8854 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

each account (in the currency of that 

account) during the calendar year being 

reported. The maximum value of an account 

is a reasonable approximation of the greatest 

value of currency or nonmonetary assets in 

the account during the calendar year. 

Periodic account statements may be relied on 

to determine the maximum value of the 

account provided that the statements fairly 

reflect the maximum account value during 

the calendar year. For Item 15, if the filer had 

a financial interest in more than one account, 

each account is to be valued separately. 

Step 2. In the case of non-United States 

currency, convert the maximum account 

value for each account into United States 

dollars. Convert foreign currency by using 

the Treasury’s Financial Management Service 

rate (this rate may be found at 

www.fms.treas.gov) from the last day of the 

calendar year. If no Treasury Financial 

Management Service rate is available, use 

another verifiable exchange rate and provide 

the source of that rate. In valuing currency 

of a country that uses multiple exchange 

rates, use the rate that would apply if the 

currency in the account were converted into 

United States dollars on the last day of the 

calendar year. 

If the aggregate of the maximum account 

values exceeds $10,000, an FBAR must be 

filed. An FBAR is not required to be filed if 

the person did not have $10,000 of aggregate 

value in foreign financial accounts at any 

time during the calendar year. 

For persons with a financial interest in or 

signature authority over fewer than 25 

accounts that are unable to determine if the 

aggregate maximum account values of the 

accounts exceeded $10,000 at any time 

during the calendar year, complete Part II, III, 

IV, or V, as appropriate, for each of these 

accounts and enter ‘‘value unknown’’ in Item 

15. 

If a foreign financial account is jointly 

owned by two or more persons, each person 

must report the entire value of the account. 

Item 16. Indicate the type of account. 

Check only one box. If ‘‘Other’’ is selected, 

describe the account. 

Item 17. Provide the name of the financial 

institution with which the account is held. 

Item 18. Provide the account number that 

the financial institution uses to designate the 

account. 

Items 19–23. Provide the complete mailing 

address of the financial institution where the 

account is located. 

If the foreign address does not include a 

state (e.g., province) or postal code, leave the 

box(es) blank. 

Part III 

Enter information in the applicable parts of 

the form only. If there is not enough space 

to provide all account information, copy and 

complete additional pages of the required 

Part as necessary. Do not use any 

attachments unless otherwise specified in the 

instructions. 

For Items 15–23, see Part II. 

Item 24. Enter the number of joint owners 

for the account. If the exact number is not 

known, provide an estimate. Do not count the 

filer when determining the number of joint 

owners. 

Items 25–33. Use the identity information 

of the principal joint owner (excluding the 

filer) to complete Items 25–33. Leave blank 

items for which no information is available. 

A spouse having an interest in a jointly 

owned account with the filing spouse is the 

principal joint owner. Enter the term 

‘‘(spouse)’’ on Line 26 after the last name of 

the joint spousal owner. 

If the filer’s spouse is required to report 

only jointly owned financial accounts that 

are reported on the filer’s FBAR, the filer’s 

spouse need not file a separate FBAR but 

must also sign the filer spouse’s FBAR to 

fulfill his or her reporting obligation. See 

Items 44–46 on page one. If the filer’s spouse 

is required to file an FBAR for any account 

that is not jointly owned with the filer, the 

filer’s spouse must file a separate FBAR for 

all of the accounts, including those owned 

jointly with the other spouse. 

Part IV—Signature Authority 

Enter information in the applicable parts of 

the form only. If there is not enough space 

to provide all account information, copy and 

complete additional pages of the required 

Part as necessary. Do not use any 

attachments unless otherwise specified in the 

instructions. 

25 or More Foreign Financial Accounts. 

Filers with signature authority over 25 or 

more financial accounts must complete only 

Items 34–43 for each person on whose behalf 

the filer has signature authority. 

For Items 15–23, see Part II. 

Items 34–42. Provide the name, address, 

and identifying number of the owner of a 

foreign financial account for which the 

individual has signature authority but no 

financial interest. If there is more than one 

owner of the account for which the 

individual has signature authority, provide 

the information in Items 34–42 for the 

principal joint owner (excluding the filer). If 

account information is completed for more 

than one account of the same owner, identify 

the owner only once and write ‘‘Same 

Owner’’ in Item 34 for the succeeding 

accounts of the same owner. 

Item 43. Enter filer’s title for the position 

that provides signature authority (e.g., 

treasurer). 

A United States person who is employed 

in a foreign country and who has signature 

authority over a foreign financial account 

that is owned or maintained by the 

individual’s employer should only complete 

Part 1 and Part IV, Items 34–43 of the FBAR. 

Part IV, Items 34–43 should only be 

completed one time with information about 

the individual’s employer. 

Part V—Consolidated FBAR 

Enter information in the applicable parts of 

the form only. If there is not enough space 

to provide all account information, copy and 

complete additional pages of the required 

Part as necessary. Do not use any 

attachments. 

Who Can File a Consolidated FBAR. An 

entity that owns directly or indirectly more 

than a 50 percent interest in a legal entity 

that is required to file an FBAR is permitted 

to file a consolidated FBAR on behalf of itself 

and such other legal entity. Check box ‘‘d’’ in 

Part I, Item 2 and complete Part V. If filing 

a consolidated FBAR and reporting 25 or 

more financial accounts, complete only Items 

34–42 for each person included in the 

consolidated FBAR. 

For Items 15–23, see Part II. 

Items 34–42. Provide the name, taxpayer 

identification number, and address of the 

owner of the foreign financial account as 

shown on the books of the financial 

institution. If account information is 

completed for more than one account of the 

same owner, identify the owner only once 

and write ‘‘Same Owner’’ in Item 34 for the 

succeeding accounts of the same owner. 

Signatures 

Items 44–46. The FBAR must be signed by 

the filer named in Part I. If the FBAR is being 

filed on behalf of a partnership, corporation, 

limited liability company, trust, estate, or 

other legal entity, it must be signed by an 

authorized individual. The authorized 

individual’s title is entered in Item 45. An 

authorized official of the person filing the 

consolidated FBAR must sign the FBAR. 

An individual must leave ‘‘Filer’s Title’’ 

blank, unless the individual is filing an 

FBAR due to the individual’s signature 

authority. If an individual is filing because 

the individual has signature authority over a 

foreign financial account, the individual 

should enter the title upon which his or her 

authority is based in Item 45. 

A spouse included as a joint owner, who 

does not file a separate FBAR in accordance 

with the instructions in Part III, must also 

sign the FBAR (in Item 44) for the jointly 

owned accounts. See the instructions for Part 

III. 

Penalties 

A person who is required to file an FBAR 

and fails to properly file may be subject to 

a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000. If there 

is reasonable cause for the failure and the 

balance in the account is properly reported, 

no penalty will be imposed. A person who 

willfully fails to report an account or account 

identifying information may be subject to a 

civil monetary penalty equal to the greater of 

$100,000 or 50 percent of the balance in the 

account at the time of the violation. See 31 

U.S.C. § 5321(a)(5). Willful violations may 

also be subject to criminal penalties under 31 

U.S.C. § 5322(a), 31 U.S.C. § 5322(b), or 18 

U.S.C. § 1001. 

[FR Doc. 2010–4042 Filed 2–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4810–02–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Subtitle B, Chapter II 

[Docket ID ED–2010–OESE–0001] 

RIN 1810–AB08 

Teacher Incentive Fund Program 

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Department of 

Education. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 8855 

ACTION: Proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance (CFDA) Numbers: 84.385 and 

84.374. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education 

(Secretary) proposes priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria under the Teacher Incentive 

Fund (TIF) program. These proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria are designed to be used 

in two separate and distinct TIF grant 

competitions: The Main TIF 

competition, which will provide TIF 

funding to eligible entities to support 

their implementation of performancebased compensation systems (PBCSs) in 

accordance with the priorities, the Main 

TIF requirements, the definitions, and 

the selection criteria proposed in this 

document, and the TIF Evaluation 

competition, which will provide, in 

accordance with the priorities, the Main 

TIF requirements, the definitions, and 

the selection criteria as well as the 

Evaluation requirements proposed in 

this document, TIF funding to help pay 

for the costs of implementing these 

eligible entities’ PBCS in exchange for 

an agreement to participate in the 

national evaluation. The Secretary may 

use these proposed TIF priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria in fiscal year (FY) 2010 and 

subsequent years. We intend the 

proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria to 

improve student achievement in highneed schools by creating incentives for 

effective teachers and principals in 

these schools. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before March 29, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

or via postal mail, commercial delivery, 

or hand delivery. We will not accept 

comments by fax or e-mail. Please 

submit your comments only one time in 

order to ensure that we do not receive 

duplicate copies. In addition, please 

include the Docket ID and the term 

‘‘Teacher Incentive Fund’’ at the top of 

your comments. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov to submit 

your comments electronically. 

Information on using Regulations.gov, 

including instructions for accessing 

agency documents, submitting 

comments, and viewing the docket, is 

available on the site under ‘‘How To Use 

This Site.’’ A direct link to the docket 

page is also available at http:// 

www.ed.gov/programs/teacherincentive. 

• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, 

or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver 

your comments about these proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria, address them to: 

Office of Elementary and Secondary 

Education (Attention: Teacher Incentive 

Fund Comments), U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

Room 3E120, Washington, DC 20202. 

Privacy Note: The Department’s policy for 

comments received from members of the 

public (including those comments submitted 

by mail, commercial delivery, or hand 

delivery) is to make these submissions 

available for public viewing in their entirety 

on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, 

commenters should be careful to include in 

their comments only information that they 

wish to make publicly available on the 

Internet. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

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

or by e-mail: TIF@ed.gov. Note that we 

will not accept comments by e-mail. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), call the 

Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 

1–800–877–8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Invitation to Comment: We invite you 

to submit comments regarding this 

notice. To ensure that your comments 

have maximum effect in developing the 

notice of final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria, we 

urge you to identify clearly the specific 

proposed priority, requirement, 

definition, or selection criterion that 

each comment addresses. 

We invite you to assist us in 

complying with the specific 

requirements of Executive Order 12866 

and its overall requirement of reducing 

regulatory burden that might result from 

the proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria. Please 

let us know of any further ways we 

could reduce potential costs or increase 

potential benefits while preserving the 

effective and efficient administration of 

the program. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect all public comments 

about this notice by accessing 

Regulations.gov. You may also inspect 

the comments in person, in Room 

3E120, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC, between the hours of 

8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Washington, DC 

time, Monday through Friday of each 

week except Federal holidays. 

Assistance to Individuals with 

Disabilities in Reviewing the 

Rulemaking Record: On request we will 

provide an appropriate accommodation 

or auxiliary aid to an individual with a 

disability who needs assistance to 

review the comments or other 

documents in the public rulemaking 

record for this notice. If you want to 

schedule an appointment for this type of 

accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 

contact the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Purpose of Program: The purpose of 

the TIF program is to support projects 

that develop and implement PBCSs for 

teachers and principals in order to 

increase educator effectiveness and 

student achievement in high-need 

schools. 

Program Authority: The Departments of 

Labor, Health and Human Services, and 

Education, and Related Agencies 

Appropriations Act, 2008, Division G, Title 

III, Pub. L. 110–161; Departments of Labor, 

Health and Human Services, and Education, 

and Related Agencies Appropriations Act, 

2010, Division D, Title III, Pub. L. 111–117; 

and the American Recovery and 

Reinvestment Act of 2009, Division A, Title 

VIII, Pub. L. 111–5 (the ARRA). 

Background 

The Statutory Requirements 

Statutory provisions that govern the 

use of TIF funds are contained in the 

Department’s annual congressional 

appropriations and in the ARRA. In this 

regard, Public Law 111–117, which 

contains the Department’s fiscal year 

(FY) 2010 appropriation, authorizes the 

Department to use TIF funds to make 

competitive grants to eligible entities to 

develop and implement PBCSs in highneed schools. Eligible entities for these 

funds are: 

(a) Local educational agencies (LEAs), 

including charter schools that are LEAs. 

(b) States. 

(c) Partnerships of— 

(1) An LEA, a State, or both; and 

(2) At least one non-profit 

organization. 

Under Public Law 111–117, eligible 

entities must use TIF funds to develop 

and implement in high-need schools 

PBCSs that— 

(a) Consider gains in student 

academic achievement as well as 

classroom evaluations conducted 

multiple times during each school year 

among other factors, and 

(b) Provide educators with incentives 

to take on additional responsibilities 

and leadership roles. 

Public Law 111–117 further provides 

that grant recipients (1) must 

demonstrate that their PBCSs are 

developed with the input of teachers 

and school leaders in the schools and 

LEAs the grants will serve, and (2) may 

use TIF funds to develop or improve 

systems and tools (which may be 

developed and used either for the entire 

LEA or only for schools served under 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
8856 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

the grant) that would enhance the 

quality and success of the PBCS, such 

as high-quality teacher evaluations and 

tools to measure growth in student 

achievement. In addition, Public Law 

111–117 provides that applications for 

TIF grants must include a plan for the 

financial sustainability of the activities 

conducted and systems developed 

under the grant once the grant period 

has expired. 

Funds for this program, including 

funds for a required national evaluation, 

were also appropriated as part of the 

ARRA. Recipients of awards made with 

ARRA funds must meet specific 

reporting requirements established by 

the ARRA. The following link provides 

guidance on these reporting 

requirements: http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/ 

memoranda_fy2009/m09-21.pdf. 

