Vol. 79 Monday, 

No. 173 September 8, 2014 

Part II 

Department of Education 

34 CFR Chapter II 

Proposed Requirements—School Improvement Grants—Title I of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; Proposed Rule 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53254 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 173 / Monday, September 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter II 

RIN 1810–AB22 

[Docket ID ED–2014–OESE–0079] 

Proposed Requirements—School 

Improvement Grants—Title I of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965 

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Department of 

Education (Department). 

ACTION: Proposed requirements. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Secretary of 

Education (Secretary) proposes revising 

the final requirements for the School 

Improvement Grants (SIG) program, 

published in the Federal Register on 

October 28, 2010, authorized under 

section 1003(g) of title I of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA), to 

implement language in the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2014, that allows 

local educational agencies (LEAs) to 

implement additional interventions, 

provides flexibility for rural LEAs, and 

extends the grant period from three to 

five years. Additionally, the proposed 

requirements make changes that reflect 

lessons learned from four years of SIG 

implementation. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before October 8, 2014. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

or via postal mail, commercial delivery, 

or hand delivery. We will not accept 

comments submitted by fax or by email 

or those submitted after the comment 

period. To ensure that we do not receive 

duplicate copies, please submit your 

comments only once. In addition, please 

include the Docket ID at the top of your 

comments. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

www.regulations.gov to submit your 

comments electronically. Information 

on using Regulations.gov, including 

instructions for accessing agency 

documents, submitting comments, and 

viewing the docket, is available on the 

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

• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, 

or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver 

your comments about these proposed 

regulations, address them to Elizabeth 

Ross, U.S. Department of Education, 400 

Maryland Avenue SW., room 3C116, 

Washington, DC 20202. 

Privacy Note: The Department’s policy is 

to make all comments received from 

members of the public available for public 

viewing in their entirety on the Federal 

eRulemaking Portal at www.regulations.gov. 

Therefore, commenters should be careful to 

include in their comments only information 

that they wish to make publicly available. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Ross, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

room 3C116, Washington, DC 20202. 

Telephone: (202) 260–8961 or by email: 

Elizabeth.Ross@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

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

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Purpose of This Regulatory Action: 

These proposed requirements would 

implement language in the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2014, to allow 

LEAs to implement evidence-based, 

whole-school reform strategies and 

State-determined school improvement 

intervention models, provide flexibility 

for rural LEAs implementing a SIG 

intervention, and extend the allowable 

grant period from three to five years. 

Additionally, the proposed 

requirements would make changes that 

reflect lessons learned from four years of 

SIG implementation. This regulatory 

action is authorized by the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2014 (Public Law 

113–76) and 20 U.S.C. 6303(g). 

Summary of the Major Provisions of 

This Regulatory Action: As discussed in 

more depth in the Proposed Changes 

section of this document, the 

Department proposes the following 

revisions to the current SIG 

requirements to implement language in 

the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2014: Allowing five-year SIG awards; 

adding State-determined school 

improvement intervention models; 

adding evidence-based, whole-school 

reform strategies; and allowing rural 

LEAs to modify one SIG intervention 

model element. 

The Department also proposes the 

following revisions to the current SIG 

requirements to strengthen program 

implementation based on lessons 

learned and input from stakeholders: 

Adding an intervention model that 

focuses on improving educational 

outcomes in preschool and early grades, 

adding an LEA requirement to 

demonstrate the appropriateness of the 

chosen intervention model and take into 

consideration family and community 

input in the selection of the model; 

adding an LEA requirement to 

continuously engage families and the 

community throughout implementation; 

adding an LEA requirement to monitor 

and support intervention 

implementation; adding an LEA 

requirement to regularly review external 

providers’ performance and hold 

external providers accountable; 

eliminating the ‘‘rule of nine’’; and 

revising reporting requirements. 

The Department proposes the 

following revisions to current SIG 

requirements: Modifying the teacher 

and principal evaluation and support 

system requirements under the 

transformation model; clarifying the 

rigorous review process under the 

restart model; clarifying renewal 

criteria; defining ‘‘greatest need’’ to 

include priority and focus schools for 

State educational agencies (SEAs) with 

approved ESEA flexibility requests; 

clarifying flexibility for previously 

implemented interventions (in whole or 

in part); and clarifying requirements 

related to the posting of LEAs’ SIG 

applications. 

Finally, the Department proposes 

removing references to fiscal year 2009 

and fiscal year 2010 funds and the 

differentiated accountability pilot 

because those references are no longer 

necessary. 

Costs and Benefits: The Department 

believes that the benefits of this 

regulatory action outweigh any 

associated costs to SEAs and LEAs, 

which would be financed with grant 

funds. The benefits of this action would 

be more effective State and local 

actions, using Federal funds, to turn 

around their lowest-performing schools 

and achieve significant improvement in 

educational outcomes for the students 

attending those schools. Please refer to 

the Regulatory Impact Analysis in this 

document for a more detailed 

discussion of costs and benefits. 

Consistent with Executive Order 

12866, the Secretary has determined 

that this action is economically 

significant and, thus, is subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget under the order. 

Invitation to Comment: We invite you 

to submit comments regarding the 

proposed revisions described in the 

‘‘Proposed Changes’’ section of this 

document. To ensure that your 

comments have maximum effect in 

developing the final requirements, we 

urge you to identify clearly the specific 

proposed revision that each comment 

addresses. 

We invite you to assist us in 

complying with the specific 

requirements of Executive Orders 12866 

and 13563 and their 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 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 173 / Monday, September 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 53255 

while preserving the effective and 

efficient administration of the 

Department’s programs and activities. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect all public comments 

about this document by accessing 

Regulations.gov. You may also inspect 

the comments in person in Room 

3W100, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

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

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

Monday through Friday of each week 

except Federal holidays. Please contact 

the person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Assistance to Individuals with 

Disabilities in Reviewing the 

Rulemaking Record: On request we will 

provide an appropriate accommodation 

or auxiliary aid to an individual with a 

disability who needs assistance to 

review the comments or other 

documents in the public rulemaking 

record for this document. 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, SIG funds 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. 

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

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub. 

L. 113–76). 

Proposed Requirements 

Background 

The Department issued final 

requirements for the SIG program on 

December 10, 2009 (74 FR 65618). On 

January 21, 2010, the Department 

subsequently published interim final 

requirements (75 FR 3375), which 

became final on October 28, 2010 (75 FR 

66363). 

The SIG program provides grants to 

support rigorous interventions aimed at 

turning around our Nation’s persistently 

lowest-achieving schools. In general, 

SEAs that receive funds under the SIG 

program competitively subgrant those 

funds to LEAs to implement one of four 

interventions defined in current 

requirements: The turnaround model, 

the restart model, school closure, and 

the transformation model. In awarding 

SIG funds, an SEA must give priority to 

LEAs with the lowest-achieving schools 

that 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. 

Division H, title III of the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 

(Public Law 113–76), signed into law on 

January 17, 2014, made significant 

changes to the SIG program. These 

proposed requirements would 

implement these changes, make other 

revisions that reflect lessons learned 

from four years of SIG implementation, 

and help ensure consistency between 

this program and other Department 

initiatives. 

In interpreting the relevant provisions 

of the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2014, and in considering changes to the 

current requirements, the Department 

was guided by the following principles: 

(1) Preserve and protect the key benefits 

and rigor of the SIG program, which has 

helped SEAs and LEAs implement 

rigorous, comprehensive interventions 

in their lowest-performing schools; (2) 

minimize disruption to existing State 

and local program implementation; and 

(3) strengthen program implementation 

wherever possible based on lessons 

learned and input from stakeholders. 

The requirements proposed here 

would apply to the LEA subgrant 

competitions that SEAs conduct during 

the 2014–2015 school year for 

implementation beginning in the 2015– 

2016 school year. 

Proposed Changes 

Allowing Five-Year Awards 

Current Requirements: Consistent 

with the current requirements, SEAs 

make competitive awards for up to three 

years to LEAs to implement SIG 

interventions in eligible schools. 

Proposed Requirements: Under the 

proposed requirements in section II.A.3, 

II.A.2(e)(1), II.C.4, and II.C.5, described 

in detail below, the Department would 

allow an SEA to make a SIG award to 

an LEA for up to five years, of which the 

LEA may use one school year for 

planning and other pre-implementation 

activities, must use at least three school 

years for full implementation of the 

selected interventions, and may use up 

to two school years for activities related 

to sustaining reforms following at least 

three years of full intervention 

implementation. If an LEA receives 

funding for a school year for planning 

and other pre-implementation activities, 

it would be eligible for only one year of 

funding for activities related to 

sustaining reforms following full 

intervention implementation. An LEA 

may not receive more than five years of 

continuous funding for the 

implementation of a single SIG 

intervention with respect to any 

particular school. 

Specifically, the Department proposes 

adding in section II.A.3 (LEA 

requirements) a requirement that an 

LEA that intends to use the first year of 

its SIG award for planning and other 

pre-implementation activities for an 

eligible school must include in its 

application to the SEA a description of 

the planning or pre-implementation 

activities it will undertake, the timeline 

for implementing those activities, and a 

description of how those activities will 

lead to successful implementation of the 

selected intervention. 

In section II.A.2(e)(1), the Department 

also proposes to explicitly require an 

LEA to fully implement a SIG 

intervention in a school for at least three 

years (subject to the SEA’s renewal 

authority), consistent with the current 

requirements. 

The Department also proposes adding 

two requirements regarding renewal of 

annual SIG awards to section II.C of the 

current requirements. First, we propose 

in section II.C.4 that prior to renewing 

the SIG award of an LEA that received 

SIG funds for a school year of planning 

and other pre-implementation activities 

for a school, an SEA would be required 

to review the performance of the school 

against the LEA’s approved application. 

The SEA would conduct this review to 

determine whether the LEA will be able 

to fully implement its chosen 

intervention for the school beginning 

the first day of the following school 

year. Second, the Department proposes 

in section II.C.5 to permit an SEA to 

renew an LEA’s SIG award for a school, 

after three years of full implementation 

of an intervention in that school, for up 

to two additional years for continued 

full implementation of the intervention 

or for activities that are related to 

sustaining reforms (but do not constitute 

full intervention implementation), based 

on the same criteria that an SEA 

considers in making renewal decisions 

under section II.C.1–II.C.2. Under this 

proposal, an LEA would not be 

permitted to receive more than five 

years of continuous SIG funding with 

respect to any particular school. 

Reasons: The Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2014, allows the 

Secretary to permit an SEA to establish 

an award period of up to five years for 

each participating LEA, thereby 

providing more time than allowed 

under current requirements for LEAs to 

implement SIG interventions. 

Additionally, the Department’s 

proposed requirements would allow 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53256 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 173 / Monday, September 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

1 ‘‘ESEA flexibility’’ refers to flexibility the 

Department offered SEAs regarding specific 

requirements of the ESEA in exchange for rigorous 

and comprehensive State-developed plans designed 

to improve educational outcomes for all students, 

close achievement gaps, increase equity, and 

improve the quality of instruction. Forty-three 

States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico are 

approved for ESEA flexibility. More information 

about ESEA flexibility, including detailed 

information about the turnaround principles, can be 

found in the document ESEA Flexibility, updated 

June 7, 2012, available at http://www2.ed.gov/

policy/elsec/guid/esea-flexibility/index.html. 

2The current requirements define ILT as using a 

longer school day, week, or year schedule to 

significantly increase the total number of school 

hours to include additional time for: 

(a) Instruction in core academic subjects 

including English, reading or language arts, 

mathematics, science, foreign languages, civics and 

government, economics, arts, history, and 

geography; 

(b) Instruction in other subjects and enrichment 

activities that contribute to a well-rounded 

education, including, for example, physical 

education, service learning, and experiential and 

work-based learning opportunities that are provided 

by partnering, as appropriate, with other 

organizations; and 

(c) Teachers to collaborate, plan, and engage in 

professional development within and across grades 

and subjects. 

flexibility in two important ways to 

strengthen SIG implementation. First, 

the proposed requirements allow one 

school year for LEA planning prior to 

full implementation of a SIG 

intervention for those LEAs and schools 

that would benefit from that time. 

Although an LEA may currently use SIG 

funds for the planning and other 

activities it conducts between the time 

it receives a SIG award and the 

beginning of the first school year of 

implementation (i.e., the following 

school year), the Department has 

determined that this ‘‘preimplementation’’ period may not be 

sufficient to ensure that LEAs are 

prepared to implement SIG 

interventions effectively at the 

beginning of the first school year of 

implementation. For example, SEAs 

typically make SIG awards to LEAs in 

spring or early summer, which in some 

LEAs is after personnel contracts have 

been negotiated and signed for the 

following school year, thus preventing 

the personnel changes required by 

certain SIG interventions. Accordingly, 

the additional planning time permitted 

under the proposed requirements may 

lead to greater success in 

implementation by recognizing the long 

lead times that may be necessary to 

make the fundamental structural and 

personnel changes required by SIG 

interventions and to engage sufficiently 

school staff, families, and the broader 

community in the planning and preimplementation work of turning around 

a low-performing school. This proposed 

requirement would not affect the 

requirement to implement an 

intervention for a full school year in 

order for that school year to count as 

one of the three required years of full 

implementation. 

To help ensure that a planning year in 

a particular school will lead to greater 

success in implementation, the 

proposed requirements require (1) an 

LEA seeking funds for a planning year 

in a particular school to describe in its 

application to the SEA the planning or 

pre-implementation activities it will 

undertake, the timeline for 

implementing those activities, and a 

description of how those activities will 

lead to successful implementation of the 

selected intervention and (2) an SEA to 

review the school’s performance during 

the planning year against the LEA’s 

approved application prior to renewing 

the portion of the LEA’s grant for that 

school for full implementation in the 

following school year. 

Second, the proposed requirements 

address the difficulty that LEAs may 

face in sustaining SIG-funded reforms 

after the implementation period by 

permitting an SEA to renew an LEA’s 

SIG award for each school for up to two 

additional years for sustainabilityrelated activities, based on the same 

criteria that an SEA considers in making 

renewal decisions under section II.C.1– 

II.C.2. LEAs could use this additional 

time to ensure that SIG reforms have 

been successfully integrated into each 

school’s ongoing operations. The 

Department expects that LEAs will 

request lower funding amounts for 

planning- and sustainability-related 

activities as compared to amounts for 

the years of full intervention 

implementation because these activities 

should be less costly than those related 

to full implementation. 

Adding State-Determined School 

Improvement Intervention Models 

Current Requirements: None. 

Proposed Requirements: The 

Department proposes in section I.A.2(g) 

to allow an LEA to use SIG funds to 

implement, in one or more SIG-eligible 

schools, a State-determined intervention 

model that has been developed or 

adopted by its SEA and that has been 

approved by the Secretary. 

