Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2000 / Notices 3427

collection requests. OMB may amend or

waive the requirement for public

consultation to the extent that public

participation in the approval process

would defeat the purpose of the

information collection, violate State or

Federal law, or substantially interfere

with any agency’s ability to perform its

statutory obligations. The Leader,

Information Management Group, Office

of the Chief Information Officer,

publishes that notice containing

proposed information collection

requests prior to submission of these

requests to OMB. Each proposed

information collection, grouped by

office, contains the following: (1) Type

of review requested, e.g. new, revision,

extension, existing or reinstatement; (2)

Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4)

Description of the need for, and

proposed use of, the information; (5)

Respondents and frequency of

collection; and (6) Reporting and/or

Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites

public comment.

Dated: January 14, 2000.

William E. Burrow,

Leader, Information Management Group,

Office of the Chief Information Officer.

Office of Student Financial Assistance

Programs

Type of Review: Revision of a

currently approved collection.

Title: Fiscal Operations Report and

Application to Participate (FISAP) in

the Federal Perkins Loan, Federal

Supplemental Educational Opportunity

Grant, and Federal Work-Study

Programs (JS).

Frequency: Annually.

Affected Public: 

Not-for-profit institutions (primary).

Individuals or household.

State, Local, or Tribal Gov’t, SEAs or

LEAs.

Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour

Burden: 

Responses: 1.

Burden Hours: 25748.

Abstract: This application data will be

used to compute the amount of funds

needed by each institution during the

2001–2002 Award Year. The Fiscal

Operations Report data will be used to

assess program effectiveness, account

for funds expended during the 1999–

2000 academic year.

Requests for copies of the proposed

information collection request may be

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

should be addressed to Vivian Reese,

Department of Education, 400 Maryland

Avenue, SW, Room 5624, Regional

Office Building 3, Washington, DC

20202–4651. Requests may also be

electronically mailed to the internet

address OCIOlIMGlIssues@ed.gov or

faxed to 202–708–9346.

Questions regarding burden and/or

the collection activity requirements

should be directed to Joe Schubart at

(202) 708–9266. Individuals who use a

telecommunications device for the deaf

(TDD) may call the Federal Information

Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–800–877–

8339.

[FR Doc. 00–1441 Filed 1–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

National Awards Program for Effective

Teacher Preparation

AGENCY: Office of Educational Research

and Improvement (OERI), Department of

Education.

ACTION: Notice of proposed eligibility

and selection criteria.

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for

OERI proposes eligibility and selection

criteria to govern competitions under

the National Awards Program for

Effective Teacher Preparation for fiscal

year (FY) 2000 and future fiscal years.

Under these criteria, the awards

program would recognize model

programs that prepare elementary

school teachers or secondary school

mathematics teachers, and that lead to

improved student learning.

DATES: We must receive your comments

on or before March 6, 2000.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments

about these proposed definitions and

selection criteria to Sharon Horn, Office

of Educational Research and

Improvement, U.S. Department of

Education, 555 New Jersey Avenue,

NW., room 506E, Washington, DC

20208–5644. If you prefer to send your

comments through the Internet, use the

following address:

sharonlhorn@ed.gov

You may also fax your comments to

Sharon Horn at (202) 219–2198.

If you want to comment on the

information collection requirements you

must send your comments to the Office

of Management and Budget at the

address listed in the Paperwork

Reduction Act section of this preamble.

You may also send a copy of these

comments to the Department

representative named in this section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Sharon Horn. Telephone: (202) 219–

2203. If you use a telecommunications

device for the deaf (TDD), you may call

the Federal Information Relay Service

(FIRS) at 1–800–877–8339.

Individuals with disabilities may

obtain this document in an alternate

format (e.g., Braille, large print,

audiotape, or computer diskette) on

request to the contact person listed in

the preceding paragraph.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Invitation to Comment

We invite you to submit comments

regarding these proposed eligibility and

selection criteria.

We invite you to assist us in

complying with the specific

requirements of Executive Order 12866

and its overall requirement of reducing

regulatory burden that might result from

these proposed eligibility and selection

criteria. Please let us know of any

further opportunities we should take to

reduce potential costs or increase

potential benefits while preserving the

effective and efficient administration of

the program.