Note: Provisions of the ARRA that govern 

use of TIF funds require use of funds 

consistent with substantive requirements in 

the Department’s FY 2008 appropriations act, 

Public Law 110–161. The Department’s FY 

2009 and FY 2010 appropriations acts 

contain comparable provisions governing 

eligible grantees and the need to use TIF 

funds to develop and implement PBCSs in 

high-need schools. Although Public Law 

110–161 and Public Law 111–115 provide 

that Federal TIF funds may support PBCSs 

only for teachers and principals, grantees 

may extend their PBCSs to all school 

personnel by using non-TIF funds to pay for 

additional compensation for noninstructional personnel. 

Under the program, grantees may only 

use TIF funds for expenses related to the 

development and implementation of 

their PBCS in high-need schools 

identified in the applicant’s proposal. 

However, in addition to the financial 

incentives given to teachers and 

principals based on their effectiveness 

and their assumption of additional 

responsibilities or leadership roles (as 

defined in this notice), TIF funds also 

may be used to support a variety of 

activities either for the entire LEA or 

only for high-need schools served under 

the grant, that are related to the PCBS. 

These activities include professional 

development activities, evaluation and 

research analysis, costs of developing or 

improving systems and tools that would 

enhance the quality and success of the 

PBCS, such as high-quality teacher 

evaluations and tools to measure growth 

in student achievement, reasonable 

travel expenses related to the TIF 

program, data system enhancement or 

development, and other reasonable and 

necessary costs. 

With regard to payments for financial 

incentives, while the Department is not 

proposing to establish a minimum 

percentage that grantees would need to 

expend, it would expect that as an 

LEA’s PBCS becomes institutionalized, 

the percentage of its budget that is used 

for incentive payments would increase 

throughout the five-year grant period. In 

addition, while the salaries of certain 

staff outside of the PBCS (such as 

salaries of a school’s master, mentor or 

lead teacher) could conceivably be 

legitimate costs of a TIF project, given 

the purpose of the program the 

Department expects to continue to limit 

its approval of the number of such staff 

whose salaries may be paid with TIF 

funds. Grantees, however, would be able 

to use TIF funds towards the costs of 

bonuses paid to any number of these 

staff if they assume additional 

responsibilities under the PBCS. 

Background: Signed into law by 

President Obama on February 17, 2009, 

the ARRA constitutes an unprecedented 

effort to revive the Nation’s economy, 

create or save millions of jobs, and 

address long-neglected challenges so the 

Nation can thrive in the 21st century. 

In addition to measures that 

modernize the Nation’s infrastructure, 

enhance energy independence, preserve 

and improve affordable health care, 

provide tax relief, and protect those in 

greatest need, the ARRA provides an 

unprecedented sum—approximately 

$100 billion dollars—to fundamentally 

transform our public education system. 

Section 14005(d) of the ARRA requires 

that this funding be used to promote 

effective school reform in four assurance 

areas: (1) Adopting internationally 

benchmarked standards and 

assessments that prepare students for 

success in college and the workplace; 

(2) Building data systems that measure 

student success and inform teachers and 

principals in how they can improve 

their practices; (3) Increasing teacher 

effectiveness and achieving equity in 

teacher distribution; and (4) Turning 

around our lowest achieving schools. 

The ARRA’s second and third 

assurances are based upon evidence that 

teachers are the single most critical 

factor in improving student 

achievement. However, too many 

students, particularly those attending 

high-need schools, are provided 

instruction by ineffective teachers. 

Accordingly, the ARRA requires the 

Department to promote efforts that 

ensure equitable distribution of effective 

teachers between high and low poverty 

schools so that economically 

disadvantaged students have the same 

access to effective teachers as other 

students. 

TIF is one such effort. By requiring its 

grantees to draw distinctions in how 

teachers are retained, promoted and 

rewarded, TIF, as implemented by the 

Department, advances the ARRA’s third 

assurance of recruiting, developing and 

retaining effective teachers. To 

accomplish these goals, the ARRA 

provides TIF with an additional $200 

million dollars of funding. 

The Department proposes, to the 

extent feasible and appropriate, to align 

TIF with the requirements contained in 

the other ARRA programs, including the 

State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, Race to 

the Top, and the Title I School 

Improvement Grants. The Department’s 

intention in doing so is to encourage 

applicants to develop plans for 

evaluating educator effectiveness and 

for providing educators the professional 

development needed to improve 

classroom practice and student 

achievement that complement, and are 

consistent with, plans developed across 

these other ARRA programs. 

Along with authorizing TIF funds to 

be used to support projects that 

implement PBCSs, the ARRA also 

requires the Department to use the 

appropriated funds to conduct a 

‘‘rigorous national evaluation * * * 

utilizing randomized controlled 

methodology to the extent feasible, that 

assess the impact of performance-based 

teacher and principal compensation 

systems supported by the funds 

provided in this Act on teacher and 

principal recruitment and retention in 

high-need schools and subjects.’’ The 

ARRA thus requires the Department to 

award funds in a way that will ensure 

adequate participation of both a 

treatment group and control group in 

the national evaluation. Our proposal 

for the TIF Evaluation Competition, and 

the questions on which we specifically 

request public comment, are designed to 

permit the Department to meet this 

responsibility, and at the same time to 

seek answers to research questions 

about the effect of PBCSs on student 

achievement in high-need schools that 

are of great importance to those who 

would implement such systems. 

Proposed Priorities 

This notice contains five proposed 

priorities. The Secretary intends to use 

all five proposed priorities for the Main 

TIF competition and the TIF Evaluation 

competition. 

Types of Priorities 

The Secretary proposes five priorities 

for the Main TIF competition and the 

TIF Evaluation competition. Proposed 

Priority 1 through 3 are absolute 

priorities. Proposed Priorities 4 and 5 

are proposed as competitive preference 

priorities and are aligned with other key 

education reform goals of the 

Department. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 8857 

1 Goldhaber, D. (2007). Thoughts on Teacher Pay 

Reform. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive 

Center on Teacher Quality. 

2Sanders, W. (2006, November). Cumulative and 

Residual Effects of Teachers on Future Student 

Academic Achievement. Knoxville, TN: University 

of Tennessee; and Rivkin, S., Hanushek, E., and 

Kain, J. (2005, March). ‘‘Teachers, Schools, and 

Academic Achievement.’’ Econometrica, 73, 417– 

458. 

3 Guthrie, J.W., and Prince, C.D. (2008). Paying for 

and Sustaining a Performance-based Compensation 

System. Washington, DC: Center for Educator 

Compensation Reform. U.S. Department of 

Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary 

Education. 

4Hassel, B. (2002, May). Better pay for better 

teaching: Making teacher compensation pay off in 

the age of accountability. Washington, DC: 

Progressive Policy Institute. 

We may choose, in the notice of final 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria, to change the 

designation of any of these priorities to 

absolute, competitive preference, or 

invitational priorities, or to include the 

substance of these priorities in the 

requirements or the selection criteria. 

We may also decide to include the 

substance of the requirements or the 

selection criteria in the priorities. 

With an invitational priority, we 

would signal our interest in receiving 

applications that meet the priority; 

however, consistent with 34 CFR 

75.105(c)(1), we would not give an 

application that meets an invitational 

priority preference over other 

applications. 

Under an absolute priority, as 

specified by 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we 

would consider only applications that 

meet the priority. Under a competitive 

preference priority, we would give 

competitive preference to an application 

by (1) awarding additional points, 

depending on the extent to which the 

application meets the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an 

application that meets the priority over 

an application of comparable merit that 

does not meet the priority (34 CFR 

75.105(c)(2)(ii)). 

Proposed Priority 1 (Absolute)— 

Differentiated Levels of Compensation 

for Effective Teachers and Principals 

Background 

The quality of classroom teachers is 

the most important factor under a 

school’s control that affects student 

achievement.1 Studies using valueadded assessments indicate that 

individual teachers make a significant 

difference in student achievement and 

that teacher effectiveness varies 

considerably, even after adjusting for 

student characteristics such as prior 

performance, race or income.2

Yet one of the greatest obstacles to 

achieving the President’s ambitious goal 

of providing a high-quality education 

for all children is that too few students, 

particularly low-income, minority, and 

low-achieving students, are provided 

instruction by effective teachers. And 

because LEAs typically do not pay 

teachers and principals based on their 

effectiveness, but instead on a single 

salary schedule that pays all teachers 

and principals the same based on 

experience and level of education, LEAs 

rarely provide highly effective teachers 

and principals in public school systems 

compensation that differs from what 

they provide to less effective teachers 

and principals. 

Moreover, LEAs typically provide no 

additional incentive for the most 

effective teachers or principals to enter 

or remain in high-need schools. On the 

contrary, by providing the same amount 

of compensation based on credential 

and years of experience, and offering 

more experienced educators a priority 

in transfer options, LEA personnel 

systems often create at least implicit 

incentives for teachers and principals to 

move into schools and classrooms that 

present the fewest challenges. The 

failure to reward good performance by 

teachers and principals and to 

encourage effective teachers and 

principals to work in the most 

challenging schools makes it difficult to 

create a culture in high-need schools 

that focuses on continued excellence 

and results. 

The Secretary believes that LEAs with 

high-need schools that implement a 

PBCS that (1) rewards teachers and 

principals who demonstrate their 

effectiveness by improving student 

achievement and (2) provides 

opportunities for highly effective 

teachers to take on additional roles and 

responsibilities, will increase overall 

teacher and principal quality and will 

attract outstanding educators to these 

schools. The Secretary also believes that 

these PBCSs will foster the creation of 

schools that use evidence of student 

achievement and of effective teacher 

practice to continuously improve 

teaching and learning. 

Assuming that all funded projects are 

of sufficient quality, the Department 

intends to fund a variety of approaches 

to implement a PBCS including 

individual-based, school- or groupbased awards, and a combination of the 

two. Each applicant should propose a 

method or methods that best meet the 

needs of its principals, teachers and 

students in its high-need schools. 

Proposed Absolute Priority 

To meet this proposed absolute 

priority, an applicant must demonstrate, 

in its application, that it will develop 

and implement a PBCS that rewards, at 

differentiated levels, teachers and 

principals who demonstrate their 

effectiveness by improving student 

achievement (as defined in this notice) 

as part of the LEA’s coherent and 

integrated approach to strengthening the 

educator workforce. 

In determining teacher and principal 

effectiveness as part of the PBCS, the 

LEA— 

(a) Must give significant weight to 

student growth (as defined in this 

notice) based on objective data on 

student performance; 

(b) Must include observation-based 

assessments of teacher performance at 

multiple points in the year, carried out 

by evaluators trained in using objective 

evidence-based rubrics for observation, 

aligned with professional teaching 

standards; and, if applicable, as part of 

the LEA’s coherent and integrated 

approach to strengthening the educator 

workforce; and 

(c) May include other measures such 

as evidence of leadership roles that 

increase the effectiveness of other 

teachers in the school or LEA. 

In determining principal effectiveness 

as part of a PBCS, the LEA must give 

significant weight to student growth and 

may include supplemental measures 

such as high school graduation and 

college enrollment rates. 

In addition, the applicant must 

demonstrate that the differentiated 

effectiveness incentive payments will 

provide incentive amounts that are 

substantial and provide justification for 

the level of incentive amounts chosen. 

While the Department does not propose 

a minimum incentive amount, the 

Department encourages applicants to be 

thorough in their explanation of why 

the selected incentive amounts are 

likely high enough to create change in 

the behavior of current and prospective 

teachers and principals. 

Proposed Priority 2 (Absolute)—Fiscal 

Sustainability of the PerformanceBased Compensation System (PBCS) 

Background 

One of the most important steps that 

LEAs and States must take when 

developing and implementing a PBCS is 

to accurately project program costs and 

to plan for fiscal sustainability.3

Accurate cost projections at the 

development stage of a PBCS are 

critical, especially if an LEA or State 

plans to expand a PBCS from just a few 

schools to all schools in the LEA or to 

all LEAs in the State.4 Ample evidence 

suggests that States and LEAs frequently 

underestimate both the overall costs of 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
8858 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

5Odden, A., and Wallace, M. (2007, February). 

Rewarding Teacher Excellence: A Teacher 

Compensation Handbook for State and Local Policy 

Makers. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for 

Education Research, University of WisconsinMadison. 

6 Guthrie, J.W., & Prince, C.D. (2008). Paying for 

and sustaining a performance-based compensation 

system. Washington, DC: Center for Educator 

Compensation Reform. U.S. Department of 

Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary 

Education. 

7 Goe, L. (May 2008). Key issue: Using valueadded models to identify and support highly 

effective teachers. National Comprehensive Center 

for Teacher Quality. 

PBCSs for teachers and principals and 

the number of teachers and principals 

that will qualify for awards under the 

chosen PBCS.5

Public Law 111–117 requires that 

applicants must ‘‘include a plan to 

sustain financially the activities 

conducted and systems developed 

under the grant once the grant period 

has expired.’’ This absolute priority is 

intended to ensure that applicants 

effectively estimate the future costs of 

the particular PBCS they plan to 

implement, and that they are prepared 

to pay financial awards to everyone who 

earns them under the system. In 

addition to the direct costs of 

performance-based payments made as 

part of the PBCS that applicants should 

expect, there can be extra costs 

associated with administering a PBCS. 

These costs include both (1) employee 

benefits, such as premiums toward 

employee retirement, State taxes, and 

Federal withholdings, and (2) the costs 

of measuring employee effectiveness, 

such as costs associated with 

developing measures of teacher 

effectiveness, effective teacher and 

principal evaluation systems, incentives 

for career development, and 

longitudinal data systems capable of 

linking individual educators with 

student outcomes. 