Under section II.B.1(b) of the 

proposed requirements, each SEA may 

submit, as part of its SIG application to 

the Department, one State-determined 

intervention model for review and 

approval by the Secretary. Under this 

proposal, a State-determined 

intervention model must (1) be aligned 

with the ‘‘turnaround principles’’ 

established under ESEA flexibility 1 and 

(2) provide for increased learning time 

(ILT), as defined in the current 

requirements and unchanged in these 

proposed requirements.2 Specifically, to 

be approved under proposed section 

II.B.1(b), a State-determined 

intervention model would be required 

to: 

(1) Ensure strong leadership by: (A) 

Requiring a review of the performance 

of the current principal; (B) requiring 

replacement of the principal, if such a 

change is necessary to ensure strong and 

effective leadership, or requiring the 

LEA to demonstrate to the SEA that the 

current principal has a track record in 

improving achievement and has the 

ability to lead the turnaround effort; and 

(C) requiring the LEA to provide the 

principal with operational flexibility in 

the areas of scheduling, staff, 

curriculum, and budget; 

(2) Ensure that teachers are effective 

and able to improve instruction by: (A) 

Requiring a review of all staff and 

retaining only those who are determined 

to be effective and to have the ability to 

be successful in supporting the 

turnaround effort; (B) preventing 

ineffective teachers from transferring to 

a SIG-funded school; and (C) providing 

job-embedded, ongoing professional 

development informed by the teacher 

evaluation and support systems and tied 

to teachers’ and students’ needs; 

(3) Establish schedules and 

implement strategies that provide ILT; 

(4) Strengthen the school’s 

instructional program by ensuring that it 

(A) is research-based, rigorous, and 

aligned with State academic content 

standards; and (B) meets students’ 

needs; 

(5) Use data to inform instruction and 

for continuous improvement, including 

through the provision of time for 

collaboration on the use of data; 

(6) Establish a school environment 

that improves school safety and 

discipline and addresses other nonacademic factors that impact student 

achievement, such as students’ social, 

emotional, and health needs; and 

(7) Provide ongoing mechanisms for 

family and community engagement. 

An intervention that the Secretary 

approved as part of an SEA’s ESEA 

flexibility request that also includes ILT 

would be considered to have met these 

criteria. 

Reasons: The Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2014, permits an 

LEA to use SIG funds to implement a 

State-determined intervention model 

that has been approved by the Secretary. 

As part of ESEA flexibility, the 

Department established the ‘‘turnaround 

principles’’ to guide SEAs in developing 

rigorous interventions to turn around 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 173 / Monday, September 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 53257 

3What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and 

Standards Handbook (Version 3.0), which can 

currently be found at the following link: http://

ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_resources/wwc_

procedures_v3_0_standards_handbook.pdf. 

4The Department intends to invite strategy 

developers and other entities to submit prospective 

strategies and research studies of the effectiveness 

of those strategies for review against the proposed 

evidence requirement discussed in the preceding 

paragraph and the requirements of the proposed 

definition of ‘‘whole-school reform strategy.’’ The 

Department intends to identify, from among the 

strategies submitted for review, those that meet 

requirements in advance of SEAs’ competitions for 

fiscal year 2014 SIG funds. An LEA seeking to use 

SIG funds to implement, in partnership with a 

strategy developer, an evidence-based, wholeschool reform strategy would be permitted to 

choose from among the strategies so identified by 

the Department. 

The Department will provide information 

regarding the submission and review of prospective 

strategies on its Web site at http://www.ed.gov/

programs/sif/npr-wholeschlreform.html, and may 

re-open the submission and review process, if 

necessary, based on the final requirements. 

their ‘‘priority’’ schools, as those 

schools are defined in ESEA flexibility. 

The turnaround principles are based on 

the elements of the SIG transformation 

model, but provide additional flexibility 

with respect to replacing the principal 

and implementing ILT. This additional 

flexibility reflects, in part, the 

recognition that LEAs with priority 

schools may not receive additional 

funding through the SIG program to 

support the implementation of 

interventions in these schools. The 

Department believes, based on 

experience thus far with SIG and ESEA 

flexibility, that the turnaround 

principles provide a baseline 

expectation for the elements of 

comprehensive, whole-school reform 

consistent with the purpose of the SIG 

program and, thus, reflect appropriate 

criteria for use by the Secretary in 

approving a State-determined 

intervention model. Further, linking 

approval of State-determined 

intervention models to the turnaround 

principles will facilitate and simplify 

the approval and implementation 

process for this new intervention model 

because many States have already 

developed rigorous interventions for 

their priority schools under ESEA 

flexibility that are consistent with the 

turnaround principles. SEAs that 

receive approval of their Statedetermined intervention model would 

then be able to use SIG funds to support 

their multi-year plans under ESEA 

flexibility for implementing rigorous 

interventions in their priority schools 

that meet the definition of ‘‘priority 

schools’’ in ESEA flexibility. 

In addition to ensuring that any Statedetermined intervention model is 

consistent with the turnaround 

principles, the proposed requirements 

provide that a State-determined 

intervention model must include the 

implementation of ILT. The Department 

believes that the comprehensive 

implementation of ILT would provide 

essential support for key improvements 

in teaching and learning required by 

interventions consistent with the 

turnaround principles, and thus should 

be included in any State-determined 

intervention model approved by the 

Secretary. The Department did not 

explicitly include ILT in the turnaround 

principles of ESEA flexibility due to its 

potential costs, which may exceed the 

resources available to SEAs and LEAs to 

support priority interventions in the 

absence of SIG or other dedicated 

turnaround funds. However, the 

availability of up to $2 million annually 

for a school implementing an approved 

State-determined intervention model 

through the SIG program mitigates such 

resource limitation concerns. 

Evidence from the field shows that 

increasing learning time in a strategic, 

high-quality manner is often a key 

element of successful school 

turnaround. For example, The Case for 

Improving and Expanding Time in 

School: A Review of Key Research and 

Practice, published in April 2012 by the 

National Center on Time and Learning 

(NCTL) and available at 

www.timeandlearning.org/files/

CaseforMoreTime_1.pdf, summarizes 

evidence demonstrating that a longer 

school day and longer school year 

implemented consistently with the 

principles of ILT can have a meaningful 

impact on improving student 

achievement. Providing time to allow 

for enrichment activities, teacher 

collaboration, and professional 

development, in addition to instruction 

in core academic subjects including 

math, science, and reading, is key to 

ensuring success. 

Adding Evidence-Based, Whole-School 

Reform Strategies 

Current Requirements: None. 

Proposed Requirements: Section 

I.A.2(e) of the proposed requirements 

would allow an LEA to use SIG funds 

to implement, in partnership with a 

strategy developer, an evidence-based, 

whole-school reform strategy in a 

school. Under this proposed 

requirement, such a strategy must have 

evidence of effectiveness that includes 

at least two studies that meet What 

Works Clearinghouse evidence 

standards with or without reservations 

(i.e., qualifying experimental or quasiexperimental studies) and that found a 

statistically significant favorable impact 

on a student academic achievement or 

attainment outcome, with no 

statistically significant and overriding 

unfavorable impacts on that outcome for 

relevant populations in the study or in 

other studies of the intervention 

reviewed by and reported on by the 

What Works Clearinghouse.3

The proposed requirements include 

two related definitions. First, the 

proposed requirements in section I.A.3 

define ‘‘whole-school reform strategy’’ 

as a strategy that (1) is designed to 

improve student academic achievement 

or attainment; (2) is implemented for all 

students in a school; and (3) addresses, 

at a minimum and in a comprehensive 

and coordinated manner, school 

leadership, teaching and learning in at 

least one full academic content area 

(including professional learning for 

educators), student non-academic 

support, and family and community 

engagement.4 Second, the proposed 

requirements define ‘‘strategy 

developer’’ as an entity or individual 

that maintains proprietary rights for the 

strategy or, if no entity or individual 

maintains proprietary rights for the 

strategy, an entity or individual that has 

a demonstrated record of success in 

implementing the strategy in one or 

more low-achieving schools or that, 

together with a partner LEA, has a highquality plan for implementing the 

strategy in a school. 

Finally, the Department proposes 

adding section I.A.4(a)(10) (Evidence of 

strongest commitment), which would 

require the SEA, when considering the 

strength of the LEA’s commitment, to 

evaluate the extent to which an LEA 

that is proposing to implement an 

evidence-based, whole-school reform 

strategy in a school demonstrates that 

the evidence supporting the strategy it 

proposes to implement includes a 

sample population or setting similar to 

the population or setting of the school 

to be served. The SEA would also 

consider the extent to which the LEA 

has demonstrated that it has partnered 

with a strategy developer that meets the 

proposed definition of ‘‘strategy 

developer.’’ Notably, under proposed 

section II.A.2(c), an LEA would have to 

provide evidence of its strong 

commitment to use SIG funds to 

implement the selected intervention by 

addressing the factors in section 

I.A.4(a), and under proposed section 

II.B.2(b)(2), the SEA would have to 

ensure that the LEA’s application makes 

the required demonstration prior to 

approving the LEA’s application. 

Reasons: The Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2014, permits an 

LEA to use SIG funds to implement, in 

partnership with a strategy developer, a 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53258 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 173 / Monday, September 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

5Stringfield, S., Millsap, M., Yoder, N., Schaffer, 

E., Nesselrodt, P., Gamse, B., Brigham, N., Moss, M., 

Herman, R., & Bedinger, S. (1997). Special strategies 

studies final report. Washington, DC: U.S. 

Department of Education. An executive summary of 

the report is available at www.csos.jhu.edu/

Otherlinks/SpecialStrategies/intro.htm, finding that 

‘‘[s]tudents in schools working with whole school 

reform tended to achieve greater gains than did 

students in schools attempting various pull-out 

programs.’’ 

whole-school reform strategy that is 

based on at least a moderate level of 

evidence that the strategy will have a 

statistically significant effect on student 

outcomes, including more than one 

experimental or quasi-experimental 

study. In addition, as stated in its report 

accompanying its fiscal year 2014 

appropriations bill for the Department 

(Senate Report 113–71), the Senate 

Appropriations Committee expects that 

any approach taken with SIG funds will 

address schoolwide factors, including, 

for example, curriculum and 

instruction, social and emotional 

support services for students, and 

training and support for teachers and 

school leaders. The proposed 

requirements described in this section 

are intended to implement the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, 

provision in a manner consistent with 

the Senate Committee report language. 

The Department notes that 34 CFR 

77.1 (Definitions that apply to all 

Department programs) defines 

‘‘moderate evidence of effectiveness’’ as 

including at least one study that, among 

other things, meets What Works 

Clearinghouse evidence standards with 

or without reservations and found a 

statistically significant favorable impact 

on a relevant outcome. Because the 

provision in the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2014, requires more 

than one such study as evidence of a 

strategy’s effectiveness, the Department 

cannot use the definition of ‘‘moderate 

evidence of effectiveness’’ in 34 CFR 

77.1 to implement the provision and 

must instead propose the programspecific evidence requirement in section 

I.A.2(e). 

The proposed definition of ‘‘wholeschool reform strategy’’ is intended to 

ensure that a strategy implemented by 

an LEA is consistent not only with the 

Senate Committee report language but 

also with evidence from the field and 

the research literature on whole-school 

reform by specifying that the strategy 

address, in a comprehensive and 

coordinated manner, schoolwide factors 

essential to successful school 

turnaround efforts.5

The proposed definition of ‘‘strategy 

developer,’’ as well as the related 

proposed requirements regarding 

whether an LEA has partnered with a 

strategy developer that meets the 

proposed definition, are intended to 

ensure that the entity or individual with 

whom an LEA partners to implement an 

evidence-based, whole-school reform 

strategy possesses the required 

qualifications or has a high-quality plan 

for successful implementation of the 

strategy in an eligible school. 

Finally, the proposed requirements 

regarding whether the evidence of 

effectiveness for a strategy proposed for 

implementation in a school includes a 

sample overlapping with the 

populations or settings of that school are 

intended to ensure the relevance and 

appropriateness of the strategy for the 

students and the school. 

Rural LEAs’ Modification of One SIG 

Intervention Model Element 

Current Requirements: None. 

Proposed Requirements: The 

Department proposes to add a provision 

in section I.B.6 to permit an LEA that is 

eligible for services under subpart 1 or 

2 of part B of title VI of the ESEA 

(referred to herein as a rural LEA) to 

modify one element of the turnaround 

or transformation model so long as the 

modification meets the intent and 

purpose of the original element. 

The Department also proposes to 

modify the language introducing the 

turnaround and transformation models’ 

requirements in sections I.A.2(a) and 

I.A.2(d) of the current requirements to 

clarify that those models’ requirements 

are ‘‘elements.’’ Other than the proposed 

changes discussed in the following 

section, the Department is not proposing 

to substantively change the elements of 

the turnaround and transformation 

models themselves. 

Additionally, the Department 

proposes adding section I.A.4(a)(9) 

(Evidence of strongest commitment), 

which would require the SEA, when 

considering the strength of the LEA’s 

commitment, to evaluate the extent to 

which a rural LEA applying to 

implement the turnaround or 

transformation model and modify one 

element of that model has demonstrated 

that it will meet the intent and purpose 

of the original element. For example, if 

a rural LEA applying to implement a 

turnaround model seeks to modify the 

element of the model that requires the 

LEA to replace the principal, the LEA 

must demonstrate in its application how 

it will ensure strong leadership in the 

school. The LEA could do this by 

demonstrating to the SEA that the 

current principal has a track record in 

improving student achievement and has 

the experience and skills needed to 

implement the intervention. 

Finally, the Department proposes 

adding reporting requirements to 

section III.A.3 that would require an 

SEA to report, with respect to schools 

receiving SIG funds, the number of 

schools implementing models with a 

modified element pursuant to proposed 

section I.B.6 and which models are 

being implemented in those schools. 

Reasons: The Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2014, permits an 

LEA eligible for services under subpart 

1 or 2 of part B of title VI of the ESEA 

(Rural Education Achievement Program) 

to modify not more than one element of 

a SIG intervention model. The proposed 

requirements are intended to implement 

this flexibility while maintaining the 

integrity of the SIG intervention models 

in the current requirements and 

ensuring that the reporting requirements 

capture relevant information about 

LEAs availing themselves of this 

flexibility. 

Adding Early Learning Intervention 

Model 

Current Requirements: None. 

Proposed Requirements: Section 

I.A.2(f) of the proposed requirements 

would allow an LEA to use SIG funds 

to implement an early learning 

intervention model in an elementary 

school. Under this proposed 

requirement, an LEA implementing the 

early learning intervention model in an 

elementary school must— 

(1) Implement each of the following 

early learning strategies— 

(A) Offer full-day kindergarten; 

(B) Establish or expand a high-quality 

preschool program; 

(C) Provide educators, including 

preschool teachers, with time for joint 

planning across grades to facilitate 

effective teaching and learning and 

positive teacher-student interactions. 

(2) Replace the principal who led the 

school prior to commencement of the 

early learning model; 

(3) Implement the same rigorous, 

transparent, and equitable evaluation 

and support systems for teachers and 

principals, designed and developed 

with teacher and principal involvement, 

that the Department proposes to require 

under the transformation model; 

(4) Use the teacher and principal 

evaluation and support system to 

identify and reward school leaders, 

teachers, and other staff who, in 

implementing this model, have 

increased student achievement and 

identify and remove those who, after 

ample opportunities have been provided 

for them to improve their professional 

practice, have not done so; 

(5) Implement such strategies as 

financial incentives, increased 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 173 / Monday, September 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 53259 

6See the notice inviting applications for the 

Preschool Development Grants program, published 

in the Federal Register on August 18, 2014 (79 FR 

48853). 