During and after the comment period,

you may inspect all public comments

about these proposed eligibility and

selection criteria in room 506E, 555

New Jersey Avenue, NW., Washington,

DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and

4 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through

Friday of each week except Federal

holidays.

Assistance to Individuals With

Disabilities in Reviewing the

Rulemaking Record

On request, we will supply an

appropriate aid, such as a reader or

print magnifier, to an individual with a

disability who needs assistance to

review the comments or other

documents in the public rulemaking

record for these proposed eligibility and

selection criteria. If you want to

schedule an appointment for this type of

aid, you may call (202) 205–8113 or

(202) 260–9895. If you use a TDD, you

may call the Federal Information Relay

Service at 1–800–877–8339.

General Information

Through this notice the Secretary

proposes eligibility and selection

criteria to govern applications for

recognition that are submitted under the

National Awards Program for Effective

Teacher Preparation. The criteria

established in this notice would be used

to select award recipients in the

program’s initial year, FY 2000, and in

subsequent fiscal years. The Secretary

plans to publicly honor and recognize

successful applicants.

This new program, which is being

proposed as part of a continuing effort

to honor excellence in education, is the

result of an increased emphasis across

the country on teacher quality and the

well-established principle that highquality K–12 teachers are critical to the

3428 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2000 / Notices

ability of children in our nation’s

schools to achieve to high standards.

Yet, while few would question that any

effort to improve student learning

depends on better teaching in schools,

we are proposing this program in an

effort to highlight the relationship

between student learning and the

quality of the programs preparing our

public school teachers. To this point,

there has not existed a systematic way

to identify entities that have

successfully linked their programs for

preparing teachers to improved student

achievement at the K–12 level. Given

the current emphasis on heightened

academic standards for elementary and

secondary students and the need for

teachers to gain the knowledge and

skills necessary to teach to those

standards, we believe the time is right

to focus attention on those teacher

preparation programs that are

particularly effective in preparing

teachers who, in turn, are effective in

helping students improve their learning.

We recognize that demonstrating the

link between teacher preparation

programs and the ability of program

graduates to improve student learning is

not an easy task. The difficulty

involved, however, makes that link no

less critical. We intend to select for

awards no more than five pre-service

teacher preparation programs that are on

the leading edge in this effort. Our chief

goal in recognizing these programs is to

foster an understanding of how these

noteworthy programs design their

teacher preparation activities to increase

K–12 student achievement and how

their approaches can be replicated or

built upon by other institutions that

prepare teachers. For that reason, the

criteria for selecting award recipients, as

described in this notice, focus

significantly on the ability of applicants

to provide compelling evidence of

effectiveness in preparing teachers who

positively impact student learning.

The timeliness of this new awards

program is also supported by the fact

that institutions producing teachers, and

the states that certify them, are

increasingly coming under scrutiny as

the public seeks higher standards and

greater accountability for public schools

and school teachers. The Department, as

well as many States, is currently

implementing new accountability

measures and reporting requirements for

States and for colleges and universities

receiving Federal grants to support

teacher training programs. Some

institutions have already implemented

accountability measures, while others

have started to take steps to improve

and to become accountable for the

teachers they train. We hope that

bringing attention to those teacher

preparation programs that are effective

in this area will serve to assist other

programs in their efforts to improve

their level of accountability.

In order to align the program with

nation-wide efforts to improve

achievement levels in math and reading,

this awards program will focus, in its

initial year, on programs that prepare

elementary teachers (since elementary

school teachers often teach both math

and reading) and programs that prepare

middle or high school mathematics

teachers or both. Thus, to be selected for

an award, applicants must be able to

show that their graduates are effective in

helping all students improve their

learning in reading and mathematics at

the elementary level or mathematics at

the middle and high school level or

both. By ‘‘all students,’’ we mean the

diverse population of students that

graduates of teacher education programs

may encounter in the classroom or other

educational setting, including regular

and special education students, students

from diverse backgrounds, and students

with limited English proficiency. The

selection process will also depend on

the ability of applicants to demonstrate

that their graduates have a depth of

content knowledge in mathematics and

reading or both, acquire general and

content-specific pedagogical knowledge

and skills, and develop skills to

examine attitudes and beliefs about

learners and the teaching profession.

The Secretary will announce the final

eligibility and selection criteria in a

notice in the Federal Register. We will

determine the final eligibility and

selection criteria after considering

responses to this notice and other

information available to the Department.