The Secretary seeks to promote the 

fiscal sustainability of effective PBCSs 

by focusing applicants on the need to 

find additional and alternative sources 

of funding in order to provide an 

increasing share of matching funds 

(non-TIF funds) in those project years 

when differentiated compensation is 

paid to teachers and principals. The 

various strategies that States and LEAs 

might consider for securing sustainable 

funding for their PBCSs include: 

(a) Redeploying current State, LEA, or 

school resources, including resources 

that currently contribute to salary 

increments based on the accumulation 

of graduate credits and degrees. 

(b) Redirecting expected future 

resources. 

(c) Redirecting State and Federal 

categorical program assistance so State 

or Federal program funds, where 

authorized, are used to assist in paying 

for the expenses of the chosen PBCS. 

(d) Seeking additional public funding. 

(e) Seeking philanthropic or corporate 

support. 

In this proposed priority, we are 

asking that applicants (1) demonstrate 

that they have projected costs associated 

with the development and 

implementation of the PBCS, and (2) 

provide evidence that they will be able 

to sustain a financial commitment to 

their PBCS through the commitment of 

funds other than those provided under 

the TIF grant, during and beyond the 

life of the TIF project. 

Proposed Absolute Priority 

To meet this proposed absolute 

priority, the applicant must provide, in 

its application, evidence that: 

(a) The applicant has projected costs 

associated with the development and 

implementation of the PBCS, during the 

project period and beyond, and the LEA 

has accepted responsibilities to provide 

such performance-based compensation 

to teachers and principals who earn 

them under the system; and 

(b) The applicant will provide from 

non-TIF funds over the course of the 

five-year project period an increasing 

share of performance-based 

compensation paid to teachers and 

principals in those project years in 

which the LEA provides such payments 

as part of its PBCS. 

Proposed Priority 3 (Absolute)— 

Programmatic Sustainability of the 

Performance-Based Compensation 

System (PBCS) 

Background 

The Secretary seeks to focus 

applicants on the need to plan for the 

programmatic sustainability of the 

chosen PBCS. Evidence suggests that 

programmatic sustainability can best be 

accomplished when the PBCS is aligned 

with the LEA’s or State’s strategies for 

increasing teachers’ and principals’ 

effectiveness in high-need schools. 

Ideally, a PBCS supports and reinforces 

a coherent and integrated approach to 

strengthening the educator workforce, 

including teacher and principal 

recruitment, induction, professional 

development, evaluation, retention, and 

advancement into instructional 

leadership roles. When the PBCS’s 

implementation becomes embedded 

into the core of a LEA’s larger 

improvement strategy and operations, it 

will have a much greater likelihood of 

financial sustainability over the long 

term.6

Thus, through this proposed priority, 

we are asking that applicants 

demonstrate that the proposed PBCS is 

aligned with a coherent strategy for 

strengthening the educator workforce in 

the LEA(s) participating in the project. 

Proposed Absolute Priority 

To meet this proposed absolute 

priority, the applicant must provide, in 

its application, evidence that the 

proposed PBCS is aligned with a 

coherent and integrated strategy, 

including the use of data and 

evaluations for professional 

development, retention and tenure 

decisions, for continuing to strengthen 

the educator workforce in the LEA(s) 

participating in the project after the end 

of the TIF project period. 

Proposed Priority 4 (Competitive 

Preference)—Use of Value-Added 

Measures of Student Achievement 

Background 

The Secretary supports the use of 

‘‘value-added’’ measures of teacher and 

principal effectiveness for purposes of 

determining differentiated levels of 

compensation in a PBCS. Value-added 

measures seek to statistically isolate the 

contribution of teachers and principals 

to growth in student achievement 

between two or more points in time 

from other factors contributing to 

student achievement growth, including 

prior student achievement and student 

and family characteristics. Research 

indicates that value-added measures are 

a promising means of assessing the 

contributions of a school, teacher, or 

principal, while filtering out the nonschool factors that may also contribute 

to growth in student achievement.7

Through this priority, the Secretary 

seeks to promote the use of value-added 

measures in PBCSs for teachers and 

principals. Value-added measures of 

educational performance can provide a 

useful, objective measure of teacher and 

principal effectiveness. The use of a 

value-added measure under this priority 

would need to be implemented 

consistent with the requirements in 

Proposed Absolute Priority 1 

(Differentiated Levels of Compensation 

for Effective Teachers and Principals), 

which would require observation-based 

assessments of teacher performance at 

least twice a year. 

Given the complexity of models that 

use value-added measures, the Secretary 

seeks to ensure that applicants have a 

plan for (1) ensuring that they have the 

capacity to implement the value-added 

model effectively (e.g., that they have 

appropriate data systems and measures 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 8859 

8 Imazeki, J. and Goe, L. (2009). The Distribution 

of Highly Qualified, Experienced Teachers: 

Challenges and Opportunities. Washington, DC: 

National Comprehensive Center on Teacher 

Quality. 

to ensure data quality), and (2) clearly 

explaining the chosen value-added 

model to teachers to enable them to use 

the data generated through the models 

to improve classroom practices. 

Proposed Competitive Preference 

Priority 

To meet this proposed competitive 

preference priority, the applicant must 

demonstrate, in its application, that the 

proposed PBCS for teachers and 

principals will use a value-added 

measure of the impact on student 

growth as a significant factor in 

calculating differentiated levels of 

compensation provided to teachers and 

principals. 

Under this proposed priority, the 

applicant must also demonstrate that it 

has a plan to ensure that, as part of the 

PBCS, it has the capacity to (1) 

implement the proposed value-added 

model (e.g., through robust data systems 

that collect the necessary data and 

ensure data quality), and (2) educate 

teachers and principals on the chosen 

value-added model and how it would be 

implemented. 

Proposed Priority 5 (Competitive 

Preference)—Increased Recruitment 

and Retention of Teachers in Hard-toStaff Subjects and Specialty Areas in 

High-Need Schools 

Background 

This proposed competitive preference 

priority is intended to ensure that LEAs 

focus on recruiting and retaining 

effective teachers of hard-to-staff 

subjects and specialty areas in highneed schools. High-need schools are 

likely to have a higher proportion of 

vacancies, novice teachers, out-of-field 

teachers, and ineffective teachers than 

other schools in the LEA or State 

educational agency.8 In many LEAs, 

recruiting and retaining effective 

secondary mathematics and science 

teachers and teachers with the 

knowledge and skills to effectively 

accelerate the learning of English 

language learners and students with 

disabilities is particularly challenging. 

Providing incentives to hire and retain 

teachers who are effective, or likely to 

be effective, in teaching hard-to-staff 

subjects and specialty areas in highneed schools can be a valuable tool for 

ensuring that students in those schools 

are taught by effective teachers. 

The availability of such incentives 

should be communicated broadly to 

current teachers in the LEA, as well as 

to potential recruits, to increase the 

likelihood that effective teachers within 

the LEA, as well as new teachers with 

relevant backgrounds, will apply for 

hard-to-staff subjects and specialty areas 

in high-need schools. 

Proposed Competitive Preference 

Priority 

To meet this proposed competitive 

preference priority, the applicant must 

demonstrate in its application that its 

proposed PBCS is designed to assist 

high-need schools to (1) Serve highneed students (as defined in this notice), 

(2) retain effective teachers in teaching 

positions in hard-to-staff subjects and 

specialty areas, such as mathematics, 

science, special education, and English 

language acquisition, and (3) fill 

vacancies with teachers of those 

subjects or specialty areas who are 

effective or likely to be effective. 

Applicants would be required to 

provide an explanation for how they 

will determine a teacher filling a 

vacancy is effective or likely to be 

effective. In addition, applicants would 

be required to demonstrate, in their 

applications, the extent to which the 

subject areas or specialty areas they 

propose to target are hard-to-staff. 

Lastly, applicants would need to 

demonstrate, in their applications, that 

they will implement a process for 

effectively communicating to teachers 

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

areas are considered hard-to-staff. 

Requirements 

The following sections provide 

requirements for both the Main TIF and 

Evaluation TIF competitions. 

Proposed Requirements for the Main 

TIF Competition 

Background 

In order to promote successful 

projects that meet the objectives 

Congress has established for the TIF 

program, the Secretary proposes to 

establish the following requirements for 

the Main TIF competition: 

(a) A requirement that an applicant 

may submit an application for the Main 

TIF competition or the Evaluation 

competition. Applicants not funded 

under the Evaluation competition are 

automatically eligible under the Main 

TIF competition, and thus need not 

apply to both. 

(b) A requirement that each applicant 

describe in its application how its 

proposed PBCS will provide educators 

with incentives to take on additional 

responsibilities and leadership roles, as 

defined in this notice. 

(c) A requirement that every applicant 

have five core elements (as described 

below) of its PBCS in place or it must 

implement a planning period. 

(d) A requirement that the proposed 

PBCS provide participating teachers and 

principals high quality professional 

development which is targeted to needs 

identified through the evaluation 

process and shown to be effective. 

(e) A requirement that the applicant 

document that all participating schools 

are high-need schools. 

(f) A requirement that limits eligibility 

for both competitions to applicants that 

propose to serve schools not already 

served (or to be served) by current TIF 

grants. 

The following describes the 

Department’s rationale for proposing 

these requirements: 

Selection of Competition. To ensure 

that there is a sufficient sample for the 

national evaluation, we propose to 

select applicants from the Evaluation 

competition before selecting applicants 

from the Main TIF competition. In order 

to not disadvantage the Evaluation 

competition applicants, we further 

propose that any Evaluation 

competition applicants not funded in 

the Evaluation competition would be 

automatically eligible for the Main TIF 

competition. 

Application Requirement. Public Law 

111–8 requires that any PBCS funded 

under the TIF program provide 

educators with incentives to take on 

additional responsibilities and 

leadership roles. 

The Secretary views this requirement 

as a critical component for successful 

PBCSs and wants to ensure that each 

applicant has a plan in place that details 

how its proposed PBCS will provide 

these incentives. 

Core Elements of a PBCS and a 

Potential Planning Period. The Secretary 

has identified five core elements that he 

believes are essential to the success of 

any effective PBCS. We, therefore, 

propose to require each TIF grantee to 

have: 

(a) A plan for effectively 

communicating to teachers, 

administrators, other school personnel, 

and the community at-large about the 

components of the PBCS. 

(b) The involvement and support of 

teachers, principals, and other certified 

personnel (including input from 

teachers and principals in the schools 

and LEAs to be served by the grant) and 

the involvement and support of unions 

in participating LEAs where they are the 

designated exclusive representatives for 

the purpose of collective bargaining that 

is needed to carry out the grant. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
8860 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

(c) Rigorous, transparent, and fair 

evaluation systems for teachers and 

principals that differentiate 

effectiveness using multiple rating 

categories that take into account student 

achievement growth as a significant 

factor, as well as classroom observations 

conducted at least twice during the 

school year. The classroom observation 

process must: (1) Use an objective, 

evidence-based rubric aligned with 

professional teaching standards and the 

LEA’S coherent and integrated approach 

to strengthening the educator workforce; 

(2) provide for observations of each 

teacher or principal multiple times 

during the school year by individuals 

(who may include peer reviewers), who 

are provided specialized training; (3) 

incorporate the collection and 

evaluation of additional forms of 

evidence; and (4) ensure a high degree 

of inter-rater reliability (i.e., agreement 

among two or more raters who score 

approximately the same) across the 

evaluators. 

(d) A data-management system, 

consistent with the LEA’s proposed 

PBCS, that can link student 

achievement data to teacher and 

principal payroll and human resources 

systems. 

(e) A plan for ensuring that teachers 

and principals understand the specific 

measures of teacher and principal 

effectiveness included in the PBCS, and 

receive professional development that 

enables them to use data generated by 

these measures to improve their 

practice. 

The Secretary recognizes that not 

every applicant will be able to 

demonstrate in its application that it has 

in place all five core elements necessary 

to ensure effective implementation of its 

PBCS. Based on the Department’s 

experience with current TIF grantees, 

however, we believe that having these 

required core elements in place before 

beginning to build a PBCS leads to a 

much more efficient and successful 

implementation of that system. 

Therefore, the Secretary proposes to 

require any applicant that cannot 

demonstrate in its application that it has 

in place each of these five core elements 

to agree, as part of its application, to 

implement a planning period of up to 

one year, during which it would use its 

TIF funds to develop the core element 

or elements it lacks. Because of the 

importance of the core elements, a 

grantee would be prohibited from using 

TIF program funds to provide incentive 

payments to teachers or principals until 

the Secretary is satisfied that it has 

implemented all five elements (as 

demonstrated in the grantee’s reports to 

the Department during the project 

period). 

Professional Development. The 

Secretary believes that high-quality 

professional development, tied to the 

evaluation systems described above, is a 

key component of any successful and 

enduring PBCS for teachers and 

principals. Among other things, 

professional development enables all 

teachers and principals in high-need 

schools to learn how to generate, 

examine, and use student growth data to 

improve their practices in the classroom 

and in their schools, and thereby raise 

student achievement. For this reason, 

the Secretary proposes to require each 

applicant to demonstrate, in its 

application, that it has a system in 

place, or a specific plan for developing 

one, to (1) provide high-quality 

professional development that is aligned 

with the PBCS for teachers and 

principals consistent with the definition 

of the term professional development in 

section 9101(34) of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 

amended (ESEA) and targeted to needs 

identified in the evaluation process; and 

(2) regularly assess the effectiveness of 

this professional development in 

improving teacher practice and student 

achievement and make modifications 

necessary to improve its effectiveness. 

High-Need Schools Documentation. 

Consistent with the requirement that all 

schools served through the TIF program 

be ‘‘high-need,’’ the Secretary proposes 

to require that each applicant 

demonstrate, in its application, that it 

will implement the proposed PBCS in 

high-need schools (as defined in this 

notice). The Secretary proposes this 

requirement to enable the Department to 

ensure that all applicants are eligible to 

receive funding under this program. 

This requirement would specify that 

applicants must identify the schools in 

which the PBCS would be implemented, 

and provide school-level data that 

demonstrate that each school to be 

served is a high-need school. We would 

require school-level data as opposed to 

LEA or State-level data because the TIF 

authorizing statute requires poverty data 

be identified at the school level. 

Additional Eligibility Requirement. 

Finally, the Secretary proposes to limit 

eligibility for the Main TIF competition 

and the Evaluation competition to 

applicants that are serving schools not 

already served (or to be served) by 

current TIF grants. We propose to 

establish this eligibility requirement (1) 

in order to expand the number of LEAs 

and schools that are able to take 

advantage of PBCSs funded under the 

TIF program; and (2) because we believe 

that the projects currently funded under 

the TIF program should successfully 

complete the activities described in 

their approved application before 

seeking additional TIF funds to enhance 

their current projects in schools already 

served. Nothing in this proposed 

eligibility requirement would preclude 

current TIF grantees from applying for 

a new award to expand their TIFsupported PBCS into other high-need 

schools in the participating LEA. 

Proposed Requirements for Main TIF 

Competition 

For the reasons outlined in the 

preceding Background section, the 

Secretary proposes the following 

requirements for the Main TIF 

competition. 

Selection of Competition. An 

applicant may submit an application for 

either the Main TIF competition or the 

Evaluation competition. Each applicant 

must identify in its application the 

competition for which it is applying. 

The Evaluation competition will be 

funded prior to the Main TIF 

competition. Any Evaluation applicants 

not funded in the Evaluation 

competition will be automatically 

eligible for the Main TIF competition. 

Application Requirement. Each 

applicant must describe in its 

application how its proposed PBCS will 

provide educators with incentives to 

take on additional responsibilities and 

leadership roles, as defined in this 

notice. 

Core Elements of a PBCS and a 

Potential Planning Period. Each 

applicant must either— 

(a) Demonstrate in its application that 

it has in place each of the following five 

core elements; or 

(b) If the applicant cannot 

demonstrate in its application that it has 

in place each of these five core 

elements— 

(1) Agree, as part of its application, to 

implement a planning period of up to 

one year, during which it will use its 

TIF funds to develop the core element 

or elements it lacks; and 

(2) Include a plan for how it will 

implement the core element or elements 

it lacks during the planning period. 

Core Elements. 

(a) A plan for effectively 

communicating to teachers, 

administrators, other school personnel, 

and the community at-large the 

components of the PBCS; 

(b) The involvement and support of 

teachers, principals, and other certified 

personnel (including input from 

teachers and principals in the schools 

and LEAs to be served by the grant) and 

the involvement and support of unions 

in participating LEAs where they are the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 8861 

designated exclusive representatives for 

the purpose of collective bargaining that 

is needed to carry out the grant; 

(c) Rigorous, transparent, and fair 

evaluation systems for teachers and 

principals that differentiate 

effectiveness using multiple rating 

categories that take into account student 

achievement growth as a significant 

factor, as well as classroom observations 

conducted at least twice during the 

school year. The evaluation process 

must: (1) Use an objective, evidencebased rubric aligned with professional 

teaching standards and the LEA’s 

coherent and integrated approach to 

strengthening the educator workforce; 

(2) provide for observations of each 

teacher or principal multiple times 

during the school year by individuals 

(who may include peer reviewers), who 

are provided specialized training; (3) 

incorporate the collection and 

evaluation of additional forms of 

evidence; and (4) ensure a high degree 

of inter-rater reliability (i.e., agreement 

among two or more raters who score 

approximately the same); 

(d) A data-management system that 

can link student achievement data to 

teacher and principal payroll and 

human resources systems; and 

(e) A plan for ensuring that teachers 

and principals understand the specific 

measures of teacher and principal 

effectiveness included in the PBCS, and 

receive professional development that 

enables them to use data generated by 

these measures to improve their 

practice. 

Planning Period Requirements. Each 

grantee that implements a planning 

period to develop the core element or 

elements it lacks, would be— 

(a) Required to demonstrate in its 

annual performance report or other 

interim performance report that it has 

implemented any of the five core 

elements it had lacked; and 

(b) Prohibited from using TIF program 

funds to provide incentive payments to 

teachers or principals until it has 

implemented a PBCS that, to the 

Secretary’s satisfaction, has all five core 

elements. 

Professional Development. Each 

applicant must demonstrate, in its 

application, that its proposed PBCS will 

include a high-quality professional 

development component for teachers 

and principals consistent with the 

definition of the term professional 

development in section 9101(34) of the 

ESEA. 

The applicant must demonstrate that 

its PBCS has a professional 

development component in place, or a 

specific plan for developing one that is 

directly linked to the specific measures 

of teacher and principal effectiveness 

included in the PBCS. The professional 

development component of the PBCS 

must— 

(1) Be based on needs assessed either 

at the high-need schools participating in 

the applicant’s proposed PBCS or LEAwide; 

(2) Be targeted to individual teachers’ 

and principals’ needs as identified in 

the evaluation process; 

(3) Provide— 

(a) Those teachers and principals who 

do not receive differentiated 

compensation based on effectiveness 

under the PBCS with the tools and skills 

they need to improve their effectiveness 

in the classroom or school and be able 

to raise student achievement; and 

(b) Those teachers and principals who 

are deemed to be effective and who, 

therefore, receive differentiated 

compensation under the PBCS, with the 

tools and skills they need to (1) 

continue effective practices in the 

classroom or school and raise student 

achievement, and (2) successfully 

assume additional responsibilities and 

leadership roles; and 

(4) Include helping teachers and 

principals to better understand and use 

the measures of effectiveness in the 

PBCS to improve practice and student 

achievement. 

(5) Include a process for regularly 

assessing the effectiveness of this 

professional development in improving 

teacher practice and student 

achievement and making modifications 

necessary to improve its effectiveness. 

High-Need Schools Documentation. 

Each applicant must demonstrate, in its 

application, that the schools to be 

served by the proposed PBCS are highneed schools, as defined in this notice. 

Each applicant must provide, in its 

application, a list of schools in which 

the proposed PBCS will be implemented 

as well as the most current data on the 

percentage of each identified school’s 

students who are eligible for free or 

reduced-price lunch subsidies under the 

Richard B. Russell National School 

Lunch Act, or other poverty measures 

that the LEA uses (see section 1113(a)(5) 

of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6313(a)(5))). Data 

provided to demonstrate eligibility as a 

high-need school must be school-level 

data; the Department will not accept 

LEA- or State-level data for purposes of 

documenting whether a school is a highneed school. 

Additional Eligibility Requirement. 

An applicant must demonstrate, in its 

application, that it will implement the 

proposed PBCS only in schools that are 

not being served (or are not to be served) 

by current TIF grants. 

Proposed Requirements for the TIF 

Evaluation Competition 

Background 

The ARRA requires the Department’s 

Institute of Education Sciences (IES) to 

conduct a rigorous national evaluation, 

utilizing randomized controlled 

methodology to the extent feasible, to 

assess the impact that PBCSs for 

teachers and principals that are 

supported by program funds have on 

teacher and principal recruitment and 

retention in high-need schools and 

subjects. IES intends to implement this 

requirement, as well as to conduct 

related research on important issues that 

concern the effect of PBCSs on 

increased student achievement, by 

conducting a national randomassignment impact evaluation of TIF 

grantees (the Evaluation) that will 

provide researchers, policy-makers, 

school administrators, and teachers with 

important information about the teacher 

and principal differentiated 

effectiveness incentives component of 

the PBCS. Moreover, to meet its 

statutory responsibility to conduct this 

evaluation, the Department needs to be 

able to ensure it is able to assess the 

impact of differentiated effectiveness 

incentives component PBCSs using a 

sufficient number of high-need schools 

in comparison to high-need schools in 

which differentiated effectiveness 

incentives component PCBSs are not 

being implemented. 

In order to select both appropriate 

grantees (consistent with the objectives 

of the evaluation) and a sufficient 

number of participating LEAs and 

schools for the evaluation, the 

Department proposes to hold a separate 

competition under the TIF program— 

the TIF Evaluation competition—and to 

select applicants for an award under the 

Evaluation competition prior to 

selecting any applicants for an award 

under the Main competition. Under the 

TIF Evaluation competition, applicants 

must address all of the requirements 

and absolute priorities in the Main TIF 

competition, as well as additional 

requirements that are specific to the TIF 

Evaluation competition. The following 

describes the Evaluation that IES would 

conduct as well as the competition the 

Secretary would hold to select 

participants in the Evaluation. 

Description of the Evaluation 

Through the Evaluation, IES would 

study a select group of PBCSs 

implemented in one or more LEAs, in 

which the PBCS— 

(a) Determines the amount of teacher 

incentives for differentiated 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
8862 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

effectiveness using one of the following 

two models: 

(1) An individual-based incentive pay 

model, defined as a PBCS that uses 

individual performance criteria for 

determining differentiated effectiveness 

incentive payments. 

(2) A mixed-group incentive model, 

defined as a PBCS that determines 

differentiated effectiveness incentive 

payments using performance criteria to 

evaluate a group, such as a grade-level 

team of teachers or an entire school 

group, or using a mixture of individual 

and group performance criteria; 

(b) Determines the amount of 

principal differentiated effectiveness 

incentive payments using any incentive 

model determined appropriate by the 

applicant and proposed in the 

applicant’s application; and 

(c) Requires an LEA to make 

substantial and differentiated 

effectiveness incentive payments at the 

following levels— 

(1) For differentiated effectiveness 

incentive payments provided to 

principals, (i) the average principal 

payout (defined as the total amount of 

principal payments divided by the total 

number of principals in the schools 

participating in the differentiated 

effectiveness incentive payment 

component of the PBCS) is substantial 

(e.g., 5% of the average principal 

salary), (ii) the criteria for determining 

whether a principal is eligible for 

payment are challenging (e.g., payments 

are only made to those who perform 

significantly better than the current 

average performance among study 

schools within the district), and (iii) 

there is an expectation of meaningful 

differences in resulting principal pay 

(e.g., at least some principals could 

reasonably expect to receive an 

incentive payment of three times the 

average principal payout) and the 

applicant’s documentation of cost 

projections is consistent with this 

expectation; and 

(2) For differentiated effectiveness 

incentive payments provided to 

teachers, (i) The average teacher payout 

(defined as the total amount of teacher 

payments divided by the total number 

of teachers in the schools participating 

in the differentiated effectiveness 

incentive payment component of the 

PBCS) is substantial (e.g., 5% of the 

average teacher salary), (ii) the criteria 

for determining whether a teacher is 

eligible for payment are challenging 

(e.g., payments are only made to those 

who perform significantly better than 

the current average performance among 

study schools within the district), and 

(iii) there is an expectation of 

meaningful differences in resulting 

teacher pay (e.g., at least some teachers 

could reasonably expect to receive an 

incentive payment of three times the 

average teacher payout) and the 

applicant’s documentation of cost 

projections is consistent with this 

expectation. 

The Department intends to assess the 

performance component of a PBCS 

described in paragraph (c) in relation to 

a comparison group. This notice 

describes two possible options for a 

comparison group. A decision about 

whether to use either of these 

comparison designs, or a different 

approach, will be made after review of 

public comment on this notice. 

Accordingly, we specifically request 

comment on these proposed designs as 

well as alternatives. 

The two comparison designs are as 

follows: 

(a) Comparison design 1: The 

differentiated effectiveness incentive 

component of the PBCS would be 

compared to a PBCS with no 

differentiated effectiveness incentive 

component. Thus, under this design, all 

non-performance pay components of the 

PBCS (e.g., the professional 

development component, incentives for 

leadership roles component, and 

incentives for taking on additional 

responsibilities) would be implemented 

in all schools participating in the 

evaluation and the performance pay 

component of the PBCS would be 

implemented only in those schools 

designated by the evaluation contractor; 

(b) Comparison design 2: The 

differentiated effectiveness incentive 

component of the PBCS would be 

compared to a PBCS with an across-theboard salary increase of an amount 

equivalent to the expected average 

payout in the differentiated 

effectiveness incentive payment (e.g., if 

the expected average teacher payout is 

5% of the average teacher salary, then 

one-half of the schools participating in 

the evaluation, as designated by the 

evaluation contractor, would implement 

the applicant’s proposed performance 

component of the PBCS while the other 

half of the schools participating in the 

evaluation would implement an acrossthe-board salary increase equivalent to 

the proposed applicant’s expected 

average payout, 5% in this example). 

In evaluating the selected PBCSs, the 

Evaluation would address the following 

research questions: 

(a) Under comparison design 1: What 

is the effect on student achievement of 

an LEA’s PBCS that includes a 

performance component of a PBCS that 

includes differentiated pay and in 

which the incentive has a substantive 

average payout (e.g., 5% of the average 

teacher salary for teachers)? What is the 

effect of such a PBCS component on the 

composition and effectiveness of 

teachers and principals eligible for the 

incentive payments? What is the effect 

on recruitment and retention of eligible 

teachers and principals? 