7See ‘‘Investing in our Future: The Evidence Base 

on Preschool Education’’ (available at http://fcdus.org/sites/default/files/Evidence%20

Base%20on%20Preschool%20Education%20

FINAL.pdf). Society for Research in Child 

Development and the Foundation for Child 

Development, October 2013. 8 Ibid. 

opportunities for promotion and career 

growth, and more flexible work 

conditions that are designed to recruit, 

place, and retain staff with the skills 

necessary to meet the needs of students 

in the school, taking into consideration 

the results from the teacher and 

principal evaluation and support 

system, if applicable; 

(6) Use data to identify and 

implement an instructional program 

that (a) is research-based, 

developmentally appropriate, and 

vertically aligned from one grade to the 

next as well as aligned with State early 

learning and development standards 

and State academic standards and (b) in 

the early grades, promotes the full range 

of academic content across domains of 

development, including math and 

science, language and literacy, socioemotional skills, self-regulation, and 

executive functions; 

(7) Promote the continuous use of 

student data (such as from formative, 

interim, and summative assessments) to 

inform and differentiate instruction in 

order to meet the educational and 

developmental needs of individual 

students; and 

(8) Provide staff ongoing, high-quality, 

job-embedded professional development 

such as coaching and mentoring (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 with school staff 

to ensure they are equipped to facilitate 

effective teaching and learning and have 

the capacity to implement successfully 

school reform strategies. 

The Department also proposes adding 

to section I.A.3 the definition of ‘‘highquality preschool program’’ based on 

the definition that is used in the 

Preschool Development Grants 

program.6 Under this definition, ‘‘highquality preschool program’’ would mean 

an early learning program that includes 

structural elements that are evidencebased and nationally recognized as 

important for ensuring program quality, 

including at a minimum— 

(1) High staff qualifications, including 

a teacher with a bachelor’s degree in 

early childhood education or a 

bachelor’s degree in any field with a 

State-approved alternate pathway, 

which may include coursework, clinical 

practice, and evidence of knowledge of 

content and pedagogy relating to early 

childhood, and teaching assistants with 

appropriate credentials; 

(2) High-quality professional 

development for all staff; 

(3) A child-to-instructional staff ratio 

of no more than 10 to 1; 

(4) A class size of no more than 20 

with, at a minimum, one teacher with 

high staff qualifications as outlined in 

paragraph (1) of this definition; 

(5) A full-day program; 

(6) Inclusion of children with 

disabilities to ensure access to and full 

participation in all opportunities; 

(7) Developmentally appropriate, 

culturally and linguistically responsive 

instruction and evidence-based 

curricula, and learning environments 

that are aligned with the State early 

learning and development standards, for 

at least the year prior to kindergarten 

entry; 

(8) Individualized accommodations 

and supports so that all children can 

access and participate fully in learning 

activities; 

(9) Instructional staff salaries that are 

comparable to the salaries of local 

kindergarten through grade 12 (K–12) 

instructional staff; 

(10) Program evaluation to ensure 

continuous improvement; 

(11) On-site or accessible 

comprehensive services for children and 

community partnerships that promote 

families’ access to services that support 

their children’s learning and 

development; and 

(12) Evidence-based health and safety 

standards. 

Reasons: Strong and consistent 

evidence demonstrates that 

participation in high-quality early 

learning programs can lead to both 

short- and long-term positive outcomes 

for all children, including improved 

school readiness, lower rates of grade 

retention and placement in special 

education, improved high school 

graduation rates, and increased rates of 

college attendance and completion.7

Educational improvement strategies 

that focus on preschool and the early 

grades can address the persistent and 

large achievement gaps by race and 

income that are evident upon school 

entry, and often well-entrenched by 

third grade, and that negatively affect 

both individual student outcomes in 

later grades and overall school 

performance. 

In ‘‘Investing in our Future: The 

Evidence Base on Preschool Education,’’ 

published by the Society for Research in 

Child Development and the Foundation 

for Child Development, a group of 

leading researchers contend that the 

effects of preschool may be more 

sustainable through the implementation 

and evaluation of policies that increase 

the quality of preschool programs, 

facilitate alignment of instructional 

practices between preschool and early 

elementary school, and enhance the 

positive impact that parents have on 

their child’s development.8

Traditional early elementary practice 

has not evolved as quickly as new 

advances in the science of how children 

develop and learn have emerged. 

Implementing a more comprehensive 

and aligned instructional program that 

builds on the foundational processes 

that underlie children’s learning in the 

early years, such as self-regulation, 

representation, memory, and 

attachment, can build a strong 

foundation of learning that will remain 

with children throughout their 

education and life. 

To that end, the Department also 

proposes adopting the definition of 

‘‘high-quality preschool program’’ used 

in the Preschool Development Grants 

program. We believe this definition is 

appropriate in the SIG program as well 

because it includes key elements of a 

successful preschool program that will 

lead to lasting educational gains. 

In addition to the requirements 

focused on early learning, the proposed 

early learning intervention model 

includes a number of strategies that are 

aligned with existing transformation 

model requirements. This reflects the 

Department’s belief, based on 

experience thus far with the SIG 

program, that the transformation model 

requirements provide an appropriate 

framework for maximizing the benefits 

of high-quality early learning while also 

improving student, teacher, and school 

performance in the upper grades, 

consistent with the SIG program’s 

purpose to facilitate successful 

turnaround of the entire school. 

Modifying the Teacher and Principal 

Evaluation and Support System 

Requirements Under the Transformation 

Model 

Current Requirements: Under section 

I.A.2(d)(a)(i)(B), an LEA implementing 

the transformation model must use an 

evaluation system for teachers and 

principals that (1) takes into account 

data on student growth as a significant 

factor as well as other factors and (2) is 

designed and developed with teacher 

and principal involvement. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53260 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 173 / Monday, September 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Proposed Requirements: Proposed 

section I.A.2(d)(1)(A)(ii) revises the 

current requirements and would require 

an LEA implementing the 

transformation model to implement a 

teacher and principal evaluation and 

support system that meets the 

requirements for these systems under 

ESEA flexibility. Specifically, under 

ESEA flexibility, a teacher and principal 

evaluation and support system must be 

designed and developed with teacher 

and principal involvement and must 

also: 

(1) Be used for continual 

improvement of instruction; 

(2) Meaningfully differentiate 

performance using at least three 

performance levels; 

(3) Use multiple valid measures in 

determining performance levels, 

including as a significant factor data on 

student growth for all students 

(including English learners and students 

with disabilities), and other measures of 

professional practice (which may be 

gathered through multiple formats and 

sources, such as observations based on 

rigorous teacher performance standards, 

teacher portfolios, and student and 

parent surveys); 

(4) Evaluate teachers and principals 

on a regular basis; 

(5) Provide clear, timely, and useful 

feedback, including feedback that 

identifies needs and guides professional 

development; and 

(6) Be used to inform personnel 

decisions. 

The Department also proposes 

amending the definition of ‘‘student 

growth’’ in section I.A.3 to align it with 

the definition under ESEA flexibility, 

such that it is defined as the change in 

student achievement for an individual 

student between two or more points in 

time. For the purposes of the proposed 

definition of ‘‘student growth,’’ ‘‘student 

achievement’’ would mean, (1) for 

grades and subjects in which 

assessments are required under section 

1111(b)(3) of the ESEA, (a) a student’s 

score on such assessments and may 

include (b) other measures of student 

learning, provided they are rigorous and 

comparable across schools within an 

LEA; and (2) for grades and subjects in 

which assessments are not required 

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

alternative measures of student learning 

and performance, such as student 

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

and objective performance-based 

assessments; student learning 

objectives; student performance on 

English language proficiency 

assessments; and other measures of 

student achievement that are rigorous 

and comparable across schools within 

an LEA. 

The Department also proposes moving 

current requirement I.A.2(d)(1)(i)(D) 

(requiring an LEA implementing the 

transformation model in a school to 

provide staff ongoing, high-quality 

professional development that is aligned 

with the school’s comprehensive 

instructional program and designed 

with school staff) from the section 

regarding developing and increasing 

teacher and school leader effectiveness 

to the section regarding comprehensive 

instruction reform strategies, in 

proposed requirement 

I.A.(2)(d)(2)(A)(iii). 

Reasons: After publishing the current 

requirements, the Department 

discovered that they erroneously omit 

certain requirements from the teacher 

and principal evaluation and support 

system requirements in section 

I.A.2(d)(1)(i)(B). Specifically, the 

transformation model requires that an 

LEA: (1) Identify and reward school 

leaders, teachers, and other staff; (2) 

provide staff ongoing high-quality jobembedded professional development; 

and (3) implement such strategies as 

financial incentives, increased 

opportunities for promotion and career 

growth, and more flexible work 

conditions. The Department intended to 

require that the teacher and principal 

evaluation and support systems be used 

for those three activities but, due to a 

numbering error in the current 

requirements, did not implement that 

requirement. 

After the Department published the 

current requirements, the Department 

established requirements for teacher and 

principal evaluation and support 

systems implemented by LEAs under 

ESEA flexibility. The Department 

believes, based on prior SIG and ESEA 

flexibility implementation, that highquality teacher and principal evaluation 

and support systems that meet those 

requirements will provide meaningful 

information about the effectiveness of 

teachers and principals, can be used to 

inform professional development and 

improve practice, and will ultimately 

increase the quality of instruction for all 

students. 

The Department proposes aligning the 

requirements for teacher and principal 

evaluation and support systems under 

the SIG transformation model with the 

requirements under ESEA flexibility, 

including the definition of ‘‘student 

growth,’’ for several reasons. First, the 

proposed requirement fills the gap 

created by the accidental omission in 

the current requirements to ensure that 

teacher and principal evaluation and 

support systems under the 

transformation model are used to inform 

personnel decisions and professional 

development. Second, it clarifies that 

teacher and principal evaluation and 

support systems implemented as part of 

ESEA flexibility satisfy the requirements 

of the SIG transformation model, which 

would reduce the burden on LEAs in 

SEAs with approved ESEA flexibility 

requests because they would not have to 

implement separate evaluation systems. 

Lastly, the proposal would help to 

ensure consistency across Department 

programs. 

Finally, the Department proposes 

moving the professional development 

requirement in order to distinguish that 

requirement from the requirements that 

pertain directly to the teacher and 

principal evaluation and support 

systems. The proposal to move the 

professional development requirement 

does not change in any way the 

requirement itself. 

Eliminating the ‘‘Rule of Nine’’ 

Current Requirements: Under section 

II.A.2(b) of the current requirements, if 

an LEA has nine or more Tier I and Tier 

II schools, the LEA may not implement 

the transformation model in more than 

half of those schools (the ‘‘rule of 

nine’’). 

Proposed Requirements: The 

proposed requirements eliminate the 

‘‘rule of nine.’’ 

Reasons: The Department created the 

‘‘rule of nine’’ in response to evidence 

and data on school improvement 

practices under section 1116 of the 

ESEA suggesting that turning around 

chronically low-performing schools 

(those identified for restructuring under 

section 1116(b)(8)(B)(v) of the ESEA) 

required significant changes in 

governance, leadership, and staffing. 

Moreover, the data suggested that many 

LEAs were reluctant to make such 

fundamental, structural changes in their 

schools, as demonstrated by the 

preference for the ‘‘any other major 

restructuring’’ option for schools 

identified for restructuring, which, 

despite the name, does not actually 

require specific changes in school 

staffing, structure, or governance. The 

‘‘rule of nine’’ also was intended to help 

ensure that LEAs applying for SIG funds 

selected intervention models for their 

eligible Tier I and Tier II schools on the 

basis of comprehensive needs analyses 

reflecting the unique characteristics and 

circumstances of each school, and not 

by simply implementing the same 

model in all their eligible schools. 

The Department is proposing to 

eliminate the ‘‘rule of nine’’ for several 

reasons. First, with the addition of the 

three new interventions in proposed 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 173 / Monday, September 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 53261 

sections I.A.2(e)–(g) and the flexibility 

for rural LEAs in proposed section I.B.6, 

the Department is proposing making the 

SIG program more flexible for SEAs and 

LEAs. A rule limiting the specific 

interventions that an LEA may 

implement is inconsistent with that 

flexibility. Second, State-reported data 

on SIG interventions suggest that the 

‘‘rule of nine’’ did not have an impact 

on which intervention models most 

LEAs with nine or more Tier I and Tier 

II schools chose to implement. Third, 

drawing on its experience of SIG 

implementation since the award of 

fiscal year 2009 funds, the Department 

believes the most important factors in 

selecting an appropriate model for a 

SIG-eligible school are the particular 

circumstances and needs of the school 

and the specific interventions to be 

implemented. 

For these reasons, and as discussed in 

the following section, the Department 

proposes requiring an LEA to 

demonstrate in its application that the 

proposed intervention meets the 

specific needs of each school it proposes 

to serve with SIG funds. 

Adding LEA Requirement To 

Demonstrate Appropriateness of Chosen 

Intervention Model and Take Into 

Consideration Family and Community 

Input 

Current Requirements: Under section 

I.A.4(a)(i) and section II.B.2(b)(ii), an 

SEA must consider the extent to which 

an LEA’s application demonstrates that 

it has taken action or will take action to 

analyze the needs of the schools it 

applies to serve. Under section 

II.A.2(a)(iv), an LEA must address the 

extent to which it has taken action or 

will take action to analyze the needs of 

the schools it applies to serve in its 

application to the SEA. 

Proposed Requirements: The 

Department proposes revising the needs 

analysis requirement in section 

I.A.4(a)(1) to provide that an SEA must 

take into account the extent to which an 

LEA (1) includes a demonstration in its 

application that the intervention 

selected for each eligible school is 

designed to meet the specific needs of 

the school, based on a needs analysis 

that, among other things, analyzes the 

school improvement needs identified by 

families and the community, and (2) 

takes into consideration family and 

community input in selecting the 

intervention for each school. 

Reasons: Although under the current 

requirements an LEA is required to 

address the needs of its SIG-eligible 

schools, there is no requirement that the 

LEA demonstrate that the intervention 

selected is the most appropriate option 

for meeting the specific needs of the 

school. There is also no current 

requirement that the needs analysis 

must reflect the needs identified based 

on family and community input. 

Although currently allowable, in order 

to ensure that an LEA implements an 

appropriate intervention for each school 

it proposes to serve with SIG funds and 

that input from families and the 

community is taken into consideration 

when selecting an intervention, the 

Department proposes to require the SEA 

to consider the extent to which the LEA 

has demonstrated that the selected 

intervention responds to the particular 

circumstances and needs of the school, 

taking into consideration family and 

community input. 

Adding LEA Requirement to 

Continuously Engage Families and the 

Community Throughout 

Implementation 

Current Requirements: Although 

under section I.A.2(d)(3)(A)(ii) of the 

current requirements an LEA 

implementing the transformation model 

must provide ongoing mechanisms for 

family and community engagement, no 

similar requirement regarding family 

and community engagement applies to 

all LEAs that receive SIG funds, 

regardless of the intervention model 

implemented. 

Proposed Requirements: The 

Department proposes adding section 

I.A.4(a)(8) (Evidence of strongest 

commitment), which would require an 

SEA to consider the extent to which the 

LEA’s application demonstrates how the 

LEA will meaningfully engage families 

and the community in the 

implementation of the intervention on 

an ongoing basis. 

Reasons: Family and community 

engagement in selecting an intervention 

is important for ensuring local support 

for a successful turnaround, as reflected 

in proposed requirement I.A.4(a)(1). 

However, ongoing family and 

community engagement is also essential 

to support student learning and ensure 

effective implementation of reform 

strategies. Families and community 

organizations are key partners in 

creating a culture of achievement and 

addressing students’ social, emotional, 

and health needs. 

Adding LEA Requirement to Monitor 

and Support Intervention 

Implementation 

Current Requirements: None. 