Note: This notice does not solicit

applications. In any year in which the

Assistant Secretary chooses to use these

proposed eligibility and selection criteria, we

invite applications through a notice in the

Federal Register.

Proposed Eligibility, Application, and

Selection Criteria

Eligible applicants:

Eligible applicants would be

institutions in the States (including the

District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and

the outlying areas) that prepare

elementary teachers, or middle or high

school mathematics teachers, for initial

certification. Institutions of higher

education as well as institutions that are

not part of a college or university are

eligible to apply. Since this program

focuses on initial preparation of

teachers, alternative certification

programs are eligible, while in-service

programs are not.

For purposes of this notice, a ‘‘teacher

preparation program’’ refers to a defined

set of experiences that, taken as a whole,

prepares participants for initial (or

alternative) certification to teach.

Detailed instructions for applying for

this award, including formatting

instructions, are provided within the

application package and must be

followed to receive an award.

Application Content Requirements

Applicants would be free to develop

their application in any way they

choose as long as they comply with the

requirements set out in the application

package. In evaluating applications for

the National Awards Program for

Effective Teacher Preparation, reviewers

will look to see whether the application,

taken as a whole, demonstrates that the

applicant’s teacher preparation program

leads to improved teacher effectiveness

and increased student achievement at

the K–12 level. In doing so, reviewers

would be guided by the extent to which

and how well applicants address the

following components of the

application, the most important of

which would concern objective

evidence of effectiveness under section

C of the application.

Sections A, B and D of the application

provide reviewers with information

describing the teacher preparation

program and its potential as a model.

Reviewers will use the information in

these three sections to determine the

extent to which there is a logical

connection between the various aspects

of the program and the results achieved.

In other words, they will check for

consistency between the information

provided in these sections and the

applicant’s claims of effectiveness under

section C. In section C, applicants

provide formative, summative and

confirming evidence that their program

is effective in preparing graduates who

are able to help all K–12 students

improve their learning in reading and

mathematics at the elementary level or

mathematics at the middle or high

school level.

Where appropriate, the following

proposed sections of the application

include one or more questions that are

designed to help applicants formulate

their responses.

A. Background and Program Description

In this section, applicants would

provide the mission statement and goals

and objectives of their teacher

preparation program and describe the

components of their program.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2000 / Notices 3429

In responding to this section,

applicants would be encouraged to

provide information about:

1. Recruitment policies for faculty and

candidates.

2. Selection procedures for faculty

and candidates.

3. Program structure (e.g., course and

field experiences, support for preservice

and novice teachers, mechanisms for

monitoring participants’ progress).

4. Resources that support the

program.

5. Methods for collaboration between

the program and K–12 schools.

6. Graduation or completion criteria

and rates.

7. Job placement and retention rates of

graduates.

B. Program’s Criteria for Effectiveness

In this section, applicants would

describe the principles, standards, or

other criteria that the applicant uses to

judge the effectiveness of its teacher

preparation program.

(Note: Applications would not be

evaluated against a given set of principles for

all programs, but are expected to include

relevant criteria for guiding program

improvement and modifications).

In responding to this section,

applicants should consider the

following questions:

1. What are the criteria the program

uses to evaluate its effectiveness?

2. How does the program ensure that

program components such as courses

and instructional practices are

consistent with the evaluation criteria

under Question 1?

C. Evidence of Effectiveness

In this section, applicants would

provide three separate types of evidence

that demonstrates the effectiveness of

their teacher preparation program:

formative, summative, and confirming

evidence.

‘‘Formative evidence’’ refers to the

use of data to make adjustments to the

program throughout its various stages.

These data are collected as participants

(i.e., preservice teachers) move through

the program.

‘‘Summative evidence’’ demonstrates

that the program is effective in helping

graduates acquire the necessary

knowledge and skills to improve

student learning. Summative evidence

is collected as preservice teachers

complete the program.

‘‘Confirming evidence’’ links teacher

preparation and K–12 student learning

by demonstrating that program

graduates are effective in helping all K–

12 students improve their learning.

Confirming evidence is collected on

graduates who are employed by schools

or districts.

Applicants would supply a brief

description for each evidence item

submitted. This description must

include information about the nature of

the data, the methods used to collect the

data, and a summary of the data

analysis.

In responding to this section,

applicants must consider the following

questions:

1. What evidence is there that the

program, as envisioned in section A,

gathers data about the effectiveness of

the various stages of the program and

uses that data to make improvements to

the program? (Formative evidence)

2. What evidence is there that the

program is effective in helping

graduates acquire the knowledge and

skills needed to improve student

learning for all K–12 students?

(Summative evidence)

(Note: Summative evidence in this section

should address graduates’ content

knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and

skills, and skills to examine beliefs about

learners and teaching as a profession.)

3. What evidence is there that the

program’s graduates are effective in

helping all K–12 students improve their

learning in reading and mathematics at

the elementary level or mathematics at

the middle or high school level?

(Confirming evidence)

D. Implications for the Field

A major goal of the National Awards

Program for Effective Teacher

Preparation is to make information

about successful programs available

across the country to other programs

that may be considering ways to

improve their effectiveness. In this

section, applicants would discuss the

challenges they have faced and

overcome in administering their teacher

preparation program, as well as the

resulting lessons they have learned.

In responding to this section,

applicants should consider the

following:

1. What is at least one significant

challenge that the program encountered

within the last five years and how was

it overcome?

(Note: Since demonstrating the link

between teacher preparation and K–12

student learning is a primary focus of the

awards program, applicants should consider

describing challenges related to this issue.)

2. What lessons that would benefit

others have been learned about

designing, implementing, or evaluating

a program that prepares graduates who

are effective in helping improve student

learning for all K–12 students?

3. What program materials (e.g.,

videos, Web sites, course outlines,

manuals, strategies, processes) are

available that could benefit others?

4. How have or could you help others

adapt the aspects of your program that

contribute most to graduates’

effectiveness with K–12 students?

Selection Criteria

Reviewers would evaluate the

information provided in each

application based on three criteria:

rigor, sufficiency, and consistency.

These criteria, and the performance

levels applicable to each, are identified

in the rubric shown in Figure 1.

Reviewers would use this rubric as the

review instrument to judge the quality

of each application.

The Evidence of Effectiveness

provided by an applicant under section

C, the most critical portion of the

application, would be evaluated on the

basis of its rigor and sufficiency. The

level of ‘‘rigor’’ applied to the evidence

submitted would be determined by the

extent to which the qualitative or

quantitative data presented is found to

be valid and reliable. The level of

‘‘sufficiency’’ applied to the evidence

submitted would be determined by the

adequacy and the extent of the data

provided.

The application as a whole will be

evaluated on the basis of its consistency.

The level of ‘‘consistency’’ of the

application would be based on the

extent to which there is a logical link

between various aspects of the program

as described in Sections A, B and D of

the application and the evidence of

effectiveness provided under Section C.

For example, if an applicant indicates in

sections A, B, or D of its application that

field experiences are important to the

preparation of teachers, then the

application should describe the variety

of field experiences that are spread over

the duration of the program and also

include, for purposes of ‘‘consistency,’’

documentation of the effectiveness of

these experiences.

The rubric in Figure 1 identifies a

range of performance levels, from 1 to

4, that reviewers will use to judge the

quality of an application with regard to

the three criteria—rigor, sufficiency and

consistency. Reviewers will assign a

level of the rubric, 1 to 4, for each

criterion based on their judgment of

how well the information provided in

the application matches the descriptions

in the rubric of the relevant performance

levels. Prior to reviewing applications,

reviewers will receive extensive training

in using the rubric to ensure inter-rater

reliability.

3430 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2000 / Notices

FIGURE 1. RUBRIC FOR EVALUATING EVIDENCE OF EFFECTIVENESS

Performance

levels

Selection criteria

Rigor Sufficiency Consistency

4 ...................... The evidence is highly credible. The

data are valid and indicators are free

of bias. Reliability is supported by

multi-year data from several sources.

There are extensive data that support

claims of effectiveness. The evidence

includes data from multiple sources

with multiple indicators.

Components of the program are consistent with the vision of the program.

Program components are monitored

to determine if they are being instituted as designed. There is a

planned, logical link between the program components and the outcomes.

The evidence supports the link between program components and program success. The consistencies support the credibility of the evidence.

3 ...................... The evidence is credible. Validity has

been addressed for most of the data.

There may be some questions of bias.

