Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 26, 2009 / Notices 43101 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Notice of Proposed Information 

Collection Requests 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

SUMMARY: The Acting Director, 

Information Collection Clearance 

Division, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, Office of 

Management, invites comments on the 

proposed information collection 

requests as required by the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995. 

DATES: Interested persons are invited to 

submit comments on or before October 

26, 2009. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 

3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of 

1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires 

that the Office of Management and 

Budget (OMB) provide interested 

Federal agencies and the public an early 

opportunity to comment on information 

collection requests. OMB may amend or 

waive the requirement for public 

consultation to the extent that public 

participation in the approval process 

would defeat the purpose of the 

information collection, violate State or 

Federal law, or substantially interfere 

with any agency’s ability to perform its 

statutory obligations. The Acting 

Director, Information Collection 

Clearance Division, Regulatory 

Information Management Services, 

Office of Management, publishes that 

notice containing proposed information 

collection requests prior to submission 

of these requests to OMB. Each 

proposed information collection, 

grouped by office, contains the 

following: (1) Type of review requested, 

e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or 

reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of 

the collection; (4) Description of the 

need for, and proposed use of, the 

information; (5) Respondents and 

frequency of collection; and (6) 

Reporting and/or Recordkeeping 

burden. OMB invites public comment. 

The Department of Education is 

especially interested in public comment 

addressing the following issues: (1) Is 

this collection necessary to the proper 

functions of the Department; (2) will 

this information be processed and used 

in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate 

of burden accurate; (4) how might the 

Department enhance the quality, utility, 

and clarity of the information to be 

collected; and (5) how might the 

Department minimize the burden of this 

collection on the respondents, including 

through the use of information 

technology. 

Dated: August 21, 2009. 

James Hyler, 

Acting Director, Information Collection 

Clearance Division, Regulatory Information 

Management Services, Office of Management. 

Federal Student Aid 

Type of Review: New. 

Title: Student Assistance General 

Provisions Non-Title IV Revenue 

Requirements (90/10). 

Frequency: Annually. 

Affected Public: Business/other for 

profits. 

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour 

Burden: 

Responses: 2,058. 

Burden Hours: 3,087. 

Abstract: The regulations establish the 

requirements under which a 

prorprietary institution of higher 

education must derive at least ten 

percent of its annual revenue from 

resources other than Title IV HEA 

funds, and implements the Net Present 

Value formula and its alternative 

calculation prescribed by the statute and 

implemented through these regulations. 

Requests for copies of the proposed 

information collection request may be 

accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, 

by selecting the ‘‘Browse Pending 

Collections’’ link and by clicking on 

link number 4076. When you access the 

information collection, click on 

‘‘Download Attachments’’ to view. 

Written requests for information should 

be addressed to U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

LBJ, Washington, DC 20202–4537. 

Requests may also be electronically 

mailed to ICDocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed 

to 202–401–0920. Please specify the 

complete title of the information 

collection when making your request. 

Comments regarding burden and/or 

the collection activity requirements 

should be electronically mailed to 

ICDocketMgr@ed.gov. Individuals who 

use a telecommunications device for the 

deaf (TDD) may call the Federal 

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1– 

800–877–8339. 

[FR Doc. E9–20617 Filed 8–8–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

[Docket ID ED–2009–OESE–0010] 

RIN 1810–AB06 

School Improvement Grants— 

American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009; Title I of the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act of 1965 

ACTION: Notice of proposed 

requirements. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Secretary of 

Education (Secretary) proposes 

requirements for School Improvement 

Grants authorized under section 1003(g) 

of Title I of the Elementary and 

Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 

amended (ESEA), and funded through 

both the Department of Education 

Appropriations Act, 2009 and the 

American Recovery and Reinvestment 

Act of 2009 (ARRA). The proposed 

requirements would define the criteria 

that a State educational agency (SEA) 

must use to award school improvement 

funds to local educational agencies 

(LEAs) with the lowest-achieving Title I 

schools that demonstrate the greatest 

need for the funds and the strongest 

commitment to use those funds to 

provide adequate resources to their 

lowest-achieving Title I schools in order 

to raise substantially the achievement of 

the students attending those schools. 

The proposed requirements also would 

require an SEA to give priority, through 

a waiver under section 9401 of the 

ESEA, to LEAs that also wish to serve 

the lowest-achieving secondary schools 

that are eligible for, but do not receive, 

Title I funds. Finally, the proposed 

requirements would require an SEA to 

award school improvement funds to 

eligible LEAs in amounts sufficient to 

enable the targeted schools to 

implement one of four specific proposed 

interventions. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before September 25, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

or via postal mail, commercial delivery, 

or hand delivery. We will not accept 

comments by fax or by 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 

‘‘School Improvement Grants’’ 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.’’ 

• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, 

or Hand Delivery. If you mail or deliver 

your comments about these proposed 

requirements, address them to Dr. Zollie 

Stevenson, Jr., U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

Room 3W230, Washington, DC 20202– 

7241. 

• Privacy Note: The Department’s 

policy for comments received from 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
43102 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 26, 2009 / Notices 

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: Dr. 

Zollie Stevenson, Jr.; Telephone: (202) 

260–0826 or by e-mail: 

Zollie.Stevenson@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), call the 

Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 

1–800–877–8339. 

Individuals with disabilities may 

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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Invitation to Comment: We invite you 

to submit comments regarding this 

notice. We are particularly interested in 

comments on the measures of 

accountability described in Section 

II.A.7 of the proposed requirements and 

whether they are appropriate measures 

for Tier I and Tier II schools that 

implement one of the interventions 

proposed in Section I.A.2.a, 2.b, or 2.d 

of this notice. To ensure that your 

comments have maximum effect in 

developing the notice of final 

requirements, we urge you to identify 

clearly the specific proposed 

requirement that each comment 

addresses. 

We invite you also 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 

these proposed requirements. 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 

this 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 

3W100, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC, between the hours of 

8:30 a.m. and 4:00 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: In conjunction 

with Title I funds for school 

improvement reserved under section 

1003(a) of the ESEA, School 

Improvement Grants under section 

1003(g) of the ESEA are used to improve 

student achievement in Title I schools 

identified for improvement, corrective 

action, or restructuring so as to enable 

those schools to make adequate yearly 

progress (AYP) and exit improvement 

status. 

Appropriations for School 

Improvement Grants have grown from 

$125 million in fiscal year (FY) 2007 to 

$546 million in FY 2009. The ARRA 

provides an additional $3 billion for 

School Improvement Grants in FY 2009. 

The proposed requirements in this 

notice would govern the total $3.546 

billion in FY 2009 school improvement 

funds, an unprecedented sum with the 

potential to support implementation of 

the fundamental changes needed to turn 

around some of the Nation’s lowestachieving schools. 

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6303(g). 

Background 

Statutory Context 

Section 1003(g) of the ESEA (20 

U.S.C. 6303(g)) requires the Secretary to 

award School Improvement Grants to 

each SEA based on the SEA’s 

proportionate share of the funds it 

receives under Title I, Parts A, C, and D 

of the ESEA. In turn, each SEA must 

provide subgrants to LEAs that apply for 

those funds to assist their Title I schools 

identified for improvement, corrective 

action, or restructuring under section 

1116 of the ESEA. This assistance is 

intended to help these schools 

implement reform strategies that result 

in substantially improved student 

achievement so that the schools can 

make AYP and exit improvement status. 

To receive school improvement funds 

under section 1003(g), an SEA must 

submit an application to the Department 

at such time, and containing such 

information, as the Secretary shall 

reasonably require. An SEA must 

allocate at least 95 percent of its school 

improvement funds directly to LEAs, 

although the SEA may, with the 

approval of the LEAs that would receive 

the funds, directly provide assistance in 

implementing school reform strategies 

or arrange for their provision through 

such other entities as school support 

teams or educational service agencies. A 

subgrant to an LEA must be of sufficient 

size and scope to support the activities 

required under section 1116 of the 

ESEA. An LEA’s total subgrant may not 

be less than $50,000 or more than 

$500,000 per year for each participating 

Title I school in improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring. An 

LEA’s subgrant is renewable for two 

additional one-year periods if the LEA’s 

schools are meeting, or are on track to 

meet, their student achievement goals. 

In awarding School Improvement 

Grants, an SEA must give priority to 

LEAs with the lowest-achieving schools 

that, in their application to the SEA, 

demonstrate (1) the greatest need for the 

funds and (2) the strongest commitment 

to ensuring that the funds are used to 

provide adequate resources to enable 

the lowest-achieving schools to meet 

their goals for substantially raising the 

achievement of their students. 

Overview of the Secretary’s Proposal 

The Secretary views the large FY 2009 

investment in school improvement 

funds made possible by the ARRA as a 

historic opportunity to face education’s 

most intractable challenge: turning 

around or closing down our Nation’s 

most persistently low-achieving schools. 

Although there are noted examples of 

successful school reforms, the vast 

majority of the lowest performers have 

not changed course, either because they 

have received insufficient support or 

because interventions have been 

ineffective. The Secretary is committed 

to turning around over five years the 

5,000 lowest-achieving schools 

nationwide, and School Improvement 

Grants are a centerpiece of that strategy. 

The Secretary’s strategy includes 

identifying and serving the lowestachieving Title I schools in each State; 

supporting only the most rigorous 

interventions that hold the promise of 

producing rapid improvements in 

student achievement and school culture; 

providing sufficient resources over 

several years to implement those 

interventions; and measuring progress 

in achieving results. 

Identifying and Serving the LowestAchieving Title I Schools 

To drive school improvement funds to 

LEAs with the greatest need for those 

funds, the Secretary would require each 

SEA to identify three tiers of schools: 

• Tier I: The lowest-achieving five 

percent of Title I schools in 

improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring in the State, or the five 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 26, 2009 / Notices 43103 

1These are the same schools as the Secretary has 

proposed to target in the Race to the Top 

competitive grant program and has proposed that 

States report on under phase two of the State Fiscal 

Stabilization Fund (SFSF) under the ARRA. 

2An SEA may award school improvement funds 

to an LEA based only on the Title I participating 

schools that the LEA identifies in its application. 

Tier II schools would, thus, not generate any funds 

because they are not Title I schools in 

improvement, corrective action, or restructuring; 

however, the LEA could serve them, through a 

waiver requested by the SEA, with the school 

improvement funds it receives. 

3The subgroups identified in 34 CFR 200.13(b)(7) 

include students from major racial and ethnic 

groups, economically disadvantaged students, 

student with limited English proficiency, and 

students with disabilities. 

lowest-achieving Title I schools in 

improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring in the State, whichever 

number of schools is greater.1

• Tier II: Equally low-achieving 

secondary schools (both middle and 

high schools) in the State that are 

eligible for, but do not receive, Title I 

funds. 

• Tier III: The remaining Title I 

schools in improvement, corrective 

action, or restructuring that are not Tier 

I schools in the State. The Secretary 

encourages an SEA to develop criteria to 

further differentiate among the schools 

in Tier III, either in the State as a whole 

or within an LEA. 

An LEA that wishes to receive a School 

Improvement Grant would submit an 

application to its SEA identifying which 

Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III schools it 

commits to serve. The SEA would give 

priority to LEAs serving Tier I and Tier 

II schools. 

Supporting Only the Most Rigorous 

Interventions 

In order to ensure that the large influx 

of school improvement funds is used 

most effectively to improve outcomes 

for students, the Secretary proposes to 

require an LEA to use those funds to 

implement four specific interventions in 

the lowest-achieving schools intended 

to improve the management and 

effectiveness of these schools. Thus, in 

its application to the SEA, an LEA 

would be required to demonstrate its 

strong commitment to raising student 

achievement by implementing, in each 

Tier I and Tier II school, one of four 

rigorous interventions: 

• Turnaround model, which would 

include, among other actions, replacing 

the principal and at least 50 percent of 

the school’s staff, adopting a new 

governance structure, and implementing 

a new or revised instructional program. 

• Restart model, in which an LEA 

would close the school and reopen it 

under the management of a charter 

school operator, a charter management 

organization (CMO), or an educational 

management organization (EMO) that 

has been selected through a rigorous 

review process. 

• School closure, in which an LEA 

would close the school and enroll the 

students who attended the school in 

other, high-achieving schools in the 

LEA. 

• Transformation model, which 

would address four specific areas 

critical to transforming the lowestachieving schools. 

An LEA with nine or more Tier I and 

Tier II schools would not be able to 

implement the same intervention in 

more than 50 percent of those schools. 

Providing Sufficient Resources Over 

Several Years 

The Secretary believes that it takes 

substantial funds in combination with 

rigorous interventions to break the cycle 

of failure and raise student achievement 

substantially in the Nation’s lowestachieving schools. Therefore, he would 

require the SEA to allocate sufficient 

school improvement funds to an LEA to 

match, as closely as possible, the LEA’s 

budget for implementing one of the four 

proposed interventions in each Tier I 

and Tier II school and the costs 

associated with closing such schools, as 

well as for serving participating Tier III 

schools. An LEA’s total grant award 

would contain funds for each Title I 

school in improvement, corrective 

action, or restructuring that the LEA 

intends to serve, including $500,000 per 

year for each Tier I school that will 

implement a turnaround, restart, or 

transformation model.2 Once an LEA 

receives its School Improvement Grant, 

it has the flexibility to spend more than 

$500,000 per year in its Tier I and Tier 

II schools so long as all schools 

identified in its application are served. 

Recognizing that it takes time to 

implement rigorous interventions and 

reap results in the most persistently 

low-achieving schools, the Secretary 

would waive the period of availability 

of school improvement funds beyond 

September 30, 2011 so as to make those 

funds available to LEAs for three years. 

Measuring Progress in Achieving 

Results 

Because measuring progress is 

essential to knowing whether an 

intervention results in improved student 

achievement, the Secretary would 

require an LEA to establish three-year 

student achievement goals in reading/ 

language arts and mathematics. The 

LEA would hold each Tier I and Tier II 

school it serves with school 

improvement funds annually 

accountable for meeting, or being on 

track to meet, those goals with respect 

to the achievement of all students in 

each school, as well as each subgroup of 

students identified in 34 CFR 

200.13(b)(7),3 and for making progress 

on the leading indicators of school 

reform. 

SEA Priorities for Awarding School 

Improvement Grants 

Section 1003(g)(6) of the ESEA 

requires an SEA, in allocating school 

improvement funds, to give priority to 

LEAs with the lowest-achieving Title I 

schools in improvement, corrective 

action, or restructuring that demonstrate 

the greatest need for the funds and the 

strongest commitment to carrying out 

the purposes of the program. Consistent 

with his focus on reforming or closing 

the 5,000 lowest-achieving schools in 

the Nation over the next five years, the 

Secretary proposes to require an SEA 

that receives a School Improvement 

Grant to define the terms ‘‘greatest 

need’’ and ‘‘strongest commitment’’ as 

follows to help accomplish this goal. 

Greatest need. The Secretary would 

require an SEA to define three tiers of 

schools in identifying those LEAs with 

the greatest need for school 

improvement funds. 

Tier I schools: The Secretary proposes 

to require each SEA to identify the 

lowest-achieving five percent of Title I 

schools in improvement, corrective 

action, or restructuring in the State or 

the five lowest-achieving Title I schools 

in improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring in the State, whichever 

number of schools is greater. These are 

schools for which the data indicate that 

overall student achievement is 

extremely low and that little or no 

progress has occurred over a number of 

years. Under the proposed 

requirements, a school has not made 

progress if its gains on the State’s 

assessments in reading/language arts 

and mathematics in the ‘‘all students’’ 

category are less than the average gains 

of schools in the State on those 

assessments. The Secretary is targeting 

these schools because of the urgency to 

provide their students with a highquality education. Indeed, in school 

year 2007–08, based on data reported by 

each State, the average percentage of 

students performing at the proficient 

level in the lowest-achieving 25 Title Ieligible schools in each State, aggregated 

for the Nation, was approximately 32 

percent in reading/language arts and 25 

percent in mathematics. Moreover, in 

most cases, despite years of earlier 

efforts to turn around the performance 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
43104 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 26, 2009 / Notices 

4Balfanz, R. & Legters, N. (2004). Locating the 

dropout crisis: Which high schools produce the 

nation’s dropouts? Where are they located? Who 

attends them? Baltimore: The Johns Hopkins 

University. 

5See, e.g., Calkins, A., Guenther, W., Belfiore, G., 

& Lash, D. (2007). The turnaround challenge: Why 

America’s best opportunity to dramatically improve 

student achievement lies in our worst-performing 

schools. Boston: Mass Insight Education and 

Research Institute; American Institutes for 

Research. (in press). State and local implementation 

of the No Child Left Behind Act, Volume IX— 

accountability under NCLB: Final report. 

Washington, DC. 

6We note that some of the activities that an LEA 

would be required to implement as part of a 

proposed intervention are not allowable uses of 

Title I funds in a Tier I school that operates a 

targeted assistance program under section 1115 of 

the ESEA; therefore, an LEA that wishes to 

implement one of the proposed interventions in 

such a school would need to do so through a 

schoolwide program under section 1114 of the 

ESEA. To enable the LEA to serve a Tier I targeted 

assistance school below 40 percent poverty, the 

SEA would need to apply to the Secretary for a 

waiver of the poverty threshold in order that the 

LEA can operate a schoolwide program in its Tier 

I schools. See the Department’s Title I, Part A 

Waiver Guidance available at: http://www.ed.gov/ 

programs/titleiparta/title-i-waiver.doc. 

of these schools, they have failed to 

make sufficient progress in improving 

student achievement and continue, year 

after year, to turn out students who are 

unprepared for further education or the 

workforce. And in the case of secondary 

schools, these lowest-achieving schools 

contribute disproportionately to the 

more than 1 million students who drop 

out each year, too often permanently. 

This diminishes the educational and 

employment prospects of these young 

people who deserve the opportunity to 

acquire the knowledge and skills 

necessary to be successful in life and to 

be productive citizens. For these 

reasons, the Secretary is proposing to 

use school improvement funds to 

transform fundamentally the lowestachieving schools in each State. 

Tier II schools: The Secretary also 

proposes to require an SEA to identify 

secondary schools (both middle and 

high schools) that are equally as lowachieving as the State’s Tier I schools 

and are eligible for, but do not receive, 

Title I funds. Low-achieving secondary 

schools often present unique resource, 

logistical, and pedagogical challenges 

that require rigorous interventions. 

There are close to 2,000 high schools in 

the country in which graduation is at 

best a 50/50 proposition.4 However, 

Department data indicate that fewer 

than half of these schools currently 

receive Title I, Part A funds. In order to 

reverse this high dropout rate and drive 

the attainment of better outcomes for 

these students, the Secretary also 

proposes to target some of these 

extremely low-achieving secondary 

schools (both high schools and their 

middle school ‘‘feeder’’ schools) that are 

eligible for, but do not receive, Title I 

funds. 

Because of the importance of 

identifying and intervening in Tier II 

schools, the Secretary encourages an 

SEA to apply for a waiver under section 

9401 of the ESEA to enable its LEAs to 

serve such schools. Such a waiver is 

necessary because section 1003(g) of the 

ESEA authorizes an LEA to use school 

improvement funds only in Title I 

schools in improvement, corrective 

action, or restructuring. If the provisions 

proposed in this notice become final, an 

LEA would not be required to include 

Tier II schools in its application; 

however, including Tier II schools 

would enhance an LEA’s likelihood of 

funding because, as proposed in this 

notice, the SEA would be required to 

give priority to an LEA that commits in 

its application to serve both Tier I and 

Tier II schools. 

Tier III schools: The Secretary 

proposes that all Title I schools in 

improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring that are not Tier I schools 

would be Tier III schools. To urge LEAs 

to differentiate among these schools in 

their use of school improvement funds, 

the Secretary encourages an SEA to 

establish criteria to give priority to 

applications from LEAs that, after 

addressing the needs of their Tier I and 

Tier II schools, focus school 

improvement funds on a subset of their 

Tier III schools. For example, an SEA’s 

criteria might target Tier III schools that 

are in the lowest-achieving sixth to 

tenth percentile in the State or might 

reward and provide public recognition 

for Tier III schools that would have been 

in the lowest-achieving five percent but 

have made progress over several years. 

Similarly, an SEA’s criteria might focus 

on clusters of Tier III elementary 

schools that are feeder schools to Tier I 

or Tier II secondary schools. 

Strongest commitment. In awarding 

school improvement funds among the 

LEAs with schools in Tier I, Tier II, and 

Tier III (i.e., those with the greatest 

need), the Secretary would require each 

SEA to give priority to those LEAs with 

the strongest commitment to use school 

improvement funds to implement one of 

four specific interventions described in 

this notice. These interventions are 

based on research that suggests that the 

lowest-achieving schools— 

(1) Require rigorous interventions, 

including changes in leadership, 

staffing, time for learning, governance, 

operating conditions, student supports, 

and school culture; 

(2) Benefit from intensive, ongoing, 

coordinated technical assistance and 

support, such as technical assistance 

from external providers to build 

capacity so that LEAs and SEAs can 

provide them with more concentrated 

and sustained support; and 

(3) Need substantial funding over 

three to five years to plan, implement, 

and solidify rigorous interventions that 

change school culture and result in 

substantial increases in student 

achievement.5

The Secretary believes that rigorous 

interventions are essential if LEAs are to 

reform the lowest-achieving schools and 

improve educational outcomes for their 

students. Incremental change in these 

schools that may result in marginal 

improvements is not enough to enable 

each student to achieve to high 

standards. Fortunately, the large 

increase in FY 2009 funding for school 

improvement available through the 

ARRA provides an unprecedented 

opportunity to implement intensive 

interventions. Accordingly, the 

Secretary proposes to define an LEA 

that demonstrates the strongest 

commitment as an LEA that would 

implement, in each Tier I and Tier II 

school that it commits to serve, one of 

the following four rigorous 

interventions: 6

(1) Turnaround model. To implement 

a turnaround model, an LEA would be 

required to replace the principal and at 

least 50 percent of the staff; adopt a new 

governance structure, which may 

include, but is not limited to, reporting 

to a new ‘‘turnaround office’’ in the LEA 

or SEA, hiring a ‘‘turnaround leader’’ 

who reports directly to the 

Superintendent or Chief Academic 

Officer, or entering into a multi-year 

contract with the LEA or SEA to obtain 

added flexibility in exchange for greater 

accountability; and implement a new or 

revised instructional program. The LEA 

would also be required to incorporate 

strategies designed to recruit, place, and 

retain effective staff, and provide 

ongoing, high-quality job-embedded 

professional development designed to 

ensure that staff members are equipped 

to facilitate effective teaching and 

learning; promote the continuous use of 

student data (such as from formative, 

interim, and summative assessments) to 

inform and differentiate instruction to 

meet the needs of individual students; 

establish schedules and strategies that 

increase instructional time for students 

and time for collaboration and 

professional development for staff; and 

provide appropriate social-emotional 

and community-oriented services and 

supports for students. 

(2) Restart model. Under this model, 

an LEA would close the school and 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 26, 2009 / Notices 43105 

reopen it under the management of a 

charter school operator, a charter 

management organization (CMO), or an 

educational management organization 

(EMO) that has been selected through a 

rigorous review process. (A CMO is a 

non-profit organization that operates 

charter schools by centralizing or 

sharing certain functions and resources 

among schools. An EMO is a for-profit 

or non-profit organization that provides 

‘‘whole-school operation’’ services to an 

LEA.) A restart school would be 

required to admit, within the grades it 

serves, any former student who wishes 

to attend. 

(3) School closure. Under this model, 

an LEA would close the school and 

enroll the students who attended the 

school in other, high-achieving schools 

within the LEA. 

(4) Transformation model. To 

implement a transformation model, an 

LEA would be required to address four 

specific areas, as defined in this notice, 

critical to transforming the lowestachieving schools: (1) Developing 

teacher and school leader effectiveness; 

(2) implementing comprehensive 

instructional reform strategies; (3) 

extending learning time and creating 

community-oriented schools; and (4) 

providing operating flexibility and 

sustained support. 

In determining the strength of an 

LEA’s commitment to using school 

improvement funds to implement these 

interventions in its Tier I and Tier II 

schools, an SEA would be required to 

consider, for example, the extent to 

which the LEA’s application shows the 

LEA’s efforts to analyze the needs of its 

schools and match the interventions to 

those needs; design interventions 

consistent with this notice; recruit, 

screen, and select external providers to 

ensure quality; embed the interventions 

in a longer-term plan to sustain gains in 

achievement; align other resources with 

the interventions; modify its practices, if 

necessary, to enable it to implement the 

interventions fully and effectively; and 

sustain the reforms after the funding 

period ends. Moreover, the SEA would 

be required to consider the LEA’s 

capacity to implement the changes it 

seeks to make. For example, the SEA 

could determine that an LEA with ten 

Tier I and Tier II schools has the 

capacity to serve only five of those 

schools at the level of intensity 

contemplated by the proposed 

interventions. Accordingly, the SEA 

may approve the LEA to serve only 

those schools for which the SEA 

determines that the LEA can fully and 

effectively implement one of the 

proposed interventions. 

Providing Flexibility 

To fully support an LEA’s efforts to 

intervene in low-achieving schools, the 

Secretary believes there is need for 

flexibility in several respects. First, so as 

not to penalize an LEA that has 

proactively implemented rigorous 

reform strategies prior to the publication 

of this notice, an SEA may award school 

improvement funds to an LEA that has 

implemented, in whole or in part, one 

of the interventions proposed in Section 

I.A.2.a, 2.b, or 2.d in a Tier I school 

within the last two years. For example, 

an LEA might have replaced the 

principal of a Tier I school and begun 

to implement improvement activities 

that meet many, but not all, of the 

proposed requirements in this notice for 

a transformation model. In this case, the 

SEA could award the LEA school 

improvement funds to fully implement 

the transformation model in this school 

without needing to replace the new 

principal or duplicate the reform 

activities already in place. Second, an 

SEA could seek a waiver from the 

Secretary to permit a school that 

implements a turnaround or restart 

model in an LEA that receives a School 

Improvement Grant to ‘‘start over’’ in 

the school improvement timeline while 

continuing to receive school 

improvement funds. In other words, 

such a school in restructuring could exit 

that status even though it has not made 

AYP for two consecutive years and, 

thus, would not need to continue 

providing public school choice or 

supplemental educational services. 

Finally, an SEA could seek a waiver 

from the Secretary to enable a Tier I 

school that operates a targeted 

assistance program to instead operate a 

schoolwide program in order to 

implement one of the proposed 

interventions. 

Awarding School Improvement Grants 

to LEAs 

LEA Applications 

Under this proposal, any Title I LEA 

that can demonstrate the greatest need 

and strongest commitment, as defined 

by the SEA consistent with this notice, 

to reform its lowest-achieving schools 

would be eligible to apply to the SEA 

for a School Improvement Grant. In 

addition to providing information that 

the SEA may require, the LEA would be 

required to demonstrate its commitment 

to use the school improvement funds to 

provide adequate resources to each Tier 

I and Tier II school it commits to serve 

in order to implement fully one of the 

four proposed interventions described 

in this notice. If an LEA has nine or 

more Tier I and Tier II schools, the LEA 

would not be able to implement the 

same intervention in more than 50 

percent of those schools. 

An LEA would be required to serve 

each of its Tier I schools, unless the LEA 

demonstrates that it lacks sufficient 

capacity or sufficient school 

improvement funds to undertake one of 

the four proposed interventions in each 

such school. For example, an LEA might 

demonstrate a lack of capacity to serve 

all of its Tier I schools if no EMOs or 

CMOs of sufficient quality are available 

to restart its schools. An LEA might also 

demonstrate a lack of capacity if it lacks 

a sufficient number of school leaders 

(e.g., principals, assistant principals, 

teacher leaders) capable of 

implementing one of the rigorous 

interventions proposed in this notice. 

Additionally, an LEA might decide that 

it can best impact student achievement 

by focusing resources heavily in a 

subset of Tier I schools, attempting to 

turn around some schools before 

proceeding to others. In such cases, the 

LEA would identify in its application 

the Tier I schools that it can serve 

effectively with one of the proposed 

interventions; such an LEA would not 

be permitted to use school improvement 

funds to serve a Tier I school that is not 

implementing one of the four 

interventions. An LEA would not be 

required to include Tier II schools in its 

application, although the SEA would be 

required to give priority to LEA 

applications that include both Tier I and 

Tier II schools. Once an LEA has 

identified all of the Tier I schools it has 

capacity to serve, it may also identify 

Tier III schools it will serve. No LEA 

would be required to apply for a School 

Improvement Grant; however, an LEA 

that has one or more Tier I schools 

would not be permitted to apply for a 

grant to serve only Tier III schools. 

An LEA would be required to include 

in its application for a School 

Improvement Grant a budget indicating 

the amount of funds needed for each 

Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III school the 

LEA commits to serve. In designing its 

budget, the LEA would be required to 

ensure, for each Tier I and Tier II school 

identified in its application, that its 

request is of sufficient size and scope to 

ensure that the LEA can implement one 

of the four rigorous interventions 

proposed in this notice. The Secretary 

believes that, in most cases, 

implementing these interventions (with 

the exception of closing a school) would 

require annual amounts that 

considerably exceed $500,000 per 

school, the maximum amount per year 

of school improvement funds that may 

be generated by a participating school 

under the statute. (Tier II schools would 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
43106 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 26, 2009 / Notices 

7Costs of closing a school may include, for 

example, parent and community meetings regarding 

the school closure, services to help parents and 

students transition to a new school, orientation 

activities at the new school, etc. 8The subgroups identified in 34 CFR 200.13(b)(7) 

are students from major racial and ethnic groups, 

economically disadvantaged students, students 

with limited English proficiency, and students with 

disabilities. 

9Calkins, A., Guenther, W., Belfiore, G., & Lash, 

D. (2007). The turnaround challenge: Why 

America’s best opportunity to dramatically improve 

student achievement lies in our worst-performing 

schools. Boston: Mass Insight Education and 

Research Institute. 

not generate any funds because they are 

not Title I schools in improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring; 

however, the LEA could serve them, 

through a waiver, with the school 

improvement funds it receives.) 

Accordingly, if the Secretary adopts the 

proposed requirements as final, the LEA 

should estimate the full cost of 

implementing its selected intervention 

in each Tier I and Tier II school it 

commits to serve and the costs 

associated with closing a school,7 as 

well as the costs of providing services 

in participating Tier III schools. In 

estimating costs, the LEA should 

consider such factors as the size of each 

school; whether the LEA plans to serve 

clusters of elementary schools that feed 

into Tier I or Tier II secondary schools; 

and whether the schools to be served are 

elementary, middle, or high schools. 

The Secretary strongly urges an LEA to 

develop its budget in a way that 

sufficiently concentrates school 

improvement funds to raise student 

achievement substantially by the end of 

the grant period in the schools served 

with those funds. 

An LEA would also be required to 

establish, in its application, three-year 

student achievement goals in reading/ 

language arts and mathematics. The 

LEA would be required to hold each 

Tier I and Tier II school it commits to 

serve annually accountable for meeting, 

or being on track to meet, those goals 

with respect to the achievement of all 

students in each school, as well as each 

subgroup of students identified in 34 

CFR 200.13(b)(7),8 and for making 

progress on the leading indicators 

described in Section III of this notice. If 

an LEA implements a restart model, it 

would also be required to hold the 

charter school operator, CMO, or EMO 

accountable for meeting these annual 

goals for student achievement and for 

making progress on the leading 

indicators. 

SEA Responsibilities 

Under this proposal, to receive a 

School Improvement Grant, an SEA 

would submit an application to the 

Department at such time, and 

containing such information, as the 

Secretary shall reasonably require. That 

application would generally address the 

SEA’s role with respect to school 

improvement funds, including, at a 

minimum: (1) Identifying Tier I and Tier 

II schools in the State; (2) establishing 

criteria related to the overall quality of 

the LEA’s application and to the LEA’s 

capacity to implement fully and 

effectively the required interventions; 

(3) allocating school improvement funds 

to the LEA; (4) monitoring the LEA’s 

implementation of interventions in and 

the progress of its participating schools; 

(5) providing technical assistance to the 

LEA and its participating schools; and 

(6) holding each Tier I and Tier II school 

it has committed to serve annually 

accountable for meeting, or being on 

track to meet, the LEA’s student 

achievement goals with respect to the 

achievement of all students in the 

school, as well as each subgroup of 

students identified in 34 CFR 

200.13(b)(7), and for making progress on 

the leading indicators described in 

Section III of this notice. 

An SEA would review and approve 

the applications for a School 

Improvement Grant that it receives from 

its LEAs. Before approving an LEA’s 

application, the SEA would ensure that 

the application meets the requirements 

the Secretary establishes in a notice of 

final requirements, particularly with 

respect to whether the LEA has 

demonstrated that it has the capacity to 

implement one of the four proposed 

rigorous interventions in the Tier I and 

Tier II schools it has committed to serve 

and whether the LEA has budgeted 

sufficient funds to implement fully and 

effectively the selected interventions. If 

an LEA lacks the capacity to implement 

one of the four interventions in each of 

its Tier I schools, the SEA would adjust 

the size of the LEA’s School 

Improvement Grant accordingly. 

Additionally, the SEA would consider 

the quality of the application, including 

the extent to which the LEA analyzed 

the needs of each school and matched 

an intervention to those needs, 

consistent with Section II.A.2; the 

design of the interventions consistent 

with this notice; whether the 

interventions are part of a long-term 

plan to sustain gains in student 

achievement; the coordination with 

other resources; whether the LEA will 

modify its practices, if necessary, to be 

able to implement the interventions 

fully and effectively; and how the LEA 

will sustain the reforms after the 

funding period ends. If an SEA does not 

have sufficient school improvement 

funds to award a grant to each LEA that 

submits an approvable application, the 

SEA would be required to give priority 

to LEAs that apply to serve both Tier I 

and Tier II schools and to LEAs that 

apply to serve Tier I schools before 

LEAs serving only Tier III schools. 

Section 1003(g)(5) of the ESEA 

requires an SEA to award a School 

Improvement Grant to an LEA in an 

amount that is of sufficient size and 

scope to support the activities required 

under section 1116 of the ESEA, which 

include taking corrective actions and 

restructuring the LEA’s lowestachieving Title I schools. An LEA’s total 

grant may not be less than $50,000 or 

more than $500,000 per year for each 

participating Title I school (i.e., the Tier 

I and Tier III schools that the LEA 

commits to serve); however, the LEA 

has flexibility to spend higher or lower 

amounts in serving individual schools. 

Experts in implementing effective 

school reform strategies, such as those 

proposed in this notice, estimate that 

the cost of turning around a persistently 

low-achieving school of 500 students 

can range from $250,000 to $1,000,000 

per year for at least three years; 

implementation in a larger school 

would likely cost more.9 Thus, in order 

to ensure that an LEA has sufficient 

resources to turn around its Tier I and 

Tier II schools, the Secretary proposes to 

require that an SEA allocate to each 

such LEA $500,000 per year in school 

improvement funds (the maximum perschool amount permitted under section 

1003(g)(5) of the ESEA) for each Tier I 

school for which the LEA applies to 

implement one of the interventions in 

Section I.A.2.a, 2.b, or 2.d of this notice 

and for which the SEA approves the 

LEA to serve. (Due to issues of capacity, 

an SEA could decide not to approve all 

the schools included in an LEA’s 

application.) Additionally, the SEA 

would be required to allocate sufficient 

school improvement funds in total to 

the LEA, consistent with section 

1003(g)(5), to match, as closely as 

possible, the LEA’s budget for 

implementing the proposed 

interventions in each Tier I and Tier II 

school approved by the SEA and costs 

associated with closing those schools 

under Section I.A.2.c, while also serving 

participating Tier III schools, 

particularly those schools meeting 

additional criteria established by the 

SEA. Further, to provide the sustained 

support that available research suggests 

is necessary for successful 

interventions, the Secretary would 

require the SEA to apportion its FY 

2009 school improvement funds so as to 

provide funding to LEAs over three 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 26, 2009 / Notices 43107 

10 In addition to school improvement funds 

available through a separate appropriation under 

section 1003(g) of the ESEA, an SEA must reserve 

under section 1003(a) of the ESEA four percent of 

the Title I, Part A funds the State receives for school 

improvement activities. Of this amount, the SEA 

must distribute at least 95 percent to LEAs for 

schools identified for improvement, corrective 

action, or restructuring under section 1116 of the 

ESEA. 

years, which the Secretary would make 

possible by waiving the period of 

availability beyond September 30, 2011. 

The following examples illustrate 

how an SEA might determine the 

amount of a School Improvement Grant 

for three hypothetical LEAs, all of 

which have the same number of Title I 

schools in improvement, corrective 

action, or restructuring: 

LEA A: LEA A has ten Title I schools 

in improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring; three are Tier I schools 

and the rest are Tier III schools. The 

LEA also has one Tier II school. The 

LEA and SEA agree that the LEA has 

capacity to serve all of those schools. 

Under section 1003(g)(5), the maximum 

School Improvement Grant that the LEA 

may receive per year is $5,000,000 

($500,000 × 10 Title I schools to be 

served). Based on the LEA’s proposed 

budget and capacity, the SEA awards 

the LEA a School Improvement Grant 

totaling $4,150,000 per year (consistent 

with section 1003(g)(5)). In spending the 

school improvement funds, the LEA 

uses, consistent with its budget, 

$1,500,000 in one Tier I school; 

$1,000,000 in the Tier II school; 

$750,000 in each of the remaining two 

Tier I schools; $50,000 in each of two 

Tier III schools; and $10,000 in each of 

the remaining five Tier III schools. 

LEA B: LEA B has ten Title I schools 

in improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring; three are Tier I schools. 

The LEA also has one Tier II school. The 

LEA decides, however, that it has 

capacity to serve only two of its Tier I 

schools, no Tier II schools, and five of 

its Tier III schools. Under section 

1003(g)(5), the maximum School 

Improvement Grant that the LEA may 

receive per year is $3,500,000 ($500,000 

× 7 Title I schools to be served). Based 

on the LEA’s proposed budget and 

capacity, the SEA awards the LEA a 

School Improvement Grant totaling 

$2,500,000 (consistent with section 

1003(g)(5)). In spending the school 

improvement funds, the LEA uses, 

consistent with its budget, $1,200,000 in 

one Tier I school; $800,000 in the other 

Tier I school; and $100,000 in each of 

the five Tier III schools. 

LEA C: LEA C has ten Title I schools 

in improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring; none is a Tier I school, 

although two are among the lowestachieving Title I schools in the State but 

are making significant progress. The 

LEA has one Tier II school. The LEA 

applies to serve all its Tier III schools as 

well as its Tier II school. Under section 

1003(g)(5), the maximum School 

Improvement Grant that the LEA may 

receive per year is $5,000,000 ($500,000 

× 10 Title I schools to be served). Based 

on the LEA’s proposed budget and 

capacity, the SEA awards the LEA a 

School Improvement Grant totaling 

$2,500,000 (consistent with section 

1003(g)(5)). In spending the school 

improvement funds, the LEA uses, 

consistent with its budget, $1,000,000 in 

its one Tier II school; $500,000 in each 

of the two Tier III schools making 

progress; and $62,500 in each of the 

remaining eight Tier III schools. 

Targeting resources in this manner 

may result in school improvement funds 

being concentrated in a small number of 

LEAs and schools, depending on where 

in a State the Tier I schools are located 

and the ability of an LEA to implement 

the proposed interventions. The 

Secretary believes such targeting is 

warranted by the significant needs of 

the students in the lowest-achieving 

schools and is fully consistent with the 

priorities stated in the statute. 

With the approval of its LEAs, an SEA 

could also directly implement the 

proposed interventions in a Tier I or 

Tier II school and provide services in a 

Tier III school or arrange for their 

provision through other entities such as 

EMOs, school support teams, or 

educational service agencies. An SEA 

also plays a critical role in building 

capacity at the State and local levels to 

raise achievement in the State’s lowestachieving schools, including by 

supporting efforts to increase the supply 

of effective teachers and principals who 

have the ability to implement one of the 

proposed interventions and to recruit 

external providers to support 

implementation of such interventions. 

The SEA might also establish a specific 

unit at the State level to provide support 

to its lowest-achieving schools. 

Moreover, the SEA should seek to 

eliminate barriers to the implementation 

of the proposed interventions, such as 

State laws, regulations, or policies that 

limit the SEA’s authority to intervene in 

low-achieving schools, limit the number 

of charter schools that may operate in 

the State, or impede efforts to recruit 

and retain effective teachers and 

principals in low-achieving schools. 

Reporting Metrics 

Because data are critical to informing 

and evaluating the effectiveness of the 

rigorous interventions proposed in this 

notice, the Secretary proposes that SEAs 

and LEAs report specific school-level 

data related to the use of school 

improvement funds and the impact of 

the specific interventions implemented. 

Local educators need the data on an 

ongoing basis to evaluate the extent to 

which effective reform strategies are 

being implemented, to monitor the 

impact of changes, to track progress 

against their own goals, and to identify 

areas where, during implementation, 

assistance or adjustments are needed. 

SEAs can use the data to identify trends 

across schools and LEAs and to inform 

technical assistance efforts targeted to 

schools and LEAs receiving school 

improvement funds, as well as to other 

LEAs with schools in improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring. 

Analyses of these data at the national 

level would inform the Nation’s 

collective knowledge of what works in 

turning around our lowest-achieving 

schools. 

The Secretary proposes to collect data 

in three general categories: (1) 

Interventions (those an LEA is 

implementing); (2) Leading Indicators 

(instructional minutes per school year 

and teacher attendance); and (3) Student 

Achievement Outcomes (average scale 

scores on State assessments, in the 

aggregate and disaggregated by subgroup 

as identified in 34 CFR 200.13(b)(7), and 

number of students enrolled in 

advanced coursework). These data, 

which are not currently available at the 

national level, would augment, and not 

duplicate, other important school-level 

data collected through EDFacts and 

through State Fiscal Stabilization Fund 

(SFSF) reporting that are identified in 

Section III of this notice. Turning 

around the lowest-achieving schools is 

particularly challenging; however, with 

the development and implementation of 

statewide longitudinal data systems, 

increased resources, and more 

concentrated focus on data, the 

Secretary believes that the availability of 

an increased body of knowledge in this 

area will help educators understand and 

meet this challenge. 

Coordination with Section 1003(a) 

Funds: 10 Implementing intensive 

interventions that would dramatically 

turn around the lowest-achieving 

schools in a State requires substantial 

planning at the LEA and school levels. 

Although the proposed requirements in 

this notice are being published for 

comment and thus are not final, they 

reflect the Secretary’s expectation that 

school improvement funds will be used 

to support rigorous interventions in Tier 

I and Tier II schools. Because the 

identity of potential Tier I and Tier II 

schools will likely not change 

significantly from this year to next year, 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
43108 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 26, 2009 / Notices 

11 If an LEA wishes to use FY 2009 section 

1003(a) funds in a Tier II school, it would need to 

apply for a waiver from the Secretary, because Tier 

II schools do not now receive Title I funds. 

12As noted in footnote 1, these are the same 

schools as the Secretary has proposed to target in 

the Race to the Top competitive grant program and 

has proposed to require States to report on under 

phase two of SFSF under the ARRA. 

the Secretary strongly encourages each 

SEA to allocate its FY 2009 section 

1003(a) funds to LEAs with these 

schools in order to provide the 

resources needed to remove barriers to, 

and set the conditions for, 

implementing the proposed 

interventions.11

The Secretary also encourages an LEA 

with Tier I and Tier II schools to 

conduct an analysis of these schools’ 

and the LEA’s ability to implement the 

proposed interventions; review student 

achievement outcomes; evaluate current 

policies and practices that may support 

or impede successful reform strategies; 

assess the strengths and weaknesses of 

school leaders, teachers, and other 

school staff; recruit and train principals 

with the needed skills to lead a school 

that would implement one of the 

proposed interventions; screen and 

identify necessary external partners 

(e.g., an EMO, institution of higher 

education, or educational service 

agency); and design a multi-pronged 

strategy for changing the school culture 

and reforming the lowest-achieving 

schools. At the same time, an SEA 

should consider what steps it can take 

now to set the conditions for reform, 

especially those, such as taking actions 

to support changes to State laws, 

regulations, and policies that cap the 

number of charter schools or place 

restrictions on school calendars, that are 

not dependent on which LEAs 

ultimately receive a School 

Improvement Grant. 

Although not every LEA and school 

participating in this planning process 

would likely receive section 1003(g) 

funds, all LEAs and schools can become 

better positioned to implement 

interventions that improve student 

achievement. Using section 1003(a) 

funds to set the conditions for reform 

would also allow participating LEAs 

and schools that actually receive section 

1003(g) funds to move more quickly in 

implementing the interventions as soon 

as they receive funds. Moreover, an LEA 

would be able to use the information 

gathered from this planning process to 

inform its application to the SEA for 

section 1003(g) funds. This information 

might also help the SEA determine the 

amount of funding that it would allocate 

to the LEA on behalf of individual 

schools. In addition, this planning 

would inform the SEA as to the kinds 

of technical assistance or external 

partners that would be needed in LEAs 

and schools that do not have the 

capacity to implement the rigorous 

interventions necessary to turn around 

their lowest-achieving schools. 

Proposed Requirements 

The Secretary proposes the following 

requirements with respect to the 

allocation and use of School 

Improvement Grants. 

I. SEA Priorities in Awarding School 

Improvement Grants 

A. Defining Key Terms 

To award School Improvement Grants 

to its LEAs, consistent with section 

1003(g)(6) of the ESEA, an SEA must 

define three tiers of schools, in 

accordance with the requirements in 

paragraph 1, to enable the SEA to select 

those LEAs with the greatest need for 

such funds. From among the LEAs in 

greatest need, the SEA must select, in 

accordance with paragraph 2, those 

LEAs that demonstrate the strongest 

commitment to ensuring that the funds 

are used to provide adequate resources 

to enable the lowest-achieving schools 

to meet, or be on track to meet, the 

LEA’s three-year student achievement 

goals in reading/language arts and 

mathematics. Accordingly, the Secretary 

proposes to require an SEA to use the 

following definitions to define key 

terms: 

1. Greatest need. An LEA with the 

greatest need for a School Improvement 

Grant must have one or more schools in 

at least one of the following tiers: 

a. Tier I schools: A Tier I school is a 

school in the lowest-achieving five 

percent of all Title I schools in 

improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring in the State, or one of the 

five lowest-achieving Title I schools in 

improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring in the State, whichever 

number of schools is greater. 

(i) In determining the lowestachieving Title I schools in the State, an 

SEA must consider both the absolute 

performance of a school on the State’s 

assessments in reading/language arts 

and mathematics and the school’s lack 

of progress on those assessments over a 

number of years as defined in paragraph 

(a)(ii).12

(ii) A school has not made progress if 

its gains on the State’s assessments in 

reading/language arts and mathematics, 

in the ‘‘all students’’ category (as used 

in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(I) of the 

ESEA), are less than the average gains of 

schools in the State on those 

assessments. 

b. Tier II schools: A Tier II school is 

a secondary school (middle school or 

high school) that is equally as lowachieving as a Tier I school and that is 

eligible for, but does not receive, Title 

I, Part A funds. 

c. Tier III schools: A Tier III school is 

a Title I school in improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring that is 

not a Tier I school. An SEA may 

establish additional criteria to 

encourage LEAs to differentiate among 

these schools in their use of school 

improvement funds and to use in setting 

priorities among LEA applications for 

funding. 

2. Strongest Commitment. An LEA 

with the strongest commitment is an 

LEA that agrees to implement, and 

demonstrates the capacity to implement 

fully and effectively, one of the 

following rigorous interventions in each 

Tier I and Tier II school that the LEA 

commits to serve: 

a. Turnaround model. A turnaround 

model must include— 

(i) Replacing the principal and at least 

50 percent of the staff; 

(ii) Adopting a new governance 

structure, which may include, but is not 

limited to, reporting to a new 

‘‘turnaround office’’ in the LEA or SEA, 

hiring a ‘‘turnaround leader’’ who 

reports directly to the Superintendent or 

Chief Academic Officer, or entering into 

a multi-year contract with the LEA or 

SEA to obtain added flexibility in 

exchange for greater accountability; 

(iii) Implementing a new or revised 

instructional program; 

(iv) Implementing strategies designed 

to recruit, place, and retain effective 

staff; 

(v) Providing ongoing, high-quality, 

job-embedded professional development 

to staff to ensure that they are equipped 

to facilitate effective teaching and 

learning; 

(vi) Promoting the continuous use of 

student data (such as from formative, 

interim, and summative assessments) to 

inform and differentiate instruction to 

meet the needs of individual students; 

(vii) Establishing schedules and 

strategies that increase instructional 

time for students and time for 

collaboration and professional 

development for staff; and 

(viii) Providing appropriate socialemotional and community-oriented 

services and supports for students. 

b. Restart model. A restart model is 

one in which an LEA closes a school 

and reopens it under a charter school 

operator, a charter management 

organization (CMO), or an education 

management organization (EMO) that 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 26, 2009 / Notices 43109 

13Under section 9101(11) of the ESEA, ‘‘core 

academic subjects’’ are English, reading or language 

arts, mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics 

and government, economics, arts, history, and 

geography. 

has been selected through a rigorous 

review process. A restart model must 

admit, within the grades it serves, all 

former students who wish to attend the 

school. 

c. School closure. An LEA closes a 

school and enrolls the students who 

attended that school in other, highachieving schools in the LEA, which 

may include charter schools. 

d. Transformation model. A 

transformation model must include each 

of the following strategies: 

(i) Developing teacher and school 

leader effectiveness. 

(A) Required activities. The LEA 

must— 

(1) Use evaluations that are based in 

significant measure on student growth 

to improve teachers’ and school leaders’ 

performance; 

(2) Identify and reward school 

leaders, teachers, and other staff who 

improve student achievement outcomes 

and identify and remove those who do 

not; 

(3) Replace the principal who led the 

school prior to commencement of the 

transformation model; 

(4) Provide staff ongoing, high-quality, 

job-embedded professional development 

(e.g., regarding subject-specific 

pedagogy, instruction that reflects a 

deeper understanding of the community 

served by the school, or differentiated 

instruction) that is aligned with the 

school’s comprehensive instructional 

program and designed to ensure staff are 

equipped to facilitate effective teaching 

and learning and have the capacity to 

successfully implement school reform 

strategies; and 

(5) Implement strategies designed to 

recruit, place, and retain effective staff. 

(B) Permissible activities. An LEA 

may also implement other strategies to 

develop teachers’ and school leaders’ 

effectiveness, such as— 

(1) Providing additional 

compensation to attract and retain highquality educators to the school; 

(2) Instituting a system for measuring 

changes in instructional practices 

resulting from professional 

development; or 

(3) Ensuring that the school is not 

required to accept a teacher without the 

mutual consent of the teacher and 

principal, regardless of the teacher’s 

seniority. 

(ii) Comprehensive instructional 

reform strategies. 

(A) Required activities. The LEA 

must— 

(1) Use data to identify and 

implement comprehensive, researchbased, instructional programs that are 

vertically aligned from one grade to the 

next as well as aligned with State 

academic standards; and 

(2) Promote the continuous use of 

individualized student data (such as 

from formative, interim, and summative 

assessments) to inform and differentiate 

instruction to meet the needs of 

individual students. 

(B) Permissible activities. An LEA 

may also implement other strategies for 

implementing comprehensive 

instructional reform strategies, such 

as— 

(1) Conducting periodic reviews to 

ensure that the curriculum is being 

implemented with fidelity, is having the 

intended impact on student 

achievement, and is modified if 

ineffective; 

(2) Implementing a schoolwide 

‘‘response-to-intervention’’ model; or 

(3) In secondary schools— 

(a) Increasing rigor by offering 

opportunities for students to enroll in 

advanced coursework (such as 

Advanced Placement or International 

Baccalaureate), early-college high 

schools, dual enrollment programs, or 

thematic learning academies that 

prepare students for college and careers, 

including by providing appropriate 

supports designed to ensure that lowachieving students can take advantage 

of these programs and coursework; 

(b) Improving student transition from 

middle to high school through summer 

transition programs or freshman 

academies; or 

(c) Increasing graduation rates 

through, for example, credit-recovery 

programs, smaller learning 

communities, and acceleration of basic 

reading and mathematics skills. 

(iii) Extending learning time and 

creating community-oriented schools. 

(A) Required activities. The LEA 

must— 

(1) Provide more time for students to 

learn core academic content by 

expanding the school day, the school 

week, or the school year, or increasing 

instructional time for core academic 

subjects 13 during the school day; 

(2) Provide more time for teachers to 

collaborate, including time for 

horizontal and vertical planning to 

improve instruction; 

(3) Provide more time or 

opportunities for enrichment activities 

for students (e.g., instruction in 

financial literacy, internships or 

apprenticeships, service-learning 

opportunities) by partnering, as 

appropriate, with other organizations, 

such as universities, businesses, and 

museums; and 

(4) Provide ongoing mechanisms for 

family and community engagement. 

(B) Permissible activities. An LEA 

may also implement other strategies that 

extend learning time and create 

community-oriented schools, such as— 

(1) Partnering with parents, faith- and 

community-based organizations, health 

clinics, the police department, and 

others to create safe school 

environments that meet students’ social, 

emotional and health needs; 

(2) Extending or restructuring the 

school day to add time for such 

strategies as advisory periods to build 

relationships between students, faculty, 

and other school staff; or 

(3) Implementing approaches to 

improve school climate and discipline, 

such as implementing a system of 

positive behavioral supports or taking 

steps to eliminate bullying and student 

harassment. 

(iv) Providing operating flexibility and 

sustained support. 

(A) Required activities. The LEA 

must— 

(1) Give the school sufficient 

operating flexibility (including in 

staffing, calendars/time, and budgeting) 

to implement fully a comprehensive 

approach to substantially improve 

student achievement outcomes; and 

(2) Ensure that the school receives 

ongoing, intensive technical assistance 

and related support from the LEA, the 

SEA, or a designated external lead 

partner organization (such as a school 

turnaround organization or an EMO). 

(B) Permissible activities. The LEA 

may also implement other strategies for 

providing operational flexibility and 

intensive support, such as— 

(1) Allowing the school to be run 

under a new governance arrangement, 

such as a turnaround division within 

the LEA or SEA; or 

(2) Implementing a weighted perpupil school-based budget formula. 

In determining the strength of an 

LEA’s commitment to using school 

improvement funds to implement these 

interventions, an SEA must consider, at 

a minimum, the extent to which the 

LEA’s application shows the LEA’s 

efforts to: (1) Analyze the needs of its 

schools and match the interventions to 

those needs; (2) design interventions 

consistent with this notice; (3) recruit, 

screen, and select external providers to 

ensure quality; (4) embed the 

interventions in a longer-term plan to 

sustain gains in achievement; (5) align 

other resources with the interventions; 

(6) modify its practices, if necessary, to 

enable it to implement the interventions 

fully and effectively; and (7) sustain the 

reforms after the funding period ends. 

Moreover, the SEA must consider the 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
43110 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 26, 2009 / Notices 

14The subgroups identified in 34 CFR 

200.13(b)(7) include students from major racial and 

ethnic groups, economically disadvantaged 

students, students with limited English proficiency, 

and students with disabilities. 

LEA’s capacity to implement the 

proposed interventions and may 

approve the LEA to serve only those 

schools for which the SEA determines 

that the LEA can implement fully and 

effectively one of the proposed 

interventions. 

B. Providing Flexibility 

1. An SEA may award school 

improvement funds to an LEA for a Tier 

I school that has implemented, in whole 

or in part, an intervention that meets the 

requirements under Section I.A.2.a, 2.b, 

or 2.d of these proposed requirements 

within the last two years so that the LEA 

and school can continue or complete the 

intervention being implemented in that 

school. 

2. An SEA may seek a waiver from the 

Secretary of the requirements in section 

1116(b) of the ESEA in order to permit 

a Tier I school implementing an 

intervention that meets the 

requirements under Section I.A.2.a or 

2.b of these proposed requirements in 

an LEA that receives a School 

Improvement Grant to ‘‘start over’’ in 

the school improvement timeline. Even 

though the school is no longer in 

improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring, it may receive school 

improvement funds. 

3. An SEA may seek a waiver from the 

Secretary to enable a Tier I school that 

is ineligible to operate a Title I 

schoolwide program and is operating a 

Title I targeted assistance program to 

operate a schoolwide program in order 

to implement an intervention that meets 

the requirements under Section I.A.2.a, 

2.b, or 2.d of these proposed 

requirements. 

II. Awarding School Improvement 

Grants to LEAs 

A. LEA Applications 

1. An LEA may apply for a School 

Improvement Grant if it has one or more 

schools that qualify under the State’s 

definition of a Tier I, Tier II, or Tier III 

school. 

2. In its application, in addition to 

other information that the SEA may 

require, the LEA must identify the Tier 

I, Tier II, and Tier III schools it commits 

to serve and demonstrate that it has the 

capacity to use the school improvement 

funds to provide adequate resources and 

related support to each of the Tier I and 

Tier II schools in order to implement 

fully and effectively one of the 

interventions identified in Section I.A.2 

of this notice. If an LEA has nine or 

more Tier I and Tier II schools, the LEA 

may not implement the same 

intervention in more than 50 percent of 

those schools. 

3. The LEA must include in its 

application a budget indicating how it 

will allocate school improvement funds 

among the Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III 

schools it commits to serve. The LEA 

must serve each Tier I school using one 

of the four interventions identified in 

Section I.A.2 of this notice, unless the 

LEA demonstrates that it lacks sufficient 

capacity to undertake intensive 

interventions in each such school, in 

which case the LEA must indicate the 

Tier I schools that it can effectively 

serve. An LEA may not serve with these 

school improvement funds a Tier I 

school in which it does not implement 

one of the proposed interventions. 

4. The LEA’s budget for each Tier I 

and Tier II school it commits to serve 

must be of sufficient size and scope to 

ensure that the LEA can implement one 

of the rigorous interventions identified 

in Section I.A.2 of this notice. A budget 

should cover three years. The LEA’s 

budget may, and likely would, exceed 

$500,000 per year for each Tier I and 

Tier II school that implements an 

intervention in Section I.A.2.a, 2.b, or 

2.d in order to reform the school 

consistent with the LEA’s application 

and the requirements in this notice. The 

LEA’s budget may include less than 

$500,000 per year for a Tier I or Tier II 

school for which it proposes to 

implement the school closure 

intervention in Section I.A.2.c. In 

addition, a school closure typically 

would be completed in less than three 

years. 

5. The LEA’s budget for each Tier III 

school it commits to serve must include 

the services it will provide the school, 

particularly if the school meets 

additional criteria established by the 

SEA, although those services do not 

need to be commensurate with the 

funds the SEA provides the LEA based 

on the school’s inclusion in the LEA’s 

School Improvement Grant application. 

6. An LEA in which a Tier I school 

is located and that does not apply to 

serve that school for reasons other than 

lack of capacity may not apply for a 

grant to serve only Tier III schools. 

7. An LEA must establish, in its 

application, three-year student 

achievement goals in reading/language 

arts and mathematics. The LEA must 

hold each Tier I and Tier II school it 

commits to serve annually accountable 

for meeting, or being on track to meet, 

those goals with respect to the 

achievement of all students in each 

school, as well as each subgroup of 

students identified in 34 CFR 

200.13(b)(7),14 and for making progress 

on the leading indicators described in 

Section III of this notice. If an LEA 

proposes to implement a restart model, 

it must also describe how it will hold 

the charter school operator, CMO, or 

EMO accountable for meeting, or being 

on track to meet, the LEA’s student 

achievement goals and making progress 

on the leading indicators. 

8. An LEA must demonstrate how it 

will sustain the interventions 

implemented with its School 

Improvement Grant after the funding 

period for the grant has ended. 

B. SEA Responsibilities 

1. To receive a School Improvement 

Grant, an SEA must submit an 

application to the Department at such 

time, and containing such information, 

as the Secretary shall reasonably 

require. 

2. An SEA must review and approve, 

consistent with the requirements in this 

notice, an application for a School 

Improvement Grant that it receives from 

an LEA. Before approving the 

application, the SEA must ensure that it 

meets the requirements of this notice, 

particularly with respect to: (1) Whether 

the LEA has agreed to implement one of 

the four rigorous interventions 

identified in Section I.A.2 of this notice 

in each Tier I and Tier II school 

included in its application; (2) the 

extent to which the LEA’s application 

shows the LEA’s efforts to analyze the 

needs of each school and match an 

intervention to those needs, consistent 

with Section II.A.2; design and 

implement interventions consistent 

with this notice; recruit, screen, and 

select external providers to ensure 

quality; embed the interventions in a 

longer-term plan to sustain gains in 

student achievement; coordinate with 

other resources; modify its practices, if 

necessary, to enable it to fully and 

effectively implement the interventions; 

and sustain the reforms after the 

funding period ends; (3) whether the 

LEA has the capacity to implement the 

selected intervention fully and 

effectively in each Tier I and Tier II 

school; and (4) whether the LEA has 

submitted a budget that includes 

sufficient funds to implement the 

selected intervention fully and 

effectively in each Tier I and Tier II 

school. 

3. An SEA must review and approve 

the LEA’s three-year student 

achievement goals to ensure that they 

are sufficiently rigorous to hold each 

Tier I and Tier II school accountable for 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 26, 2009 / Notices 43111 

meeting, or being on track to meet, those 

goals with respect to all students in the 

school, as well as each subgroup of 

students identified in 34 CFR 

200.13(b)(7), and for making progress on 

the leading indicators described in 

Section III of this notice. 

4. If an SEA does not have sufficient 

school improvement funds to award, for 

up to three years, a grant to each LEA 

that submits an approvable application, 

the SEA must give priority to LEAs that 

apply to serve both Tier I and Tier II 

schools. 

5. An SEA must award a School 

Improvement Grant to an LEA in an 

amount that is of sufficient size and 

scope to support the activities required 

under section 1116 of the ESEA and this 

notice. The LEA’s total grant may not be 

less than $50,000 or more than $500,000 

per year for each Tier I and Tier III 

school that the LEA commits to serve. 

6. In awarding the school 

improvement funds, an SEA must 

allocate $500,000 per year for each Tier 

I school that will implement a rigorous 

intervention under Section I.A.2.a, 2.b, 

or 2.d for which the LEA has requested 

funds in its budget and for which the 

SEA determines the LEA has the 

capacity to serve. The SEA must also 

allocate sufficient school improvement 

funds in total to the LEA, consistent 

with section 1003(g)(5), to match, as 

closely as possible, the LEA’s budget for 

implementing one of the four 

interventions in each Tier I and Tier II 

school it commits to serve, including 

costs associated with closing such 

schools under Section I.A.2.c, as well as 

for serving participating Tier III schools, 

particularly those meeting additional 

criteria established by the SEA. 

7. If an SEA does not have sufficient 

school improvement funds to allocate to 

each LEA with a Tier I or Tier II school 

an amount sufficient to enable the 

school to implement fully the specified 

intervention for three years, the SEA 

may take into account the distribution 

of Tier I and Tier II schools among such 

LEAs in the State to ensure that Tier I 

and Tier II schools throughout the State 

can be served. 

8. If an SEA has provided a School 

Improvement Grant to each LEA that 

has requested funds to serve a Tier I or 

Tier II school in accordance with this 

notice, the SEA may award remaining 

school improvement funds to an LEA 

with only Tier III schools that applies to 

receive those funds. 

9. In awarding School Improvement 

Grants, an SEA must apportion its FY 

2009 school improvement funds, 

including those available through the 

ARRA, in order to make grants that are 

renewable for two additional years, 

which the Secretary will make possible 

by waiving the limitation on the period 

of availability beyond September 30, 

2011. 

C. Renewal for Two Additional OneYear Periods 

An SEA must renew an LEA’s School 

Improvement Grant for two additional 

one-year periods if the LEA 

demonstrates that its Tier I and Tier II 

schools are meeting, or are on track to 

meet, the LEA’s student achievement 

goals with respect to all students in the 

school, as well as each subgroup of 

students identified in 34 CFR 

200.13(b)(7), and are making progress on 

the leading indicators described in 

Section III of this notice and that its Tier 

III schools are meeting the goals in their 

plans developed under section 1116 of 

the ESEA. If an SEA does not renew an 

LEA’s School Improvement Grant 

because the LEA’s participating schools 

are not meeting or on track to meet their 

student achievement goals, the SEA may 

reallocate those funds to other eligible 

LEAs, consistent with the requirements 

of this notice. 

D. State Reservation for Administration, 

Evaluation, and Technical Assistance 

An SEA may reserve from the total FY 

2009 school improvement funds it 

receives under section 1003(g) of the 

ESEA no more than five percent for 

administration, evaluation, and 

technical assistance expenses. 

E. States Whose School Improvement 

Grant Exceeds the Amount the State 

May Award to Eligible LEAs 

In some States in which a limited 

number of Title I schools are identified 

for improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring, the SEA may be able to 

make School Improvement Grants, 

renewable for two additional years, to 

each LEA with a Tier I, Tier II, or Tier 

III school without using the State’s full 

allocation under section 1003(g) of the 

ESEA. An SEA in this situation may 

reserve up to five percent of its FY 2009 

allocation of school improvement funds 

for administration, evaluation, and 

technical assistance expenses under 

section 1003(g)(8) of the ESEA. The SEA 

may retain sufficient school 

improvement funds to serve, for two 

succeeding years, each Tier I, II, and III 

school that generates funds for an 

eligible LEA in the 2010–2011 school 

year. The Secretary proposes to 

reallocate to other States, before 

September 30, 2010, any remaining 

school improvement funds from the 

States with surplus funds. 

III. Reporting and Evaluation 

A. Reporting Metrics 

To inform and evaluate the 

effectiveness of the interventions in this 

notice, the Secretary proposes to collect 

data on the metrics in the following 

chart. The Department already collects 

most of these data through EDFacts and 

will collect data on two metrics through 

SFSF reporting. Accordingly, an SEA 

must only report the following new data 

with respect to school improvement 

funds: 

1. A list of the LEAs that received a 

School Improvement Grant under 

section 1003(g) and the amount of the 

grant. 

2. For each LEA that received a 

School Improvement Grant, a list of the 

schools that were served and the 

amount of funds or value of services 

each school received. 

3. For any Tier I or Tier II school, 

school-level data on the metrics 

designated on the following chart as 

‘‘SIG’’ (School Improvement Grant): 

Metric Source Achievement 

indicators Leading indicators 

School Data 

Which intervention the school used (i.e., turnaround, restart, 

closed, or transformation).

NEW SIG ................................... ................................ ................................

AYP status ...................................................................................... EDFacts ..................................... ✓ ................................

Which AYP targets the school met and missed ............................. EDFacts ..................................... ✓ ................................

School improvement status ............................................................. EDFacts ..................................... ✓ ................................


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
43112 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 26, 2009 / Notices 

Metric Source Achievement 

indicators Leading indicators 

Student Outcome/Academic Progress Data 

Percentage of students at or above each proficiency level on 

State assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics 

(e.g., Basic, Proficient, Advanced), by grade and by student 

subgroup.

EDFacts ..................................... ✓ ................................

Student participation rate on State assessments, by student subgroup.EDFacts ..................................... ................................ ✓ 

Average scores on State assessments across subgroups—scale 

scores by quartile.

NEW SIG ................................... ✓ ................................

Title III LEP students English language proficiency ....................... EDFacts ..................................... ✓ ................................

AMAO status for LEP students ....................................................... EDFacts ..................................... ✓ ................................

Graduation rate ............................................................................... EDFacts ..................................... ✓ ................................

Dropout rate .................................................................................... EDFacts ..................................... ................................ ✓ 

Student attendance ......................................................................... EDFacts ..................................... ................................ ✓ 

Students enrolled in advanced coursework (e.g., AP/IB), earlycollege high schools, or dual enrollment classes.NEW SIG HS only ..................... ................................ ✓ 

College enrollment rates ................................................................. NEW SFSF phase two HS only ✓ ................................

Student Connection and School Climate 

Discipline incidents .......................................................................... EDFacts ..................................... ................................ ✓ 

Truants ............................................................................................ EDFacts ..................................... ................................ ✓ 

Number of instructional minutes ..................................................... NEW SIG ................................... ................................ ✓ 

Talent 

Distribution of teachers by performance level on LEA’s teacher 

evaluation system.

NEW ...........................................

SFSF phase two ........................

................................ ✓ 

Teacher attendance ........................................................................ NEW SIG ................................... ................................ ✓ 

B. Evaluation 

An LEA that receives a School 

Improvement Grant must participate in 

any evaluation of that grant conducted 

by the Secretary. 

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 to review by the 

Office of Management and Budget 

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

12866 defines a ‘‘significant regulatory 

action’’ as an action likely to result in 

a rule that (1) has an annual effect on 

the economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affects a section 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) 

creates serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interferes with an action 

taken or planned by another agency; (3) 

materially alters the budgetary impact of 

entitlement grants, user fees, or loan 

programs or the rights and obligations of 

recipients thereof; or (4) raises novel 

legal or policy issues arising out of legal 

mandates, the President’s priorities, or 

the principles set forth in the Executive 

order. The Secretary has determined 

that this regulatory action is 

economically significant under section 

3(f)(1) of the Executive order. 

Potential Costs and Benefits 

The proposed costs have been 

reviewed in accordance with Executive 

Order 12866. Under the terms of the 

order, the Department has assessed the 

costs and benefits of this regulatory 

action. 

In assessing the potential costs and 

benefits—both quantitative and 

qualitative—of these proposed 

requirements, the Department has 

determined that the benefits of the 

proposed requirements exceed the costs. 

The Department also has determined 

that this regulatory action does not 

unduly interfere with State, local, and 

Tribal governments in the exercise of 

their governmental functions. 

To assist the Department in 

complying with the requirements of 

Executive Order 12866, the Secretary 

invites comments on whether there may 

be further opportunities to reduce any 

potential costs or increase potential 

benefits resulting from these proposed 

requirements without impeding the 

effective and efficient administration of 

the program. 

Summary of Costs and Benefits 

The Department believes that the 

proposed requirements will not impose 

significant costs on States, LEAs, or 

other entities that receive school 

improvement funds. As noted 

elsewhere, these proposed requirements 

would drive school improvement funds 

to LEAs that have the lowest-achieving 

schools in amounts sufficient to turn 

those schools around and significantly 

increase student achievement. They 

would also require participating LEAs to 

adopt the most effective approaches to 

turning around low-achieving schools. 

In short, the Department believes that 

the proposed requirements would 

ensure that limited school improvement 

funds are put to their optimum use— 

that is, that they would be targeted to 

where they are most needed and used in 

the most effective manner possible. The 

benefits, then, would be more effective 

schools serving children from lowincome families and a better education 

for those children. 

The Department believes that the 

State and local costs of implementing 

the proposed requirements (including 

State costs of applying for grants, 

distributing the grants to LEAs, ensuring 

compliance with the proposed 

requirements, and reporting to the 

Department, and LEA costs of applying 

for subgrants and implementing the 

interventions) will be financed through 

the grant funds. The Department does 

not believe that the proposed 

requirements will impose a financial 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 26, 2009 / Notices 43113 

burden that States and LEAs will have 

to meet from non-Federal sources. 

Need for Federal Regulatory Action 

The proposed requirements are 

needed to implement the School 

Improvement Grants program in FY 

2009 in a manner that the Department 

believes will best enable the program to 

achieve its objective of supporting 

comprehensive and effective efforts by 

LEAs to overcome the challenges faced 

by low-achieving schools that educate 

concentrations of children living in 

poverty. The proposed requirements for 

SEAs to target school improvement 

funds on schools that are among the 

very lowest-achieving in their State will 

ensure that limited Federal funds will 

go to the schools in which they are most 

needed, including high schools with 

high dropout rates. The requirement for 

LEAs receiving school improvement 

funds to implement one of four specific 

interventions would ensure that those 

funds are not used for activities that are 

unlikely to produce the improvement in 

outcomes that the lowest-achieving 

schools need to achieve. 

The reporting requirements proposed 

in this notice would ensure that the 

Department receives limited but 

essential data on the results of this 

major Federal investment in school 

improvement. The Department does not 

believe that the State and local costs of 

providing those data will be significant 

and, as noted earlier, those costs can be 

met with grant funds. 

The definitions proposed would give 

clearer meaning to some of the terms 

used elsewhere in the notice. 

Regulatory Alternatives Considered 

A likely alternative to promulgation of 

the requirements proposed in this notice 

would be for the Secretary to allocate 

the FY 2009 school improvement funds 

without setting any regulatory 

requirements governing their use. Under 

such an alternative, States and LEAs 

would be required to meet the statutory 

requirements, but funds likely would 

not be targeted to the very lowestachieving schools and LEAs would 

likely not use all the funds for activities 

most likely to result in a real turnaround of those schools and significant 

improvement in the educational 

outcomes for the students they educate. 

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 these proposed 

requirements. This table provides our 

best estimate of the Federal payments to 

be made to States under this program as 

a result of these proposed requirements. 

Expenditures are classified as transfers 

to States. 

TABLE—ACCOUNTING STATEMENT

CLASSIFICATION OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES

Category Transfers 

Annual Monetized 

Transfers.

$3,545,633,000. 

From Whom to Whom Federal Government 

to States. 

As previously noted, the ARRA 

provides $3 billion for School 

Improvement Grants in FY 2009 in 

addition to the previously appropriated 

$546 million. The proposed 

requirements in this notice would 

govern the total $3.546 billion in FY 

2009 school improvement funds. 

The proposed requirements will have 

a distributional impact on the allocation 

of school improvement funds 

nationally. The implementation of these 

requirements would likely result in a 

larger proportion of program funds 

flowing to LEAs that have larger 

concentrations of the lowest-achieving 

schools (Tier I and Tier II schools) and 

a smaller portion flowing to other LEAs. 

However, because the FY 2009 

appropriation for the program is much 

larger than the appropriation for FY 

2008, the negative impact on the latter 

category of LEAs may be minimal. The 

Department is unable to project the 

amount of the shift but will collect data 

on the allocations through the 

procedures described under Reporting 

and Evaluation. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

The Secretary certifies that these 

proposed requirements will not have a 

significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

Under the U.S. Small Business 

Administration’s Size Standards, small 

entities include small governmental 

jurisdictions such as cities, towns, or 

school districts (LEAs) with a 

population of less than 50,000. 

Approximately 11,900 LEAs that receive 

Title I funds qualify as small entities 

under this definition. However, the 

small entities that the proposed 

requirements will affect are small LEAs 

receiving school improvement funds 

under section 1003(g) of the ESEA—i.e., 

a small LEA that has one or more 

schools in improvement, corrective 

action, or restructuring and that meets 

the SEA’s priorities for greatest need for 

those funds and demonstrates the 

strongest commitment to use the funds 

to provide adequate resources to their 

lowest-achieving Title I schools to raise 

substantially the achievement of their 

students. 

SEAs would develop their own 

definitions for their lowest-achieving 

schools, consistent with the 

requirements of this notice, but 

preliminary data analyses by the 

Department suggest that 15–25 percent 

of the lowest-performing schools in the 

Nation are located in rural areas, which 

are likely to contain most of the targeted 

schools that are operated by small LEAs. 

Assuming a maximum of 1,000 

turnaround schools nationwide, and 

that few if any rural LEAs will contain 

more than one of their State’s lowestperforming schools, there would be a 

range of 150 to 250 small LEAs affected 

by the requirements in this notice, 

including a limited number of small 

suburban and urban LEAs. 

The requirements proposed in this 

notice would not have a significant 

economic impact on these small LEAs 

because (1) the costs of implementing 

the required interventions would be 

covered by the grants received by 

successful applicants, and (2) in most 

cases the costs of developing 

turnaround plans and submitting 

applications would not be significantly 

higher than the costs that would be 

incurred in applying for School 

Improvement Grants under the statutory 

requirements. 

Successful LEAs would receive up to 

three years of funding under section 

1003(g) of the ESEA to implement their 

proposed interventions, consistent with 

the Secretary’s intention that SEAs 

ensure that awards are of sufficient size 

and duration to turn around the 

Nation’s lowest-achieving schools. 

Small LEAs may incur costs to 

develop and submit plans for turning 

around their lowest-achieving schools 

but, in general, such costs would be 

similar to those incurred to apply for 

School Improvement Grant funding 

under existing statutory requirements. 

Moreover, since nearly all of the schools 

included in the applications submitted 

by small LEAs would be schools that 

already are in improvement status, these 

LEAs would be able to incorporate 

existing data analysis and planning into 

their applications, at little additional 

cost. Also, small LEAs may receive 

technical assistance and other support 

from their SEAs in developing 

turnaround plans and applications for 

these funds. 

In addition, the Department believes 

the benefits provided under this 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES
43114 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 164 / Wednesday, August 26, 2009 / Notices 

proposed regulatory action will 

outweigh the burdens on these small 

LEAs of complying with the proposed 

requirements. In particular, the 

proposed requirements potentially make 

available to eligible small LEAs 

significant resources to make the 

fundamental changes needed to turn 

around their lowest-achieving schools, 

resources that otherwise may not be 

available to small and often 

geographically isolated LEAs. 

The Secretary invites comments from 

small LEAs as to whether they believe 

the requirements proposed in this notice 

would have a significant economic 

impact on them and, if so, requests 

evidence to support that belief. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

The proposed requirements in this 

notice contain information collection 

provisions that are subject to review by 

OMB under the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520). It is 

our plan to offer a comment period for 

the information collection provisions at 

the time of the notice of final 

requirements. This is because we cannot 

finalize the requirements and develop 

the application package until we have 

received and responded to comments on 

the underlying proposed requirements 

in this notice. At that time, the 

Department will submit the information 

collection to OMB for its review and 

provide the burden hours associated 

with each requirement for comment. 

Because it is likely that the 

information collection requirements 

will be reviewed under emergency OMB 

processing, however, the Department 

encourages the public to comment on 

the burden hours associated with the 

contents of the SEA application 

proposed in this notice. As noted 

earlier, that application would generally 

address the SEA’s role with respect to 

school improvement funds, including 

establishing criteria to approve an LEA’s 

application, allocating school 

improvement funds to the LEA, 

monitoring the implementation of 

interventions by the LEA and the 

progress participating schools in the 

LEA are making with respect to both 

student achievement outcomes and the 

leading indicators described in Section 

III of this notice, providing technical 

assistance to the LEA and its 

participating schools, and holding the 

LEA and its schools accountable for 

acceptable progress. We estimate that an 

SEA would spend approximately 90 

hours of staff time to plan and prepare 

its application at a cost of $2,700 per 

State ($30.00 (average cost per hour of 

SEA staff) times 90 hours). Thus, we 

estimate the total burden to be up to 

4,680 hours (52 SEAs (50 States, the 

District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico) 

times 90 hours) or $140,400 ($30.00 

times 4,680) for all States. 

Intergovernmental Review 

This program is not subject to 

Executive Order 12372 and the 

regulations in 34 CFR part 79. 

Electronic Access to This Document 

You may 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. If you have questions about 

using PDF, call the U.S. Government 

Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1– 

888–293–6498; or in the Washington, 

DC, area at (202) 512–1530. 

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. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Number: 84.377) 

Dated: August 21, 2009. 

Arne Duncan, 

Secretary of Education. 

[FR Doc. E9–20612 Filed 8–25–09; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Initial H-Prize Competition for 

Breakthrough Advances in Materials 

for Hydrogen Storage 

AGENCY: Office of Energy Efficiency and 

Renewable Energy, Department of 

Energy (DOE). 

ACTION: Notice of Initial H-Prize 

Competition for Breakthrough Advances 

in Materials for Hydrogen Storage (‘‘HPrize Competition’’). 

SUMMARY: As authorized in Section 654 

of the Energy Independence and 

Security Act of 2007, DOE is 

announcing the Initial H-Prize 

Competition which will be a single 

award for $1 million in the subject area 

of advanced materials for hydrogen 

storage—a critical challenge to enable 

widespread commercialization of 

hydrogen and fuel cell technologies. 

Evaluation of entries will begin 

approximately 15 months after the date 

this announcement appears in the 

Federal Register (FR). A single prize of 

$1 million will be awarded, unless no 

entries are significant enough to merit 

an award. The essential elements of the 

H-Prize Competition are included in 

this announcement; further updates and 

answers to questions asked by 

participants will be available on a 

public Web site, http:// 

hydrogenprize.org, and through future 

FR notices as required. We encourage 

prospective participants to visit the Web 

site, as it will be updated periodically. 

DATES:

• February 15, 2010: Deadline for 

Registration and Eligibility 

Documentation. 

• November 15, 2010: Deadline for 

submittal of material samples for 

testing. 

• Dec 2010/Jan 2011: Sample testing 

by an independent third party 

laboratory. 

• Dec 2010/Jan 2011: Panel of Judges 

reviews and evaluates the independent 

third party testing data. 

• February 2011: Award of $1 million 

prize, if the Panel of Judges determines 

that there is a winning entry. 

ADDRESSES: Questions may be submitted 

through http://hydrogenprize.org. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Technical Information: Dr. Ned Stetson, 

Technology Development Manager, 

Office of Hydrogen, Fuel Cells and 

Infrastructure Technologies; EE–2H; 

1000 Independence Ave., SE., 

Washington, DC 20585; (202) 586–9995. 

More information on DOE’s hydrogen 

storage program, targets and current 

research information can be found at 

http://www1.eere.energy.gov/ 

hydrogenandfuelcells/storage/. 

Prize contest: Jeffrey Serfass, Project 

Director, Hydrogen Education 

Foundation, 1211 Connecticut Ave., 

NW.; Suite 600; Washington, DC 20036– 

2701; (202) 223–5547. The HEF H-Prize 

Web site is http://hydrogenprize.org. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Background: The H-Prize is 

authorized by Section 654 of the Energy 

Independence and Security Act of 2007, 

Public Law 110–140, as an amendment 

to Sec. 1008 of the Energy Policy Act of 

2005, Public Law 109–58. Under 

Section 654, the Secretary of Energy is 

authorized to carry out a program to 

competitively award cash prizes to 

advance the research, development, 

demonstration and commercial 

application of hydrogen energy 

technologies. The purpose is to 

accelerate the development of hydrogen 

and fuel cell technologies by offering 

prizes to motivate and reward 

outstanding scientific and engineering 

advancements. The mobilization of 

private funding, in concert with a core 


jlentini on DSKJ8SOYB1PROD with NOTICES