Proposed Requirements: The 

Department proposes adding section 

I.A.4(a)(7) (Evidence of strongest 

commitment) to require an SEA to 

consider the extent to which the LEA’s 

application demonstrates how the LEA 

will provide effective oversight and 

support for implementation of 

interventions in its schools by, for 

example, creating an LEA turnaround 

office. 

Reasons: Through monitoring and 

interaction with LEAs and SEAs, the 

Department has found that LEA-level 

activities and structures are key to 

supporting a successful school 

turnaround. The proposed requirements 

would ensure that LEAs focus on 

monitoring and supporting turnaround 

efforts in their schools, including 

establishing or modifying their 

governance structures. 

Adding LEA Requirements to Regularly 

Review External Providers’ Performance 

and Hold External Providers 

Accountable 

Current Requirements: Under section 

I.A.4(a)(iii) and section II.B.2(b)(ii), an 

SEA must consider the extent to which 

an LEA’s application demonstrates that 

an LEA has recruited, screened, and 

selected (or will recruit, screen, and 

select) external providers, if applicable, 

to ensure their quality. Under section 

II.A.2(a)(iv), an LEA must address in its 

application to the SEA the extent to 

which it has recruited, screened, and 

selected (or will recruit, screen, and 

select) external providers, if applicable, 

to ensure their quality. Under section 

II.A.9, an LEA that implements a restart 

model must hold the charter school 

operator, charter management 

organization (CMO), or education 

management organization (EMO) 

accountable for meeting the SIG 

requirements. 

Proposed Requirements: The 

Department proposes several changes to 

the provision regarding the recruitment, 

screening, and selection of external 

providers. Specifically, in proposed 

section I.A.4(a)(4) (Evidence of strongest 

commitment), in addition to the current 

requirement that an SEA consider the 

extent to which the LEA’s application 

demonstrates that the LEA will recruit, 

screen, and select external providers to 

ensure their quality, we would require 

an SEA to consider the extent to which 

the LEA’s application demonstrates that 

the LEA will regularly review the 

external provider’s performance and 

hold the external provider accountable 

for its performance. Finally, in proposed 

section II.A.9, the Department proposes 

requiring an LEA to hold an external 

provider accountable for meeting the 

SIG requirements, regardless of which 

model the LEA is implementing. 

Reasons: Although under the current 

requirements an SEA must consider the 

extent to which the LEA will screen and 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53262 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 173 / Monday, September 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

9Woodworth, J. and Raymond, M. (2013). Charter 

School Growth and Replication: Volume II. 

Stanford, CA: Center for Research on Education 

Outcomes, Stanford University. 

10See the notice of final priorities, requirements, 

definitions, and selection criteria for this program, 

published in the Federal Register on July 12, 2011 

(76 FR 40898). 

select external providers, there is no 

requirement that the SEA consider how 

an LEA will review external provider 

performance or hold external providers 

accountable for their performance. By 

requiring that LEAs take a performance 

management approach to working with 

external providers, the Department is 

helping to ensure that providers are 

fulfilling the obligations under their 

memoranda of understanding (MOUs), 

contracts, or other agreements and are 

held accountable for contributing to 

increased student achievement in 

schools that are implementing a SIG 

model. The Department expects that, to 

meet the proposed requirement, an LEA 

will include, in an MOU, contract, or 

other agreement with a provider, the 

LEA’s expectations for how the provider 

will perform and be evaluated 

throughout the period of the grant. 

Clarifying Rigorous Review Process 

Under the Restart Model 

Current Requirements: Under section 

I.A.2(b), an LEA may use funds to 

implement the restart model, under 

which the LEA converts a school or 

closes and reopens a school under a 

charter school operator, a CMO, or an 

EMO that has been selected through a 

rigorous review process. The current 

requirements do not specify the criteria 

for such a review, nor do they expressly 

establish a role for the SEA in the 

review and selection of the restart 

partner. 

Proposed Requirements: The 

Department proposes adding section 

I.A.4(a)(11) (Evidence of strongest 

commitment), which would require an 

SEA to consider the extent to which the 

LEA’s application demonstrates that it 

will conduct a rigorous review process 

in selecting the charter school operator, 

CMO, or EMO to operate or manage the 

school or schools it proposes to serve 

with SIG funds. Under the proposed 

requirements in section I.A.2(b)(1), the 

rigorous review process must include a 

determination by the LEA that the 

charter school operator, CMO, or EMO 

is likely to produce strong results for the 

school. In making that determination, 

the LEA must consider the extent to 

which the schools currently operated or 

managed by the selected charter school 

operator, CMO, or EMO, if any, have 

produced strong results over the past 

three years (or over the life of the school 

or schools, if open for fewer than three 

years), including— 

(1) Significant improvement in 

academic achievement for the groups of 

students described in section 

1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the ESEA; 

(2) Success in closing achievement 

gaps, either within schools or relative to 

all public elementary school and 

secondary school students statewide, for 

all of the groups of students described 

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

ESEA; 

(3) High school graduation rates, 

where applicable, that are above the 

average rates in the State for the groups 

of students described in section 

1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the ESEA; and 

(4) No significant compliance issues, 

including in the areas of civil rights, 

financial management, and student 

safety. 

Reasons: The Department believes 

that additional safeguards beyond those 

in the current requirements are needed 

to ensure that LEAs implementing a 

restart model do so in a manner that is 

likely to result in improved academic 

achievement and attainment outcomes 

for students. Specifically, we believe 

that the recent performance of schools 

currently operated or managed by an 

LEA’s restart partner is a key predictor 

of success that must be considered, as 

research indicates that schools opened 

by a CMO or EMO typically perform at 

a level similar to the average of the other 

schools managed by that organization.9

The four factors the Department 

proposes requiring an LEA to consider 

in determining whether a charter school 

operator, CMO, or EMO has produced 

strong results are aligned with the 

factors that we have used over the last 

several years in the definition of ‘‘highquality charter school’’ for the Charter 

Schools Program Grants for Replication 

and Expansion of High-Quality Charter 

Schools. We believe these factors are 

appropriate for use in the SIG program 

as well because they involve the key 

criteria that should be used when 

considering the past performance of a 

charter school operator, CMO, or EMO 

as it pertains to student achievement, 

other educational outcomes, and 

important areas of compliance.10

We note that the proposed 

requirements would not preclude an 

LEA from considering other factors in 

determining whether an LEA’s selected 

charter school operator, CMO, or EMO 

is likely to produce strong results for the 

school. They also would not prevent an 

LEA from selecting a charter school 

operator, CMO, or EMO that does not 

currently operate or manage any 

schools. However, we expect an SEA to 

use caution in awarding SIG funds to an 

LEA that selects an entity that does not 

have a record of producing strong 

results. 

Clarifying Renewal Criteria 

Current Requirements: Under section 

II.C, an SEA must renew an LEA’s grant 

if the LEA demonstrates that its schools 

are meeting student achievement goals 

in reading/language arts and 

mathematics and may renew an LEA’s 

grant if the SEA determines that the 

LEA’s schools are making progress 

toward those goals. 

Proposed Requirements: Section II.C.2 

of the proposed requirements sets forth 

the following two additional factors an 

SEA may consider when making grant 

renewal decisions for an LEA with SIGfunded schools that have not met 

student achievement goals or for which 

the SEA does not have sufficient data to 

determine whether student achievement 

goals have been met: (1) Whether the 

LEA’s schools are making progress on 

the leading indicators in section III and 

(2) whether the LEA is implementing 

interventions in its schools with fidelity 

to applicable requirements and to its 

application. Section II.C.6 of the 

proposed requirements also clarifies 

that nothing in the requirements would 

diminish an SEA’s authority to take 

appropriate enforcement action with 

respect to an LEA that is not complying 

with the terms of its grant. 

Reasons: Many SEAs do not have 

sufficient data to determine whether an 

LEA’s schools have met their student 

achievement goals at the time of grant 

renewal decisions. To address this 

issue, the Department has proposed 

additional factors relevant to an LEA’s 

performance that the SEA may consider. 

These additional criteria would help an 

SEA determine whether a school 

without achievement data is likely to be 

successful in improving student 

achievement by the end of its grant 

period. 

To eliminate any misconception that 

the requirements that pertain to grant 

renewal might preclude the SEA from 

taking appropriate enforcement actions, 

the Department has also included 

language to clarify that an SEA would 

retain its enforcement authority, up to 

and including terminating an LEA’s 

subgrant. 

Defining ‘‘Greatest Need’’ To Include 

Priority and Focus Schools for SEAs 

With Approved ESEA Flexibility 

Requests 

Current Requirements: Under section 

I.A, an SEA may award SIG funds to 

LEAs with the greatest need for such 

funds, defined as LEAs that have Tier I, 

Tier II, or Tier III schools, as defined in 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 173 / Monday, September 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 53263 

11Under ESEA flexibility, ‘‘priority school’’ is 

defined as a school that, based on the most recent 

data available, has been identified as among the 

lowest-performing schools in the State. The total 

number of priority schools in a State must be at 

least five percent of the title I schools in the State. 

A priority school is— 

A school among the lowest five percent of title 

I schools in the State based on the achievement of 

the ‘‘all students’’ group in terms of proficiency on 

the statewide assessments that are part of the SEA’s 

differentiated recognition, accountability, and 

support system, combined, and has demonstrated a 

lack of progress on those assessments over a 

number of years in the ‘‘all students’’ group; 

A title I-participating or title I-eligible high school 

with a graduation rate less than 60 percent over a 

number of years; or 

A Tier I or Tier II school under the SIG program 

that is using SIG funds to implement a school 

intervention model. 

Under ESEA flexibility, ‘‘focus school’’ is defined 

as a title I school in the State that, based on the 

most recent data available, is contributing to the 

achievement gap in the State. The total number of 

focus schools in a State must equal at least 10 

percent of the title I schools in the State. A focus 

school is— 

A school that has the largest within-school gaps 

between the highest-achieving subgroup or 

subgroups and the lowest-achieving subgroup or 

subgroups or, at the high school level, has the 

largest within-school gaps in graduation rates; or 

A school that has a subgroup or subgroups with 

low achievement or, at the high school level, low 

graduation rates. 

An SEA must also identify as a focus school a 

title I high school with a graduation rate less than 

60 percent over a number of years that is not 

identified as a priority school. 

These determinations must be based on the 

achievement and lack of progress over a number of 

years of one or more subgroups of students 

identified under ESEA section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) in 

terms of proficiency on the statewide assessments 

that are part of the SEA’s differentiated recognition, 

accountability, and support system, combined, or, 

at the high school level, graduation rates for one or 

more subgroups. See the document ESEA 

Flexibility, updated June 7, 2012, available at 

http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/eseaflexibility/index.html. 

12See Frequently Asked Question G–1a in 

‘‘Guidance on Fiscal Year 2010 School 

Improvement Grants Under Section 1003(g) of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965,’’ 

dated March 1, 2012, available at 

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

legislation.html. 

the current requirements. The current 

requirements do not address schools 

identified through an SEA’s approved 

ESEA flexibility request as priority or 

focus schools. 

Proposed Requirements: Section I.A.1 

of the proposed requirements revises the 

existing definition of ‘‘greatest need’’ to 

include, for an SEA with an approved 

ESEA flexibility request, priority 

schools and focus schools identified 

pursuant to the SEA’s approved ESEA 

flexibility request and consistent with 

the definitions of those schools under 

ESEA flexibility.11

The proposed requirements include 

conforming references to priority and 

focus schools throughout to clarify that 

the relevant requirements that pertain to 

Tier I and Tier II schools apply to both 

priority and focus schools, with the 

following exceptions: (1) Proposed 

section II.A.4(a) requires an LEA to 

serve each priority school unless the 

LEA demonstrates it lacks sufficient 

capacity to do so; (2) proposed section 

II.A.7 precludes an LEA with one or 

more priority schools from applying to 

serve one or more focus schools if it has 

not applied to serve all of its priority 

schools; and (3) proposed section II.B.7 

requires an SEA to give priority to LEAs 

that apply to serve priority schools, if 

the SEA does not have sufficient SIG 

funds to make at least three-year awards 

to each LEA that submits an approvable 

application. 

Reasons: Through waivers granted as 

part of ESEA flexibility and through the 

State SIG application process, most 

SEAs with approved ESEA flexibility 

requests have replaced their lists of Tier 

I, Tier II, and Tier III schools with lists 

of priority schools that were identified 

in accordance with their approved 

ESEA flexibility requests. These waivers 

are necessary because, under ESEA 

flexibility, most SEAs no longer make 

AYP determinations or identify title I 

schools in improvement, corrective 

action, or restructuring. Therefore, these 

SEAs are unable to identify a sufficient 

number of schools that meet the 

definitions of Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III 

schools. The proposed requirements 

would require SEAs with approved 

ESEA flexibility requests to award SIG 

funds to LEAs with priority and focus 

schools instead of Tier I, Tier II, or Tier 

III schools and would eliminate the 

need for an SEA to seek a waiver from 

the Department to serve those schools. 

The proposed requirements treat both 

priority and focus schools like Tier I 

and Tier II schools except that, under 

the proposed requirements, an LEA 

must apply to serve all of its priority 

schools before it may apply to serve its 

focus schools and an SEA must award 

funds to serve each priority school its 

LEAs commit to serve before awarding 

funds to LEAs to serve focus schools. 

(Under the current requirements, an 

SEA must award funds to serve each 

Tier I and Tier II school its LEAs 

commit to serve before awarding funds 

to LEAs to serve Tier III schools.) 

Priority schools identified in accordance 

with ESEA flexibility are the lowestperforming schools in the State. 

Although focus schools identified under 

ESEA flexibility are schools 

contributing to the achievement gap in 

their State, the Department believes that 

SIG funds must first be used to 

implement intervention models in the 

schools that are the lowest-performing 

overall. 

Clarifying Flexibility for Previously 

Implemented Interventions (In Whole or 

In Part) 

Current Requirements: Under section 

I.B.1, an SEA may award SIG funds to 

an LEA that has previously 

implemented, in whole or in part, an 

intervention that meets the 

requirements for the turnaround model, 

restart model, or transformation model 

within the last two years. 

Proposed Requirements: The 

proposed requirements revise section 

I.B.1 of the current requirements to 

make clear that an SEA may fund an 

LEA that implemented an intervention, 

in whole or in part, during the school 

year in which the LEA applies for SIG 

funds or during the two school years 

prior to the school year in which the 

LEA applies for SIG funds. 

The proposed requirements also 

clarify that the flexibility in section I.B.1 

of the current requirements applies to 

the three new intervention models 

discussed in this document—the 

evidence-based, whole-school reform 

strategy, the early learning model, and 

the approved State-determined model. 

Reasons: The reference in the current 

requirements to interventions 

implemented within ‘‘the last two 

years’’ has created confusion among 

States. The Department has provided 

guidance to States on how to determine 

if an intervention that was previously 

implemented falls within section I.B.1 

of the current requirements.12 The 

proposed requirements are consistent 

with that guidance. Consistent with the 

purpose of the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2014, the proposed 

requirements would also expand this 

flexibility regarding previously 

implemented interventions to apply to 

the three newly eligible interventions. 

Revising Reporting Requirements 

Current Requirements: Under section 

III, ‘‘Reporting and Evaluation,’’ an SEA 

is required to report certain data with 

respect to schools served by the SIG 

program, including truancy data. For 

each metric, the current requirements 

identify the authority under which the 

Department collects the data. Some of 

the data is collected through EDFacts. 