(b) Under comparison design 2: What 

is the effect on student achievement of 

a performance based increase in wages 

compared to an across-the-board 

increase in teacher and principal salary 

in which the expected payouts are 

equivalent? Are there differences in the 

composition and effectiveness of 

teachers and principals between these 

two methods of increasing wages? Are 

there any differential effects on 

recruitment and retention of teachers 

and principals? 

(c) What is the relationship between 

the effect on student achievement of 

individual-based and mixed-group 

incentive pay models (i.e., is the 

differentiated effectiveness incentive of 

an individual-based incentive pay 

model more likely to be associated with 

an effect on student achievement)? 

(d) What features of PBCSs (e.g., 

relative emphasis on student 

achievement or teacher/principal 

observations incentives based on 

absolute versus relative standards; and 

the extent of staff eligibility) are 

associated with improved teacher and 

principal effectiveness and student 

achievement? 

(e) What are the implementation 

challenges associated with PBCSs, and 

what strategies do grantees use to 

overcome them? 

TIF Evaluation Competition 

Grantees funded under the TIF 

Evaluation competition would be 

awarded at least an additional $1 

million over the 5-year grant period 

(above the amount of funding awarded 

to them to implement the PBCS 

proposed in its application) to help pay 

for any additional costs of implementing 

activities associated with their TIF 

project. These costs might include those 

associated with developing value-added 

measures of student achievement, and 

professional development and expenses 

related to release time for teachers to 

attend professional development that is 

designed to support or complement the 

PBCS, and available to staff working on 

the grant or district-wide. In addition, 

while under the Main TIF competition 

the Department would continue its 

practice of permitting TIF funding to be 

used to pay the salary of only one 

Master, Mentor, or Lead Teacher or 

academic coach per school, recipients of 

awards under the Evaluation 

competition would be permitted to use 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 8863 

the additional $1 million for salaries of 

other academic coaches such as math 

and reading coaches, and of other 

Master, Mentor, or Lead Teachers. 

Finally, TIF Evaluation grantees could 

also use the additional $1 million award 

to pay for costs of securing data, 

including data linked to student 

achievement, needed by the evaluation 

contractor. 

In order to be eligible to receive this 

additional funding, applicants seeking 

awards under the TIF Evaluation 

competition must agree to certain 

additional requirements. The following 

describes the Department’s rationale for 

proposing these additional requirements 

for applicants under the TIF Evaluation 

competition: 

Budget Information. The Secretary 

proposes to require each applicant 

under the TIF Evaluation competition to 

include the additional $1 million funds 

available in its proposed budget 

accompanying the application for 

funding, and indicate the activities it 

plans to implement using these 

additional funds. This application 

requirement would assist the 

Department in conducting the necessary 

budget analysis before grant funding is 

awarded and ensure the Department has 

adequate budget information to fiscally 

manage the grant throughout the fiveyear project period. 

Two Incentive Models for Determining 

Teacher Incentive Payments. Each TIF 

Evaluation competition grantee would 

be required to implement, in at least one 

LEA, a PBCS that determines teacher 

differentiated effectiveness incentive 

payments using either an individualbased incentive pay model or a mixedgroup incentive pay model. 

The two proposed models would 

allow the Evaluation to separately test 

two prominent models of incentive pay 

and allow for analyses that will provide 

information about core aspects of 

differentiated effectiveness incentive 

pay to inform policy. An individualbased incentive pay model, which we 

would define as a PBCS that uses 

individual performance criteria for 

determining incentive payments, would 

provide the most direct incentive to 

teachers to improve their own 

effectiveness, and thus the student 

achievement of the students they teach. 

Under this model, the amount of a 

teacher’s incentive payment would be 

directly linked to the teacher’s 

individual performance, as measured 

against the criteria established for the 

PBCS. One possible downside of using 

an individual-based incentive model is 

that, given its focus on the individual, 

it may undermine collaboration among 

teachers. 

A mixed-group incentive pay model, 

which we would define as a PBCS that 

determines differentiated effectiveness 

incentive payments using performance 

criteria to evaluate a group, such as a 

grade-level team of teachers or an entire 

school group, or using a mixture of 

individual and group performance 

criteria, acknowledges the importance of 

collaboration but may weaken the 

incentive for individual teachers to 

perform better, because the performance 

criteria are, at least in part, based on the 

performance of others. The use of 

individual teacher performance criteria 

in addition to group performance 

criteria in a mixed-group incentive pay 

model allows the grantee to use 

individual performance criteria, which 

could lead to individual teacher 

differentiated effectiveness incentive 

payments that differ by individuals 

within the group. (If the PBCS only used 

group performance criteria, then 

teachers within a group meeting the 

group performance criteria all receive 

the same incentive payments. If, on the 

other hand, the PBCS uses a mix of 

group and individual performance 

criteria, then incentive payments for 

individual teachers within the group 

can differ from teacher to teacher.) 

Including in the Evaluation some 

LEAs with PBCSs that use an 

individual-based incentive pay model 

and some LEAs with PBCSs that use a 

mixed-group incentive pay model to 

determine teacher differentiated 

effectiveness incentive payments would 

allow IES to analyze separately each 

model. It also would allow the 

Evaluation to focus on the relationship 

between various PBCS features (e.g., 

relative emphasis on student 

achievement or teacher/principal 

observations as a performance criterion; 

incentives based on absolute versus 

relative performance criteria standards; 

and the extent of staff eligibility) and 

their effect on teacher and student 

outcomes. 

There is no analogous proposed 

choice of models for the principal 

differentiated effectiveness incentive 

pay because, by its nature, principal 

performance is a group performance 

measure related to the performance of 

each principal’s school. 

Incentive Amounts. Evaluation 

grantees would be required to 

implement a PBCS through which an 

LEA makes substantial incentive awards 

at the following levels: 

(a) For differentiated effectiveness 

incentive payments provided to 

principals, (i) the average principal 

payout (defined as the total amount of 

principal payments divided by the total 

number of principals in the schools 

participating in the differentiated 

effectiveness incentive payment 

component of the PBCS) is substantial 

(e.g., 5% of the average principal 

salary), (ii) the criteria for determining 

whether a principal is eligible for 

payment are challenging (e.g., payments 

are only made to those who perform 

significantly better than the current 

average performance among study 

schools within the district), and (iii) 

there is an expectation of meaningful 

differences in resulting principal pay 

(e.g., at least some principals could 

reasonably expect to receive an 

incentive payment of three times the 

average principal payout) and the 

applicant’s documentation of cost 

projections is consistent with this 

expectation); and 

(b) For differentiated effectiveness 

incentive payments provided to 

teachers, (i) the average teacher payout 

(defined as the total amount of teacher 

payments divided by the total number 

of teachers in the schools participating 

in the differentiated effectiveness 

incentive payment component of the 

PBCS) is substantial (e.g., 5% of the 

average teacher salary), (ii) the criteria 

for determining whether a teacher is 

eligible for payment are challenging 

(e.g., payments are only made to those 

who perform significantly better than 

the current average performance among 

study schools within the district), and 

(iii) there is an expectation of 

meaningful differences in resulting 

teacher pay (e.g., at least some teachers 

could reasonably expect to receive an 

incentive payment of three times the 

average teacher payout) and the 

applicant’s documentation of cost 

projections is consistent with this 

expectation). 

Each Evaluation grantee would be 

required to agree to implement in at 

least one LEA a PBCS with these 

characteristics to ensure that the 

Evaluation can focus on the 

effectiveness of the differentiated 

effectiveness incentive component of 

the PBCS. In designing the Evaluation, 

IES determined that these differentiated 

effectiveness incentive amounts, based 

on current evidence in the research 

literature, are the minimal amounts 

needed to alter teacher and principal 

behavior and recruitment in high-need 

schools consistent with the effect the 

Evaluation is designed to detect. 

Implementation of Evaluation. Each 

applicant under the TIF Evaluation 

competition would be required to agree, 

in its application, to implement its 

differentiated effectiveness incentive 

component of the PBCS in at least one 

LEA in accordance with the 

implementation plan developed by the 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
8864 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

IES evaluator, Mathematica Policy 

Research. The applicant also would be 

required to identify in its application 

the schools that would participate in the 

evaluation. For each LEA participating 

in the Evaluation, the IES evaluator 

would, by lottery, place eligible schools 

equally within one of two groups (i.e., 

‘‘Group 1’’ or ‘‘Group 2’’). 

For each participating LEA, the 

grantee would be required to implement 

its PBCS in the LEA’s Group 1 schools 

in either school year 2010–2011 or 

school year 2011–2012, depending on 

whether the LEA has the 5 core 

elements of the PBCS in place at the 

time of award. 

The following describes 

implementation for each of the two 

comparison designs the Department is 

considering: 

(a) Comparison design 1: With the 

same timing as Group 1, Group 2 would 

be required to implement all nondifferentiated effectiveness incentive 

components of the PBCS. (Participating 

LEAs that have the 5 core elements in 

place at the time of the grant award 

would be required to begin the first 

PBCS implementation in Group 1 

schools and non-differentiated 

effectiveness incentive components of 

the PBCS in Group 2 schools at the 

beginning of the 2010–2011 school year. 

Participating LEAs that do not have in 

place the 5 core elements and that 

therefore would implement a planning 

period would be required to begin the 

first PBCS implementation in Group 1 

schools and non-differentiated 

effectiveness incentive components of 

the PBCS in Group 2 schools at the 

beginning of the 2011–2012 school 

year.) All Group 2 schools would be 

prohibited from implementing a 

differentiated effectiveness incentive 

component for the duration of the TIF 

grant. 

(b) Comparison design 2: With the 

same timing as Group 1, Group 2 would 

be required to implement all nondifferentiated effectiveness incentive 

components of the PBCS and a salary 

increase for teachers and principals 

equivalent to the expected average 

payout in Group 1. (Participating LEAs 

that have the 5 core elements in place 

at the time of the grant award would be 

required to begin the PBCS 

implementation in Group 1 schools and 

non-differentiated effectiveness 

incentive components of the PBCS and 

the across the board salary increase in 

Group 2 schools at the beginning of the 

2010–2011 school year. Participating 

LEAs that do not have in place the 5 

core elements and that therefore would 

implement a planning period would be 

required to begin the PBCS 

implementation in Group 1 schools and 

non-differentiated effectiveness 

incentive components of the PBCS and 

the across the board salary increase in 

Group 2 schools at the beginning of the 

2011–2012 school year.) All Group 2 

schools would be prohibited from 

implementing a differentiated 

effectiveness incentive component for 

the duration of the TIF grant. 

The selection and placement of the 

LEA’s participating schools into Groups 

1 and 2 by lottery would enable the IES 

evaluator to examine what happens to 

student, teacher, and principal 

outcomes in comparable schools: (i) 

With and without a differentiated 

effectiveness incentive component of 

the PBCS under comparison design 1; or 

(ii) with a differentiated effectiveness 

incentive component of the PBCS and 

with an across-the-board salary increase 

under comparison design 2. Both of 

these evaluation designs would enable 

IES to compare outcomes in these 

schools for up to 5 years after the PBCS 

is implemented. It is important for the 

Evaluation to include multiple years 

because principal and teacher behavior 

may take time to respond to the 

differentiated effectiveness incentive 

payments. For teachers and principals 

who transfer to the PBCS schools, it may 

also take time for them to be effective 

in their new setting. 

Under comparison design 2, in 

addition to the non-differentiated 

effectiveness incentive components of 

its PBCS, the Group 2 schools would 

also implement an across-the-board 

salary increase for teachers and 

principals equivalent to the respective 

expected average payouts for teachers 

and principals in Group 1. This 

requirement, in combination with the 

random assignment study design, would 

ensure that when the Evaluation 

compares schools in the study that have 

implemented the differentiated 

effectiveness incentive component of 

the PBCS with schools that have 

implemented an across-the-board salary 

increase, differences in outcomes can be 

attributed to the differentiated 

effectiveness incentive component of 

the PBCS. 

Matching Requirement Under 

Comparison Group 2. (Funds provided 

to meet this match requirement may 

address the element of Absolute 

Proposed Priority 2 in which applicants 

would be required to provide from nonTIF funds an increasing share of 

performance-based compensation paid 

to teachers and principals.) 

Each applicant under the TIF 

Evaluation competition would be 

required to provide from non-TIF funds 

50% of the proposed across-the-board 

salary increase to be implemented in 

half of the participating Evaluation 

schools. While an across-the-board 

salary increase for staff in high-need 

schools reflects what may be, for some, 

a seemingly attractive alternative to 

differentiated payments based on 

performance, funds used to pay these 

increases are not supporting a PBCS. 

TIF funds therefore could not support 

such an across-the-board salary increase 

except for the fact that ARRA and the 

Department’s FY 2010 appropriation 

permit the use of TIF funds for 

evaluation. 

We recognize that if comparison 

design 2 is adopted, IES will be able to 

secure important research results about 

the impact of PBCSs relative to an 

across-the-board salary increase. On the 

other hand, the teachers and principals 

in schools that benefit from such salary 

increases will obtain significant benefits 

from use of TIF funds. Balancing these 

competing factors, if comparative design 

2 is adopted, we believe that it is 

reasonable to require that grantees pay 

50 percent of the costs of across-theboard salary increases for staff in the 

group of schools selected to be in Group 

2. The Department will also consider 

alternative possibilities for design, 

including a hybrid of the two 

approaches above. 

Advance Notice. To ensure that 

teachers and principals are aware of the 

implementation of the PBCS in their 

schools, applicants would be required to 

agree to work with the IES evaluator to 

notify all eligible school staff in schools 

participating in the Evaluation at least 

two months prior to the assigned Group 

1 implementation schedule. Advance 

notification and dissemination about the 

PBCS differentiated effectiveness 

incentive component features and 

performance criteria two months prior 

to the beginning of the school year in 

which it is implemented is important so 

that teachers and principals within and 

outside of the LEA would have time to 

learn about the differentiated 

effectiveness incentive component of 

the PBCS, and be informed enough 

about it to change their behavior in 

response. (e.g., for those in a PBCS 

school with a differentiated 

effectiveness incentive component, this 

might entail altering their teaching 

strategy to be more effective; for those 

not in a PBCS school with a 

differentiated effectiveness incentive 

component, this might entail 

transferring to a PBCS school with a 

differentiated effectiveness component.) 

Implementation of all Nondifferentiated Effectiveness Incentive 

Components. In order to isolate the 

effects of the differentiated effectiveness 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 8865 

incentive component of the PBCS, the 

Department would require every 

applicant to agree to implement the 

non-differentiated effectiveness 

incentive components (e.g., the 

professional development component, 

the incentives for leadership roles 

component, and the incentives for 

taking on additional responsibilities) of 

its PBCS in all of an LEA’s Group 1 and 

Group 2 schools at the same time the 

applicant implements the differentiated 

effectiveness incentive component of 

the PBCS in Group 1 schools. This 

requirement, in combination with the 

random assignment study design, would 

ensure that when the Evaluation 

compares schools in the study with and 

without the differentiated effectiveness 

incentive component of the PBCS, 

differences in outcomes can be 

attributed to the differentiated 

effectiveness incentive component of 

the PBCS. The LEA’s schools in Group 

2 would not be permitted to fully 

implement the differentiated 

effectiveness incentive component of 

the PBCS for the duration of the grant. 

Scope of Schools. In order that funds 

reserved for the TIF Evaluation 

competition are used as efficiently as 

possible, each applicant would be 

required to demonstrate, in its 

application, that, for each LEA in which 

it implements the PBCS, it will 

implement the differentiated 

effectiveness incentive component of 

the PBCS— 

(a) In eight or more high-need schools, 

within that LEA, that have students in 

tested subjects (i.e., students in grades 

three through eight); and 

(b) In at least two schools among 

those eight or more high-need schools 

that are of the same grade configuration 

(e.g., in at least two elementary schools 

or at least two middle schools). 

It would be important that each 

applicant provide the IES evaluator with 

at least two schools with the same grade 

configuration among the LEA’s schools 

proposed to participate in the 

Evaluation so that the IES evaluator’s 

group assignments made by lottery can 

result with at least one school of the 

same grade configuration in each of the 

two Groups (i.e., at least one elementary 

school in Group 1 and at least one in 

Group 2). It would also be important for 

the eight schools to be within the same 

LEA so that the random assignment can 

be conducted within the same local 

context (e.g., the schools have in 

common the same labor market issues, 

the same union issues, the same LEA 

policies etc.). 

Commitment to Evaluation. Because 

each participating LEA and school will 

need to work with the IES evaluator, it 

is critical that both the LEA and 

principals of the schools participating in 

the Evaluation are aware of, and agree 

to, the requirements of the Evaluation 

(i.e., adhering to the implementation 

plan and cooperating with datacollection efforts, such as providing 

math and reading State assessment 

student test scores). Therefore, we 

propose to require applicants to 

demonstrate, in their applications, that 

each participating LEA and school is 

willing and able to participate in the 

Evaluation. To demonstrate this 

willingness and ability to participate, 

each applicant would be required to 

include, in its application, a letter from 

the superintendent of each participating 

LEA, and a letter from the LEA’s 

research office or board, and principals 

of the participating schools stating that 

these officials agree to comply with the 

Evaluation requirements. 

Proposed Requirements for the TIF 

Evaluation Competition 

In addition to the requirements and 

priorities for the Main competition, 

which applicants for the TIF Evaluation 

competition would also be required to 

address, the Secretary proposes the 

following requirements for the TIF 

Evaluation competition only: 

Budget Information. An applicant for 

the TIF Evaluation competition must 

provide, in its application, a proposed 

budget that indicates how it plans to use 

the additional $1 million in funding 

received for participating in the 

Evaluation. The following activities are 

the only permissible uses for these 

additional funds: costs associated with 

developing value-added measures of 

student achievement; professional 

development and expenses related to 

release time for teachers to attend 

professional development; and salaries 

of academic coaches such as math and 

reading coaches, and Master, Mentor, or 

Lead Teacher salaries. 

Two Incentive Models for Determining 

Teacher Incentive Payments. An 

applicant for the TIF Evaluation 

competition must demonstrate, in its 

application, that it will implement a 

PBCS that provides incentive payments 

to both teachers and principals: 

(a) Teacher Incentive Payments. To be 

eligible to receive a grant under the TIF 

Evaluation competition, an applicant’s 

teacher differentiated effectiveness 

incentive component of the PBCS must 

use one of the following two models: 

(1) An individual-based incentive pay 

model, which awards differentiated 

effectiveness incentive payments to 

teachers based on individual teachers’ 

performance (e.g., student achievement 

results, teacher observations, etc.) based 

on criteria proposed by the applicant in 

its application. 

(2) A mixed-group incentive pay 

model which awards differentiated 

effectiveness incentive payments to 

teachers using group performance 

criteria at the grade, team, or school 

level, or using a mixture of group and 

individual teacher performance criteria. 

Note: Under the mixed-group incentive pay 

model, how much emphasis is placed on 

individual performance relative to group 

performance is up to the applicant to specify; 

however, in order to be a mixed-group 

model, the PBCS must use group 

performance criteria to determine the 

differentiated effectiveness incentive 

component of the incentive amounts and 

may, but is not required to, use individual 

performance criteria. 

Each applicant must specify, in its 

application, which of these two 

incentive models it will use for the 

teacher compensation component of its 

PBCS. 

(b) Principal Incentive Payments. To 

be eligible to receive a grant under the 

TIF Evaluation competition, the 

applicant must describe, in its 

application, the incentive model it will 

use for the principal differentiated 

effectiveness incentive component of its 

PBCS. (There are no specific model 

requirements for an applicant’s 

principal compensation component of 

the PBCS.) 

Incentive Amounts. An applicant for 

the TIF Evaluation competition must 

demonstrate, in its application, that it 

will implement a PBCS that uses: (1) 

principal differentiated effectiveness 

incentive payments in which (i) the 

average principal payout (defined as the 

total amount of principal payments 

divided by the total number of 

principals in the schools participating 

in the differentiated effectiveness 

incentive payment component of the 

PBCS) is substantial (e.g., 5% of the 

average principal salary), (ii) the criteria 

for determining whether a principal is 

eligible for payment are challenging 

(e.g., payments are only made to those 

who perform significantly better than 

the current average performance among 

study schools within the district), and 

(iii) there is an expectation of 

meaningful differences in resulting 

principal pay (e.g., at least some 

principals could reasonably expect to 

receive an incentive payment of three 

times the average principal payout) and 

the applicant’s documentation of cost 

projections is consistent with this 

expectation); and 

(2) Teacher differentiated 

effectiveness incentive payments in 

which (i) the average teacher payout 

(defined as the total amount of teacher 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
8866 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

payments divided by the total number 

of teachers in the schools participating 

in the differentiated effectiveness 

incentive payment component of the 

PBCS) is substantial (e.g., 5% of the 

average teacher salary), (ii) the criteria 

for determining whether a teacher is 

eligible for payment are challenging 

(e.g., payments are only made to those 

who perform significantly better than 

the current average performance among 

study schools within the district), and 

(iii) there is an expectation of 

meaningful differences in resulting 

teacher pay (e.g., at least some teachers 

could reasonably expect to receive an 

incentive payment of three times the 

average teacher payout) and the 

applicant’s documentation of cost 

projections is consistent with this 

expectation). 

Implementation of Evaluation. Each 

applicant under the TIF Evaluation 

competition must agree, in its 

application, to implement its 

differentiated effectiveness incentive 

component of the PBCS in at least one 

LEA in accordance with the 

implementation plan developed by the 

IES evaluator. The applicant would be 

required to identify in its application 

the schools that would participate in the 

evaluation. 

In its application, an applicant also 

must acknowledge that the IES 

evaluator will select, by lottery, from 

among the schools participating in the 

evaluation, those schools that will 

implement the differentiated 

effectiveness incentive component of 

the PBCS and must agree to implement 

the Evaluation design and its 

implementation plan within at least one 

LEA. 

In participating LEAs that have the 

five core elements in place at the time 

of grant award, the first group of schools 

in that LEA (Group 1 schools) must 

begin implementation of all components 

of the PBCS at the beginning of the 

2010–2011 school year. In a 

participating LEA that does not yet have 

in place the 5 core elements necessary 

to implement a successful PBCS at the 

time of award, the first group of schools 

in that LEA (Group 1 schools) must 

begin implementation of all components 

of the PBCS no later than the 2011–2012 

school year. 

The following table illustrates the 

Evaluation random assignment plan, 

depending on the amount of planning 

time an applicant would need: 

Random assignment a Pay component of PBCSb

Design 1 

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

Group 2 ....................................... No differentiated pay component until 2015–16. 

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

Group 2 ....................................... No differentiated pay component until 2015–16. 

Design 2 

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

Group 2 ....................................... Across the board pay increase implemented starting in 2010–11 

through 2014–15. 

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

Group 2 ....................................... Across the board pay increase implemented starting in 2011–12 

through 2014–15. 

aFor each LEA, the IES evaluator will randomly assign the schools participating in the Evaluation into 2 groups (Groups 1 and 2). bThe school year listed is the first year in which the differentiated effectiveness incentive component of the PBCS will be implemented in the 

LEA’s schools participating in the designated group. 

Matching Requirement. (Funds 

provided to meet this match 

requirement may address the element of 

Proposed Absolute Priority 2 in which 

applicants are required to provide from 

non-TIF funds an increasing share of 

performance-based compensation paid 

to teachers and principals.) If 

Comparison Design 2 is selected, an 

applicant for the TIF Evaluation 

competition must provide from non-TIF 

funds 50% of the proposed across-theboard salary increase to be implemented 

in Group 2 schools. 

Advance Notice. Each applicant must 

agree, in its application to work with the 

IES evaluator to notify all eligible 

schools participating in the Evaluation 

at least 2 months prior to the assigned 

Group 1 implementation schedule. 

Implementation of all Nondifferentiated Effectiveness Incentive 

Components. Each applicant must agree, 

in its application, to implement the nondifferentiated effectiveness incentive 

components of its PBCS in all of the 

LEA’s participating schools (those in 

Groups 1 and 2) starting at the same 

time as the differentiated effectiveness 

incentive component of its PBCS is 

implemented in the Group 1 schools. 

The schools in Group 2 must not 

implement the differentiated 

effectiveness incentive component of its 

PBCS for the duration of the TIF grant. 

Scope of Schools. An applicant for the 

TIF Evaluation competition must 

demonstrate, in its application, that it 

will implement a PBCS in eight or more 

high-need schools, within an LEA, that 

have students in tested subjects (i.e., 

students in grades three through eight), 

from which there are at least two 

schools proposed to participate in the 

Evaluation within the same LEA within 

each grade configuration (i.e., if 

elementary schools are proposed there 

are at least two elementary schools 

among the minimum of eight schools all 

within the same LEA; if middle schools 

are proposed there are at least two 

middle schools among the minimum of 

eight schools all within the same LEA). 

Applicants that include multiple LEAs 

must meet the scope of schools 

requirement in at least one LEA. 

Commitment to Evaluation. An 

applicant for the TIF Evaluation 

competition must provide, in its 

application, documentation that 

demonstrates the willingness of each 

participating LEA and school to 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 8867 

participate in the Evaluation. Such 

documentation must include for each 

participating LEA: 

(a) A letter from the LEA 

superintendent and the principals of the 

participating schools stating that those 

officials agree to meet the TIF 

Evaluation competition requirements, 

including adhering to the 

implementation plan of the IES 

evaluator which involves selection 

through a lottery of those schools to 

implement the differentiated 

effectiveness component among the 

schools participating in the evaluation. 

(b) A letter from the research office or 

research board of the participating LEA 

that expresses an agreement to comply 

with the Evaluation requirements (if 

such research office approval is 

needed). 

Proposed Definitions 

Background 

The Department proposes definitions 

for five terms not defined in the 

authorizing legislation for TIF that the 

Department has determined are 

necessary for the proper implementation 

of the TIF program: High-need school, 

student achievement, student growth, 

high-need students, and additional 

responsibilities and leadership roles. 

High-Need School 

Public Law 110–161 and Public Law 

111–117 require an eligible entity to use 

TIF funds to develop and implement a 

PBCS in a high-need school, but they 

does not define the term ‘‘high-need 

school.’’ Because the meaning of this 

term is critical to implementing the 

purpose of the TIF program, we propose 

to define it. Specifically, we propose to 

define a high-need school as a school 

with 50 percent or more of its 

enrollment from low-income families, 

based on eligibility for free or reducedprice lunch subsidies under the Richard 

B. Russell National School Lunch Act, 

or other poverty measures that LEAs use 

(see section 1113(a)(5) of the ESEA (20 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(5))). Because it is widely 

known that students attending middle 

and high schools submit applications 

for free or reduced-price lunch subsidies 

much less frequently than do students 

enrolled in elementary schools, we 

propose to clarify in the definition that 

LEAs may establish eligibility of a 

middle school or a high school as a 

high-need school based on comparable 

data from its feeder schools. We are 

proposing to define the term high-need 

school in terms of 50 percent eligibility 

for free- and reduced-lunch subsidies 

because the Administration is focusing 

on turning around struggling schools in 

high-poverty areas. We are targeting our 

efforts to help the schools and students 

most in need. 

Student Achievement and Student 

Growth 

The Department believes that there is 

sufficient research demonstrating that 

teacher effectiveness is a critical 

contributor to student learning, where 

student learning is measured by student 

growth over time—that is, the change in 

student achievement between two or 

more points in time. We believe that 

student achievement should be 

measured, in significant part, by a 

student’s standardized test scores. 

On the other hand, we recognize that 

teacher effectiveness should not be 

determined solely on the basis of 

standardized test scores, which is why 

we are proposing, consistent with the 

Race to the Top program, that the use 

of student growth as a significant factor 

in teacher evaluations must include 

multiple measures. 

The Department believes that student 

achievement and student growth data 

are meaningful predictive measures of 

teacher and principal effectiveness, and, 

therefore, should be considered as a part 

of a rigorous, transparent, and fair 

evaluation system. 

High-Need Students 

Through the Proposed Priority 5, the 

Department is encouraging applicants to 

develop and implement a PBCS that 

serves the needs of high-need students. 

The Department would like to take this 

opportunity to define this term for the 

purpose of each applicant’s 

understanding of the competitive 

priority. It was important to the 

Department for this definition to be 

consistent with the definition of highneed students in the Race to the Top 

final notice of priorities. Thus, the 

Department has used the same 

definition (identified below). 

Additional Responsibilities and 

Leadership Roles 

Public Law–161 and Public Law 111– 

117 require an eligible entity to use TIF 

funds to develop and implement a PBCS 

in a high-need school that provides 

educators incentives to take on 

additional responsibilities and 

leadership roles, but it does not define 

the terms ‘‘additional responsibilities 

and leadership roles.’’ Because the 

meaning of these terms is critical to 

implementing the purpose of the TIF 

program, we propose to define it. 

Specifically, we propose to define 

additional responsibilities and 

leadership roles as duties teachers may 

voluntarily accept such as roles as 

master or mentor teachers who are 

chosen through a performance-based 

selection process including assessment 

of their teaching effectiveness and the 

ability to work effectively with other 

adults and students, with 

responsibilities to assess and improve 

the teaching effectiveness of other 

teachers in the school; roles in 

induction and mentoring of novice 

teachers or high-need students; roles in 

tutoring students; or in establishing and 

developing learning communities 

designed to continually improve the 

capacity of all teachers in a school to 

advance student learning, using a 

shared set of practices, instructional 

principles or teaching strategies. This 

list is not exhaustive and the 

Department would encourage applicants 

to come up with other additional 

responsibility and leadership role 

opportunities for its teachers and 

principals that best meets the needs of 

its high-need schools. 

Proposed Definitions 

The Secretary proposes the following 

definitions of the terms high-need 

school, student achievement and 

student growth, high-need students, and 

additional responsibilities and 

leadership roles for use in the TIF 

program. We would apply these 

definitions for any Main TIF 

competition or TIF Evaluation 

competition in any year in which TIF is 

funded. 

High-need school means a school with 

50 percent or more of its enrollment 

from low-income families, based on 

eligibility for free or reduced-price 

lunch subsidies under the Richard B. 

Russell National School Lunch Act, or 

other poverty measures that LEAs use 

(see section 1113(a)(5) of the ESEA (20 

U.S.C. 6313(a)(5)). For middle and high 

schools, eligibility may be calculated on 

the basis of comparable data from feeder 

schools. Eligibility as a high-need 

school under this definition is 

determined on the basis of the most 

currently available data. 

Student achievement means— 

(a) For tested grades and subjects— 

(1) A student’s score on the State’s 

assessments under the ESEA; and 

(2) As appropriate, other measures of 

student learning, such as those 

described in paragraph (b) of this 

definition, provided that they are 

rigorous and comparable across schools. 

(b) For non-tested grades and subjects, 

alternative measures of student learning 

and performance such as student scores 

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

student performance on English 

language proficiency assessments, and 

other measures of student achievement 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
8868 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

that are rigorous and comparable across 

schools. 

Student growth means the change in 

student achievement (as defined in this 

notice) for an individual student 

between two or more points in time. A 

State or LEA may also include other 

measures that are rigorous and 

comparable across schools. 

High-need students means students at 

risk of educational failure or otherwise 

in need of special assistance and 

support, such as students who are living 

in poverty, who attend high-minority 

schools, who are far below grade level, 

who have left school before receiving a 

regular high school diploma, who are at 

risk of not graduating with a diploma on 

time, who are homeless, who are in 

foster care, who have been incarcerated, 

who have disabilities, or who are 

English language learners. 

Additional responsibilities and 

leadership roles means duties teachers 

may voluntarily accept such as roles as 

master or mentor teachers who are 

chosen through a performance-based 

selection process including assessment 

of their teaching effectiveness and the 

ability to work effectively with other 

adults and students, with 

responsibilities to assess and improve 

the teaching effectiveness of other 

teachers in the school; roles in 

induction and mentoring of novice 

teachers or high-need students; roles in 

tutoring students; or in establishing and 

developing learning communities 

designed to continually improve the 

capacity of all teachers in a school to 

advance student learning, using a 

shared set of practices, instructional 

principles or teaching strategies. 

Proposed Selection Criteria 

The following selection criteria apply 

to both the Main competition and the 

TIF Evaluation competition. 

Background 

The Secretary proposes these 

selection criteria to be used to review an 

applicant’s proposal for funding under 

either the Main TIF competition or the 

TIF Evaluation competition. The 

Department believes that these proposed 

selection criteria are needed to ensure 

that each applicant demonstrates, in its 

application, that it: (1) Proposes to 

implement a PBCS that will address a 

significant need of the LEA(s) to be 

served by the project, through the types 

of awards to be given to teachers and 

principals based on student 

achievement and other required factors; 

(2) has or will have a personnel and 

management structure capable of 

overseeing the development and 

implementation of the proposed PBCS; 

and (3) commits to sustaining the 

proposed PBCS after TIF funding has 

ended. 

Proposed Selection Criteria 

The Secretary proposes the following 

selection criteria for evaluating an 

application under this program. We may 

apply one or more of these criteria in 

any year in which there is a Main TIF 

competition or TIF Evaluation 

competition for this program. In the 

notice inviting applications, or the 

application package, or both we will 

announce the maximum possible points 

assigned to each criterion. 

(a) Need for the project. In 

determining the need for the proposed 

project, the Secretary will consider the 

extent to which the applicant 

establishes that— 

(1) The high-need schools whose 

educators would be part of the PBCS 

have difficulty— 

(i) Recruiting highly qualified or 

effective teachers, particularly in hardto-staff subject areas or specialty areas, 

such as mathematics, science, English 

Language Acquisition, and special 

education; and 

(ii) Retaining highly qualified or 

effective teachers and principals; and 

(2) Student achievement in each of 

the schools whose educators would be 

part of the PBCS is lower than in what 

the applicant determines are 

comparable schools of the LEA, or 

another LEA within its State, in terms 

of key factors such as size, grade levels, 

and poverty levels. 

(3) A definition of what it considers 

a ‘‘comparable’’ school for the purposes 

of paragraph (2) of this selection 

criterion. 

(b) Project design. The Secretary 

considers the quality of the design of the 

proposed project. In determining the 

quality of the design of the proposed 

project, the Secretary considers the 

extent to which the proposed PBCS— 

(1) Is part of a proposed LEA or 

Statewide strategy, as appropriate, for 

improving the process by which each 

participating LEA rewards teachers and 

principals in high-need schools based 

upon their effectiveness as determined 

in significant part by student growth. 

With regard to teacher and principal 

effectiveness, the Secretary considers 

whether— 

(i) The methodology the LEA or SEA 

proposes to use in its PBCS to determine 

the effectiveness of a school’s teachers 

and principals includes valid and 

reliable measures of student 

achievement, including norm- and 

criterion-referenced State-wide 

assessment scores, as appropriate; and 

(ii) The participating LEA would use 

the proposed PBCS to provide 

performance awards to teachers and 

principals that are of sufficient size to 

affect teacher and administrator 

behaviors, and their decision whether to 

go to, or remain working in, the highneed school; 

(2) Has the involvement and support 

of teachers, principals, and other 

certified personnel (including input 

from teachers and principals in the 

schools and LEAs to be served by the 

grant) and the involvement and support 

of unions in participating LEAs where 

they are the designated exclusive 

representatives for the purpose of 

collective bargaining that is needed to 

carry out the grant; 

(3) Includes rigorous, transparent, and 

fair evaluation systems for teachers and 

principals that differentiate 

effectiveness using multiple rating 

categories that take into account data on 

student growth as a significant factor, as 

well as classroom observations 

conducted at least twice during the 

school year; 

(4) Includes a data-management 

system, consistent with the LEA’s 

proposed PBCS, that can link student 

achievement data to teacher and 

principal payroll and human resources 

systems; and 

(5) Incorporates high-quality 

professional development activities that 

increase the capacity of teachers and 

principals to raise student achievement, 

and are directly linked to the specific 

measures of teacher and principal 

effectiveness included in the PBCS. 

(c) Adequacy of Support for the 

Proposed Project. In determining the 

adequacy of the support for the 

proposed project, the Secretary 

considers the extent to which— 

(1) The management plan is likely to 

achieve the objectives of the proposed 

project on time and within budget, and 

includes clearly defined responsibilities 

and detailed timelines and milestones 

for accomplishing project tasks; 

(2) The project director and other key 

personnel are qualified to carry out their 

responsibilities, and their time 

commitments are appropriate and 

adequate to implement the project 

effectively; 

(3) The applicant will support the 

proposed project with funds provided 

under other Federal or State programs 

and local financial or in-kind resources; 

and 

(4) The requested grant amount and 

project costs are sufficient to attain 

project goals and reasonable in relation 

to the objectives and design of the 

project. 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 8869 

(d) Quality of Evaluation. In 

determining the quality of the project 

evaluation, the Secretary considers the 

extent to which the applicant’s 

evaluation plan— 

(1) Includes the use of strong and 

measurable performance objectives (that 

are clearly related to the goals of the 

project) for raising student achievement, 

increasing teacher and principal 

effectiveness, and retaining and 

recruiting effective teachers and 

principals; 

(2) Will produce evaluation data that 

are quantitative and qualitative; and 

(3) Includes adequate evaluation 

procedures for ensuring feedback and 

continuous improvement in the 

operation of the proposed project. 

Final Priorities, Requirements, 

Definition, and Selection Criteria 

We will announce the final priorities, 

requirements, definition, and selection 

criteria in a notice in the Federal 

Register. We will determine the final 

priorities, requirements, definition, and 

selection criteria after considering 

responses to this notice and other 

information available to the Department. 

This notice does not preclude us from 

proposing additional priorities, 

requirements, definitions, or selection 

criteria, subject to meeting applicable 

rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use these proposed priorities, 

requirements, definition, and selection 

criteria, we invite applications through a 

notice in the Federal Register. 

Executive Order 12866: Under 

Executive Order 12866, the Secretary 

must determine whether this regulatory 

action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore 

subject to the requirements of the 

Executive Order and subject to review 

by Office of Management and Budget 

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

12866 defines a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ as an action likely to result in a 

rule that may (1) Have an annual effect 

on the economy of $100 million or 

more, or adversely affect a sector of the 

economy, productivity, competition, 

jobs, the environment, public health or 

safety, or State, local or Tribal 

governments, or communities in a 

material way (also referred to as an 

‘‘economically significant’’ rule); (2) 

create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; (3) 

materially alter the budgetary impacts of 

entitlement grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights and obligations of 

recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel 

legal or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in the Executive 

Order. Pursuant to the Executive Order, 

it has been determined that this 

regulatory action will have an annual 

effect on the economy of more than 

$100 million because the amount of 

government transfers provided through 

the TIF program will exceed that 

amount. Therefore, this action is 

‘‘economically significant’’ and subject 

to OMB review under section 3(f)(1) of 

the Executive Order. 

The potential costs associated with 

this proposed regulatory action are 

those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering this program effectively 

and efficiently. 

In assessing the potential costs and 

benefits of this proposed regulatory 

action, we have determined that the 

benefits of the proposed priorities, 

requirements, definition, and selection 

criteria justify the costs. 

We have determined, also, that this 

proposed regulatory action does not 

unduly interfere with State, local, and 

Tribal governments in the exercise of 

their governmental functions. 

Need for Federal Regulatory Action 

The proposed priorities, 

requirements, definition, and selection 

criteria are needed to implement the TIF 

program. The Secretary does not believe 

that the statute, by itself, provides a 

sufficient level of detail to ensure that 

the program achieves the greatest 

national impact in promoting the 

development and implementation of 

teacher and school leader PBCSs. The 

authorizing and appropriations language 

is very brief and provides only broad 

parameters to govern the program. The 

priorities, requirements, definition, and 

selection criteria proposed in this notice 

would clarify the types of activities the 

Department seeks to fund, and permit 

the Department to evaluate proposed 

projects using selection criteria that are 

based on the purpose of the program 

and are closely aligned with the 

Secretary’s priorities. 

In the absence of specific selection 

criteria for the TIF program, the 

Department would use the general 

selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210 of 

the Education Department General 

Administrative Regulations in selecting 

grant recipients. However, the Secretary 

does not believe the use of those general 

criteria would be appropriate for the 

Main TIF grant or TIF Evaluation 

competitions, because they do not focus 

on the development of PBCSs or 

activities most likely to increase the 

quality of teaching and school 

administration and improve educational 

outcomes for students. 

Regulatory Alternatives Considered 

The Department considered a variety 

of possible priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria before 

deciding to propose those included in 

this notice. For example, the 

Department considered— 

(1) Allowing applicants to propose to 

serve schools already served (or to be 

served) by current TIF grants, but chose 

to limit eligibility in order to expand the 

program to new schools. 

(2) A variety of definitions for the 

term ‘‘high-need school’’ before 

proposing to define this term based on 

50 percent eligibility for free- and 

reduced-lunch subsidies as the best 

means of focusing the program on 

turning around struggling schools in 

high-poverty areas. We are targeting our 

efforts to help the schools and students 

most in need. 

(3) Restricting the range of approaches 

to implementing a PBCS that this 

competition would support, to 

individual-based, school-based, or 

group-based awards. However, we 

recognize that a combination of these 

approaches may best meet the needs of 

an applicant’s high-need school or 

schools. 

The proposed priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria are those that the Secretary 

believes best capture the purpose of the 

TIF program while clarifying what he 

expects the program to accomplish and 

ensuring that program activities are 

aligned with other Presidential and 

Departmental priorities. The proposals 

also would provide eligible applicants 

with some flexibility in selecting 

activities to carry out the purposes of 

program. The Secretary believes that the 

proposals reflected in this notice 

appropriately balance the need to flesh 

out TIF programmatic requirements and 

provide the Department with the 

necessary tools to evaluate applications 

for TIF funding with the goal of 

providing applicants with sufficient 

flexibility to implement innovative 

approaches to PBCSs. We seek public 

comment on whether we have achieved 

an acceptable balance. 

Summary of Costs and Benefits 

The Secretary believes that the 

proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria would 

not impose significant costs on eligible 

States, LEAs, or nonprofit organizations 

that would receive assistance through 

the TIF program. The Secretary also 

believes that the benefits of 

implementing the proposals contained 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
8870 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 

in this notice outweigh any associated 

costs. 

The Secretary believes that the 

proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria would 

result in selection of high-quality 

applications to implement activities that 

are most likely to improve the quality of 

teaching and educational 

administration. Through the regulatory 

action proposed in this notice, the 

Secretary seeks to provide clarity as to 

the scope of activities he expects to 

support with program funds and the 

expected burden of work involved in 

preparing an application and 

implementing a project under the 

program. A potential applicant would 

need to consider carefully the effort that 

would be required to prepare a strong 

application and its capacity to 

implement a project successfully. 

The Secretary believes that the costs 

imposed on an applicant by the 

proposed priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria would 

be largely limited to paperwork burden 

related to preparing an application and 

that the benefits of implementing these 

proposals would outweigh any costs 

incurred by the applicant. This is 

because, during the project period, the 

costs of actually carrying out activities 

under a TIF grant would be paid for 

with program funds and any matching 

funds. Thus, the costs of implementing 

a TIF project or evaluation using these 

proposed priorities, requirements, 

definition, and selection criteria would 

not be a burden for any eligible 

applicants, including small entities. 

Accounting Statement 

As required by OMB Circular A–4 

(available at http:// 

www.Whitehouse.gov/omb/Circulars/ 

a004/a-4.pdf), in the following table, we 

have prepared an accounting statement 

showing the classification of the 

expenditures associated with the 

provisions of this proposed regulatory 

action. This table provides our best 

estimate of the Federal payments to be 

made to States, LEAs, and nonprofit 

organizations under this program as a 

result of this proposed regulatory action. 

This table is based on funds available 

for new awards under this program from 

the ARRA supplemental appropriation 

and the fiscal year 2010 appropriation. 

Expenditures are classified as transfers 

to those entities. 

Accounting Statement Classification of 

Estimated Expenditures 

Category Transfers 

(in millions) 

Annual Monetized 

Transfers.

$439.0. 

From Whom to Whom Federal Government 

to States, LEAs, 

and nonprofits. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

The requirements and selection 

criteria proposed in this notice would 

require the collection of information 

that is subject to review by the Office of 

Management and Budget (OMB) under 

the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). 

We estimate that each applicant 

would spend approximately 248 hours 

of staff time to address the requirements 

and selection criteria, prepare the 

application, and obtain necessary 

clearances. Based on the number of 

applications the Department received in 

the first competition it held (in FY 

2006), we expect to receive 

approximately 120 applications for 

these funds. The total number of hours 

for all expected applicants is an 

estimated 29,760 hours. We estimate the 

total cost per hour of the applicant-level 

staff who carry out this work to be $30 

per hour. The total estimated cost for all 

applicants would be $892,800. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

The Secretary certifies that this 

proposed regulatory action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The small entities that this proposed 

regulatory action may affect are (1) 

small LEAs, and (2) nonprofit 

organizations applying for and receiving 

funds under this program in partnership 

with an LEA or SEA. The Secretary 

believes that the costs imposed on an 

applicant by the proposed priorities, 

requirements, definition, and selection 

criteria would be limited to paperwork 

burden related to preparing an 

application and that the benefits of 

implementing these proposals would 

outweigh any costs incurred by the 

applicant. 

Participation in the TIF program is 

voluntary. For this reason, the proposed 

priorities, requirements, definitions, and 

selection criteria would impose no 

burden on small entities unless they 

applied for funding under a TIF 

program using the priorities, 

requirements, definition and selection 

criteria proposed in this notice. We 

expect that in determining whether to 

apply for TIF funds, an eligible entity 

would evaluate the requirements of 

preparing an application and 

implementing a TIF project, and any 

associated costs, and weigh them 

against the benefits likely to be achieved 

by implementing the TIF project. An 

eligible entity would probably apply 

only if it determines that the likely 

benefits exceed the costs of preparing an 

application and implementing a project. 

The likely benefits of applying for a TIF 

program grant include the potential 

receipt of a grant as well as other 

benefits that may accrue to an entity 

through its development of an 

application, such as the use of its TIF 

application to spur development and 

implementation of PBCSs without 

Federal funding through the TIF 

program. 

The U.S. Small Business 

Administration (SBA) Size Standards 

define ‘‘small entities’’ as for-profit or 

nonprofit institutions with total annual 

revenue below $7,000,000 or, if they are 

institutions controlled by small 

governmental jurisdictions (that are 

comprised of cities, counties, towns, 

townships, villages, school districts, or 

special districts), with a population of 

less than 50,000. The Urban Institute’s 

National Center for Charitable Statistics 

reported that of 203,635 nonprofit 

organizations that had an educational 

mission and reported revenue to the 

Internal Revenue Service (IRS) by July 

2009, 200,342 (over 98 percent) had 

revenues of less than $5 million. In 

addition, there are 12,484 LEAs in the 

country that meet the SBA’s definition 

of small entity. While these entities are 

eligible to apply for funding under the 

TIF program, the Secretary believes that 

only a small number of them will be 

interested in applying, thus reducing 

the likelihood that the priorities, 

requirements, definitions and selection 

criteria proposed in this notice would 

have a significant economic impact on 

small entities. In the first TIF 

competition that the Department held in 

FY 2006, approximately 21 nonprofit 

organizations applied for funding in 

partnership with an LEA or SEA, and 

few of these organizations appeared to 

be a small entity. The Secretary has no 

reason to believe that a future 

competition under this program would 

be different. To the contrary, we expect 

that the competitions run under Public 

Law 111–8 and ARRA will be similar to 

the FY 2006 competition because only 

a limited number of nonprofit 

organizations are working actively on 

the development of teacher and school 

leader PBCSs and many of these 

organizations are larger organizations. 

In addition, the Secretary believes 

that the priorities, requirements, 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules 8871 

definitions, and selection criteria 

proposed in this notice do not impose 

any additional burden on a small entity 

applying for a grant than the entity 

would face in the absence of the 

proposed action. That is, the length of 

the applications those entities would 

submit in the absence of the proposed 

regulatory action and the time needed to 

prepare an application would likely be 

the same. 

Further, this proposed regulatory 

action may help a small entity 

determine whether it has the interest, 

need, or capacity to implement 

activities under the program and, thus, 

prevent a small entity that does not have 

such an interest, need, or capacity from 

absorbing the burden of applying. 

This proposed regulatory action 

would not have a significant economic 

impact on a small entity once it receives 

a grant because it would be able to meet 

the costs of compliance using the funds 

provided under this program and with 

any matching funds provided by 

private-sector partners. 

The Secretary invites comments from 

small nonprofit organizations and small 

LEAs as to whether they believe this 

proposed regulatory action would have 

a significant economic impact on them 

and, if so, requests evidence to support 

that belief. 

Intergovernmental Review 

This program is subject to the 

requirements of Executive Order 12372 

and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. 

One of the objectives of the Executive 

order is to foster an intergovernmental 

partnership and a strengthened 

federalism. The Executive order relies 

on processes developed by State and 

local governments for coordination and 

review of proposed Federal financial 

assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

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

print, audiotape, or computer diskette) 

on request to the program contact 

person listed under For Further 

Information Contact. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

You can view this document, as well as 

all other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF) on the Internet at the 

following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/ 

fedregister. To use PDF you must have 

Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at this site. 

Note: The official version of this document 

is the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the Code 

of Federal Regulations is available on GPO 

Access at: http://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/ 

index.html. 

Dated: February 22, 2010. 

Thelma Mele ́ndez de Santa Ana, 

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education. 

[FR Doc. 2010–3963 Filed 2–25–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION 

AGENCY 

40 CFR Parts 52 and 81 

[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0928; EPA–R05– 

OAR–2010–0046; FRL–9116–7] 

Approval and Promulgation of 

Implementation Plans and Designation 

of Areas for Air Quality Planning 

Purposes; Ohio; Indiana; 

Redesignation of the Ohio and Indiana 

Portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton 

Area to Attainment for Ozone 

AGENCY: Environmental Protection 

Agency (EPA). 

ACTION: Proposed rule. 

SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve 

the requests of Ohio and Indiana to 

redesignate the Ohio and Indiana 

portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton, 

OH-KY-IN 8-hour ozone nonattainment 

area, ‘‘the Cincinnati-Hamilton area,’’ to 

attainment for that standard, because 

these requests meet the statutory 

requirements for redesignation under 

the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Ohio 

Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio 

EPA) and the Indiana Department of 

Environmental Management (IDEM) 

submitted these requests on December 

14, 2009, and January 21, 2010, 

respectively. (EPA will address the 

Kentucky portion of the CincinnatiHamilton area in a separate rulemaking 

action.) 

These proposed approvals involve 

several related actions. EPA is 

proposing to determine that the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area has attained 

the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air 

Quality Standard (NAAQS). The 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area includes 

Butler, Clermont, Clinton, Hamilton, 

and Warren Counties in Ohio, 

Lawrenceburg Township in Dearborn 

County, Indiana, and Boone, Campbell, 

and Kenton Counties in Kentucky. This 

determination is based on three years of 

complete, quality-assured ambient air 

quality monitoring data for the 2007– 

2009 ozone seasons that demonstrate 

that the 8-hour ozone NAAQS has been 

attained in the area. EPA is also 

proposing to approve, as revisions to the 

Ohio and Indiana State Implementation 

Plans (SIPs), the States’ plans for 

maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS 

through 2020 in the area. 

EPA is proposing to approve the 2002 

base year emissions inventory submitted 

by IDEM on June 13, 2007, as meeting 

the base year emissions inventory 

requirement of the CAA for the Indiana 

portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. 

EPA is proposing to approve the 2005 

base year emissions inventory submitted 

by Ohio EPA as part of its redesignation 

request as meeting the base year 

emissions inventory requirements of the 

CAA for the Ohio portion of the 

Cincinnati-Hamilton area. Finally, EPA 

finds adequate and is proposing to 

approve the States’ 2015 and 2020 

Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets 

(MVEBs) for the Ohio and Indiana 

portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area. 

DATES: Comments must be received on 

or before March 29, 2010. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments, 

identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05– 

OAR–2009–0928 and EPA–R05–OAR– 

2010–0046, by one of the following 

methods: 

1. http://www.regulations.gov: Follow 

the online instructions for submitting 

comments. 

2. E-mail: damico.genevieve@epa.gov. 

3. Fax: (312) 692–2511. 

4. Mail: Genevieve Damico, Acting 

Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air 

Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago, 

Illinois 60604. 

5. Hand delivery: Genevieve Damico, 

Acting Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, 

Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S. 

Environmental Protection Agency, 77 

West Jackson Boulevard, 18th floor, 

Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries 

are only accepted during the Regional 

Office normal hours of operation, and 

special arrangements should be made 

for deliveries of boxed information. The 

Regional Office official hours of 

business are Monday through Friday, 

8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding 

Federal holidays. 

Instructions: Direct your comments to 

Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2009– 

0928 and EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0046. 

EPA’s policy is that all comments 

received will be included in the public 

docket without change and may be 

made available online at http:// 

www.regulations.gov, including any 

personal information provided, unless 

the comment includes information 

claimed to be Confidential Business 

Information (CBI) or other information 


sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS