representing the percentage weighting 

assigned to that indicator would 

constitute an appreciable burden 

increase. The Department therefore 

estimates that each State would incur a 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71878 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

burden of 0.25 hours (15 minutes) to 

report the relative weighting of the 

regulatory indicators of program 

performance. This would constitute a 

total burden on States of 13 hours each 

year (0.25 hours multiplied by 52 

States). 

State-Level Rewards or Consequences 

Similar to the reporting required 

under § 612.4(b)(3)(ii), after a State has 

made the requisite determination about 

rewards and consequences, reporting 

those rewards and consequences would 

represent a relatively low burden. States 

would be required to report this on the 

SRC during the first year of 

implementation, the SRC could provide 

States with a drop-down list 

representing common rewards or 

consequences in use by early adopter 

States, and States would be able to 

briefly describe those rewards or 

consequences not represented in the 

drop-down options. For subsequent 

years, the SRC could be pre-populated 

with the prior-year’s selected rewards 

and consequences, such that there 

would be no further burden associated 

with subsequent year reporting unless 

the State altered its rewards and 

consequences. For these reasons, the 

Department estimates that States will 

incur, on average, 0.5 hours (30 

minutes) of burden in the first year of 

implementation to report the State-level 

rewards and consequences, and 0.1 

hours (6 minutes) of burden in each 

subsequent year. The Department 

therefore estimates that the total burden 

for the first year of implementation of 

this proposed regulatory requirement 

would be 26 hours (0.5 hours multiplied 

by 52 States) and 5.2 hours each year 

thereafter (0.1 hours multiplied by 52 

States). 

Stakeholder Consultation 

Under proposed § 612.4(b)(5), during 

the first year of reporting and every five 

years thereafter, States would be 

required to report on the procedures 

they established in consultation with 

the group of stakeholders described 

under § 612.4(c)(1). The burden 

associated with the first and third of 

these four procedures, the weighting of 

the indicators and State-level rewards 

and consequences associated with each 

performance level, respectively, are 

discussed in the preceding paragraphs 

of this section. 

The second procedure, the method by 

which small programs are aggregated, 

would be a relatively straightforward 

reporting procedure on the SRC. 

Pursuant to § 612.4(b)(4)(ii), States are 

permitted to use one of two methods, or 

a combination of both in aggregating 

small programs. A State would be 

allowed to aggregate programs that are 

similar in teacher preparation subject 

matter. A State would also be allowed 

aggregate using prior year data, 

including that of multiple prior years. 

Or a State would be allowed to use a 

combination of both methods. On the 

SRC, the State would simply indicate 

the method it uses. The Department 

estimates that States would require 0.5 

hours (30 minutes) to enter these data 

every fifth year. On an annualized basis, 

this would therefore constitute a total 

burden of 5.2 hours (0.5 hours 

multiplied by 52 States divided by five 

to annualize burden for reporting every 

fifth year). 

The fourth procedure that States 

would be required to report under 

proposed § 612.4(b)(5) is the method by 

which teacher preparation programs in 

the State are able to challenge the 

accuracy of their data and the 

classification of their program. First, the 

Department believes that States would 

incur a paperwork burden each year 

from recordkeeping and publishing 

decisions of these challenges. Because 

the Department believes the instances of 

these appeals would be relatively rare, 

we estimate that each State would incur 

6 hours of burden each year related to 

recordkeeping and publishing decisions. 

This would constitute an annual 

reporting burden of 312 hours (6 hours 

multiplied by 52 States). 

After States and their stakeholder 

groups determine the preferred method 

for programs to challenge data, reporting 

that information would likely take the 

form of narrative responses. This is 

because the method for challenging data 

may differ greatly from State to State, 

and it is difficult for the Department to 

predict what methods States will 

choose. The Department therefore 

estimates that reporting this information 

in narrative form during the first year 

would constitute a burden of 3 hours for 

each State. This would represent a total 

reporting burden of 156 hours (3 hours 

multiplied by 52 States). 

In subsequent reporting cycles, the 

Department would be able to examine 

State responses and (1) pre-populate 

this response for States that have not 

altered their method for challenging 

data or (2) provide a drop-down list of 

representative alternatives. This would 

minimize subsequent burden for most 

States. The Department therefore 

estimates that in subsequent reporting 

cycles (every five years under the 

proposed regulations), only 10 States 

would require more time to provide 

additional narrative responses totaling 3 

burden hours each, with the remaining 

42 States incurring a negligible burden. 

This represents an annualized reporting 

burden of 6 hours for those 10 States (3 

hours multiplied by 10 States, divided 

by 5 years), for a total annualized 

reporting burden of 60 hours for 

subsequent years (6 hours multiplied by 

10 States). 

Under proposed § 612.4(c)(2), each 

State would be required to periodically 

examine the quality of its data 

collection and reporting activities and 

modify those activities as appropriate. 

The Department believes that this 

review would be carried out in a 

manner similar to the one described for 

the initial stakeholder determinations in 

the preceding paragraphs: States would 

consult with representative groups to 

determine their experience with 

providing and using the collected data, 

and they would consult with data 

experts to ensure the validity and 

reliability of the data collected. The 

Department believes such a review 

would recur every three years, on 

average. Because this review would take 

place years after the State’s initial 

implementation of the proposed 

regulations, the Department further 

believes that the State’s review would 

be of relatively little burden. This is 

because the State’s review would be 

based on the State’s own experience 

with collecting and reporting data 

pursuant to the proposed regulations, 

and because States would be able to 

consult with many other States to 

determine best practices. For these 

reasons, the Department estimates that 

the periodic review and modification of 

data collection and reporting would 

require 16 hours every three years or an 

annualized burden of 5.3 hours for each 

State. This would constitute a total 

annualized burden of 275.6 hours for all 

States (5.3 hours per year multiplied by 

52 States). 

Subtotal Annual Reporting Burden 

Under § 612.4(b) and § 612.4(c) 

Aggregating the annual burdens 

calculated under the preceding sections 

results in the following: All States 

would incur a burden of 12,500 hours 

to report classifications of teacher 

preparation programs, 13 hours to report 

State indicator weightings, 26 hours in 

the first year and 5.2 hours in 

subsequent years to report State-level 

rewards and consequences associated 

with each performance classification, 

5.2 hours to report the method of 

program aggregation, 312 hours for 

recordkeeping and publishing appeal 

decisions, 156 hours the first year and 

60 hours in subsequent years to report 

the process for challenging data and 

program classification, and 275.6 hours 

to report on the examination of data 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71879 

85These estimates are entirely based on analysis 

and interpretation conducted by U.S. Department of 

Education staff and should not be attributed to the 

Rhode Island Department of Education. This 

analysis was based primarily on the timeline and 

checklist, which begins on page 23 of the following 

document: http://www.maine.gov/education/

effectiveness/GuideSLO-Rhode%20Island.pdf. 

collection quality. This totals 13,287.5 

hours of annual burden in the first year 

and 13,171.5 hours of annual burden in 

subsequent years nationwide. 

Total Reporting Burden Under § 612.4 

Aggregating the start-up and annual 

burdens calculated under the preceding 

sections results in the following 

burdens: All States would incur a total 

burden under § 612.4(a) of 13,894.5 

hours, a start-up burden under 

§ 612.4(b) and § 612.4(c) of 11,284 

hours, and an annual burden under 

§ 612.4(b) and § 612.4(c) of 13,287.5 

hours in the first year and 13,171.5 

hours in subsequent years. This totals 

between 38,350 and 38,466 total burden 

hours under § 612.4 nationwide. Based 

on the prior estimate of 53,749 hours of 

reporting burden on OMB collection 

1840–0744, the total burden reduction 

under § 612.4 is between 15,283 hours 

and 15,399 hours (53,749 hours minus 

a range of 38,350 and 38,466 total 

burden hours). 

Section 612.5—Indicators a State Must 

Use To Report on Teacher Preparation 

Program Performance 

The proposed regulations at 

§ 612.5(a)(1) through (a)(4) would 

identify those indicators that a State is 

required to use to assess the academic 

content knowledge and teaching skills 

of new teachers from each of its teacher 

preparation programs. Under the 

proposed regulations, a State would be 

required to use the following indicators 

of teacher preparation program 

performance: (a) Student learning 

outcomes, (b) employment outcomes, (c) 

survey outcomes, and (d) whether the 

program (1) is accredited by a 

specialized accrediting agency or (2) 

produces teacher candidates with 

content and pedagogical knowledge and 

quality clinical preparation, who have 

met rigorous entry and exit standards. 

Proposed § 612.5(b) would permit a 

State, at its discretion, to establish 

additional indicators of academic 

content knowledge and teaching skills. 

Start-Up Burden 

Student Learning Outcomes 

Consistent with teacher-student data 

link requirements related to the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act (ARRA), State Longitudinal Data 

System program (SLDS), and the ESEA 

Flexibility initiative, proposed 

§ 612.5(a)(1) would require States to 

provide data on student learning 

outcomes, defined as the aggregate 

learning outcomes of students taught by 

new teachers trained by each teacher 

preparation program in the State. States 

would have the discretion to report 

student learning outcomes on the basis 

of student growth (that could factor in 

variance in expected growth for 

students with different growth 

trajectories), teacher evaluation 

measures, or both. States also would 

have discretion on whether to use a 

value-added method of adjusting for 

student characteristics. Regardless of 

which method States use to report 

student learning outcomes, States would 

be required to link the results of those 

indicators of teaching skill to the 

teacher preparation programs with 

which the teachers are associated. States 

would have discretion on a variety of 

related technical matters, such as 

whether to track out-of-State teachers 

who were prepared within the State. 

While comprehensive data regarding the 

readiness of all States to comply with 

providing information on student 

learning outcomes do not exist, the 

Department has estimated the start-up 

costs for States based on a number of 

sources. 

First, each State has provided an 

assurance that it would provide studentgrowth assessment data for teachers 

who teach reading/language arts and 

mathematics in tested grades. This 

assurance was provided as a 

consequence of receiving a share of 

$48.6 billion in funds from the State 

Fiscal Stabilization Fund (SFSF), 

authorized by ARRA. The Department 

estimates that no additional burden 

would be incurred to measure student 

growth for these grades and subjects. 

There would be some cost, however, for 

mapping student growth data results 

back to relevant teacher preparation 

programs. 

As of June 15, 2014, the Secretary has 

approved requests by 42 States, the 

District of Columbia, and the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico for 

flexibility regarding specific 

requirements of ESEA, as amended, in 

exchange for rigorous and 

comprehensive State plans designed to 

improve educational outcomes for all 

students, close achievement gaps, 

increase equity, and improve the quality 

of instruction. As of the same date, the 

Department is working with 3 more 

States pursuing similar flexibility 

agreements. In their request for 

flexibility, each State has committed to 

implementing a statewide 

comprehensive teacher evaluation 

system covering those teaching in 

grades and subjects where there is 

statewide testing and those grades and 

subjects in which there is not statewide 

testing. The proposed regulation’s 

definition of a teacher evaluation 

measure with respect to non-tested 

grades and subjects and its 

implementation timeline are aligned 

with requirements included in the 

Department’s ESEA Flexibility 

initiative. Accordingly, for grades and 

subjects for which assessments are not 

required under ESEA, States, under the 

proposed regulations, would have the 

discretion to make use of various 

alternative forms of measurement, 

including use of ‘‘student learning 

objectives’’ as per a statewide rubric. 

To estimate the cost of using student 

learning objectives to measure student 

growth, we examined publicly available 

State and LEA rubrics and guidelines. 

Guidance issued by the Rhode Island 

Department of Education includes a 

detailed timeline and checklist that we 

used to develop an estimate of what it 

might cost the remaining States to 

develop and implement student 

learning objectives.85 The estimate 

assumes that these States have no 

existing State or LEA-level structures in 

place to assess student learning 

outcomes. 

Based on the specific steps required 

in this guidance, we estimate that for 

the average teacher, developing and 

implementing student learning 

objectives would require 6.85 hours of 

the teacher’s time and 5.05 hours of an 

evaluator’s time. However, for the 

reasons explained in detail in the 

Regulatory Impact Assessment section 

of this notice, the Department estimates 

that these burden estimates would apply 

to 31,676 of these teachers in six States. 

For these teachers, the total burden 

would equal 376,944 hours (31,676 

teachers multiplied by 11.9 hours). For 

the remaining two States that have not 

already committed to doing so under the 

Race to the Top program or as part of 

their request for ESEA flexibility, the 

Department estimates that teachers and 

evaluators would only need to spend a 

combined three hours to develop and 

measure against student learning 

objectives for the 4,629 new teachers of 

students in non-tested grades and 

subjects in these areas. This would 

constitute a total burden of 13,887 hours 

(3 hours of teacher and evaluator time 

multiplied by 4,629 teachers). The total 

burden would therefore equal 390,831 

hours (13,887 hours plus 376,944 

hours). 

In addition to creating the systems for 

evaluating student learning outcomes, 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71880 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

the proposed regulations would also 

require that States link student growth 

or teacher evaluation data back to each 

teacher’s preparation programs 

consistent with State discretionary 

guidelines included in § 612.4. 

Currently, few States have such 

capacity. However, based on data from 

the SLDS program, it appears that 30 

States, the District of Columbia, and the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico either 

already have the ability to aggregate data 

on student achievement and map back 

to teacher preparation programs or have 

committed to do so. For these 30 States, 

the District of Columbia, and the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico we 

estimate that no additional costs will be 

needed to link student learning 

outcomes back to teacher preparation 

programs. 

For the remaining States, the cost 

estimates of establishing this mapping 

depend on their current statewide 

longitudinal data capacity. While the 

Department has awarded $575.7 million 

in SLDS grants to support data system 

development in 47 States, the District of 

Columbia, and the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico, there remains a substantial 

variance in capacity among States to 

implement these data linkages. For 

example, some States would need to 

link currently disparate postsecondary 

education data systems to elementary 

and secondary school data systems that 

do not yet exist, while other States may 

already have linkages among the former 

or latter, though not between the two. 

The Department estimates, therefore, 

that the remaining 20 States that 

currently lack the capacity to link data 

systems would require 2,940 hours for 

each State, for a total burden of 58,800 

hours nationwide (2,940 hours 

multiplied by 20 States). 

Employment Outcomes 

Proposed § 612.5(a)(2) would require 

a State to provide data on each teacher 

preparation program’s teacher 

placement rate, defined as the combined 

non-duplicated percentage of new 

teachers and recent graduates hired in a 

full-time teaching position for the grade 

level, span, and subject area in which a 

candidate was prepared, as well as the 

teacher placement rate calculated for 

high-need schools. High-need schools 

would be defined in proposed § 612.2(d) 

by using the definition of ‘‘high-need 

school’’ in section 200(11) of the HEA. 

The proposed regulations would give 

States discretion to exclude those new 

teachers or recent graduates from this 

measure if they are teaching in a private 

school, teaching in another State, 

enrolled in graduate school, or engaged 

in military service. States would also 

have the discretion to treat this rate 

differently for alternative route and 

traditional route providers. 

Proposed § 612.5(a)(2) would require 

a State to provide data on each teacher 

preparation program’s teacher retention 

rate, defined as any of the following: (a) 

The percentage of new teachers who 

have been hired in full-time teaching 

positions and served for periods of at 

least three consecutive school years 

within five years of being granted a level 

of certification that allows them to serve 

as teachers of record; (b) the percentage 

of new teachers who have been hired in 

full-time teaching positions and reached 

a level of tenure or other equivalent 

measures of retention within five years 

of being granted a level of certification 

that allows them to serve as teachers of 

record; or (c) one hundred percent less 

the percentage of new teachers who 

have been hired in full-time teaching 

positions and whose employment was 

not continued by their employer for 

reasons other than budgetary constraints 

within five years of being granted a level 

of certification or licensure that allows 

them to serve as teachers of record. In 

addition, proposed § 612.5(a)(2) would 

require a State to provide data on each 

teacher preparation program’s teacher 

retention rate calculated for high-need 

schools. The proposed regulations 

would give States discretion to exclude 

those new teachers or recent graduates 

from this measure if they are teaching in 

a private school (or other school not 

requiring State certification), another 

State, enrolled in graduate school, or 

serving in the military. States would 

also have the discretion to treat this rate 

differently for alternative route and 

traditional route providers. 

Currently, 50 States, the District of 

Columbia, and the Commonwealth of 

Puerto Rico currently collect some 

certification information on individual 

teachers. Some States further collect 

such data related to teacher preparation 

programs (42 States), location of the 

teacher preparation program (47 States), 

and certification year (51 States). (For a 

more detailed discussion of these and 

other estimates in this section, see the 

Regulatory Impact Assessment 

discussion of costs, benefits and 

transfers regarding employment 

outcomes.) Furthermore, 39 States, the 

District of Columbia, and the 

Commonwealth of Puerto Rico currently 

collect data on certification placement 

and have the capability to link that data 

back to the program that prepared each 

individual teacher. The Department 

believes that these States would not 

incur additional burden for employment 

outcome reporting except to the extent 

that they would have to identify recent 

graduates not employed in a full-time 

teaching position within the State. A 

State would incur a minimal burden by 

matching its certification data against a 

roster of recent graduates from each 

teacher preparation program in the State 

to determine teacher placement and 

retention rates for those teachers who 

received their initial certification within 

the last three years. Additionally, 

adding a ‘‘high-need school’’ marker to 

such a list would also incur minimal 

additional burden. 

The remaining 11 States would likely 

incur additional burden in collecting 

information about the employment and 

retention of recent graduates of teacher 

preparation programs in its jurisdiction. 

To the extent that it is not possible to 

establish these measures using existing 

data systems, States may need to obtain 

some or all of this information from 

teacher preparation programs or from 

the teachers themselves upon requests 

for certification and licensure. The 

Department estimates that 150 hours 

may be required at the State level to 

collect information about new teachers 

employed in full-time teaching 

positions (including designing the data 

request instruments, disseminating 

them, providing training or other 

technical assistance on completing the 

instruments, collecting the data, and 

checking their accuracy), which would 

amount to a total of 1,650 hours (150 

hours multiplied by 11 States). 

Survey Outcomes 

Proposed § 612.5(a)(3) would require 

a State to provide data on each teacher 

preparation program’s teacher survey 

results. This would require States to 

report data from a survey of new 

teachers in their first year of teaching 

designed to capture their perceptions of 

whether the training that they received 

was sufficient to meet classroom and 

profession realities. 

Proposed § 612.5(a)(3) would also 

require a State to provide data on each 

teacher preparation program’s employer 

survey results. This would require 

States to report data from a survey of 

employers or supervisors designed to 

capture their perceptions of whether the 

new teachers they employ or supervise 

were prepared sufficiently to meet 

classroom and profession realities. 

Some States and IHEs already survey 

graduates of their teacher preparation 

programs. The sampling size and length 

of survey instrument can strongly affect 

the potential burden associated with 

administering the survey. The 

Department has learned that some States 

already have experience carrying out 

such surveys (for a more detailed 

discussion of these and other estimates 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71881 

86 Data from CAEP’s ‘‘Annual Report to the 

public, the states, policymakers, and the education 

profession’’ (2013) indicated that 791 institutions 

were currently accredited by either TEAC or 

NCATE. As noted above, Mary Brabeck, chair of 

CAEP, has indicated in Congressional testimony 

that ‘‘more than 900 educator preparation providers 

participate in the educator preparation 

accreditation system.’’ We have used the estimate 

of 791 programs for purposes of these calculations 

to estimate the number of programs that are 

currently not accredited by CAEP or its predecessor 

organizations. As a result, any estimates of cost or 

burden arising from this estimate will likely 

overestimate the costs associated with assurance of 

accreditation. 

in this section, see the Regulatory 

Impact Assessment discussion of costs, 

benefits and transfers regarding student 

learning outcomes). In order to account 

for variance in States’ abilities to 

conduct such surveys, the variance in 

the survey instruments themselves, and 

the need to ensure statistical validity 

and reliability, the Department assumes 

a somewhat higher burden estimate than 

States’ initial experiences. 

Based on Departmental consultation 

with researchers experienced in 

carrying out survey research, the 

Department assumes that survey 

instruments would not require more 

than 30 minutes to complete. The 

Department further assumes that a State 

would be able to develop a survey in 

1,620 hours. Assuming that States with 

experience in administering surveys 

would incur a lower cost, the 

Department assumes that the total 

burden incurred nationwide would 

maximally be 31,824 hours (612 hours 

multiplied by 52 States). 

Assurance of Accreditation 

Under proposed § 612.5(a)(4), States 

would be required to assure that each 

teacher preparation program in the State 

either: (a) Is accredited by a specialized 

accrediting agency recognized by the 

Secretary for accreditation of 

professional teacher education programs 

or (b) provides teacher candidates with 

content and pedagogical knowledge and 

quality clinical preparation, and has 

rigorous teacher candidate entry and 

exit standards consistent with section 

206(c) of the HEA. 

The Council for the Accreditation of 

Educator Preparation (CAEP), a union of 

two formerly independent national 

accrediting agencies, the National 

Council for Accreditation of Teacher 

Education (NCATE) and the Teacher 

Education Accreditation Council 

(TEAC), reports that currently it has 

fully accredited approximately 800 

IHEs. The existing IRC currently 

requires reporting of whether each 

teacher preparation program is 

accredited by a specialized accrediting 

agency, and if so, which one. For this 

reason, the Department believes that no 

significant start-up burden will be 

associated with State determinations of 

specialized accreditation of teacher 

preparation programs for those 

programs that are already accredited. 

Based on the 1,522 IHEs that reported 

using the most recent IRC, the 

Department estimates that States would 

have to provide the assurances 

described in proposed § 612.5(a)(4)(ii) 

for the remaining 731 IHEs.86 Based on 

an estimated average of 14.65 teacher 

preparation programs at each IHE (see 

§ 612.3 of this burden report for a more 

detailed explanation of this figure), the 

Department estimates that States will 

have to provide such assurances for 

approximately 10,716 programs at IHEs 

nationwide (731 IHEs multiplied by 

14.65). In addition, the Department 

believes that States will have to provide 

such assurances for all 2,688 programs 

at alternative routes not associated with 

IHEs (see the entity-level and programlevel reporting section in § 612.4 for a 

fuller discussion of this figure). 

Therefore, the Department estimates 

that States will have to provide such 

assurances for 13,404 teacher 

preparation programs nationwide 

(10,716 unaccredited programs at IHEs 

plus 2,688 programs at alternative 

routes not affiliated with an IHE). 

The Department believes that States 

will be able to make use of accreditation 

guidelines from specialized accrediting 

agencies to determine the measures that 

will adequately inform a State whether 

its teacher preparation programs 

provide teacher candidates with content 

and pedagogical knowledge, quality 

clinical preparation, and have rigorous 

teacher candidate entry and exit 

qualifications. The Department 

estimates that States will require 2 

hours for each teacher preparation 

program to determine whether or not it 

can provide such assurance. Therefore, 

the Department estimates that the total 

reporting burden to provide these 

assurances would be 26,808 hours 

(13,404 teacher preparation programs 

multiplied by 2 hours). 

Subtotal of Start-Up Reporting Burden 

Under § 612.5 

Aggregating the start-up burdens 

calculated under the preceding sections 

results in the following burdens: All 

States would incur a burden of 390,831 

hours to establish student learning 

outcome measures for all subjects and 

grades, 58,800 hours to link those 

student learning outcome measures back 

to each teacher’s preparation program, 

1,650 hours to measure employment 

outcomes, 26,808 hours to develop 

surveys, and 31,824 hours to establish 

the process for assurance of certain 

indicators for teacher preparation 

programs without specialized 

accreditation. This totals 509,913 hours 

of start-up burden nationwide. 

Annual Reporting Burden 

Under proposed § 612.5(a), States 

would be required to transmit, through 

specific elements on the SRC, 

information related to indicators of 

academic content knowledge and 

teaching skills of new teachers for each 

teacher preparation program in the 

State. We discuss the burden associated 

with establishing systems related to 

gathering these data in the section 

discussing start-up burden associated 

with § 612.5. The following section 

describes the burden associated with 

gathering these data and reporting them 

to the Department annually. 

Student Learning Outcomes 

Under proposed § 612.5(a)(1), States 

would be required to transmit 

information related to student learning 

outcomes for each teacher preparation 

program in the State. The Department 

believes that in order to ensure the 

validity of the data, each State would 

require 2 hours to gather and compile 

data related to the student learning 

outcomes of each teacher preparation 

program. Much of the burden related to 

data collection would be built into 

State-established reporting systems, 

limiting the burden related to data 

collection to technical support to ensure 

proper reporting and to correct data that 

had been inputted incorrectly. States 

would have the discretion to use 

student growth measures or teacher 

evaluation measures in determining 

student learning outcomes. Regardless 

of the measure(s) used, the Department 

estimates that States would require 0.5 

hours (30 minutes) for each teacher 

preparation program to convey this 

information to the Department through 

the SRC. This is because these measures 

would be calculated on a quantitative 

basis. The combination of gathering and 

reporting data related to student 

learning outcomes would therefore 

constitute a burden of 2.5 hours for each 

teacher preparation program, and would 

represent a total burden of 62,500 hours 

annually (2.5 hours multiplied by 

25,000 teacher preparation programs). 

Employment Outcomes 

Under proposed § 612.5(a)(2), States 

would be required to transmit 

information related to employment 

outcomes for each teacher preparation 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71882 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

program in the State. In order to report 

employment outcomes to the 

Department, States would be required to 

compile and transmit teacher placement 

rate data, teacher placement rate data 

calculated for high-need schools, 

teacher retention rate data, and teacher 

retention rate data for high-need 

schools. Similar to the process for 

reporting student learning outcome 

data, much of the burden related to 

gathering data on employment outcomes 

would be subsumed into the Stateestablished data systems, which would 

provide information on whether and 

where teachers were employed. The 

Department estimates that States would 

require 3 hours to gather data both on 

teacher placement and teacher retention 

for each teacher preparation program in 

the State. Reporting these data using the 

SRC would be relatively 

straightforward. The measures would be 

the percentage of teachers placed and 

the percentage of teachers who 

continued to teach, both generally and 

at high-need schools. The Department 

therefore estimates that States would 

require 0.5 hours (30 minutes) for each 

teacher preparation program to convey 

this information to the Department 

through the SRC. The combination of 

gathering and reporting data related to 

employment outcomes would therefore 

constitute a burden of 3.5 hours for each 

teacher preparation program and would 

represent a total burden of 87,500 hours 

annually (3.5 hours multiplied by 

25,000 teacher preparation programs). 

Survey Outcomes 

In addition to the start-up burden 

needed to produce a survey, States 

would incur annual burdens to 

administer the survey. Surveys would 

include, but would not be limited to, a 

teacher survey and an employer survey, 

designed to capture perceptions of 

whether new teachers who are 

employed as teachers in their first year 

of teaching in the State where the 

teacher preparation program is located 

possess the skills needed to succeed in 

the classroom. The burdens for 

administering an annual survey would 

be borne by the State administering the 

survey and the respondents completing 

it. For the reasons discussed in the 

Regulatory Impact Assessment section 

of this notice, the Department estimates 

that States would require approximately 

0.5 hours (30 minutes) per respondent 

to collect a sufficient number of survey 

instruments to ensure an adequate 

response rate. The Department employs 

an estimate of 285,181 respondents (70 

percent of 407,402—the 203,701 

completers plus their 203,701 

employers) that would be required to 

complete the survey. Therefore, the 

Department estimates that the annual 

burden to respondents nationwide 

would be 142,591 hours (285,181 

respondents multiplied by 0.5 hours per 

respondent). 

With respect to burden incurred by 

States to administer the surveys 

annually, the Department estimates that 

one hour of burden would be incurred 

for every respondent to the surveys. 

This would constitute an annual burden 

nationwide of 285,181 hours (285,181 

respondents multiplied by one hour per 

respondent). 

Under proposed § 612.5(a)(3), after 

these surveys are administered, States 

would be required to report the 

information using the SRC. In order to 

report survey outcomes to the 

Department, the Department estimates 

that States would need 0.5 hours to 

report the quantitative data related to 

the survey responses for each 

instrument on the SRC, constituting a 

total burden of one hour to report data 

on both instruments. This would 

represent a total burden of 25,000 hours 

annually (1 hour multiplied by 25,000 

teacher preparation programs). The total 

burden associated with administering, 

completing, and reporting data on the 

surveys would therefore constitute 

452,772 hours annually (142,591 hours 

plus 285,181 hours plus 25,000 hours). 

Assurance of Specialized Accreditation 

Under proposed § 612.5(a)(4)(i), States 

would be required to report whether 

each program in the State is accredited 

by a specialized accrediting agency. The 

Department estimates that 726 IHEs 

offering teacher preparation programs 

are or will be accredited by a 

specialized accrediting agency (see the 

start-up burden discussion for § 612.5 

for an explanation of this figure). Using 

the IRC, IHEs already report to States 

whether teacher preparation programs 

have specialized accreditation. This 

reporting element would be prepopulated for States on the SRC, and is 

reflected in the burden calculation 

relating to SRC reporting in § 612.4 of 

this burden statement. The Department 

estimates no additional burden for this 

reporting element. 

Under proposed § 612.5(a)(4)(ii), for 

those programs that are not accredited 

by a specialized accrediting agency, 

States would be required to report on 

certain indicators in lieu of that 

accreditation: Whether the program 

provides teacher candidates with 

content and pedagogical knowledge and 

quality clinical preparation, and has 

rigorous teacher candidate entry and 

exit qualifications. Such requirements 

should be built into State approval of 

relevant programs. The Department 

estimates that States would require 0.25 

hours (15 minutes) to provide to the 

Secretary an assurance, in a yes/no 

format, whether each teacher 

preparation program in its jurisdiction 

not holding a specialized accreditation 

from CAEP, NCATE, or TEAC meets 

these indicators. 

As discussed in the start-up burden 

section of § 612.5 that discusses 

assurance of specialized accreditation, 

the Department estimates States would 

have to provide such assurances for 

13,404 teacher preparation programs 

that do not have specialized 

accreditation. Therefore, the Department 

estimates that the total burden 

associated with providing an assurance 

that these teacher preparation programs 

meet these indicators is 3,351 hours 

(0.25 hours multiplied by the 13,404 

teacher preparation programs that do 

not have specialized accreditation). 

Subtotal of Annual Reporting Burden 

Under § 612.5 

Aggregating the annual burdens 

calculated under the preceding sections 

results in the following burdens: All 

States would incur a burden of 62,500 

hours to report on student learning 

outcome measures for all subjects and 

grades, 87,500 hours to report on 

employment outcomes, 452,772 hours to 

report on survey outcomes, and 3,351 

hours to provide assurances that teacher 

preparation programs without 

specialized accreditation meet certain 

indicators. This totals 606,123 hours of 

annual burden nationwide. 

Total Reporting Burden Under § 612.5 

Aggregating the start-up and annual 

burdens calculated under the preceding 

sections results in the following 

burdens: All States would incur a startup burden under § 612.5 of 509,913 

hours and an annual burden under 

§ 612.5 of 606,123 hours. This totals 

1,116,036 burden hours under § 612.5 

nationwide. 

Section 612.6—What Must a State 

Consider in Identifying Low-Performing 

Teacher Preparation Programs or AtRisk Programs 

The proposed regulations in § 612.6 

would require States to use criteria, 

including, at a minimum, indicators of 

academic content knowledge and 

teaching skills from § 612.5, to identify 

low-performing or at-risk teacher 

preparation programs. 

For a fuller discussion of the burden 

related to the consideration and 

selection of the criteria reflected in the 

indicators described in § 612.5, see the 

start-up burden section of § 612.4(b) and 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71883 

§ 612.4(c) discussing meaningful 

differentiations. Apart from that burden 

discussion, the Department believes 

States would incur no other burden 

related to this proposed regulatory 

provision. 

Section 612.7—Consequences for a 

Low-Performing Teacher Preparation 

Program That Loses the State’s 

Approval or the State’s Financial 

Support 

For any IHE administering a teacher 

preparation program that has lost State 

approval or financial support based on 

being identified as a low-performing 

teacher preparation program, the 

proposed regulations under § 612.7 

require the IHE to—(a) notify the 

Secretary of its loss of State approval or 

financial support within thirty days of 

such designation; (b) immediately notify 

each student who is enrolled in or 

accepted into the low-performing 

teacher preparation program and who 

receives funding under title IV, HEA 

that the IHE is no longer eligible to 

provide such funding to them; and (c) 

disclose information on its Web site and 

promotional materials regarding its loss 

of State approval or financial support 

and loss of eligibility for title IV 

funding. 

The Department does not expect that 

a large percentage of programs will be 

subject to a loss of title IV eligibility. 

The Department estimates that 

approximately 50 programs will lose 

their State approval or financial 

support. 

For those 50 programs, the 

Department estimates that it will take 

each program 15 minutes to notify the 

Secretary of its loss of eligibility; 5 

hours to notify all students who are 

enrolled in or accepted into the program 

and who receives funding under title IV 

of the HEA; and 30 minutes to disclose 

this information on its Web sites and 

promotional materials, for a total of 5.75 

hours per program. The Department 

estimates the total burden at 287.5 hours 

(50 programs multiplied by 5.75 hours). 

Section 612.8—Regaining Eligibility To 

Accept or Enroll Students Receiving 

Title IV, HEA Funds After Loss of State 

Approval or Financial Support 

The proposed regulations in § 612.8 

provide a process for a low-performing 

teacher preparation program that has 

lost State approval or financial support 

to regain its ability to accept and enroll 

students who receive title IV, HEA 

funds. Under this process, IHEs would 

submit an application and supporting 

documentation demonstrating to the 

Secretary: (1) Improved performance on 

the teacher preparation program 

performance criteria reflected in 

indicators described in § 612.5 as 

determined by the State; and (2) 

reinstatement of the State’s approval or 

the State’s financial support. 

The process by which programs and 

institutions apply for title IV eligibility 

already accounts for the burden 

associated with this provision. 

Total Reporting Burden Under Part 612 

Aggregating the total burdens 

calculated under the preceding sections 

of Part 612 results in the following 

burdens: Total burden hours incurred 

under § 612.3 is 146,340 hours, under 

§ 612.4 is between 38,350 hours and 

38,466 hours, under § 612.5 is 1,116,036 

hours, under § 612.7 is 288 hours, and 

under § 612.8 is 200 hours. This totals 

between 1,301,213 hours and 1,301,330 

hours nationwide. 

Reporting Burden Under Part 686 

The proposed changes to Part 686 in 

these regulations have no measurable 

effect on the burden currently identified 

in the OMB Control Numbers 1845– 

0083 and 1845–0084. 

Consistent with the discussions 

above, the following chart describes the 

sections of the proposed regulations 

involving information collections, the 

information being collected, and the 

collections the Department will submit 

to the OMB for approval and public 

comment under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act. In the chart, the 

Department labels those estimated 

burdens not already associated an OMB 

approval number under a single 

prospective designation ‘‘OMB 1840– 

0744.’’ This label represents a single 

information collection; the different 

sections of the proposed regulations are 

separated in the table below for clarity 

and to appropriately divide the burden 

hours associated with each proposed 

regulatory section. 

Please note that the changes in burden 

estimated in the chart are based on the 

change in burden under the current IRC 

OMB control numbers 1840–0744 and 

‘‘OMB 1840–0744.’’ The burden 

estimate for 612.3 bases the burden 

estimate on the most recent data 

available for the number of IHEs that are 

required to report (i.e. 1,522 IHEs using 

most recent data available rather than 

1,250 IHEs using prior estimates). For a 

complete discussion of the costs 

associated with the burden incurred 

under these proposed regulations, 

please see the Regulatory Impact 

Assessment, specifically the accounting 

statement. 

Regulatory section Information collection OMB Control Number and estimated change in the burden 

612.3 ....................... This proposed regulatory section would require IHEs that 

provide a teacher preparation program leading to State 

certification or licensure to provide data on teacher preparation program performance to the States.

OMB 1840–0744—The burden would decrease by 83,482 

hours. 

612.4 ....................... This proposed regulatory section would require States that 

receive funds under the Higher Education Act of 1965, as 

amended, to report to the Secretary on the quality of 

teacher preparation in the State, both for traditional 

teacher preparation programs and for alternative route to 

State certification and licensure programs.

OMB 1840–0744—The burden would decrease by between 

15,283 hours and 15,400 hours. 

612.5 ....................... This proposed regulatory section would require States to 

use certain indicators of teacher preparation performance 

for purposes of the State report card.

OMB 1840–0744—The burden would increase by 606,123. 

612.6 ....................... This proposed regulatory section would require States to 

use criteria, including indicators of academic content 

knowledge and teaching skills, to identify low-performing 

or at-risk teacher preparation programs.

OMB 1840–0744—The burden associated with this regulatory provision is accounted for in other portions of this 

burden statement. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71884 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Regulatory section Information collection OMB Control Number and estimated change in the burden 

612.7 ....................... The proposed regulations under this section would require 

any IHE administering a teacher preparation program 

that has lost State approval or financial support based on 

being identified as a low-performing teacher preparation 

program to notify the Secretary and students receiving 

title IV, HEA funds, and to disclose this information on its 

Web site.

OMB 1840–0744—The burden would increase by 288 

hours. 

612.8 ....................... The proposed regulations in this section would provide a 

process for a low-performing teacher preparation program that lost State approval or financial support to regain its ability to accept and enroll students who receive 

title IV funds.

There is no burden associated with this regulatory provision. 

Total Change in 

Burden.

................................................................................................ Total increase in burden under parts 612 would be between 

507,530 hours and 507,646 hours. 

If you want to comment on the 

proposed information collection 

requirements, please send your 

comments to the Office of Information 

and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention: 

Desk Officer for U.S. Department of 

Education. Send these comments by 

email to OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov 

or by fax to (202) 395–6974. You may 

also send a copy of these comments to 

the Department contact named in the 

ADDRESSES section of this preamble. 

We have prepared an Information 

Collection Request (ICR) for OMB 

collection 1840–0744. In preparing your 

comments you may want to review the 

ICR, which is available at 

www.reginfo.gov and for which the 

comment period will run concurrently 

with the comment period of the NPRM. 

To review the ICR on www.reginfo.gov, 

click on Information Collection Review. 

We consider your comments on these 

proposed collections of information in— 

• Deciding whether the proposed 

collections are necessary for the proper 

performance of our functions, including 

whether the information will have 

practical use; 

• Evaluating the accuracy of our 

estimate of the burden of the proposed 

collections, including the validity of our 

methodology and assumptions; 

• Enhancing the quality, usefulness, 

and clarity of the information we 

collect; and 

• Minimizing the burden on those 

who must respond. This includes 

exploring the use of appropriate 

automated, electronic, mechanical, or 

other technological collection 

techniques. 

OMB is required to make a decision 

concerning the collections of 

information contained in these 

proposed regulations between 30 and 60 

days after publication of this document 

in the Federal Register. Therefore, to 

ensure that OMB gives your comments 

full consideration, it is important that 

OMB receives your comments by 

January 2, 2015. This does not affect the 

deadline for your comments to us on the 

proposed regulations. 

Intergovernmental Review 

These programs are subject to 

Executive Order 12372 and the 

regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of 

the objectives of the Executive order is 

to foster an intergovernmental 

partnership and a strengthened 

federalism. The Executive order relies 

on processes developed by State and 

local governments for coordination and 

review of proposed Federal financial 

assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for these programs. 

Assessment of Educational Impact 

In accordance with section 411 of the 

General Education Provisions Act, 20 

U.S.C. 1221e–4, the Secretary 

particularly requests comments on 

whether these proposed regulations 

would require transmission of 

information that any other agency or 

authority of the United States gathers or 

makes available. 

Federalism 

Executive Order 13132 requires us to 

ensure meaningful and timely input by 

State and local elected officials in the 

development of regulatory policies that 

have federalism implications. 

‘‘Federalism implications’’ means 

substantial direct effects on the States, 

on the relationship between the 

National Government and the States, or 

on the distribution of power and 

responsibilities among the various 

levels of government. The proposed 

regulations in § 612.4 may have 

federalism implications, as defined in 

Executive Order 13132. We encourage 

State and local elected officials and 

others to review and provide comments 

on these proposed regulations. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

an accessible format (e.g., braille, large 

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

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 via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site 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). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance Number does not apply.) 

List of Subjects 

34 CFR Part 612 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Colleges and universities, 

Education, Elementary and secondary 

education, Grant programs—education, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Student aid. 

34 CFR Part 686 

Administrative practice and 

procedure, Colleges and universities, 

Education, Elementary and secondary 

education, Grant programs—education, 

Reporting and recordkeeping 

requirements, Student aid. 

Dated: November 25, 2014. 

Arne Duncan, 

Secretary of Education. 

For the reasons discussed in the 

preamble, the Secretary proposes to 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71885 

amend chapter VI of title 34 of the Code 

of Federal Regulations as follows: 

■ 1. Part 612 is added to read as follows: 

PART 612—TITLE II REPORTING 

SYSTEM 

Subpart A—Scope, Purpose and Definitions 

Sec. 

612.1 Scope and purpose. 

612.2 Definitions. 

Subpart B—Reporting Requirements 

612.3 What are the regulatory reporting 

requirements for the Institutional Report 

Card? 

612.4 What are the regulatory reporting 

requirements for the State Report Card? 

612.5 What indicators must a State use to 

report on teacher preparation program 

performance for purposes of the State 

report card? 

612.6 What must States consider in 

identifying low-performing teacher 

preparation programs or at-risk teacher 

preparation programs, and what 

regulatory actions must a State take with 

respect to those programs identified as 

low-performing? 

Subpart C—Consequences of Withdrawal of 

State Approval or Financial Support 

612.7 What are the consequences for a lowperforming teacher preparation program 

that loses the State’s approval or the 

State’s financial support? 

612.8 How does a low-performing teacher 

preparation program regain eligibility to 

accept or enroll students receiving Title 

IV, HEA funds after loss of the State’s 

approval or the State’s financial support? 

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1022d, unless 

otherwise noted. 

Subpart A—Scope, Purpose and 

Definitions 

§ 612.1 Scope and purpose. 

This part establishes regulations 

related to the teacher preparation 

program accountability system under 

title II of the HEA. This part includes: 

(a) Institutional Report Card reporting 

requirements. 

(b) State Report Card reporting 

requirements. 

(c) Requirements related to the 

indicators States must use to report on 

teacher preparation program 

performance. 

(d) Requirements related to the areas 

States must consider to identify lowperforming teacher preparation 

programs and at-risk teacher preparation 

programs and actions States must take 

with respect to those programs. 

(e) The consequences for a lowperforming teacher preparation program 

that loses the State’s approval or the 

State’s financial support. 

(f) The conditions under which a lowperforming teacher preparation program 

that has lost the State’s approval or the 

State’s financial support may regain 

eligibility to resume accepting and 

enrolling students who receive title IV, 

HEA funds. 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1022d) 

§ 612.2 Definitions. 

(a) The following terms used in this 

part are defined in the regulations for 

Institutional Eligibility under the Higher 

Education Act of 1965, as amended, 34 

CFR part 600: 

Distance education 

Secretary 

State 

Title IV, HEA program 

(b) The following terms used in this 

part are defined in subpart A of the 

Student Assistance General Provisions, 

34 CFR part 668: 

Payment period 

TEACH Grant 

(c) The following term used in this 

part is defined in 34 CFR 77.1: 

Local educational agency (LEA) 

(d) Other definitions used in this part 

are defined as follows: 

At-risk teacher preparation program: 

A teacher preparation program that is 

identified as at-risk of being lowperforming by a State based on the 

State’s assessment of teacher 

preparation program performance under 

§ 612.4. 

Candidate accepted into a teacher 

preparation program: An individual 

who has been admitted into a teacher 

preparation program but who has not 

yet enrolled in any coursework that the 

institution has determined to be part of 

that teacher preparation program. 

Candidate enrolled in a teacher 

preparation program: An individual 

student who has been accepted into a 

teacher preparation program and is in 

the process of completing coursework 

but has not yet completed the teacher 

preparation program. 

Content and pedagogical knowledge: 

An understanding of the central 

concepts and structures of the discipline 

in which a teacher candidate has been 

trained, and how to create effective 

learning experiences that make the 

discipline accessible and meaningful for 

all students, including a distinct set of 

instructional skills to address the needs 

of English language learners and 

students with disabilities, in order to 

assure mastery of the content by the 

students, as described in applicable 

professional, State, or institutional 

standards. 

Effective teacher preparation 

program: A teacher preparation program 

that is identified as effective by a State 

based on the State’s assessment of 

teacher preparation program 

performance under § 612.4. 

Employer survey: A survey of 

employers or supervisors designed to 

capture their perceptions of whether the 

new teachers they employ or supervise, 

who attended teacher preparation 

programs in the State where the new 

teachers are employed or supervised, 

were effectively prepared. 

Employment outcomes: Data, 

measured by the teacher placement rate, 

the teacher placement rate calculated for 

high-need schools, the teacher retention 

rate, and the teacher retention rate 

calculated for high-need schools, on the 

effectiveness of a teacher preparation 

program in preparing, placing, and 

supporting new teachers consistent with 

local education agency (LEA) needs. 

Exceptional teacher preparation 

program: A teacher preparation program 

that is identified as exceptional by a 

State based on the State’s assessment of 

teacher preparation program 

performance under § 612.4. 

High-need school: A school that, 

based on the most recent data available, 

meets one or both of the following: 

(i) The school is in the highest 

quartile of schools in a ranking of all 

schools served by a local educational 

agency (LEA), ranked in descending 

order by percentage of students from 

low-income families enrolled in such 

schools, as determined by the LEA 

based on one of the following measures 

of poverty: 

(A) The percentage of students aged 5 

through 17 in poverty counted in the 

most recent census data approved by the 

Secretary. 

(B) The percentage of students eligible 

for a free or reduced price school lunch 

under the Richard B. Russell National 

School Lunch Act [42 U.S.C. 1751 et 

seq.]. 

(C) The percentage of students in 

families receiving assistance under the 

State program funded under part A of 

title IV of the Social Security Act [42 

U.S.C. 601 et seq.]. 

(D) The percentage of students eligible 

to receive medical assistance under the 

Medicaid program. 

(E) A composite of two or more of the 

measures described in paragraphs (i)(A) 

through (D) of this definition. 

(ii) In the case of— 

(A) An elementary school, the school 

serves students not less than 60 percent 

of whom are eligible for a free or 

reduced price school lunch under the 

Richard B. Russell National School 

Lunch Act; or 

(B) Any other school that is not an 

elementary school, the other school 

serves students not less than 45 percent 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71886 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

of whom are eligible for a free or 

reduced price school lunch under the 

Richard B. Russell National School 

Lunch Act. 

Low-performing teacher preparation 

program: A teacher preparation program 

that is identified as low-performing by 

a State based on the State’s assessment 

of teacher preparation program 

performance under § 612.4. 

New teacher: A recent graduate or 

alternative route participant who, 

within the last three title II reporting 

years, as defined in the report cards 

pursuant to §§ 612.3 and 612.4, has 

received a level of certification or 

licensure that allows him or her to serve 

in the State as a teacher of record for K– 

12 students and, at a State’s discretion, 

preschool students. 

Quality clinical preparation: Training 

that integrates content, pedagogy, and 

professional coursework around a core 

of pre-service clinical experiences. Such 

training must, at a minimum— 

(i) Be provided, at least in part, by 

qualified clinical instructors, including 

school and LEA-based personnel, who 

meet established qualification 

requirements and who use a training 

standard that is made publicly available; 

(ii) Include multiple clinical or field 

experiences, or both, that serve diverse, 

rural, or underrepresented student 

populations in elementary through 

secondary school, including English 

language learners and students with 

disabilities, and that are assessed using 

a performance-based protocol to 

demonstrate teacher candidate mastery 

of content and pedagogy; and 

(iii) Require that teacher candidates 

use research-based practices, including 

observation and analysis of instruction, 

collaboration with peers, and effective 

use of technology for instructional 

purposes. 

Recent graduate: An individual whom 

a teacher preparation program has 

documented as having met all the 

requirements of the program within the 

last three title II reporting years, as 

defined in the report cards prepared 

under §§ 612.3 and 612.4. 

Documentation may take the form of a 

degree, institutional certificate, program 

credential, transcript, or other written 

proof of having met the program’s 

requirements. In applying this 

definition, whether an individual has or 

has not been hired as a full-time teacher 

or been recommended to the State for 

initial certification or licensure may not 

be used as a criterion for determining if 

the individual is a recent graduate. 

Rigorous teacher candidate entry and 

exit qualifications: Qualifications of a 

teacher candidate established by a 

teacher preparation program prior to the 

candidate’s completion of the program 

using, at a minimum, rigorous entrance 

requirements based on multiple 

measures, and rigorous exit criteria 

based on an assessment of candidate 

performance that relies on validated 

professional teaching standards and 

measures of the candidate’s 

effectiveness that include, at a 

minimum, measures of curriculum 

planning, instruction of students, 

appropriate plans and modifications for 

all students, and assessment of student 

learning. 

Student achievement in non-tested 

grades and subjects: 

For purposes of determining student 

growth in grades and subjects in which 

assessments are not required under 

section 1111(b)(3) of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 

amended (ESEA), measures of student 

learning and performance, such as 

student results on pre-tests and end-ofcourse tests; objective performancebased assessments; student learning 

objectives; student performance on 

English language proficiency 

assessments; and other measures of 

student achievement that are rigorous, 

comparable across schools, and 

consistent with State guidelines. 

Student achievement in tested grades 

and subjects: For purposes of 

determining student growth for grades 

and subjects in which assessments are 

required under section 1111(b)(3) of the 

ESEA— 

(i) A student’s score on the State’s 

assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of 

the ESEA and, as appropriate; 

(ii) Other measures of student 

learning, such as those described in the 

definition of Student achievement in 

non-tested grades and subjects, 

provided that the measures are rigorous, 

comparable across schools, and 

consistent with State guidelines. 

Student growth: For an individual 

student, the change in student 

achievement in tested grades and 

subjects and the change in student 

achievement in non-tested grades and 

subjects between two or more points in 

time. 

Student learning outcomes: For each 

teacher preparation program in a State, 

data on the aggregate learning outcomes 

of students taught by new teachers. 

These data are calculated by the State 

using a student growth measure, a 

teacher evaluation measure, or both. 

Survey outcomes: Qualitative and 

quantitative data collected through 

survey instruments, including, but not 

limited to, a teacher survey and an 

employer survey, designed to capture 

perceptions of whether new teachers 

who are employed as teachers in their 

first year teaching in the State where the 

teacher preparation program is located 

possess the skills needed to succeed in 

the classroom. 

Teacher evaluation measure: By grade 

span and subject area and consistent 

with statewide guidelines, the 

percentage of new teachers rated at each 

performance level under an LEA teacher 

evaluation system that differentiates 

teachers on a regular basis using at least 

three performance levels and multiple 

valid measures in determining each 

teacher’s performance level. For 

purposes of this definition, multiple 

valid measures of performance levels 

must include, as a significant factor, 

data on student growth for all students 

(including English language learners 

and students with disabilities), and 

other measures of professional practice 

(such as observations based on rigorous 

teacher performance standards or other 

measures which may be gathered 

through multiple formats and sources 

such as teacher portfolios and student 

and parent surveys). 

Teacher placement rate: (i) Calculated 

annually and pursuant to § 612.5(a), the 

combined non-duplicated percentage of 

new teachers and recent graduates who 

have been hired in a full-time teaching 

position for the grade level, span, and 

subject area in which the teachers and 

recent graduates were prepared. 

(ii) At the State’s discretion, the rate 

calculated under paragraph (i) of this 

definition may exclude one or more of 

the following, provided that the State 

uses a consistent approach to assess and 

report on all of the teacher preparation 

programs in the State: 

(A) New teachers or recent graduates 

who have taken teaching positions in 

another State. 

(B) New teachers or recent graduates 

who have taken teaching positions in 

private schools. 

(C) New teachers or recent graduates 

who have taken teaching positions that 

do not require State certification. 

(D) New teachers or recent graduates 

who have enrolled in graduate school or 

entered military service. 

Teacher preparation entity: An 

institution of higher education or other 

organization that is authorized by the 

State to prepare teachers. 

Teacher preparation program: A 

program, whether traditional or 

alternative route, offered by a teacher 

preparation entity that leads to a 

specific State teacher certification or 

licensure in a specific field. 

Teacher retention rate: (i) Calculated 

annually and pursuant to § 612.5(a), any 

of the following rates, as determined by 

the State provided that the State uses a 

consistent approach to assess and report 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71887 

on all of the teacher preparation 

programs in the State: 

(A) The percentage of new teachers 

who have been hired in full-time 

teaching positions and served for 

periods of at least three consecutive 

school years within five years of being 

granted a level of certification that 

allows them to serve as teachers of 

record. 

(B) The percentage of new teachers 

who have been hired in full-time 

teaching positions and reached a level 

of tenure or other equivalent measure of 

retention within five years of being 

granted a level of certification that 

allows them to serve as teachers of 

record. 

(C) One hundred percent less the 

percentage of new teachers who have 

been hired in full-time teaching 

positions and whose employment was 

not continued by their employer for 

reasons other than budgetary constraints 

within five years of being granted a level 

of certification or licensure that allows 

them to serve as teachers of record. 

(ii) At the State’s discretion, the rates 

calculated under this definition may 

exclude one or more of the following, 

provided that the State uses a consistent 

approach to assess and report on all 

teacher preparation programs in the 

State: 

(A) New teachers who have taken 

teaching positions in other States. 

(B) New teachers who have taken 

teaching positions in private schools. 

(C) New teachers who are not retained 

due to particular market conditions or 

circumstances particular to the LEA 

beyond the control of teachers or 

schools. 

(D) New teachers who have enrolled 

in graduate school or entered military 

service. 

Teacher survey: A survey of new 

teachers serving in full-time teaching 

positions for the grade level, span, and 

subject area in which the teachers were 

prepared that is designed to capture 

their perceptions of whether the 

preparation that they received from 

their teacher preparation programs was 

effective. 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1022d) 

Subpart B—Reporting Requirements 

§ 612.3 What are the regulatory reporting 

requirements for the Institutional Report 

Card? 

Beginning on October 1, 2017, and 

annually thereafter, each institution of 

higher education that conducts 

traditional teacher preparation programs 

or alternative routes to State 

certification or licensure programs, and 

that enrolls students receiving title IV 

HEA program funds— 

(a) Must report to the State on the 

quality of teacher preparation and other 

information consistent with section 

205(a) of the HEA, using an institutional 

report card that is prescribed by the 

Secretary; 

(b) Must prominently and promptly 

post the institutional report card 

information on the institution’s Web site 

and, if applicable, on the teacher 

preparation program portion of the 

institution’s Web site; and 

(c) May also provide the institutional 

report card information to the general 

public in promotional or other materials 

it makes available to prospective 

students or other individuals. 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1022d) 

§ 612.4 What are the regulatory reporting 

requirements for the State Report Card? 

(a) General. Beginning on April 1, 

2018, and annually thereafter, each 

State must— 

(1) Report to the Secretary, using a 

State report card that is prescribed by 

the Secretary, on— 

(i) The quality of all approved teacher 

preparation programs in the State (both 

traditional teacher preparation programs 

and alternative routes to State 

certification or licensure programs), 

including distance education programs, 

whether or not they enroll students 

receiving Federal assistance under the 

HEA; and 

(ii) All other information consistent 

with section 205(b) of the HEA; and 

(2) Make the State report card 

information widely available to the 

general public by posting the State 

report card information on the State’s 

Web site. 

(b) Reporting of information on 

teacher preparation program 

performance. In the State report card, 

beginning in April 2019 and annually 

thereafter, the State— 

(1) Must make meaningful 

differentiations in teacher preparation 

program performance using at least four 

performance levels—low-performing 

teacher preparation program, at-risk 

teacher preparation program, effective 

teacher preparation program, and 

exceptional teacher preparation 

program—based on the indicators in 

§ 612.5 including, in significant part, 

employment outcomes for high-need 

schools and student learning outcomes; 

(2) May identify the performance level 

for a teacher preparation program as 

effective or higher quality only if it has 

satisfactory or higher student learning 

outcomes; 

(3) Must provide— 

(i) For each teacher preparation 

program— 

(A) Disaggregated data for each of the 

indicators identified pursuant to 

§ 612.5; and 

(B) The State’s assurance that the 

teacher preparation program either is 

accredited by a specialized agency 

pursuant to § 612.5(a)(4)(i), or produces 

teacher candidates with content and 

pedagogical knowledge and quality 

clinical preparation who have met 

rigorous teacher candidate entry and 

exit qualifications pursuant to 

§ 612.5(a)(4)(ii); 

(ii) The State’s weighting of the 

different indicators in § 612.5 for 

purposes of describing the State’s 

assessment of program performance; 

and 

(iii) The State-level rewards or 

consequences associated with the 

designated performance levels; 

(4) In implementing paragraph (b)(1) 

through (3) of this section, except as 

provided in paragraphs (b)(4)(ii)(D) and 

(E) of this section, must ensure the 

performance of all of the State’s teacher 

preparation programs are represented in 

the State report card by— 

(i) Annually reporting on the 

performance of each teacher preparation 

program that produces a total of 25 or 

more new teachers in a given reporting 

year (program size threshold), or, at a 

State’s discretion, annually reporting on 

the performance of each teacher 

preparation program that produces 

fewer than 25 or more new teachers 

(lower program size threshold—e.g., 15 

or 20)—in a given reporting year; and 

(ii) For any teacher preparation 

program that produces fewer than a 

program size threshold of 25 new 

teachers in a given reporting year (or for 

a State that chooses to use a lower 

program size threshold, for any teacher 

preparation program that produces 

fewer new teachers than the lower 

program size threshold), annually 

reporting on the program’s performance 

by aggregating data under paragraph 

(b)(4)(ii)(A), (B), or (C) of this section in 

order to meet the program size threshold 

(or for a State that chooses a lower 

program size threshold, in order to meet 

the lower program size threshold) 

except as provided in paragraph 

(b)(4)(ii)(D) or (E) of this section. 

(A) The State may report on the 

program’s performance by aggregating 

data that determine the program’s 

performance with data for other teacher 

preparation programs that are operated 

by the same teacher preparation entity 

and are similar to or broader than the 

program in content. 

(B) The State may report on the 

program’s performance by aggregating 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71888 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

data that determine the program’s 

performance over multiple years for up 

to four years until the size threshold is 

met. 

(C) If a State cannot meet the program 

size threshold (or for a State that 

chooses a lower program size threshold, 

if the State cannot meet the lower 

program size threshold) by aggregating 

data under paragraph (b)(4)(ii)(A) or (B) 

of this section, it may aggregate data 

using a combination of the methods 

under both of these paragraphs. 

(D) The State is not required under 

this paragraph (b)(4)(ii) to report data on 

a particular teacher preparation program 

for a given reporting year if aggregation 

under this paragraph (b)(4)(ii) would not 

yield the program size threshold (or for 

a State that chooses a lower program 

size threshold, would not yield to the 

lower program size threshold) for that 

program. 

(E) The State also is not required 

under this paragraph (b)(4)(ii) to report 

data on a particular teacher preparation 

program if reporting these data would 

be inconsistent with Federal or State 

privacy and confidentiality laws and 

regulations; and 

(5) Must report on the procedures 

established by the State in consultation 

with a group of stakeholders, as 

described in paragraph (c)(1) of this 

section, and the State’s examination of 

its data collection and reporting, as 

described in paragraph (c)(2) of this 

section, in the State report card 

submitted— 

(i) On April 1, 2018, and every four 

years thereafter; and 

(ii) At any other time that the State 

makes substantive changes to the 

weighting of the indicators or the 

procedures for assessing and reporting 

the performance of each teacher 

preparation program in the State 

described in paragraph (c) of this 

section. 

(c) Fair and equitable methods—(1) 

Consultation. Each State must establish 

in consultation with a representative 

group of stakeholders the procedures for 

assessing and reporting the performance 

of each teacher preparation program in 

the State under this section. 

(i) The representative group of 

stakeholders must include, at a 

minimum, representatives of leaders 

and faculty of traditional teacher 

preparation programs and alternative 

routes to State certification or licensure 

programs; students of teacher 

preparation programs; superintendents; 

school board members; elementary 

through secondary school leaders and 

instructional staff; elementary through 

secondary school students and their 

parents; IHEs that serve high 

proportions of low-income or minority 

students, or English language learners; 

advocates for English language learners 

and students with disabilities; and 

officials of the State’s standards board or 

other appropriate standards body. 

(ii) The procedures for assessing and 

reporting the performance of each 

teacher preparation program in the State 

under this section must, at minimum, 

include— 

(A) The weighting of the indicators 

identified in § 612.5 for establishing 

performance levels of teacher 

preparation programs as required by this 

section; 

(B) The aggregation of data pursuant 

to paragraph (b)(4)(ii) of this section; 

(C) State-level rewards or 

consequences associated with the 

designated performance levels; and 

(D) Appropriate opportunities for 

programs to challenge the accuracy of 

their performance data and 

classification of the program. 

(2) State examination of data 

collection and reporting. Each State 

must periodically examine the quality of 

the data collection and reporting 

activities it conducts pursuant to 

paragraph (b) of this section and § 612.5, 

and, as appropriate, modify its data 

collection and reporting activities using 

the procedures described in this 

paragraph. 

(d) Inapplicability to certain insular 

areas. Paragraphs (b) and (c) of this 

section do not apply to American 

Samoa, the Commonwealth of the 

Northern Mariana Islands, the freely 

associated States of the Republic of the 

Marshall Islands, the Federated States of 

Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, 

Guam, and the United States Virgin 

Islands. 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1022d) 

§ 612.5 What indicators must a State use 

to report on teacher preparation program 

performance for purposes of the State 

report card? 

(a) For purposes of reporting under 

§ 612.4, a State must assess, for each 

teacher preparation program within its 

jurisdiction, indicators of academic 

content knowledge and teaching skills 

of new teachers from that program. 

These indicators of academic content 

knowledge and teaching skills must 

include, at a minimum— 

(1) Student learning outcomes. 

(2) Employment outcomes. For 

purposes of assessing employment 

outcomes, a State may, in its discretion, 

assess traditional and alternative route 

teacher preparation programs differently 

based on whether there are differences 

in the programs that affect employment 

outcomes, provided that the varied 

assessments result in equivalent levels 

of accountability and reporting; 

(3) Survey outcomes; and 

(4) Whether the program— 

(i) Is accredited by a specialized 

accrediting agency recognized by the 

Secretary for accreditation of 

professional teacher education 

programs; or 

(ii) Consistent with 

§ 612.4(b)(3)(i)(B)— 

(A) Produces teacher candidates with 

content and pedagogical knowledge; 

(B) Produces teacher candidates with 

quality clinical preparation; and 

(C) Produces teacher candidates who 

have met rigorous teacher candidate 

entry and exit qualifications. 

(b) At a State’s discretion, the 

indicators of academic content 

knowledge and teaching skills may 

include other indicators predictive of a 

teacher’s effect on student performance, 

such as student survey results, provided 

that the State uses the same indicators 

for all teacher preparation programs in 

the State. 

(c) This section does not apply to 

American Samoa, the Commonwealth of 

the Northern Mariana Islands, the freely 

associated states of the Republic of the 

Marshall Islands, the Federated States of 

Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, 

Guam, and the United States Virgin 

Islands. 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1022d) 

§ 612.6 What must a State consider in 

identifying low-performing teacher 

preparation programs or at-risk teacher 

preparation programs, and what regulatory 

actions must a State take with respect to 

those programs identified as lowperforming? 

(a)(1) In identifying low-performing or 

at-risk teacher preparation programs the 

State must use criteria that, at a 

minimum, include the indicators of 

academic content knowledge and 

teaching skills from § 612.5, including 

in significant part, student learning 

outcomes; and 

(2) Paragraph (a)(1) of this section 

does not apply to American Samoa, the 

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana 

Islands, the freely associated states of 

the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the 

Federated States of Micronesia, the 

Republic of Palau, Guam, and the 

United States Virgin Islands. 

(b) At a minimum, a State must 

provide technical assistance to lowperforming teacher preparation 

programs in the State to help them 

improve their performance in 

accordance with section 207(a) of the 

HEA. Technical assistance may include, 

but is not limited to: providing 

programs with information on the 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71889 

specific indicators used to determine 

the program’s rating (e.g., specific areas 

of weakness in student learning, job 

placement and retention, and new 

teacher and employer satisfaction); 

assisting programs to address the rigor 

of their entry and exit criteria; helping 

programs identify specific areas of 

curriculum or clinical experiences that 

correlate with gaps in graduates’ 

preparation; helping identify potential 

research and other resources to assist 

program improvement (e.g., evidence of 

other successful interventions, other 

university faculty, other teacher 

preparation programs, nonprofits with 

expertise in educator preparation and 

teacher effectiveness improvement, 

accrediting organizations, or higher 

education associations); and sharing 

best practices from exemplary programs. 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1022d and 1022f) 

Subpart C—Consequences of 

Withdrawal of State Approval or 

Financial Support 

§ 612.7 What are the consequences for a 

low-performing teacher preparation 

program that loses the State’s approval or 

the State’s financial support? 

(a) Any teacher preparation program 

for which the State has withdrawn the 

State’s approval or the State has 

terminated the State’s financial support 

due to the State’s identification of the 

program as a low-performing teacher 

preparation program— 

(1) Is ineligible for any funding for 

professional development activities 

awarded by the Department as of the 

date that the State withdrew its 

approval or terminated its financial 

support; 

(2) May not include any candidate 

accepted into the teacher preparation 

program or any candidate enrolled in 

the teacher preparation program who 

receives aid under title IV, HEA 

programs in the institution’s teacher 

preparation program as of the date that 

the State withdrew its approval or 

terminated its financial support; and 

(3) Must provide transitional support, 

including remedial services, if 

necessary, to students enrolled at the 

institution at the time of termination of 

financial support or withdrawal of 

approval for a period of time that is not 

less than the period of time a student 

continues in the program but no more 

than 150 percent of the published 

program length. 

(b) Any institution administering a 

teacher preparation program that has 

lost State approval or financial support 

based on being identified as a lowperforming teacher preparation program 

must— 

(1) Notify the Secretary of its loss of 

the State’s approval or the State’s 

financial support due to identification 

as low-performing by the State within 

30 days of such designation; 

(2) Immediately notify each student 

who is enrolled in or accepted into the 

low-performing teacher preparation 

program and who receives title IV, HEA 

program funds that, commencing with 

the next payment period, the institution 

is no longer eligible to provide such 

funding to students enrolled in or 

accepted into the low-performing 

teacher preparation program; and 

(3) Disclose on its Web site and in 

promotional materials that it makes 

available to prospective students that 

the teacher preparation program has 

been identified as a low-performing 

teacher preparation program by the 

State and has lost the State’s approval 

or the State’s financial support, and that 

students accepted or enrolled in the 

low-performing teacher preparation 

program may not receive title IV, HEA 

program funds. 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1022f) 

§ 612.8 How does a low-performing 

teacher preparation program regain 

eligibility to accept or enroll students 

receiving Title IV, HEA program funds after 

loss of the State’s approval or the State’s 

financial support? 

(a) A low-performing teacher 

preparation program that has lost the 

State’s approval or the State’s financial 

support may regain its ability to accept 

and enroll students who receive title IV, 

HEA program funds upon 

demonstration to the Secretary under 

paragraph (b) of this section of— 

(1) Improved performance on the 

teacher preparation program 

performance criteria in § 612.5 as 

determined by the State; and 

(2) Reinstatement of the State’s 

approval or the State’s financial 

support, or, if both were lost, the State’s 

approval and the State’s financial 

support. 

(b)(1) To regain eligibility to accept or 

enroll students receiving title IV, HEA 

funds in a teacher preparation program 

that was previously identified by the 

State as low-performing and that lost the 

State’s approval or the State’s financial 

support, the institution that offers the 

teacher preparation program must 

submit an application to the Secretary 

along with supporting documentation 

that will enable the Secretary to 

determine that the teacher preparation 

program previously identified by the 

State as low-performing has met the 

requirements under paragraph (a) of this 

section. 

(2) The Secretary evaluates an 

institution’s application to participate in 

the title IV, HEA programs consistent 

with 34 CFR 600.20 and determines if 

the institution is eligible to participate 

in these programs. In the event that an 

institution is not granted eligibility to 

participate in the title IV, HEA 

programs, that institution may submit 

additional evidence to demonstrate to 

the satisfaction of the Secretary that it 

is eligible to participate in these 

programs. 

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1022f) 

PART 686—TEACHER EDUCATION 

ASSISTANCE FOR COLLEGE AND 

HIGHER EDUCATION (TEACH) GRANT 

PROGRAM 

■ 2. The authority citation for part 686 

continues to read as follows: 

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1070g, et seq., unless 

otherwise noted. 

■ 3. Section 686.2 is amended by: 

■ A. Redesignating paragraph (d) as 

paragraph (e). 

■ B. Adding a new paragraph (d). 

■ C. In newly redesignated paragraph 

(e): 

■ i. Redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) 

in the definition of ‘‘Academic year or 

its equivalent for elementary and 

secondary schools (elementary or 

secondary academic year)’’ as 

paragraphs (i) and (ii); 

■ ii. Adding in alphabetical order 

definitions of ‘‘Classification of 

Instructional Programs’’ and 

‘‘Educational Service Agency’’; 

■ iii. Redesignating paragraphs (1) 

through (7) in the definition of ‘‘Highneed field’’ as paragraphs (i) through 

(vii), respectively; 

■ iv. Adding in alphabetical order a 

definition of ‘‘High-quality teacher 

preparation program’’; 

■ v. Redesignating paragraphs (1) 

through (3) in the definition of 

‘‘Institutional Student Information 

Record (ISIR)’’ as paragraphs (i) through 

(iii), respectively; 

■ vi. Redesignating paragraphs (1) and 

(2) as paragraphs (i) and (ii) and 

paragraphs (2)(i) and (ii) as paragraphs 

(ii)(A) and (B), respectively, in the 

definition of ‘‘Numeric equivalent’’; 

■ vii. Redesignating paragraphs (1) 

through (3) in the definition of ‘‘Postbaccalaureate program’’ as paragraphs 

(i) through (iii), respectively; 

■ viii. Adding in alphabetical order a 

definition for ‘‘School or educational 

service agency serving low-income 

students (low-income school)’’; 

■ ix. Removing the definition of 

‘‘School serving low-income students 

(low-income school)’’; 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71890 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

■ x. Revising the definitions of ‘‘TEACH 

Grant-eligible institution’’ and ‘‘TEACH 

Grant-eligible program’’; 

■ xi. Adding in alphabetical order a 

definition of ‘‘TEACH Grant-eligible 

science, technology, engineering, or 

mathematics (STEM) program’’; and 

■ xii. Revising the definition of 

‘‘Teacher preparation program’’. 

The additions and revisions read as 

follows: 

§ 686.2 Definitions. 

* * * * * 

(d) Definitions for the following terms 

used in this part are in Title II Reporting 

System, 34 CFR part 612: 

Effective Teacher Preparation Program 

(e) Other terms used in this part are 

defined as follows: 

* * * * * 

Classification of instructional 

programs (CIP): A taxonomy of 

instructional program classifications 

and descriptions developed by the U.S. 

Department of Education’s National 

Center for Education Statistics. 

Educational service agency: A 

regional public multiservice agency 

authorized by State statute to develop, 

manage, and provide services or 

programs to LEAs, as defined in section 

9101 of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of l965, as amended. 

* * * * * 

High-quality teacher preparation 

program: A teacher preparation program 

that— 

(i) For TEACH Grant program 

purposes in the 2020–2021 Title IV HEA 

award year, is classified by the State as 

effective or of higher quality under 34 

CFR 612.4(b)in either or both the April 

2019 and/or April 2020 State Report 

Cards and for TEACH Grant program 

purposes in the 2021–2022 Title IV HEA 

award year and subsequent award years, 

classified by the State as effective or of 

higher quality under 34 CFR 612.4(b), 

beginning with the April 2019 State 

Report Card, for two out of the previous 

three years; 

(ii) Meets the exception from State 

reporting of teacher preparation 

program performance under 34 CFR 

612.4(b)(4)(ii)(D) or (E); or 

(iii) Is a TEACH Grant-eligible 

science, technology, engineering, or 

mathematics (STEM) program at a 

TEACH Grant-eligible institution. 

* * * * * 

School or educational service agency 

serving low-income students (lowincome school): An elementary or 

secondary school or educational service 

agency that— 

(i) Is located within the area served by 

the LEA that is eligible for assistance 

pursuant to title I of the ESEA; 

(ii) Has been determined by the 

Secretary to be a school or educational 

service agency in which more than 30 

percent of the school’s or educational 

service agency’s total enrollment is 

made up of children who qualify for 

services provided under title I of the 

ESEA; and 

(iii) Is listed in the Department’s 

Annual Directory of Designated LowIncome Schools for Teacher 

Cancellation Benefits. The Secretary 

considers all elementary and secondary 

schools and educational service 

agencies operated by the Bureau of 

Indian Education (BIE) in the 

Department of the Interior or operated 

on Indian reservations by Indian tribal 

groups under contract or grant with the 

BIE to qualify as schools or educational 

service agencies serving low-income 

students. 

* * * * * 

TEACH Grant-eligible institution: An 

eligible institution as defined in 34 CFR 

part 600 that meets financial 

responsibility standards established in 

34 CFR part 668, subpart L, or that 

qualifies under an alternative standard 

in 34 CFR 668.175 and— 

(i) Provides at least one high-quality 

teacher preparation program at the 

baccalaureate or master’s degree level 

that also provides supervision and 

support services to teachers, or assists in 

the provision of services to teachers, 

such as— 

(A) Identifying and making available 

information on effective teaching skills 

or strategies; 

(B) Identifying and making available 

information on effective practices in the 

supervision and coaching of novice 

teachers; and 

(C) Mentoring focused on developing 

effective teaching skills and strategies; 

(ii) Provides a two-year program that 

is acceptable for full credit in a TEACH 

Grant-eligible program or a TEACH 

Grant-eligible STEM program offered by 

an institution described in paragraph (i) 

of this definition or a TEACH Granteligible STEM program offered by an 

institution described in paragraph (iii) 

of this definition, as demonstrated by 

the institution that provides the two 

year program; 

(iii) Provides a TEACH Grant-eligible 

STEM program and has entered into an 

agreement with an institution described 

in paragraph (i) or (iv) of this definition 

to provide courses necessary for its 

students to begin a career in teaching; or 

(iv) Provides a high-quality teacher 

preparation program that is a postbaccalaureate program of study. 

TEACH Grant-eligible program: An 

eligible program, as defined in 34 CFR 

668.8, that meets paragraph (i) of the 

definition of ‘‘high-quality teacher 

preparation program’’ and that is 

designed to prepare an individual to 

teach as a highly-qualified teacher in a 

high-need field and leads to a 

baccalaureate or master’s degree, or is a 

post-baccalaureate program of study. A 

two-year program of study that is 

acceptable for full credit toward a 

baccalaureate degree in a high-quality 

teacher preparation program is 

considered to be a program of study that 

leads to a baccalaureate degree. 

TEACH Grant-eligible science, 

technology, engineering, or mathematics 

(STEM) program: An eligible program, 

as defined in 34 CFR 668.8, in one of the 

physical, life, or computer sciences; 

technology; engineering; or mathematics 

as identified by the Secretary, that, over 

the most recent three years for which 

data are available, has not been 

identified by the Secretary as having 

fewer than 60 percent of its TEACH 

Grant recipients completing at least one 

year of teaching that fulfills the service 

obligation pursuant to § 686.40 within 

three years of completing the program. 

Each year, the Secretary will publish a 

list of STEM programs eligible to 

participate in the TEACH Grant program 

and will identify each eligible STEM 

program by its classification of 

instructional program (CIP) code. 

* * * * * 

Teacher preparation program: A 

State-approved course of study, the 

completion of which signifies that an 

enrollee has met all of the State’s 

educational or training requirements for 

initial certification or licensure to teach 

in the State’s elementary or secondary 

schools. A teacher preparation program 

may be a traditional program or an 

alternative route to certification or 

licensure, as defined by the State. For 

purposes of a TEACH Grant, the 

program must be provided by an 

institution of higher education. 

* * * * * 

■ 4. Section 686.3 is amended by: 

■ A. In paragraph (a), adding the words 

‘‘or a TEACH Grant-eligible STEM 

program’’ after the words ‘‘TEACH 

Grant-eligible program’’; and 

■ B. Adding paragraph (c). 

The addition reads as follows: 

§ 686.3 Duration of student eligibility. 

* * * * * 

(c) An otherwise eligible student who 

received a TEACH Grant for enrollment 

in a TEACH Grant-eligible program or 

TEACH Grant-eligible STEM program is 

eligible to receive additional TEACH 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 71891 

Grants to complete that program, even if 

that program is no longer considered a 

TEACH Grant-eligible program or a 

TEACH Grant-eligible STEM program, 

not to exceed four Scheduled Awards 

for an undergraduate or postbaccalaureate student and up to two 

Scheduled Awards for a graduate 

student. An otherwise eligible student 

who received a TEACH Grant for 

enrollment in a program before July 1 of 

the year these proposed regulations 

become effective would remain eligible 

to receive additional TEACH Grants to 

complete that program even if the 

program the student enrolled in is not 

a TEACH Grant-eligible program under 

proposed § 686.2(e). 

* * * * * 

§ 686.4 [Amended] 

■ 5. Section 686.4(a) is amended by 

adding the words ‘‘or TEACH Granteligible STEM programs’’ after the 

words ‘‘TEACH Grant-eligible 

programs’’. 

§ 686.5 [Amended] 

■ 6. Section 686.5(b)(1) is amended by 

adding the words ‘‘or TEACH Granteligible STEM program’’ after the words 

‘‘TEACH Grant-eligible program’’. 

■ 7. Section 686.11 is amended by: 

■ A. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(iii). 

■ B. In paragraph (b)(3), adding the 

words ‘‘or a TEACH Grant-eligible 

STEM program’’ after the words 

‘‘TEACH Grant-eligible program’’. 

■ C. Adding paragraph (d). 

The revision and addition read as 

follows: 

§ 686.11 Eligibility to receive a grant. 

(a) * * * 

(1) * * * 

(iii) Is enrolled in a TEACH Granteligible institution in a TEACH Granteligible program or a TEACH Granteligible STEM program; or is an 

otherwise eligible student who received 

a TEACH Grant and who is completing 

a program under § 686.3(c); 

* * * * * 

(d) Students who received a total and 

permanent disability discharge on a 

TEACH Grant agreement to serve or a 

title IV, HEA loan. If a student’s 

previous TEACH Grant service 

obligation or title IV, HEA loan was 

discharged based on total and 

permanent disability, the student is 

eligible to receive a TEACH Grant if the 

student— 

(1) Obtains a certification from a 

physician that the student is able to 

engage in substantial gainful activity as 

defined in 34 CFR 685.102(b); 

(2) Signs a statement acknowledging 

that neither the new service obligation 

for the TEACH Grant the student 

receives nor any previously discharged 

service agreement on which the grant 

recipient is required to resume 

repayment in accordance with 

paragraph (d)(3) of this section can be 

discharged in the future on the basis of 

any impairment present when the new 

grant is awarded, unless that 

impairment substantially deteriorates 

and the grant recipient applies for and 

meets the eligibility requirements for a 

discharge in accordance with 34 CFR 

685.213; and 

(3) For a situation in which the 

student receives a new TEACH Grant 

within three years of the date that any 

previous TEACH Grant service 

obligation or title IV loan was 

discharged due to a total and permanent 

disability in accordance with 

§ 686.42(b), 34 CFR 685.213(b)(7)(i)(B), 

34 CFR 674.61(b)(6)(i)(B), or 34 CFR 

682.402(c)(6)(i)(B), acknowledges that 

he or she is once again subject to the 

terms of the previously discharged 

TEACH Grant agreement to serve in 

accordance with § 686.42(b)(5) before 

receiving the new grant or resumes 

repayment on the previously discharged 

loan in accordance with 34 CFR 

685.213(b)(7), 674.61(b)(6), or 

682.402(c)(6). 

* * * * * 

■ 8. Section 686.12 is amended by: 

■ A. In paragraph (b) introductory text, 

adding the words ‘‘or TEACH Granteligible STEM program’’ after the words 

‘‘TEACH Grant-eligible program’’; 

■ B. In paragraph (b)(1)(i), adding the 

words ‘‘or a low-income educational 

service agency’’ after the word ‘‘school’’; 

■ C. In paragraph (b)(2), adding the 

words ‘‘or educational service agency’’ 

after the word ‘‘school’’; 

■ D. In paragraph (c)(1), adding the 

words ‘‘or the TEACH Grant-eligible 

STEM program’’ after the words 

‘‘TEACH Grant-eligible program’’; and 

■ E. Revising paragraph (d). 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 686.12 Agreement to serve. 

* * * * * 

(d) Majoring and serving in a highneed field. In order for a grant 

recipient’s teaching service in a highneed field listed in the Nationwide List 

to count toward satisfying the 

recipient’s service obligation, the highneed field in which he or she prepared 

to teach must be listed in the 

Nationwide List for the State in which 

the grant recipient begins teaching in 

that field— 

(1) At the time the grant recipient 

begins teaching in that field, even if that 

field subsequently loses its high-need 

designation for that State; or 

(2) For teaching service performed on 

or after July 1, 2010, at the time the 

grant recipient begins teaching in that 

field or when the grant recipient signed 

the agreement to serve or received the 

TEACH Grant, even if that field 

subsequently loses its high-need 

designation for that State before the 

grant recipient. 

* * * * * 

§ 686.31 [Amended] 

■ 9. Section 686.31 is amended by: 

■ A. In paragraph (a)(4), adding the 

words ‘‘or a TEACH Grant-eligible 

STEM program’’ after the words 

‘‘TEACH Grant-eligible program’’; and 

■ B. In paragraph (b)(2), adding the 

words ‘‘or a TEACH Grant-eligible 

STEM program’’ after the words 

‘‘TEACH Grant-eligible program’’. 

§ 686.32 [Amended] 

■ 10. Section 686.32 is amended by: 

■ A. In paragraph (a)(3)(ii), adding the 

words ‘‘and low-income educational 

service agencies’’ after the word 

‘‘schools’’; 

■ B. In paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(B), adding 

the words ‘‘or received the TEACH 

Grant’’ after the words ‘‘that field’’; 

■ C. In paragraph (c)(2), adding the 

words ‘‘or the TEACH Grant-eligible 

STEM program’’ after the words 

‘‘TEACH Grant-eligible program’’; 

■ D. In paragraph (c)(3), adding the 

words ‘‘or a TEACH Grant-eligible 

STEM program’’ after the words 

‘‘TEACH Grant-eligible program’’; 

■ E. In paragraph (c)(4)(i), adding the 

words ‘‘or a TEACH Grant-eligible 

STEM program’’ after the words 

‘‘TEACH Grant-eligible program’’; 

■ F. In paragraph (c)(4)(iii), adding the 

words ‘‘and low-income educational 

service agencies’’ after the word 

‘‘schools’’; 

■ G. In paragraph (c)(4)(iv)(B), adding 

the words ‘‘or when the grant recipient 

signed the agreement to serve or 

received the TEACH Grant’’ after the 

words ‘‘that field’’; and 

■ H. In paragraph (c)(4)(v), adding the 

words ‘‘or for a low-income educational 

service agency’’ after the words ‘‘lowincome school’’. 

§ 686.35 [Amended] 

■ 11. Section 686.35 is amended by: 

■ A. In paragraph (a)(2)(i), adding the 

words ‘‘or the TEACH Grant-eligible 

STEM program’’ after the words 

‘‘TEACH Grant-eligible program’’; and 

■ B. In paragraph (b), adding the words 

‘‘or the TEACH Grant-eligible STEM 

program’’ after the words ‘‘TEACH 

Grant-eligible program’’. 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
71892 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 232 / Wednesday, December 3, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

§ 686.37 [Amended] 

■ 12. Section 686.37(a)(1) is amended 

by removing the citation ‘‘§§ 686.11’’ 

and adding in its place the citation 

‘‘§§ 686.3(c), 686.11,’’. 

■ 13. Section 686.40 is amended by 

revising paragraphs (b) and (f) to read as 

follows: 

§ 686.40 Documenting the service 

obligation. 

* * * * * 

(b) If a grant recipient is performing 

full-time teaching service in accordance 

with the agreement to serve, or 

agreements to serve if more than one 

agreement exists, the grant recipient 

must, upon completion of each of the 

four required elementary or secondary 

academic years of teaching service, 

provide to the Secretary documentation 

of that teaching service on a form 

approved by the Secretary and certified 

by the chief administrative officer of the 

school or educational service agency in 

which the grant recipient is teaching. 

The documentation must show that the 

grant recipient is teaching in a lowincome school or low-income 

educational service agency. If the school 

or educational service agency at which 

the grant recipient is employed meets 

the requirements of a low-income 

school or low-income educational 

service agency in the first year of the 

grant recipient’s four elementary or 

secondary academic years of teaching 

and the school or educational service 

agency fails to meet those requirements 

in subsequent years, those subsequent 

years of teaching qualify for purposes of 

this section for that recipient. 

* * * * * 

(f) A grant recipient who taught in 

more than one qualifying school or more 

than one qualifying educational service 

agency during an elementary or 

secondary academic year and 

demonstrates that the combined 

teaching service was the equivalent of 

full-time, as supported by the 

certification of one or more of the chief 

administrative officers of the schools or 

educational service agencies involved, 

is considered to have completed one 

elementary or secondary academic year 

of qualifying teaching. 

* * * * * 

§ 686.41 [Amended] 

■ 14. In § 686.41, paragraph (a)(1) 

introductory text is amended by adding 

the words ‘‘or a TEACH Grant-eligible 

STEM program’’ after the words 

‘‘TEACH Grant-eligible program’’. 

■ 15. Section 686.42 is amended by: 

■ A. Revising paragraph (b); and 

■ B. In paragraph (c)(1), adding the 

words ‘‘or a TEACH Grant-eligible 

STEM program’’ after the words 

‘‘TEACH Grant-eligible program’’. 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 686.42 Discharge of agreement to serve. 

* * * * * 

(b) Total and permanent disability. (1) 

A grant recipient’s agreement to serve is 

discharged if the recipient becomes 

totally and permanently disabled, as 

defined in 34 CFR 682.200(b), and the 

grant recipient applies for and satisfies 

the eligibility requirements for a total 

and permanent disability discharge in 

accordance with 34 CFR 685.213. 

(2) If at any time the Secretary 

determines that the grant recipient does 

not meet the requirements of the threeyear period following the discharge in 

34 CFR 685.213(b)(7), the Secretary will 

notify the grant recipient that the grant 

recipient’s obligation to satisfy the terms 

of the agreement to serve is reinstated. 

(3) The Secretary’s notification under 

paragraph (b)(2) of this section will— 

(i) Include the reason or reasons for 

reinstatement; 

(ii) Provide information on how the 

grant recipient may contact the 

Secretary if the grant recipient has 

questions about the reinstatement or 

believes that the agreement to serve was 

reinstated based on incorrect 

information; 

(iii) Inform the grant recipient that 

interest accrual will resume on TEACH 

Grant disbursements made prior to the 

date of the discharge; and 

(iv) Inform the TEACH Grant recipient 

that he or she must satisfy the service 

obligation within the portion of the 

eight-year period that remained after the 

date of the discharge. 

* * * * * 

■ 16. Section 686.43 is amended by: 

■ A. Revising paragraph (a)(1); 

■ B. In paragraphs (a)(2) and (a)(3) 

introductory text, adding the words ‘‘or 

the TEACH Grant-eligible STEM 

program’’ after the words ‘‘TEACH 

Grant-eligible program’’; 

■ C. In paragraph (a)(3)(ii), adding the 

words ‘‘or a TEACH Grant-eligible 

STEM program’’ after the words 

‘‘TEACH Grant-eligible program’’; and 

■ D. In paragraph (a)(5), adding the 

words ‘‘or the TEACH Grant-eligible 

STEM program’’ after the words 

‘‘TEACH Grant-eligible program’’. 

The revision reads as follows: 

§ 686.43 Obligation to repay the grant. 

(a) * * * 

(1) The grant recipient, regardless of 

enrollment status, requests that the 

TEACH Grant be converted into a 

Federal Direct Unsubsidized Loan 

because he or she has decided not to 

teach in a qualified school or 

educational service agency, or not to 

teach in a high-need field, or for any 

other reason; 

* * * * * 

[FR Doc. 2014–28218 Filed 12–2–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 


tkelley on DSK3SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2