However, the current requirements 

identify the State Fiscal Stabilization 

Fund (SFSF) as the authority for 

collecting data for two of the metrics— 

college-enrollment rates and 

distribution of teachers by performance 

level on an LEA’s teacher evaluation 

system. 

Proposed Requirements: Section III.A 

of the proposed requirements would 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53264 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 173 / Monday, September 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

make three changes and a number of 

clarifications to the reporting 

requirements. First, we would remove 

from the chart under section III.A.3 of 

the proposed requirements the metric 

for ‘‘Truants’’ and replace it with 

‘‘Chronic absenteeism rates.’’ Second, 

we would remove from the chart under 

proposed section III.A the references to 

SFSF data as a source for collecting 

data. Lastly, we would clarify in the 

chart under proposed section III.A.3 the 

correct source for each of the required 

metrics. 

Reasons: Truancy is defined at the 

State level. As a result, the data the 

Department has collected on truancy are 

not comparable across States and are of 

limited utility. For this reason, the 

Department proposes replacing the 

truancy data reporting requirement with 

a requirement to report data on ‘‘chronic 

absenteeism,’’ defined in the 

Department’s Civil Rights Data 

Collection as the unduplicated number 

of students absent 15 or more school 

days during the school year. See http:// 

www.regulations.gov/contentStreamer?

objectId=09000064813

37396&disposition=attachment&content

Type=pdf and http://www2.ed.gov/

about/offices/list/ocr/docs/crdc-2013- 

14-p1-p4.doc. This definition of 

‘‘chronic absenteeism’’ applies across all 

LEAs and would ensure that the data are 

consistent among all States. We believe 

this approach would more effectively 

assist the Department, States, and the 

public in determining the impact that 

SIG funds have on a key attendance 

metric across States. Finally, we would 

remove the reference to SFSF as a 

source for some of the data because it 

is no longer an active program. 

Clarifying SEA Requirements for Posting 

LEA SIG Applications 

Current Requirements: Under section 

II.B.3, an SEA must post on its Web site 

all final LEA applications and specific 

information pertaining to the grants. 

Proposed Requirements: Section II.B.6 

of the proposed requirements clarifies 

that an SEA must post all LEA 

applications, including applications to 

serve Tier III schools. Additionally, if an 

LEA amends an application, the SEA 

would be required to post the amended 

application. 

Reasons: Although the current 

requirements state that an SEA must 

post ‘‘all final LEA applications,’’ the 

Department has found that many SEAs 

do not post LEA applications to serve 

Tier III schools or amended 

applications. The proposed 

requirements are intended to eliminate 

any confusion and to ensure that SEAs 

are providing the public with complete 

information on LEA applications for SIG 

funds. 

Removing References to Fiscal Year 

2009 and Fiscal Year 2010 Funds 

Current Requirements: Section II.B 

contains multiple requirements 

pertaining to the disbursement of fiscal 

years 2009 and 2010 funds. Section II.E 

allows SEAs to reserve no more than 

five percent of their fiscal year 2009 SIG 

allocation if the total allocation 

exceeded the total allowable amount for 

awards to LEAs. 

Proposed Requirements: Section II.B 

of the proposed requirements would 

remove references to fiscal years 2009 

and 2010 funds. The proposed 

requirements would remove section II.E. 

Reasons: The current requirements for 

the SIG program were published to 

incorporate authority in the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, 

which was applicable to funds 

appropriated under the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 

(ARRA) and fiscal year 2010 funds. The 

SIG funds allocated under ARRA were 

significantly greater than the fiscal year 

2010 allocation and each subsequent 

allocation. For that reason, the 

Department included specific SEA 

requirements to direct the disbursement 

of the ARRA funds and the fiscal year 

2010 funds, including the current 

requirement in section II.E that allowed 

SEAs to reserve no more than five 

percent of their fiscal year 2009 SIG 

allocation if the total allocation 

exceeded the total allowable amount for 

awards to LEAs. The period of 

availability of the ARRA funds and the 

fiscal year 2010 funds has expired and, 

therefore, references to the fiscal year 

2009 and 2010 funds in the current 

requirements are no longer necessary. 

Removing Reference to Differentiated 

Accountability Pilot 

Current Requirements: Section II.B.11 

sets forth requirements for SEAs 

participating in the ‘‘differentiated 

accountability pilot.’’ 

Proposed Requirements: The 

proposed requirements would remove 

the current requirement pertaining to 

the differentiated accountability pilot in 

section II.B.11. 

Reasons: The ‘‘differentiated 

accountability pilot’’ no longer operates. 

Accordingly, any reference to it is 

obsolete and should be removed. 

Technical Edits 

The Department has made a number 

of technical edits to clarify current 

requirements where appropriate. We 

have also renumbered the provisions in 

the requirements for internal 

consistency. 

Proposed Requirements 

The Secretary proposes the following 

requirements, which amend the SIG 

final requirements, published in the 

Federal Register on October 28, 2010 

(75 FR 66363), and incorporate the 

proposed changes described above: 

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 select those LEAs 

with the greatest need for such funds, in 

accordance with the requirements in 

paragraph I.A.1. From among the LEAs 

in greatest need, the SEA must select, in 

accordance with paragraph I.A.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 improve academic achievement. Key 

terms are defined as follows: 

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 categories described 

in section I.A.1(a)–(c), except that an 

LEA with the greatest need for a School 

Improvement Grant in a State with an 

approved ESEA flexibility request must 

have one or more schools in at least one 

of the categories described in section 

I.A.1(d)–(e): 

(a) Tier I schools: 

(1) A Tier I school is a title I school 

in improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring that is identified by the 

SEA under paragraph (a)(1) of the 

definition of ‘‘persistently lowestachieving schools.’’ 

(2) At its option, an SEA may also 

identify as a Tier I school an elementary 

school that is eligible for title I, Part A 

funds that— 

(A)(i) Has not made adequate yearly 

progress for at least two consecutive 

years; or 

(ii) Is in the State’s lowest quintile of 

performance based on proficiency rates 

on the State’s assessments under section 

1111(b)(3) of the ESEA in reading/

language arts and mathematics 

combined; and 

(B) Is no higher achieving than the 

highest-achieving school identified by 

the SEA under paragraph (a)(1)(A) of the 

definition of ‘‘persistently lowestachieving schools.’’ 

(b) Tier II schools: 

(1) A Tier II school is a secondary 

school that is eligible for, but does not 

receive, title I, Part A funds and is 

identified by the SEA under paragraph 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 173 / Monday, September 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 53265 

13A ‘‘priority school’’ is defined as a school that, 

based on the most recent data available, has been 

identified as among the lowest-performing schools 

in the State. The total number of priority schools 

in a State must be at least five percent of the title 

I schools in the State. A priority school is— 

A school among the lowest five percent of title 

I schools in the State based on the achievement of 

the ‘‘all students’’ group in terms of proficiency on 

the statewide assessments that are part of the SEA’s 

differentiated recognition, accountability, and 

support system, combined, and has demonstrated a 

lack of progress on those assessments over a 

number of years in the ‘‘all students’’ group; 

A title I-participating or title I-eligible high school 

with a graduation rate less than 60 percent over a 

number of years; or 

A Tier I or Tier II school under the SIG program 

that is using SIG funds to implement a school 

intervention model. 14A ‘‘focus school’’ is defined as a title I school 

in the State that, based on the most recent data 

available, is contributing to the achievement gap in 

the State. The total number of focus schools in a 

State must equal at least 10 percent of the title I 

schools in the State. A focus school is— 

A school that has the largest within-school gaps 

between the highest-achieving subgroup or 

subgroups and the lowest-achieving subgroup or 

subgroups or, at the high school level, has the 

largest within-school gaps in graduation rates; or 

A school that has a subgroup or subgroups with 

low achievement or, at the high school level, low 

graduation rates. 

An SEA must also identify as a focus school a 

title I high school with a graduation rate less than 

60 percent over a number of years that is not 

identified as a priority school. 

These determinations must be based on the 

achievement and lack of progress over a number of 

years of one or more subgroups of students 

identified under ESEA section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) in 

terms of proficiency on the statewide assessments 

that are part of the SEA’s differentiated recognition, 

accountability, and support system, combined, or, 

at the high school level, graduation rates for one or 

more subgroups. 

(a)(2) of the definition of ‘‘persistently 

lowest-achieving schools.’’ 

(2) At its option, an SEA may also 

identify as a Tier II school a secondary 

school that is eligible for title I, Part A 

funds that— 

(A)(i) Has not made adequate yearly 

progress for at least two consecutive 

years; or 

(ii) Is in the State’s lowest quintile of 

performance based on proficiency rates 

on the State’s assessments under section 

1111(b)(3) of the ESEA in reading/

language arts and mathematics 

combined; and 

(B)(i) Is no higher achieving than the 

highest-achieving school identified by 

the SEA under paragraph (a)(2)(A) of the 

definition of ‘‘persistently lowestachieving schools’’; or 

(ii) Is a high school that has had a 

graduation rate as defined in 34 CFR 

200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent 

over a number of years. 

(c) Tier III schools: 

(1) A Tier III school is a title I school 

in improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring that is not a Tier I or a Tier 

II school. 

(2) At its option, an SEA may also 

identify as a Tier III school a school that 

is eligible for title I, Part A funds that— 

(A)(i) Has not made adequate yearly 

progress for at least two years; or 

(ii) Is in the State’s lowest quintile of 

performance based on proficiency rates 

on the State’s assessments under section 

1111(b)(3) of the ESEA in reading/

language arts and mathematics 

combined; and 

(B) Does not meet the requirements to 

be a Tier I or Tier II school. 

(3) An SEA may establish additional 

criteria to use in setting priorities among 

LEA applications for funding and to 

encourage LEAs to differentiate among 

Tier III schools in their use of School 

Improvement Grants funds. 

(d) Priority schools: A priority school 

is a school identified as a priority school 

pursuant to an SEA’s approved ESEA 

flexibility request and consistent with 

the ESEA flexibility definition of 

priority school.13

(e) Focus schools: A focus school is a 

school identified as a focus school 

pursuant to an SEA’s approved ESEA 

flexibility request and consistent with 

the ESEA flexibility definition of focus 

school.14

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 or, for an SEA 

with an approved ESEA flexibility 

request, each priority and focus school, 

that the LEA commits to serve: 

(a) Turnaround model: 

(1) A turnaround model is one in 

which an LEA must implement each of 

the following elements: 

(A) Replace the principal and grant 

the principal sufficient operational 

flexibility (including in staffing, 

calendars/time, and budgeting) to 

implement fully each element of the 

turnaround model. 

(B) Using locally adopted 

competencies to measure the 

effectiveness of staff who can work 

within the turnaround environment to 

meet the needs of students— 

(i) Screen all existing staff and rehire 

no more than 50 percent; and 

(ii) Select new staff. 

(C) Implement such strategies as 

financial incentives, increased 

opportunities for promotion and career 

growth, and more flexible work 

conditions that are designed to recruit, 

place, and retain staff with the skills 

necessary to meet the needs of the 

students in the turnaround school. 

(D) Provide staff ongoing, highquality, job-embedded professional 

development that is aligned with the 

school’s comprehensive instructional 

program and designed with school staff 

to ensure that they are equipped to 

facilitate effective teaching and learning 

and have the capacity to successfully 

implement school reform strategies. 

(E) Adopt a new governance structure, 

which may include, but is not limited 

to, requiring the school to report to a 

new ‘‘turnaround office’’ in the LEA or 

SEA, hire a ‘‘turnaround leader’’ who 

reports directly to the Superintendent or 

Chief Academic Officer, or enter into a 

multi-year contract with the LEA or SEA 

to obtain added flexibility in exchange 

for greater accountability. 

(F) Use data to identify and 

implement an instructional program 

that is research-based and vertically 

aligned from one grade to the next as 

well as aligned with State academic 

standards. 

(G) Promote the continuous use of 

student data (such as from formative, 

interim, and summative assessments) to 

inform and differentiate instruction in 

order to meet the academic needs of 

individual students. 

(H) Establish schedules and 

implement strategies that provide 

increased learning time (as defined in 

these requirements). 

(I) Provide appropriate socialemotional and community-oriented 

services and supports for students. 

(2) A turnaround model may also 

implement other strategies such as— 

(A) Any of the required and 

permissible activities under the 

transformation model; or 

(B) A new school model (e.g., themed, 

dual language academy). 

(b) Restart model: 

(1) A restart model is one in which an 

LEA converts a school or closes and 

reopens a school under a charter school 

operator, a charter management 

organization (CMO), or an education 

management organization (EMO) that 

has been selected through a rigorous 

review process. (A CMO is a non-profit 

organization that operates or manages 

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.) The rigorous review process must 

include a determination by the LEA that 

the selected charter school operator, 

CMO, or EMO is likely to produce 

strong results for the school. In making 

this determination, the LEA must 

consider the extent to which the schools 

currently operated or managed by the 

selected charter school operator, CMO, 

or EMO, if any, have produced strong 

results over the past three years (or over 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53266 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 173 / Monday, September 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

the life of the school, if the school has 

been open for fewer than three years), 

including— 

(A) Significant improvement in 

academic achievement for all of the 

groups of students described in section 

1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the ESEA; 

(B) Success in closing achievement 

gaps, either within schools or relative to 

all public elementary school and 

secondary school students statewide, for 

all of the groups of students described 

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

ESEA; 

(C) High school graduation rates, 

where applicable, that are above the 

average rates in the State for the groups 

of students described in section 

1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the ESEA; and 

(D) No significant compliance issues, 

including in the areas of civil rights, 

financial management, and student 

safety; 

(2) A restart model must enroll, 

within the grades it serves, any former 

student who wishes to attend the 

school. 

(c) School closure: School closure 

occurs when an LEA closes a school and 

enrolls the students who attended that 

school in other schools in the LEA that 

are higher achieving. These other 

schools should be within reasonable 

proximity to the closed school and may 

include, but are not limited to, charter 

schools or new schools for which 

achievement data are not yet available. 

(d) Transformation model: A 

transformation model is one in which 

an LEA implements each of the 

following elements: 

(1) Developing and increasing teacher 

and school leader effectiveness. 

(A) Required activities. The LEA 

must— 

(i) Replace the principal who led the 

school prior to commencement of the 

transformation model; 

(ii) Implement rigorous, transparent, 

and equitable evaluation and support 

systems for teachers and principals, 

designed and developed with teacher 

and principal involvement, that— 

(1) Will be used for continual 

improvement of instruction; 

(2) Meaningfully differentiate 

performance using at least three 

performance levels; 

(3) Use multiple valid measures in 

determining performance levels, 

including as a significant factor data on 

student growth (as defined in these 

requirements) for all students (including 

English learners and students with 

disabilities), and other measures of 

professional practice (which may be 

gathered through multiple formats and 

sources), such as observations based on 

rigorous teacher performance standards, 

teacher portfolios, and student and 

parent surveys; 

(4) Evaluate teachers and principals 

on a regular basis; 

(5) Provide clear, timely, and useful 

feedback, including feedback that 

identifies needs and guides professional 

development; and 

(6) Will be used to inform personnel 

decisions. 

(iii) Use the teacher and principal 

evaluation and support system 

described in section I.A.2(d)(1)(A)(ii) of 

these requirements to identify and 

reward school leaders, teachers, and 

other staff who, in implementing this 

model, have increased student 

achievement and high school graduation 

rates and identify and remove those 

who, after ample opportunities have 

been provided for them to improve their 

professional practice, have not done so; 

and 

(iv) Implement such strategies as 

financial incentives, increased 

opportunities for promotion and career 

growth, and more flexible work 

conditions that are designed to recruit, 

place, and retain staff with the skills 

necessary to meet the needs of students 

in the school, taking into consideration 

the results from the teacher and 

principal evaluation and support system 

described in section I.A.2(d)(1)(A)(ii) of 

these requirements, if applicable. 