Reliability is supported by two or more

years of data from at least one data

source.

There are adequate data to support the

claims of effectiveness. There are

multiple sources of evidence and multiple indicators for at least one source.

There are minor inconsistencies between the vision of the program and

program components. Some components of program may not be monitored or there may be some inconsistencies between the evidence provided and the identified successful

components of the program. The inconsistencies do not weaken the

credibility of the evidence.

2 ...................... The evidence has limited credibility. The

rigor is compromised by issues of bias

or validity/reliability. There are no

multi-year data from any source.

There are limited data to support the

claims of effectiveness. The data are

collected from only one or two

sources. There are no multiple indicators for the data source(s).

There are several inconsistencies between the vision of the program and

program components. There are significant inconsistencies between the

evidence provided and the identified

successful components of the program. The inconsistencies raise questions about the credibility of the evidence.

1 ...................... The evidence has little or no credibility.

The rigor is significantly compromised

by issues of bias. The data lack validity/reliability. There is no multi-year

data. OR There is not enough information provided to determine rigor.

There are not enough data to support

claims of effectiveness. There is only

a single source of data.

There are numerous inconsistencies between the vision of the program and

its components. The evidence provided is not linked to the components

of the program that have been identified as contributing to the program’s

success. The inconsistencies raise

significant questions about the credibility of the evidence.

Proposed Selection Procedures

Award recipients would be selected

through a five-stage process.

Stage 1. During the first stage,

applications would be initially screened

by Department staff to determine

whether the submitting party meets the

eligibility requirements and whether the

application contains all necessary

information (including the three types

of evidence required under section C)

and meets the formatting requirements.

Stage 2. The second stage of review,

to determine up to 10 semi-finalists,

would be conducted by nonDepartmental teams representing a

broad range of teacher educators,

practitioners (e.g., mathematicians,

mathematics educators, K–12 teachers,

reading specialists), and policymakers

(e.g., superintendents, school board

members, principals) who would

evaluate the quality of the applications

against the selection criteria and

applicable performance levels.

Stage 3. In the third stage, nonDepartment expert teams (team

members would differ from the

reviewers involved in Stages 2) would

conduct site visits to verify information

presented in the semi-finalists’

applications and, to the extent available,

to collect additional information. These

teams would draft site-visit reports of

their findings.

Stage 4. During the fourth stage, a

non-Departmental national awards

panel (panel members will differ from

the reviewers involved Stages 2 and 3)

would review the semi-finalist

applications and site visit reports. Panel

members will then present final

recommendations to the Department on

which teacher preparation programs

merit national recognition.

Stage 5. In the fifth and final stage,

the Department will review data

collected throughout the review process

and select for national recognition up to

5 applications of the highest quality.

The Secretary intends to publicly honor

and recognize these awardees at a

national ceremony in Washington, D.C.

Goals 2000: Educate America Act

The Goals 2000: Educate America Act

(Goals 2000) focuses the Nation’s

education reform efforts on the eight

National Education Goals and provides

a framework for meeting them. Goals

2000 promotes new partnerships to

strengthen schools and expands the

Department’s capacities for helping

communities to exchange ideas and

obtain information needed to achieve

the goals.

These proposed eligibility and

selection criteria would address the

National Education Goal that the

Nation’s teaching force will have the

content knowledge and teaching skills

needed to instruct all American

students for the next century.

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 14 / Friday, January 21, 2000 / Notices 3431

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

This notice and the proposed

application packet contains information

collection requirements. Under the

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44

U.S.C. 3507(d)), the Department of

Education has submitted a copy of this

notice and the application package to

the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for its review.

Collection of Information: National

Awards Program for Effective Teacher

Preparation.

Entities that prepare elementary

teachers, or middle or high school

mathematics teachers, for initial

certification are eligible to apply for

national recognition of the quality of

their teacher preparation program.

Information in the application would

include:

(1) A description of the applicant’s

teacher preparation program in terms of

its mission, goals, and components.

(2) The evaluation criteria used by the

applicant’s program.

(3) Available evidence to support the

effectiveness of the applicant’s program

in preparing teachers to improve

student learning at the K–12 level.

(4) Implications or lessons that the

applicant’s program can provide the

field of teacher preparation.

Applications also would be limited in

page number and have to meet basic

formatting requirements. The

Department would use this information

to select the highest-quality applicants

through a review of responses provided

in the application and site visits that

can confirm the accuracy of information

contained in the application.

All information is to be collected once

only from each applicant. Annual

reporting and record keeping burden for

this collection of information is

estimated to average 50 hours for each

response for 50 respondents, including

the time for reviewing instructions,

searching existing data sources,

gathering and maintaining the data

needed, and completing and reviewing

the collection of information. For the 10

applicants selected for site reviews,

there will be an additional annual

reporting and record keeping burden

that is estimated to average 20 hours for

each response. Thus, the total annual

reporting and record keeping burden for

this collection is estimated to be 2,700

hours.

If you want to comment on the

information collection requirements,

please send your comments to the Office

of Information and Regulatory Affairs,

OMB, room 10235, New Executive

Office Building, Washington, DC 20503;

Attention: Desk Officer for U.S.

Department of Education. You may also

send a copy of these comments to the

Department representative named in the

ADDRESSES section of this preamble.

We consider your comments on this

proposed collection of information in—

• Deciding whether the proposed

collection is necessary for the proper

performance of our functions, including

whether the information will have

practical use;

• Evaluating the accuracy of our

estimate of the burden of the proposed

collection, 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 or other forms of information

technology; e.g., permitting electronic

submission of responses.

OMB is required to make a decision

concerning the collection of information

contained in this notice of proposed

eligibility and selection criteria between

30 and 60 days after publication of this

document in the Federal Register.

Therefore, to ensure that OMB gives

your comments full consideration, it is

important that OMB receives the

comments within 30 days of

publication. This does not affect the

deadline for your comments to us on the

notice of proposed eligibility and

selection criteria.

Intergovernmental Review

This program is subject to Executive

Order 12372 and the regulations in 34

CFR Part 79. One of the objectives of the

Executive order is to foster an

intergovernmental partnership and a

strengthened federalism. The Executive

order relies on processes developed by

State and local governments for

coordination and review of proposed

Federal financial assistance.

This document is intended to provide

early notification of our specific plans

and actions for this program.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 8001

Electronic Access to This Document

You may review this document, as

well as all other Department of

Education documents published in the

Federal Register, in text or Adobe

Portable Document Format (PDF) on the

Internet at either of the following sites:

http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm

http://www.ed.gov/news.html

To use the PDF you must have the

Adobe Acrobat Reader Program with

Search, which is available free at either

of the previous sites. If you have

questions about using the PDF, call the

U.S. Government Printing Office (GPO),

toll free, at 1–888–293–6498; or in the

Washington, D.C. area, at (202) 512–

1530.

Note: The official version of this document

is the document published in the Federal

Register. Free Internet access to the official

edition of the Federal Register and the Code

of Federal Regulations is available on GPO

Access at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/

index.html

Dated: January 18, 2000.

C. Kent McGuire,

Assistant Secretary for Educational Research

and Improvement.

[FR Doc. 00–1515 Filed 1–20–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–U

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Web-based Education Commission;

Hearing and Meeting

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary

Education, Education.

ACTION: Notice of Hearing and Meeting.

SUMMARY: This notice announces the

next hearing and meeting of the Webbased Education Commission. Notice of

this meeting is required under Section

10(a)(2) of the Federal Advisory

Committee Act. This document is

intended to notify the general public of

their opportunity to attend this hearing

and meeting.

DATE: The hearing and meeting will be

held on February 2, 2000, from 1–5 p.m.

and February 3, 2000, from 9–12 p.m.

LOCATION: The hearing and meeting will

be held in room 106 of the Dirksen

Senate Office Building, Washington, DC

20510.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

David S. Byer, Executive Director, Webbased Education Commission, U.S.

Department of Education, 1990 K Street,

NW, Washington, DC 20006–8533.

Telephone: (202) 502–7561. Fax: (202)

502–7873. Email: davidlXbyer@ed.gov.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Webbased Education Commission is

authorized by Title VIII, Part J of the

Higher Education Act Amendments of

1998, as amended by the Fiscal 2000

Appropriations Act for the Departments

of Labor, Health, and Human Services,

and Education, and Related Agencies.

The Commission is required to conduct

a thorough study to assess the critical

pedagogical and policy issues affecting

the creation and use of web-based and

other technology-mediated content and

learning strategies to transform and