(B) Permissible activities. An LEA 

may also implement other strategies to 

develop teachers’ and school leaders’ 

effectiveness, such as— 

(i) Providing additional compensation 

to attract and retain staff with the skills 

necessary to meet the needs of the 

students in a transformation school; 

(ii) Instituting a system for measuring 

changes in instructional practices 

resulting from professional 

development; or 

(iii) 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. 

(2) Comprehensive instructional 

reform strategies. 

(A) Required activities. The LEA 

must— 

(i) Use data to identify and implement 

an instructional program that is 

research-based and vertically aligned 

from one grade to the next as well as 

aligned with State academic standards; 

(ii) Promote the continuous use of 

student data (such as from formative, 

interim, and summative assessments) to 

inform and differentiate instruction in 

order to meet the academic needs of 

individual students; and 

(iii) Provide staff ongoing, highquality, job-embedded professional 

development (e.g., regarding subjectspecific 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 

with school staff to ensure they are 

equipped to facilitate effective teaching 

and learning and have the capacity to 

implement successfully school reform 

strategies. 

(B) Permissible activities. An LEA 

may also implement comprehensive 

instructional reform strategies, such 

as— 

(i) Conducting periodic reviews to 

ensure that the instruction is 

implemented with fidelity to the 

selected curriculum, is having the 

intended impact on student 

achievement, and is modified if 

ineffective; 

(ii) Implementing a schoolwide 

‘‘response-to-intervention’’ model; 

(iii) Providing additional supports 

and professional development to 

teachers and principals in order to 

implement effective strategies to 

support students with disabilities in the 

least restrictive environment and to 

ensure that English learners acquire 

language skills to master academic 

content; 

(iv) Using and integrating technologybased supports and interventions as part 

of the instructional program; and 

(v) In secondary schools— 

(1) Increasing rigor by offering 

opportunities for students to enroll in 

advanced coursework (such as 

Advanced Placement; International 

Baccalaureate; or science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics courses, 

especially those that incorporate 

rigorous and relevant project-, 

inquiry-, or design-based contextual 

learning opportunities), 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; 

(2) Improving student transition from 

middle to high school through summer 

transition programs or freshman 

academies; 

(3) Increasing graduation rates 

through, for example, credit-recovery 

programs, re-engagement strategies, 

smaller learning communities, 

competency-based instruction and 

performance-based assessments, and 

acceleration of basic reading and 

mathematics skills; or 

(4) Establishing early-warning systems 

to identify students who may be at risk 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 173 / Monday, September 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 53267 

15What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and 

Standards Handbook (Version 3.0), which can 

currently be found at the following link: http://

ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_resources/wwc_

procedures_v3_0_standards_handbook.pdf. 

of failing to achieve to high standards or 

graduate. 

(3) Increasing learning time and 

creating community-oriented schools. 

(A) Required activities. The LEA 

must— 

(i) Establish schedules and strategies 

that provide increased learning time (as 

defined in these requirements); and 

(ii) 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— 

(i) Partnering with parents and parent 

organizations, faith- and communitybased organizations, health clinics, 

other State or local agencies, and others 

to create safe school environments that 

meet students’ social, emotional, and 

health needs; 

(ii) Extending or restructuring the 

school day so as to add time for such 

strategies as advisory periods that build 

relationships between students, faculty, 

and other school staff; 

(iii) 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; or 

(iv) Expanding the school program to 

offer full-day kindergarten or prekindergarten. 

(4) Providing operational flexibility 

and sustained support. 

(A) Required activities. The LEA 

must— 

(i) Give the school sufficient 

operational flexibility (such as staffing, 

calendars/time, and budgeting) to 

implement fully each element of the 

transformation model to substantially 

improve student achievement outcomes 

and increase high school graduation 

rates; and 

(ii) 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— 

(i) Allowing the school to be run 

under a new governance arrangement, 

such as a turnaround division within 

the LEA or SEA; or 

(ii) Implementing a per-pupil, schoolbased budget formula that is weighted 

based on student needs. 

(e) Evidence-based, whole-school 

reform strategy: An evidence-based, 

whole-school reform strategy is a 

strategy that— 

(1) Is supported by evidence of 

effectiveness, which must include at 

least two studies of the strategy, each of 

which— 

(A) Meets What Works Clearinghouse 

evidence standards with or without 

reservations;15 and 

(B) Found a statistically significant 

favorable impact on a student academic 

achievement or attainment outcome, 

with no statistically significant and 

overriding unfavorable impacts on that 

outcome for relevant populations in the 

study or in other studies of the 

intervention reviewed by and reported 

on by the What Works Clearinghouse; 

(2) Is a whole-school reform strategy 

as defined in these requirements; and 

(3) Is implemented by the LEA in 

partnership with a strategy developer as 

defined in these requirements. 

(f) Early learning model: An LEA 

implementing the early learning model 

in an elementary school must— 

(1) Implement each of the following 

early learning strategies— 

(A) Offer full-day kindergarten; 

(B) Establish or expand a high-quality 

preschool program (as defined in these 

requirements); 

(C) Provide educators, including 

preschool teachers, with time for joint 

planning across grades to facilitate 

effective teaching and learning and 

positive teacher-student interactions. 

(2) Replace the principal who led the 

school prior to commencement of the 

early learning model; 

(3) Implement rigorous, transparent, 

and equitable evaluation and support 

systems for teachers and principals, 

designed and developed with teacher 

and principal involvement, that meet 

the requirements described in section 

I.A.2(d)(1)(A)(ii); 

(4) Use the teacher and principal 

evaluation and support system 

described in section I.A.2(d)(1)(A)(ii) of 

these requirements to identify and 

reward school leaders, teachers, and 

other staff who, in implementing this 

model, have increased student 

achievement and identify and remove 

those who, after ample opportunities 

have been provided for them to improve 

their professional practice, have not 

done so; 

(5) Implement such strategies as 

financial incentives, increased 

opportunities for promotion and career 

growth, and more flexible work 

conditions that are designed to recruit, 

place, and retain staff with the skills 

necessary to meet the needs of students 

in the school, taking into consideration 

the results from the teacher and 

principal evaluation and support system 

described in section I.A.2(d)(1)(A)(ii) of 

these requirements, if applicable; 

(6) Use data to identify and 

implement an instructional program 

that— 

(A) Is research-based, 

developmentally appropriate, and 

vertically aligned from one grade to the 

next as well as aligned with State early 

learning and development standards 

and State academic standards and 

(B) In the early grades, promotes the 

full range of academic content across 

domains of development, including 

math and science, language and literacy, 

socio-emotional skills, self-regulation, 

and executive functions; 

(7) Promote the continuous use of 

student data (such as from formative, 

interim, and summative assessments) to 

inform and differentiate instruction in 

order to meet the educational and 

developmental needs of individual 

students; and 

(8) Provide staff ongoing, high-quality, 

job-embedded professional development 

such as coaching and mentoring (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 with school staff 

to ensure they are equipped to facilitate 

effective teaching and learning and have 

the capacity to implement successfully 

school reform strategies. 

(g) Approved State-Determined 

Model: An LEA may implement an 

intervention developed or adopted by 

its SEA that has been approved by the 

Secretary, consistent with section 

II.B.1(b). 

3. Definitions. 

High-quality preschool program 

means an early learning program that 

includes structural elements that are 

evidence-based and nationally 

recognized as important for ensuring 

program quality, including at a 

minimum— 

(a) High staff qualifications, including 

a teacher with a bachelor’s degree in 

early childhood education or a 

bachelor’s degree in any field with a 

State-approved alternate pathway, 

which may include coursework, clinical 

practice, and evidence of knowledge of 

content and pedagogy relating to early 

childhood, and teaching assistants with 

appropriate credentials; 

(b) High-quality professional 

development for all staff; 

(c) A child-to-instructional staff ratio 

of no more than 10 to 1; 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53268 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 173 / Monday, September 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

16Evidence from the field shows that increasing 

learning time in a strategic, high-quality manner is 

often a key element of successful school 

turnaround. See ‘‘The Case for Improving and 

Expanding Time in School: A Review of Key 

Research and Practice, available at 

www.timeandlearning.org/files/CaseforMoreTime_

1.pdf.’’ National Center on Time and Learning, 

April 2012. 

(d) A class size of no more than 20 

with, at a minimum, one teacher with 

high staff qualifications as outlined in 

paragraph (a) of this definition; 

(e) A full-day program; 

(f) Inclusion of children with 

disabilities to ensure access to and full 

participation in all opportunities; 

(g) Developmentally appropriate, 

culturally and linguistically responsive 

instruction and evidence-based 

curricula, and learning environments 

that are aligned with the State early 

learning and development standards, for 

at least the year prior to kindergarten 

entry; 

(h) Individualized accommodations 

and supports so that all children can 

access and participate fully in learning 

activities; 

(i) Instructional staff salaries that are 

comparable to the salaries of local K–12 

instructional staff; 

(j) Program evaluation to ensure 

continuous improvement; 

(k) On-site or accessible 

comprehensive services for children and 

community partnerships that promote 

families’ access to services that support 

their children’s learning and 

development; and 

(l) Evidence-based health and safety 

standards. 

Increased learning time means using 

a longer school day, week, or year 

schedule to significantly increase the 

total number of school hours to include 

additional time for— 

(a) Instruction in one or more core 

academic subjects, including English, 

reading or language arts, mathematics, 

science, foreign languages, civics and 

government, economics, arts, history, 

and geography; 

(b) Instruction in other subjects and 

enrichment activities that contribute to 

a well-rounded education, including, for 

example, physical education, service 

learning, and experiential and workbased learning opportunities that are 

provided by partnering, as appropriate, 

with other organizations; and 

(c) Teachers to collaborate, plan, and 

engage in professional development 

within and across grades and subjects.16

Persistently lowest-achieving schools 

means, as determined by the State— 

(a)(1) Any title I school in 

improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring that— 

(A) Is among the lowest-achieving five 

percent of title I schools in 

improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring or the lowest-achieving 

five title I schools in improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring in the 

State, whichever number of schools is 

greater; or 

(B) Is a high school that has had a 

graduation rate as defined in 34 CFR 

200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent 

over a number of years; and 

(2) Any secondary school that is 

eligible for, but does not receive, title I 

funds that— 

(A) Is among the lowest-achieving five 

percent of secondary schools or the 

lowest-achieving five secondary schools 

in the State that are eligible for, but do 

not receive, title I funds, whichever 

number of schools is greater; or 

(B) Is a high school that has had a 

graduation rate as defined in 34 CFR 

200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent 

over a number of years. 

(b) To identify the lowest-achieving 

schools, a State must take into account 

both— 

(1) The academic achievement of the 

‘‘all students’’ group in a school in 

terms of proficiency on the State’s 

assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of 

the ESEA in reading/language arts and 

mathematics combined; and 

(2) The school’s lack of progress on 

those assessments over a number of 

years for the ‘‘all students’’ group. 

Strategy developer means an entity or 

individual that— 

(a) Maintains proprietary rights for the 

strategy; or 

(b) If no entity or individual 

maintains proprietary rights for the 

strategy— 

(1) Has a demonstrated record of 

success in implementing the strategy in 

one or more low-achieving schools; or 

(2) Together with the LEA with which 

the entity or individual has partnered, 

has a high-quality plan for 

implementing the strategy in the school. 

Student growth means the change in 

student achievement for an individual 

student between two or more points in 

time. For the purpose of this definition, 

student achievement means— 

(a) For grades and subjects in which 

assessments are required under section 

1111(b)(3) of the ESEA, a student’s score 

on such assessments and may include 

other measures of student learning, such 

as those described in paragraph (b) of 

this definition, provided they are 

rigorous and comparable across schools 

within an LEA. 

(b) For grades and subjects in which 

assessments are not required under 

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

alternative measures of student learning 

and performance, such as student 

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

and objective performance-based 

assessments; student learning 

objectives; student performance on 

English language proficiency 

assessments; and other measures of 

student achievement that are rigorous 

and comparable across schools within 

an LEA. 

Whole-school reform strategy means a 

strategy that is designed to— 

(a) Improve student academic 

achievement or attainment; 

(b) Be implemented for all students in 

a school; and 

(c) Address, at a minimum and in a 

comprehensive and coordinated 

manner, each of the following: 

(1) School leadership. 

(2) Teaching and learning in at least 

one full academic content area 

(including professional learning for 

educators). 

(3) Student non-academic support. 

(4) Family and community 

engagement. 

4. Evidence of strongest commitment. 

(a) In determining the strength of an 

LEA’s commitment to ensuring that 

School Improvement Grants funds are 

used to provide adequate resources to 

enable Tier I, Tier II, priority, and focus 

schools to improve student achievement 

substantially, an SEA must consider, at 

a minimum, the extent to which the 

LEA’s application demonstrates that the 

LEA has taken, or will take, action to— 

(1) In selecting the intervention for 

each eligible school— 

(A) Ensure that the selected 

intervention is designed to meet the 

specific needs of the school, based on a 

needs analysis that, among other things, 

analyzes the needs identified by 

families and the community; and 

(B) Take into consideration family 

and community input. 

(2) Design and implement 

interventions consistent with these 

requirements; 

(3) Use the School Improvement 

Grants funds to provide adequate 

resources and related support to each 

school it commits to serve in order to 

implement fully and effectively the 

selected intervention on the first day of 

the first school year of full 

implementation; 

(4) Recruit, screen, and select external 

providers, if applicable, to ensure their 

quality, and regularly review and hold 

accountable such providers for their 

performance; 

(5) Align other resources with the 

selected intervention; 

(6) Modify its practices or policies, if 

necessary, to enable it to implement the 

selected intervention fully and 

effectively; 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 173 / Monday, September 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 53269 

(7) Provide effective oversight and 

support for implementation of the 

selected intervention for each school it 

proposes to serve, such as by creating an 

LEA turnaround office; 

(8) Meaningfully engage families and 

the community in the implementation 

of the selected intervention on an 

ongoing basis; 

(9) For an LEA eligible for services 

under subpart 1 or 2 of part B of title 

VI of the ESEA that chooses to modify 

one element of the turnaround or 

transformation model under section 

I.B.6 of these requirements, meet the 

intent and purpose of that element; 

(10) For an LEA that applies to 

implement an evidence-based, wholeschool reform strategy in one or more 

eligible schools— 

(A) Implement a strategy with 

evidence of effectiveness that includes a 

sample population or setting similar to 

the population or setting of the school 

to be served; and 

(B) Partner with a strategy developer, 

as defined in these requirements; 

(11) For an LEA that applies to 

implement the restart model in one or 

more eligible schools, conduct a 

rigorous review process, as described in 

section I.A.2(b), of the charter school 

operator, CMO, or EMO that it has 

selected to operate or manage the school 

or schools; and 

(12) Sustain the reforms after the 

funding period ends. 

(b) The SEA must consider the LEA’s 

capacity to implement the interventions 

and may approve the LEA to serve only 

those Tier I, Tier II, priority, and focus 

schools for which the SEA determines 

that the LEA can implement fully and 

effectively one of the interventions. 

B. Providing flexibility. 

1. An SEA may award School 

Improvement Grants funds to an LEA 

for a Tier I, Tier II, priority, or focus 

school that has implemented, in whole 

or in part, an intervention that meets the 

requirements under section I.A.2(a), 

2(b), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), or 2(g) of these 

requirements during the school year in 

which the LEA applies for School 

Improvement Grants funds or during the 

two school years prior to the school year 

in which the LEA applies for School 

Improvement Grants funds, 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 or Tier II title I participating 

school implementing an intervention 

that meets the requirements under 

section I.A.2(a) or 2(b) of these 

requirements in an LEA that receives a 

School Improvement Grant to ‘‘start 

over’’ in the school improvement 

timeline. Even though a school 

implementing the waiver would no 

longer be in improvement, corrective 

action, or restructuring, it may receive 

School Improvement Grants funds. 

3. An SEA may seek a waiver from the 

Secretary to enable a Tier I or Tier II 

title I participating 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), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), or 2(g) of these 

requirements. 

4. An SEA may seek a waiver from the 

Secretary to extend the period of 

availability of School Improvement 

Grants funds so as to make those funds 

available to the SEA and its LEAs for up 

to five years. 

5. If an SEA does not seek a waiver 

under section I.B.2, 3, or 4, an LEA may 

seek a waiver. 

6. An LEA eligible for services under 

subpart 1 or 2 of part B of title VI of the 

ESEA may modify one element of the 

turnaround or transformation model so 

long as the modification meets the 

intent and purpose of the original 

element, in accordance with section 

I.A.4(a)(9) of these requirements. 

II. Awarding School Improvement 

Grants to LEAs 

A. LEA requirements. 

1. An LEA may apply for a School 

Improvement Grant if it receives title I, 

Part A funds and has one or more 

schools that qualify under the State’s 

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

priority, or focus school. 

2. In its application, in addition to 

other information that the SEA may 

require, the LEA must— 

(a) Identify the schools it commits to 

serve; 

(b) Identify the intervention it will 

implement in each Tier I, Tier II, 

priority, and focus school it commits to 

serve; 

(c) Provide evidence of its strong 

commitment to use School 

Improvement Grants funds to 

implement the selected intervention by 

addressing the factors in section I.A.4(a) 

of these requirements; 

(d) Include a timeline delineating the 

steps the LEA will take to implement 

the selected intervention in each school 

identified in the LEA’s application; and 

(e) Include a budget indicating how it 

will allocate School Improvement 

Grants funds among the schools it 

commits to serve that is of sufficient 

size and scope and that: 

(1) For each Tier I, Tier II, priority, 

and focus school the LEA commits to 

serve, ensures that the LEA can 

implement one of the interventions 

identified in sections I.A.2(a)-(b) or 

sections I.A.2(d)-(g) of these 

requirements for a minimum of three 

years and no more than five years; and 

(2) For each Tier III school the LEA 

commits to serve, includes the services 

it will provide the school, particularly if 

the school meets additional criteria 

established by the SEA, for a minimum 

of three years and no more than five 

years. 

3. An LEA that intends to use the first 

year of its School Improvement Grants 

award for planning and other preimplementation activities for an eligible 

school must include in its application to 

the SEA a description of the activities, 

the timeline for implementing those 

activities, and a description of how 

those activities will lead to successful 

implementation of the selected 

intervention. 

4. The LEA must serve: 

(a) In an SEA with an approved ESEA 

flexibility request, each priority school 

unless the LEA demonstrates that it 

lacks sufficient capacity to undertake 

one of the interventions described in 

section I.A.2 of these requirements in 

each priority school, in which case the 

LEA must indicate the priority schools 

that it can effectively serve. An LEA 

may not serve with School Improvement 

Grants funds awarded under section 

1003(g) of the ESEA a priority or focus 

school in which it does not implement 

one of the interventions identified in 

section I.A.2 of these requirements. 

(b) In all other SEAs, each Tier I 

school unless the LEA demonstrates that 

it lacks sufficient capacity (which may 

be due, in part, to serving Tier II 

schools) to undertake one of the 

interventions described in section I.A.2 

of these requirements in each Tier I 

school, in which case the LEA must 

indicate the Tier I schools that it can 

effectively serve. An LEA may not serve 

with School Improvement Grants funds 

awarded under section 1003(g) of the 

ESEA a Tier I or Tier II school in which 

it does not implement one of the 

interventions identified in section I.A.2 

of these requirements. 

5. An LEA that commits to serve 

schools that do not receive title I, Part 

A funds must ensure that each such 

school it serves receives all of the State 

and local funds it would have received 

in the absence of the School 

Improvement Grants funds. 

6. An LEA in which one or more Tier 

I schools are located and that does not 

apply to serve at least one of these 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53270 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 173 / Monday, September 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

schools may not apply for a grant to 

serve only Tier III schools. 

7. An LEA in which one or more 

priority schools are located and that 

does not apply to serve all of these 

schools may not apply for a grant to 

serve one or more focus schools. 

8. (a) To monitor each Tier I, Tier II, 

priority, and focus school that receives 

School Improvement Grants funds, an 

LEA must— 

(1) Establish annual goals for student 

achievement on the State’s assessments 

in both reading/language arts and 

mathematics; and 

(2) Measure progress on the leading 

indicators in section III of these 

requirements. 

(b) The LEA must also meet the 

requirements with respect to adequate 

yearly progress in section 1111(b)(2) of 

the ESEA, if applicable. 

9. An LEA must hold the charter 

school operator, CMO, EMO, or other 

external provider accountable for 

meeting these requirements, if 

applicable. 

B. SEA requirements. 

1. (a) 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. 

(b) In its application to the 

Department, each SEA may submit one 

State-determined intervention model for 

the Secretary’s review and approval. To 

be approved, a State-determined 

intervention model must: 

(1) Ensure strong leadership by: 

(A) Requiring a review of the 

performance of the current principal; 

(B) Requiring replacement of the 

principal, if such a change is necessary 

to ensure strong and effective 

leadership, or requiring the LEA to 

demonstrate to the SEA that the current 

principal has a track record in 

improving achievement and has the 

ability to lead the turnaround effort; and 

(C) Requiring the LEA to provide the 

principal with operational flexibility in 

the areas of scheduling, staff, 

curriculum, and budget; 

(2) Ensure that teachers are effective 

and able to improve instruction by: 

(A) Requiring a review of all staff and 

retaining only those who are determined 

to be effective and to have the ability to 

be successful in supporting the 

turnaround effort; 

(B) Preventing ineffective teachers 

from transferring to a school 

implementing an intervention under 

section I.A.2; and 

(C) Providing job-embedded, ongoing 

professional development informed by 

the teacher evaluation and support 

systems and tied to teacher and student 

needs; 

(3) Establish schedules and 

implement strategies that provide 

increased learning time (as defined in 

these requirements); 

(4) Strengthen the school’s 

instructional program by ensuring that 

it— 

(A) Is research-based, rigorous, and 

aligned with State academic content 

standards; and 

(B) Meets student needs; 

(5) Use data to inform instruction and 

for continuous improvement, including 

by providing time for collaboration on 

the use of data; 

(6) Establish a school environment 

that improves school safety and 

discipline and addresses other nonacademic factors that impact student 

achievement, such as students’ social, 

emotional, and health needs; and 

(7) Provide ongoing mechanisms for 

family and community engagement. 

Note: An intervention that the Secretary 

approved as part of an SEA’s ESEA flexibility 

request that also includes increased learning 

time, as defined in these requirements, will 

be considered to have met the criteria in 

II.B.1(b). 

2. (a) An SEA must review and 

approve, consistent with these 

requirements, an application for a 

School Improvement Grant that it 

receives from an LEA. 

(b) Before approving an LEA’s 

application, the SEA must ensure that 

the application meets these 

requirements, particularly with respect 

to— 

(1) Whether the LEA has agreed to 

implement one of the interventions 

identified in section I.A.2 of these 

requirements in each Tier I and Tier II 

school or, for an SEA with an approved 

ESEA flexibility request, each priority 

and focus school included in its 

application; 

(2) The extent to which the LEA’s 

application demonstrates the LEA’s 

strong commitment to use School 

Improvement Grants funds to 

implement the selected intervention by 

addressing the factors in section I.A.4 of 

these requirements; 

(3) Whether the LEA has the capacity 

to implement the selected intervention 

fully and effectively in each school 

identified in its application; and 

(4) Whether the LEA has submitted a 

budget that includes sufficient funds to 

implement the selected intervention 

fully and effectively in each school it 

identifies in its application. 

3. An SEA may, consistent with State 

law, take over an LEA or specific Tier 

I, Tier II, priority, or focus schools in 

order to implement the interventions in 

these requirements. 

4. An SEA may not require an LEA to 

implement a particular intervention in 

one or more schools unless the SEA has 

taken over the LEA or school. 

5. To the extent that a school 

implementing a restart model becomes a 

charter school LEA, an SEA must hold 

the charter school LEA accountable, or 

ensure that the charter school authorizer 

holds it accountable, for complying with 

these requirements. 

6. An SEA must post on its Web site, 

within 30 days of awarding School 

Improvement Grants to LEAs and within 

30 days of approving any amendments 

to LEA applications, all approved LEA 

applications (including applications to 

serve Tier I, Tier II, Tier III, priority, and 

focus schools and approved 

amendments) as well as a summary of 

those grants that includes the following 

information: 

(a) Name and National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES) 

identification number of each LEA 

awarded a grant. 

(b) Amount of each LEA’s grant. 

(c) Name and NCES identification 

number of each school to be served. 

(d) Type of intervention to be 

implemented in each Tier I, Tier II, 

priority, and focus school. 

7. If an SEA does not have sufficient 

School Improvement Grants funds to 

award, for at least three years, a grant to 

each LEA that submits an approvable 

application, the SEA must give priority 

to LEAs to serve Tier I or Tier II schools 

or, for an SEA with an approved ESEA 

flexibility request, the SEA must give 

priority to LEAs to serve priority 

schools. 

8. 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 

these requirements. The LEA’s total 

grant may not be less than $50,000 for 

each school it commits to serve and, for 

each school in which the LEA commits 

to fully implement an intervention that 

meets the requirements under section 

I.A.2(a), 2(b), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), or 2(g) of 

these requirements, may be up to 

$2,000,000 per year. 

9. If an SEA does not have sufficient 

School Improvement Grants funds to 

allocate to each LEA with a Tier I or 

Tier II school or, in an SEA with an 

approved ESEA flexibility request, to 

each LEA with a priority or focus 

school, an amount sufficient to enable 

the school to implement fully and 

effectively the specified intervention 

throughout the period of availability, 

including any extension afforded 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 173 / Monday, September 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 53271 

through a waiver, the SEA may take into 

account the distribution of Tier I, Tier 

II, priority, and focus schools among 

such LEAs in the State to ensure that 

Tier I and Tier II schools or, in an SEA 

with an approved ESEA flexibility 

request, priority and focus schools 

throughout the State can be served. 

10. In identifying Tier I, Tier II, 

priority, and focus schools in a State for 

purposes of allocating funds 

appropriated for School Improvement 

Grants under section 1003(g) of the 

ESEA, an SEA must exclude from 

consideration any school that was 

previously identified as a Tier I, Tier II, 

priority, or focus school and in which 

an LEA is implementing one of the 

interventions identified in these 

requirements using funds made 

available under section 1003(g) of the 

ESEA. 

11. Before submitting its application 

for a School Improvement Grant to the 

Department, the SEA must consult with 

its Committee of Practitioners 

established under section 1903(b) of the 

ESEA regarding the rules and policies 

contained therein and may consult with 

other stakeholders that have an interest 

in its application. 

C. Renewal for additional one-year 

periods. 

1. An SEA must renew the School 

Improvement Grant for each affected 

LEA for additional one-year periods, 

subject to sections II.C.4–C.6 of these 

requirements, if the LEA demonstrates 

that its Tier I, Tier II, priority, and focus 

schools are meeting the annual goals for 

student achievement established by the 

LEA consistent with section II.A.8 of 

these requirements, and that its Tier III 

schools are meeting the goals 

established by the LEA and approved by 

the SEA. 

2. An SEA may renew an LEA’s 

School Improvement Grant with respect 

to a particular school, subject to the 

requirements in sections II.C.4–C.6, if 

the SEA determines that, with respect to 

that school— 

(a) The school is making progress 

toward meeting the annual goals for 

student achievement established by the 

LEA consistent with section II.A.8 of 

these requirements; 

(b) The school is making progress on 

the leading indicators in section III of 

these requirements; 

(c) The LEA is implementing 

interventions in the school with fidelity 

to applicable requirements and to the 

LEA’s application; or 

(d) The LEA’s Tier III school is 

making progress toward the goals 

established by the LEA. 

3. If an SEA does not renew an LEA’s 

School Improvement Grant with respect 

to a particular school, the SEA may 

reallocate those funds to other eligible 

LEAs, consistent with these 

requirements. 

4. An SEA, prior to renewing the 

School Improvement Grant of an LEA 

that received funds for a full year of 

planning and other pre-implementation 

activities for a particular school, must 

review the performance of the LEA in 

that school during the planning year 

against the LEA’s approved application 

and determine that the LEA will be able 

to fully implement its chosen 

intervention for the school on the first 

day of the following school year. 

5. An SEA may renew an LEA’s 

School Improvement Grant for a 

particular school, after three years of 

continuous intervention 

implementation in that school, after the 

SEA has determined that such renewal 

is appropriate pursuant to the criteria in 

sections II.C.1–C.2 of these 

requirements, for up to an additional 

two years for continued full 

implementation of the intervention or 

for activities related to sustaining 

reforms in the school. An SEA may not 

renew an LEA’s School Improvement 

Grant if doing so would result in more 

than five years of continuous School 

Improvement Grants funding with 

respect to a particular school. 

6. Nothing in these requirements 

diminishes an SEA’s authority to take 

appropriate enforcement action with 

respect to an LEA that is not complying 

with the terms of its grant. 

D. State reservation for 

administration, evaluation, and 

technical assistance. 

An SEA may reserve from the School 

Improvement Grants funds it receives 

under section 1003(g) of the ESEA in 

any given year no more than five 

percent for administration, evaluation, 

and technical assistance expenses. An 

SEA must describe in its application for 

a School Improvement Grant how the 

SEA will use these funds. 

III. Reporting and Evaluation 

A. Reporting metrics. 

To inform and evaluate the 

effectiveness of the interventions 

identified in these requirements, the 

Secretary will collect data on the 

metrics in the following chart. 

Accordingly, an SEA must report only 

the following new data with respect to 

School Improvement Grants: 

1. A list of the LEAs, including their 

NCES identification numbers, that 

received a School Improvement Grant 

under section 1003(g) of the ESEA and 

the amount of the grant. 

2. For each LEA that received a 

School Improvement Grant, a list of the 

schools that were served, their NCES 

identification numbers, and the amount 

of funds or value of services each school 

received. 

3. For any Tier I, Tier II, priority, or 

focus school, school-level data on the 

metrics designated on the following 

chart as ‘‘SIG’’ (School Improvement 

Grants): 

Metric Source Achievement 

indicators 

Leading 

indicators 

SCHOOL DATA 

Which intervention the school used (e.g., turnaround, restart, evidence-based, whole 

school reform strategy).

SIG ................... ............................ ............................

Number of schools in rural LEAs implementing an intervention model with a modified 

element pursuant to section I.B.6 of these requirements.

SIG ................... ............................ ............................

Which intervention the school in a rural LEA implementing an intervention model with 

a modified element pursuant to section I.B.6 of these requirements used.

SIG ................... ............................ ............................

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

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

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

Number of minutes within the school year ....................................................................... SIG ................... ............................ ✓ 

STUDENT OUTCOME/ACADEMIC PROGRESS DATA 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53272 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 173 / Monday, September 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

Metric Source Achievement 

indicators 

Leading 

indicators 

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 in reading/language arts and in mathematics, by student subgroup.EDFacts ............ ............................ ✓ 

Average scale scores on State assessments in reading/language arts and in mathematics, by grade, for the ‘‘all students’’ group, for each achievement quartile, and for 

each subgroup.

SIG ................... ✓ ............................

Percentage of limited English proficient students who attain English language proficiency.SIG ................... ✓ ............................

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

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

Student attendance rate ................................................................................................... SIG ................... ............................ ✓ 

Number and percentage of students completing advanced coursework (e.g., AP/IB), 

early-college high schools, or dual enrollment classes.

SIG HS only ..... ............................ ✓ 

College enrollment rates ................................................................................................... EDFacts ............ ✓ ............................

STUDENT CONNECTION AND SCHOOL CLIMATE 

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

Chronic absenteeism rates ............................................................................................... CRDC ............... ............................ ✓ 

TALENT 

Distribution of teachers by performance level on LEA’s teacher evaluation system ....... SIG ................... ............................ ✓ 

Teacher attendance rate .................................................................................................. SIG ................... ............................ ✓ 

4. An SEA must report these metrics 

for the school year prior to 

implementing the intervention, if the 

data exist, to serve as a baseline, and for 

each year thereafter for which the SEA 

allocates School Improvement Grants 

funds under section 1003(g) of the 

ESEA. With respect to a school that is 

closed, the SEA need report only the 

identity of the school and the 

intervention taken—i.e., school closure. 

B. Evaluation. 

An LEA that receives a School 

Improvement Grant must participate in 

any evaluation of that grant conducted 

by the Secretary. 

Final Requirements 

We will announce the final 

requirements in a document in the 

Federal Register. We will determine the 

final requirements after considering 

responses to this document and other 

information available to the Department. 

This document does not preclude us 

from proposing additional requirements 

subject to meeting applicable 

rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This document does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use one or more of these priorities, 

requirements, definitions, and selection 

criteria, we invite applications through a 

document in the Federal Register. 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

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

Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as an action likely to 

result in a rule that may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

stated in the Executive order. 

This proposed regulatory action 

would have an annual effect on the 

economy of more than $100 million 

because fiscal year 2014 appropriations 

for the program, which the Department 

will award to SEAs in fiscal year 2015, 

are approximately $506 million. 

Therefore, this proposed action is 

‘‘economically significant’’ and subject 

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

of Executive Order 12866. 

Notwithstanding this determination, we 

have assessed the potential costs and 

benefits, both quantitative and 

qualitative, of this proposed regulatory 

action and have determined that the 

benefits would justify the costs. 

We have also reviewed this proposed 

regulatory action under Executive Order 

13563, which supplements and 

explicitly reaffirms the principles, 

structures, and definitions governing 

regulatory review established in 

Executive Order 12866. To the extent 

permitted by law, Executive Order 

13563 requires that an agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 173 / Monday, September 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 53273 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing these proposed 

requirements only on a reasoned 

determination that their benefits would 

justify their costs. In choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, we 

selected those approaches that would 

maximize net benefits. Based on the 

analysis that follows, the Department 

believes that this regulatory action is 

consistent with the principles in 

Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

proposed regulatory action would not 

unduly interfere with State, local, and 

tribal governments in the exercise of 

their governmental functions. 

In accordance with both Executive 

orders, the Department has assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action. The potential costs 

associated with this regulatory action 

are those resulting from statutory 

requirements and those we have 

determined as necessary for 

administering the Department’s 

programs and activities. 

In this regulatory impact analysis we 

discuss the potential costs and benefits 

and the regulatory alternatives we 

considered. 

Discussion of Potential Costs and 

Benefits 

The Department believes that the 

proposed requirements would not 

impose significant costs on SEAs and 

LEAs that receive SIG funds. State and 

local costs of implementing the 

proposed requirements (including State 

costs of applying for grants, distributing 

grant funds to LEAs, ensuring 

compliance with the proposed 

requirements, and reporting to the 

Department; and LEA costs of applying 

for subgrants and implementing 

interventions) will be financed through 

grant funds. We do not believe that the 

proposed requirements will impose 

burden that SEAs or LEAs will need to 

meet from other sources. 

This regulatory action would continue 

to drive SIG funds to LEAs that have the 

lowest-achieving schools in amounts 

sufficient to turn those schools around 

and significantly increase student 

achievement. It would also continue to 

require participating LEAs to adopt the 

most effective approaches to turning 

around low-achieving schools. In short, 

we believe that this action would ensure 

that limited SIG funds continue to be 

put to their optimum use—that is, that 

they are 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 low-income families and 

a better education for those children. 

Regulatory Alternatives Considered 

As discussed elsewhere, the 

Department believes that the proposed 

requirements are needed to ensure that 

the SIG program is implemented in a 

manner that, among other things, is 

consistent with the programmatic 

changes made by Congress in the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014. 

One alternative to promulgation of the 

proposed requirements would be for the 

Department to allocate fiscal year 2014 

SIG funds without establishing any new 

requirements governing their use. Under 

such an alternative, States and LEAs 

would need to implement the new 

provisions in the appropriations 

language without key regulatory support 

from the Department. For instance, each 

State would be responsible for ensuring, 

for its LEAs that seek to use SIG funds 

to implement an evidence-based, wholeschool reform strategy in an eligible 

school, that the strategy selected by the 

LEA constitutes whole-school reform 

and is supported by at least moderate 

evidence of effectiveness. We do not 

believe that States generally possess the 

capacity or expertise needed to meet 

this responsibility with the amount of 

rigor expected by Congress. 

Elsewhere in this section under 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we 

identify and explain burdens 

specifically associated with information 

collection requirements. 

Accounting Statement 

As required by OMB Circular A–4 

(available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/ 

default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/

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

have prepared an accounting statement 

showing the classification of the 

expenditures associated with the 

provisions of this regulatory action. This 

table provides our best estimate of the 

changes in annual monetized transfers 

as a result of this regulatory action. 

Expenditures are classified as transfers 

from the Federal Government to SEAs. 

ACCOUNTING STATEMENT CLASSIFICATION OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES

[in millions] 

Category Transfers 

Annualized Monetized 

Transfers.

$506 

From Whom To 

Whom? 

From the Federal 

Government to 

SEAs. 

Clarity of the Regulations 

Executive Order 12866 and the 

Presidential memorandum ‘‘Plain 

Language in Government Writing’’ 

require each agency to write regulations 

that are easy to understand. 

The Department invites comments on 

how to make these proposed regulations 

easier to understand, including answers 

to questions such as the following: 

• Are the requirements in the 

proposed regulations clearly stated? 

• Do the proposed regulations contain 

technical terms or other wording that 

interferes with their clarity? 

• Does the format of the proposed 

regulations (grouping and order of 

sections, use of headings, paragraphing, 

etc.) aid or reduce their clarity? 

• Would the proposed regulations be 

easier to understand if we divided them 

into more (but shorter) sections? 

• Could the description of the 

proposed regulations in the 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of 

this preamble be more helpful in 

making the proposed regulations easier 

to understand? If so, how? 

• What else could we do to make the 

proposed regulations easier to 

understand? 

To send any comments that concern 

how the Department could make these 

proposed regulations easier to 

understand, see the instructions in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

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. 

Although the majority of LEAs that 

receive title I funds qualify as small 

entities under this definition, the 

requirements proposed in this 

document would not have a significant 

economic impact on these small LEAs 

because (1) The costs of implementing 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
53274 Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 173 / Monday, September 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 

the required interventions would be 

covered by the grants received by 

successful applicants, and (2) in most 

cases the costs of developing and 

submitting applications would not be 

significantly higher than the costs that 

would be incurred in applying for 

program funds under the statutory 

requirements. Also, small LEAs may 

receive technical assistance and other 

support from their SEAs in developing 

applications for these funds. 

The Department believes the benefits 

provided under this proposed regulatory 

action outweigh the burdens on these 

small LEAs of complying with the 

proposed requirements. In particular, 

the proposed requirements would make 

significant resources available to eligible 

small LEAs 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 

document would have a significant 

economic impact on them and, if so, 

requests evidence to support that belief. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

As part of its continuing effort to 

reduce paperwork and respondent 

burden, the Department provides the 

general public and Federal agencies 

with an opportunity to comment on 

proposed and continuing collections of 

information in accordance with the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) 

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

ensure that: the public understands the 

Department’s collection instructions, 

respondents can provide the requested 

data in the desired format, reporting 

burden (time and financial resources) is 

minimized, collection instruments are 

clearly understood, and the Department 

can properly assess the impact of 

collection requirements on respondents. 

A Federal agency may not conduct or 

sponsor a collection of information 

unless OMB approves the collection 

under the PRA and the corresponding 

information collection instrument 

displays a currently valid OMB control 

number. Notwithstanding any other 

provision of law, no person is required 

to comply with, or is subject to penalty 

for failure to comply with, a collection 

of information if the collection 

instrument does not display a currently 

valid OMB control number. 

In the final requirements we will 

display the control number 1810–0682 

assigned by OMB to any information 

collection requirements proposed in 

these proposed requirements and 

adopted in the final requirements. These 

requirements contain information 

collection activities covered under the 

PRA and currently approved by OMB. 

The activities that are currently 

approved by OMB consist of: (1) The 

SEAs’ preparation of applications to 

submit to the Department to apply for 

SIG funds and the SEAs’ posting of the 

LEAs’ applications on the SEAs’ Web 

sites; (2) the reporting of specific schoollevel data on the use of SIG funds and 

specific interventions implemented in 

LEAs receiving SIG funds that the 

Department currently collects through 

EDFacts (OMB Control 1875–0240); and 

(3) the application an LEA must submit 

to apply to its SEA for SIG funds. The 

following is a summary of how the 

proposed requirements would change 

these activities and the effect they 

would have on the total burden. 

Changes to the SEA Applications 

Under proposed requirement section 

II.B.1(b), each SEA may submit, as part 

of the required application it submits to 

the Department to receive SIG funds, 

one State-determined intervention 

model for review and approval by the 

Secretary. These proposed requirements 

would require an SEA to submit a 

proposed State-determined intervention 

model as part of its application, if a 

State choses to implement this model. 

Under the burden estimates currently 

approved by OMB, 52 SEAs will 

complete, review, and post SEA and 

LEA applications for a total of 46,800 

annual burden hours at a cost of $30 per 

hour, totaling an annual cost of 

$1,404,000. These proposed 

requirements do not change the 

currently approved annual burden for 

SEAs. 

Revising Reporting Requirements 

The proposed requirements make a 

number of clarifications to the reporting 

requirements. First, proposed 

requirement section III.A.3 eliminates 

the metric for ‘‘Truants’’ and replaces it 

with ‘‘Chronic absenteeism rates.’’ 

Second, proposed requirement III.A 

clarifies the correct source for each of 

the required metrics and removes 

references to the SFSF previously 

approved under OMB data collection 

1810–0695. Finally, proposed 

requirements in section III.A.3 would 

require an SEA to report, with respect 

to schools receiving SIG awards, the 

number of schools implementing 

models with a modified element 

pursuant to proposed section I.B.6 and 

which models are being implemented in 

those schools. 

Under the reporting burden estimates, 

52 SEAs will report SEA and LEA 

requirements for a total of 3,640 annual 

burden hours at a cost of $30 per hour 

totaling an annual cost of $109,200. 

These proposed requirements add 

burden to the currently approved 

annual burden for SEAs. 

Changes to the LEA Application 

The proposed requirements also add 

to the existing requirements in section 

I.A.4(a) (Evidence of strongest 

commitment) information that, under 

proposed section II.A.2(c), the LEA must 

include in the LEA application related 

to an evidence-based, whole-school 

reform strategy (for those LEAs that 

propose to implement such a strategy); 

meaningful family and community 

engagement; LEA oversight and support 

of SIG implementation; review of, and 

accountability for, external provider 

performance; and the review process for 

selecting a charter school operator, 

CMO, or EMO. 

Under the burden estimates that are 

currently approved by OMB, 3,050 LEAs 

will complete an application for a total 

of 183,000 annual burden hours at a cost 

of $25 per hour totaling an annual cost 

of $4,575,000. These proposed 

requirements do not change the 

approved annual burden for LEAs. 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2
Federal Register / Vol. 79, No. 173 / Monday, September 8, 2014 / Proposed Rules 53275 

Collection of Information 

STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY ESTIMATE

SIG Activity Number of 

SEAs Hours/activity Hours Cost/hour Cost 

Complete SEA application (including requests for waivers) ............................................................................. 52 100 5,200 $30 $156,000 

Review and post LEA applications ................................ 52 800 41,600 30 1,248,000 

Reporting ........................................................................ 52 70 3,640 30 109,200 

Total ........................................................................ 50,440 30 1,513,200 

LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY ESTIMATE

SIG Activity Number of 

LEAs Hours/activity Hours Cost/hour Cost 

Complete LEA application ................................................... 3,050 60 183,000 $25 $4,575,000 

Total ..................................................................................... 183,000 25 4,575,000 

To comment on the information 

collection requirements, please send 

your comments to the Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs, 

OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for U.S. 

Department of Education. Send these 

comments by email to OIRA_DOCKET@

omb.eop.gov or by fax to (202) 395– 

6974. You may also send a copy of these 

comments to the Department via the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal listed in the 

ADDRESSES section. 

We have prepared an Information 

Collection Request (ICR) for these 

collections. In preparing your comments 

you may want to comment on the ICR, 

which is available at www.reginfo.gov. 

Click on Information Collection Review. 

This ICR is identified as 1810–0682. 

We consider your comments on this 

collection of information in— 

• Deciding whether the collections 

are necessary for the proper 

performance of our functions, including 

whether the information will have 

practical use; 

• Evaluating the accuracy of our 

estimate of the burden of the 

collections, including the validity of our 

methodology and assumptions; 

• Enhancing the quality, usefulness, 

and clarity of the information we 

collect; and 

• Minimizing the burden on those 

who must respond. This includes 

exploring the use of appropriate 

automated, electronic, mechanical, or 

other technological collection 

techniques. 

ADDRESSES: Comments submitted in 

response to this document should be 

submitted electronically through the 

Federal eRulemaking Portal at 

www.regulations.gov by selecting 

Docket ID ED–2014–OESE–0179 or via 

postal mail, commercial delivery, or 

hand delivery. Please note that 

comments submitted by fax or email 

and those submitted after the comment 

period will not be accepted. Written 

requests for information or comments 

submitted by postal mail or delivery 

should be addressed to the Director of 

the Information Collection Clearance 

Division, U.S. Department of Education, 

400 Maryland Avenue SW., Mailstop 

L–OM–2–2E319LBJ, Room 2E115, 

Washington, DC 20202–4537. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Electronically mail ICDocketMgr@

ed.gov. Please do not send comments 

here. 

Intergovernmental Review 

This program is not subject to 

Executive Order 12372 and the 

regulations in 34 CFR part 79. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

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

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you 

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

Number 84.377A) 

Dated: September 2, 2014. 

Deborah Delisle, 

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education. 

[FR Doc. 2014–21185 Filed 9–5–14; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 


rmajette on DSK2TPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS2