44866 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 151 / Monday, August 7, 2006 / Notices 

1See OMB, Revisions to the Standards for the 

Classification of Federal Data on Race and 

Ethnicity, 62 FR 58781 (October 30, 1997); http:// 

www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/ 

1997standards.html. 

2For example, for the purposes of No Child Left 

Behind, States are allowed to define major racial 

and ethnic groups using categories that may be 

different than the seven categories announced in 

this guidance. These differences may reflect the 

State using more categories than the seven, less 

categories than the seven, or a decision to use 

subsets of the seven categories announced in this 

guidance. Additionally, in the Integrated 

Postsecondary Education Data Systems (IPEDS) and 

Rehabilitation Services Administration (RSA) data 

collections, grantees are permitted to use a race 

unknown category, while in elementary and 

secondary programs use of a race unknown category 

is not permitted. 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Proposed Guidance on Maintaining, 

Collecting and Reporting Data on Race 

and Ethnicity to the U.S. Department of 

Education 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

ACTION: Request for comments. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary is proposing 

guidance to modify the standards for 

data on race and ethnicity used by the 

Department of Education. Once 

adopted, this guidance will provide 

educational institutions and other 

recipients of grants and contracts from 

the Department with straightforward 

instructions for their collection and 

reporting of data on race and ethnicity. 

We request from all interested parties 

written comments on the proposed 

guidance. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before September 21, 2006. 

ADDRESSES: Address all comments 

regarding this proposed guidance to 

Patrick J. Sherrill, US Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

Room 6C103, Washington, DC 20202– 

0600. If you prefer to send your 

comments through the Internet, you 

may address them to us at the U.S. 

Government Web site: http:// 

www.regulations.gov. 

Or you may send your Internet 

comments to us at the following 

address: comments@ed.gov. 

You must include the phrase 

‘‘Guidance for Data on Race and 

Ethnicity’’ in the text of your paper 

document or the subject line of your 

electronic message to ensure that your 

comments will be considered. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: For 

general information: Patrick J. Sherrill, 

US Department of Education, 400 

Maryland Avenue, SW., Room 6C103, 

Washington, DC 20202–0600, telephone: 

(202) 708–8196 or Edith K. McArthur, 

US Department of Education, National 

Center for Education Statistics, 1990 K 

Street, NW., Room 9115, Washington, 

DC 20006, telephone: (202) 502–7393. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), you may call 

the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1– 

800–877–8339. 

Individuals with disabilities may 

obtain this document in an alternative 

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

audiotape, or computer diskette) on 

request to one of the contact persons 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Invitation To Comment 

We invite you to submit comments 

regarding this proposed guidance. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect all public comments 

about this proposed guidance in Room 

6C103, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

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 Public 

Record 

On request, we will supply an 

appropriate aid to an individual with a 

disability who needs assistance to 

review the comments or other 

documents in the public record for the 

proposed guidance. If you want to 

schedule an appointment for this type of 

aid, please contact one of the persons 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Proposed Guidance 

I. Purpose 

This proposed guidance is provided 

to the public to solicit comments on 

how the US Department of Education 

(the Department) is proposing to modify 

standards and aggregation categories for 

collecting information on race and 

ethnicity. The proposed changes are 

necessary in order to implement the 

Office of Management and Budget’s 

(OMB) 1997 Standards for Maintaining, 

Collecting, and Presenting Federal Data 

on Race and Ethnicity (1997 

Standards).1 The 1997 Standards 

instituted a number of changes for how 

Federal agencies should collect data on 

race and ethnicity. 

This proposed guidance is designed to 

be straightforward and easy to 

implement. Whenever possible, we have 

proposed a Department-wide standard. 

However, in certain situations, we have 

tailored the standard to the different 

needs of the institutions collecting 

data.2 The Department recognizes that 

implementing the changes required by 

OMB to improve the quality of data on 

race and ethnicity may result in an 

additional burden to educational 

institutions. In developing this 

proposed guidance, we have sought to 

minimize the burden of implementation 

on local and State educational agencies 

(LEAs and SEAs), schools, colleges, 

universities, (hereinafter collectively 

referred to as ‘‘educational 

institutions’’), and other recipients of 

grants and contracts from the 

Department (hereinafter referred to as 

‘‘other recipients’’), while developing 

guidance that would result in the 

collection of comprehensive and 

accurate data on race and ethnicity that 

the Department needs to fulfill its 

responsibilities. We have done so by 

using the same reporting categories used 

by the Equal Employment Opportunity 

Commission (EEOC), so that local 

educational agencies can use the same 

reporting requirements for students and 

staff. 

This proposed guidance applies to the 

collection of individual-level data and 

to aggregate data on race and ethnicity 

reported to the Department. Aggregate 

data mean the total data on race and 

ethnicity that are reported to the 

Department by educational institutions 

and other recipients. The data are 

collected by them and reported in the 

aggregate to the Department. This 

proposed guidance directly addresses 

three sets of issues: 

(A) How educational institutions and 

other recipients will collect and 

maintain data on race and ethnicity 

from students and staff; 

(B) How educational institutions and 

other recipients will aggregate data on 

race and ethnicity when reporting those 

data to the Department; and 

(C) How data on multiple races will 

be reported and aggregated under the 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965 (ESEA), as reauthorized by 

the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 

(NCLB). 

In addition, this proposed guidance 

provides information regarding the 

implementation schedule for these 

changes. 

II. Background 

In October 1997, OMB issued revised 

standards for the collection and 

reporting of data on race and ethnicity. 

A transition period was provided in 

order for agencies to review the results 

of Census 2000, the first national data 

collection that implemented the revised 

standards. (See the discussion in Part 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 151 / Monday, August 7, 2006 / Notices 44867 

3Although not required to do so, educational 

institutions and other recipients already collecting 

individual-level data in the manner specified by 

this notice are encouraged to immediately begin 

reporting aggregate data to the Department in 

accordance with this notice. 

4See United States Census Bureau, The Two or 

More Races Population: 2000, Census 2000 Brief, at 

p. 9 (November 2001) (hereinafter ‘‘The Two or 

More Races Population’’); this information is on the 

Internet at the following address: http:// 

www.census.gov/prod/2001pubs/c2kbr01–6.pdf. 

IV.) The Department plans to begin the 

process of implementing all necessary 

changes by the school year beginning in 

the Fall of 2006, with the 

implementation required to be 

completed by the Fall of 2009.3

The 1997 Standards include several 

important changes: 

A. OMB revised the minimum set of 

racial categories by separating the 

category ‘‘Asian or Pacific Islander’’ into 

two separate categories—one for 

‘‘Asian’’ and one for ‘‘Native Hawaiian 

or Other Pacific Islander.’’ Therefore, 

under the 1997 Standards, there are five 

racial categories: 

(1) American Indian or Alaska Native, 

(2) Asian, 

(3) Black or African American, 

(4) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific 

Islander, and 

(5) White. 

B. For the first time, individuals have 

the opportunity to identify themselves 

as being of or belonging to more than 

one race. In the 2000 Census, 2.4 

percent of the total population (or 6.8 

million people) identified themselves as 

belonging to two or more racial groups. 

For the population under 18 years old, 

4.0 percent (or 2.8 million children) 

selected two or more races.4

C. In an effort to allow individuals—

rather than a third party—to report their 

race and ethnicity, the 1997 Standards 

strongly encourage ‘‘self-identification’’

of race and ethnicity rather than third 

party ‘‘observer identification.’’

D. Under the 1997 Standards, OMB 

strongly encouraged the use of a twoquestion format when collecting data on 

race and ethnicity; i.e., individuals 

should first indicate whether or not they 

are of Hispanic/Latino ethnicity; then, 

individuals may select one or more 

races from the five racial categories. 

III. Summary of Guidance 

The Department proposes to modify 

its standards for the collection and 

reporting of data on race and ethnicity 

in the following manner: 

A. Educational institutions and other 

recipients will be required to collect 

data on race and ethnicity using a twoquestion format on the educational 

institution’s or other recipient’s survey 

instrument. The first question would be 

whether or not the respondent is 

Hispanic/Latino. Hispanic or Latino 

means a person of Cuban, Mexican, 

Puerto Rican, South or Central 

American, or other Spanish culture or 

origin, regardless of race. The term, 

‘‘Spanish origin,’’ can be used in 

addition to ‘‘Hispanic or Latino.’’

The second question would ask the 

respondent to select one or more races 

from the following five racial groups: 

(1) American Indian or Alaska Native. 

A person having origins in any of the 

original peoples of North and South 

America (including Central America), 

and who maintains a tribal affiliation or 

community attachment. 

(2) Asian. A person having origins in 

any of the original peoples of the Far 

East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian 

subcontinent including, for example, 

Cambodia, China, India, Japan, Korea, 

Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine 

Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam. 

(3) Black or African American. A 

person having origins in any of the 

black racial groups of Africa. 

(4) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific 

Islander. A person having origins in any 

of the original peoples of Hawaii, Guam, 

Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. 

(5) White. A person having origins in 

any of the original peoples of Europe, 

the Middle East, or North Africa. See 

1997 Standards, 62 FR 58789 (October 

30, 1997). 

(See the discussion in Part IV.A.1 and 

2 of this notice.) 

B. Educational institutions and other 

recipients should allow students, 

parents, and staff to ‘‘self-identify’’ race 

and ethnicity unless self-identification 

is not practicable or feasible. (See the 

discussion in Part IV.A.3 of this notice.) 

C. The Department encourages 

educational institutions and other 

recipients to allow all students and staff 

the opportunity to re-identify their race 

and ethnicity under the 1997 Standards. 

(See the discussion in Part IV.A.4 of this 

notice.) 

D. The Department proposes to have 

educational institutions and other 

recipients report aggregated data on race 

and ethnicity in 7 categories: 

(1) Hispanics of any race; and, for 

Non-Hispanics only, 

(2) American Indian or Alaska Native, 

(3) Asian, 

(4) Black or African American, 

(5) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific 

Islander, 

(6) White, and 

(7) Two or more races. (See the 

discussion in Part IV.B.1 of this notice.) 

E. The Department proposes to 

continue its current practice for 

handling the reporting of individuals 

who do not self-identify a race and/or 

an ethnicity. Elementary and secondary 

educational institutions will continue to 

use observer identification when a 

respondent refuses to self-identify his or 

her race and/or ethnicity. The 

Department would not include a ‘‘race 

and/or ethnicity unknown’’ category in 

its aggregate elementary and secondary 

collections of data on race and ethnicity. 

The Integrated Postsecondary Education 

Data System (IPEDS) would continue to 

use the category of ‘‘nonresident alien’’

as an alternative to collecting race/ 

ethnicity from nonresident aliens 

(information that is not needed for civil 

rights reporting purposes). IPEDS would 

also continue to include a ‘‘race and/or 

ethnicity unknown’’ category for 

reporting aggregate data from 

postsecondary institutions. Similarly, 

RSA will continue to use a ‘‘race and/ 

or ethnicity unknown’’ category for 

reporting aggregate data. The ‘‘race and/ 

or ethnicity unknown’’ category would 

not appear on forms provided to 

postsecondary students and staff or to 

clients and staff of RSA recipients. (See 

the discussion in Part IV.B.2 of this 

notice.) 

F. When the Department asks 

educational institutions and other 

recipients to report data on race and 

ethnicity, the Department indicates in 

the instructions to the collection how 

long educational institutions and other 

recipients are required to keep the 

original individual responses from staff 

and students to requests for data on race 

and ethnicity. In addition, at a 

minimum, generally, a Department 

grantee or sub-grantee must retain for 

three years all financial and 

programmatic records, supporting 

documents, statistical records, and other 

records that are required to be 

maintained by the grant agreement or 

the Department regulations applicable 

to the grant or that are otherwise 

reasonably considered as pertinent 

under the grant or Department 

regulations. One exception is when 

there is litigation, a claim, an audit, or 

another action involving the records 

that has started before the three-year 

period ends; in these cases the records 

must be maintained until the 

completion of the action. (See the 

discussion in Part IV.A.5 of this notice.) 

G. States will continue to have 

discretion in determining which racial 

and ethnic groups will be used for 

accountability and reporting purposes 

under the ESEA. (See the discussion in 

Part IV.C of this notice.) 

H. Educational institutions and other 

recipients will be required to implement 

this guidance, once issued in final, no 

later than by the Fall of 2009 with data 

regarding the 2009–2010 school year, 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
44868 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 151 / Monday, August 7, 2006 / Notices 

5See EEOC, Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Notice of Submission for OMB Review; 

Final Comment Request (EEO–1), 70 FR 71294—

71303 (November 28, 2005) (hereinafter ‘‘EEOC 

Notice’’); this notice is on the Internet at the 

following address: http://www.eeoc.gov/eeo1/ See 

also EEOC, Agency Information Collection 

Activities: Revision of the Employer Information 

Report (EEO–1) Comment Request, 68 FR 34965, 

34967 (June 11, 2003). 

6This recommendation is consistent with the 

recommendations of the Education Information 

Advisory Committee of the Chief State School 

Officers and the Policy Panel on Racial/Ethnic Data 

Collection, a panel sponsored by the National 

Postsecondary Education Cooperative, of the 

National Center for Educational Statistics and the 

National Science Foundation in April 1999. Both 

have recommended that all respondents be 

permitted to identify their race and ethnicity under 

the 1997 Standards. 

and are encouraged to do so before, if 

feasible. (See the discussion in Part VI. 

of this notice.) 

IV. The Department’s Proposed 

Implementation of OMB’s 1997 

Standards for Maintaining, Collecting, 

and Presenting Federal Data on Race 

and Ethnicity 

The Department has been carefully 

examining its options for implementing 

the 1997 Standards for some time. 

Department staff have met or spoken 

with a variety of individuals and 

organizations representing educational 

institutions to ascertain their needs and 

interests. The Department has 

consistently heard that major revisions 

to the collection of data on race and 

ethnicity will impose a substantial 

burden on educational institutions and 

other recipients as they adopt new data 

systems or modify existing systems, 

prepare new forms, and train staff at all 

levels to implement these changes. 

Furthermore, the Department’s 

implementation plan must be effective 

for the Department’s diverse uses for 

data on race and ethnicity, such as 

research and statistical analysis, 

measuring accountability and student 

achievement, civil rights enforcement, 

and monitoring of the identification and 

placement of students in special 

education. 

Finally, the Department repeatedly 

has heard from educational institutions 

that they would prefer that the various 

Federal agencies involved in data 

collection all use the same aggregate 

categories so that the burden of 

implementing changes is minimized 

and educational institutions are not 

forced to provide different and/or 

inconsistent data on race and ethnicity 

to Federal agencies. In response to these 

repeated requests, the Department 

decided to wait to propose its 

implementation plan until after the 

EEOC announced its final 

implementation plan, which was 

published in November 2005, because 

the EEOC collects data on race and 

ethnicity for staff in elementary and 

secondary schools and districts.5

A. How Educational Institutions and 

Other Recipients Will Be Required to 

Collect Data on Race and Ethnicity from 

Students and Staff. This portion of the 

proposed guidance, Part A, presents a 

proposal for how educational 

institutions and other recipients will 

collect data on race and ethnicity; Part 

B, which follows, proposes how data on 

race and ethnicity will be reported to 

the Department. 

1. Educational Institutions and Other 

Recipients Will be Required to Allow 

Students and Staff To Select One or 

More Races from Five Racial Groups. 

Educational institutions and other 

recipients will be required to allow 

students and staff to select one or more 

races from the following five racial 

groups: 

(1) American Indian or Alaska Native; 

(2) Asian; 

(3) Black or African American; 

(4) Native Hawaiian or other Pacific 

Islander; and 

(5) White. 

This is the minimum number of 

categories that educational institutions 

and other recipients will be required to 

use for purposes other than NCLB 

reporting. Any additional categories that 

educational institutions and other 

recipients choose to use to collect 

information must be subcategories of 

these categories (such as Japanese, 

Chinese, Korean, and Pakistani—

subcategories of Asian). Students and 

staff would then be able to select one or 

more of these subcategories. 

2. Educational Institutions and Other 

Recipients Will be Required to Use a 

Two-Question Format When Collecting 

Data on Race and Ethnicity Whenever 

Feasible. Educational institutions and 

other recipients will be required to 

collect data on race and ethnicity using 

a two-question format, except as 

provided in the following paragraph. 

Using the two-question format, the first 

question asks whether or not the 

respondent is Hispanic/Latino. The 

second question allows individuals to 

select one or more races from the five 

racial groups listed in paragraph 1 of 

this part, and Hispanic/Latino is NOT 

included in the list of racial categories. 

A two-question format provides 

flexibility and ensures data quality. In 

particular, a two-question format 

typically results in more complete 

reporting of Hispanic ethnicity; 

however, the most frequent cases of an 

individual not reporting a race occur for 

individuals who identify themselves as 

Hispanic/Latino. Therefore, educational 

institutions and other recipients should 

include instructions that encourage 

students and staff to answer both 

questions. 

A combined one-question format in 

which Hispanic ethnicity is included in 

the list of options with the racial 

categories may be used if necessary for 

observer-collected data on race and 

ethnicity. (See the discussion in Part 

IV.A.3 of this notice on using selfidentification of the race and ethnicity 

of respondents.) 

3. Educational Institutions and Other 

Recipients Should Allow Students and 

Staff to Self-Identify Their Race and 

Ethnicity Unless Self-Identification Is 

Not Practicable or Feasible. Educational 

institutions and other recipients should 

allow students and staff to self-identify 

their race and ethnicity unless selfidentification is not practicable or 

feasible. If a student or staff member 

does not provide his or her race and 

ethnicity, educational institutions and 

other recipients should ensure that the 

respondent is refusing to self-identify 

rather than simply overlooking the 

question. If the educational institution 

or other recipient has provided adequate 

opportunity for the respondent to selfidentify and he or she still leaves the 

items blank or refuses to complete them, 

observer identification may be used. 

Educational institutions and other 

recipients also may allow parents to 

identify the race and ethnicity of their 

child when the educational institution 

or other recipient believes that this is 

appropriate, such as when a child is too 

young to self-identify. 

4. The Department Encourages 

Educational Institutions and Other 

Recipients To Allow All Current 

Students and Staff to Re-Identify Their 

Race and Ethnicity Using the 1997 

Standards. Students are typically asked 

their race and ethnicity upon entrance 

or application to an educational 

institution. Staff members typically 

provide this information upon 

employment or application for 

employment. The Department 

encourages educational institutions and 

other recipients to allow all students 

and staff, and other individuals that 

data is collected from the opportunity to 

re-identify their race and ethnicity 

under the 1997 Standards.6 Reidentification will provide all students, 

staff and other individuals the 

opportunity to select more than one race 

and to report both their ethnicity and 

their race separately, and will allow all 

individuals who previously identified 

themselves as within the Asian or 

Pacific Islander category the 

opportunity to select either ‘‘Asian’’ or 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 151 / Monday, August 7, 2006 / Notices 44869 

7For individuals 18 and over, 1.9 percent 

(3,969,342 in the 2000 Census) of individuals 

reported more than one race; while 4 percent 

(2,856,886) of individuals under 18 reported more 

than one race.See The Two or More Races 

Population. 

‘‘Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific 

Islander,’’ thereby conforming all racial 

and ethnic information to the 1997 

Standards. If all individuals are not 

provided the opportunity to identify 

their race and ethnicity in a manner that 

is consistent with the 1997 Standards, 

data within schools, districts, and States 

will not accurately reflect the diversity 

of the population; and data on those 

who were permitted to identify their 

race and ethnicity under the 1997 

Standards will not be easily comparable 

with data on those who were not 

permitted to identify their race and 

ethnicity under the 1997 Standards. 

The Department’s proposal does not 

mandate re-identification because we 

recognize the considerable one-time cost 

that re-identification would entail. Also, 

the 1997 Standards do not require 

existing records to be updated. 

However, the Department’s proposal 

reflects our expectation that most 

educational institutions and other 

recipients will provide all respondents 

the opportunity to re-identify their race 

and ethnicity under the 1997 Standards. 

The proposal requires educational 

institutions and other recipients to 

provide students and staff who enter an 

educational institution or other 

recipient program on or after the 

implementation deadline the 

opportunity to identify their race and 

ethnicity in a manner that is consistent 

with this proposed Department 

guidance. Thus, those educational 

institutions and other recipients that do 

not conduct a re-identification will 

transition to the new standard over time 

as new staff and students enter. 

5. Maintaining the Original Responses 

from Staff and Students to Requests for 

Data on Race and Ethnicity. When the 

Department requests data on race and 

ethnicity from educational institutions 

and other recipients, the Department 

indicates in the instructions to the 

collection how long each office asks, or 

requires, educational institutions to 

keep the original individual responses 

to the request. 

At a minimum, under 34 CFR 74.53 

and 80.42, generally, a Department 

grantee or sub-grantee must retain for 

three years all financial and 

programmatic records, supporting 

documents, statistical records, and other 

records that are required to be 

maintained by the grant agreement or 

the Department regulations applicable 

to the grant or that are otherwise 

reasonably considered as pertinent to 

the grant agreement or Department 

regulations and these would include 

records on race and or ethnicity data 

and the individual responses. One 

exception is when there is litigation, a 

claim, an audit, or another action 

involving the records that has started 

before the three-year period ends; in 

these cases the records must be 

maintained until the completion of the 

action. 

If additional information on the race 

or ethnicity of a respondent is needed 

for the Department to perform its 

functions fully and effectively, the 

Department will request this 

information from educational 

institutions and other recipients, such 

as when the Office for Civil Rights 

(OCR) requests information to 

investigate a complaint or undertake a 

compliance review under 20 U.S.C. 

3413(c)(1) and 34 CFR 100.6(b). 

B. The Aggregate Categories 

Educational Institutions and Other 

Recipients Will be Required to Use to 

Report Data on Race and Ethnicity to 

the Department and How to Handle 

Missing Data. In contrast to the 

discussion in Part IV.A of this notice, 

which addressed how educational 

institutions and other recipients will 

collect data on race and ethnicity, this 

section will examine how educational 

institutions and other recipients will 

report these data on race and ethnicity 

to the Department. 

1. The Aggregate Categories 

Educational Institutions and Other 

Recipients Will be Required to Use to 

Report Data on Race and Ethnicity to 

the Department. The Department 

proposes to have educational 

institutions and other recipients report 

aggregated data on race and ethnicity in 

the following 7 categories: 

(1) Hispanics of any race; and, for 

Non-Hispanics only, 

(2) American Indian or Alaska Native, 

(3) Asian, 

(4) Black or African American, 

(5) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific 

Islander, 

(6) White, and 

(7) Two or more races. 

The definitions in the 1997 Standards 

will be used for each category. (See the 

discussion in Part III.A of this notice.) 

The Department proposes to have 

reports use these 7 aggregate categories 

for several reasons. Reporting these 7 

aggregate categories allows data on race 

and ethnicity to achieve an appropriate 

balance that reflects the growing 

diversity of our Nation while 

minimizing the implementation and 

reporting burden placed on educational 

institutions and other recipients. The 

growing diversity is illustrated by the 

fact that in the 2000 Census, children 

and youth reported being of more than 

one race at a substantial rate—more than 

twice the rate of adults.7

Finally, the proposed approach 

provides for reporting the race and 

ethnicity of individuals in a manner that 

permits effective analysis of data by 

agencies that are responsible for civil 

rights monitoring and enforcement. In 

those instances in which more detailed 

information is needed by civil rights 

monitoring and enforcement agencies or 

other offices in the Department about 

individuals in the ‘‘two or more races’’

category, educational institutions and 

other recipients will be contacted 

directly for more detailed information 

about the individuals. 

The Department’s proposed aggregate 

reporting categories do not separately 

identify the race of Hispanics. The 

Department’s proposal reflects its 

assessment that the inclusion of 

Hispanics of any race in one category is 

appropriate in light of both the 

implementation burden and cost that 

these changes will place on educational 

institutions and other recipients and the 

Department’s need to adopt an approach 

that provides the Department sufficient 

information to fulfill its various 

functions. If the Department required 

the reporting of the same racial 

categories for Hispanics as nonHispanics, 6 additional aggregate 

categories would be reported to the 

Department. 

The cost and burden of these 6 

additional cells would be substantial 

because each racial and ethnic category 

is often cross tabulated with other 

relevant information, such as the 

individual’s sex, disability category, or 

educational placement, thereby 

multiplying the number of categories in 

which information must be reported. 

The Department has determined that it 

can effectively fulfill its responsibilities 

that involve information on race and 

ethnicity if Hispanics of any race are 

reported in one category. The 

Department notes that its proposal not 

to separately aggregate Hispanics by 

race is consistent with the final 

implementation plan of the EEOC. 

Finally, the Department’s reporting 

requirement for data on Hispanics in 

one category is different from the 

Department’s collection requirements 

discussed in Part IV.5 of this notice, 

which require educational institutions 

and other recipients to maintain 

information on the racial identification 

of Hispanics. As discussed above, the 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
44870 Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 151 / Monday, August 7, 2006 / Notices 

8The Department proposes to continue to include 

a ‘‘race unknown’’ category in IPEDS because the 

experience of the National Center for Education 

Statistics has shown that (1) a substantial number 

of college students have refused to identify a race 

and (2) there is often not a convenient mechanism 

for college administrators to use observer 

identification. RSA grantees have had similar 

experiences. 

9 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)(B) and 

6311(b)(2)(C)(v)(I)(bb); (34 CFR 200.13). 

10 20 U.S.C. 6311(h)(1) and (2). 

11 20 U.S.C. 6311(h)(1)(C)(i). 

12 20 U.S.C. 6311(h)(1)(C)(iv). 13 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)(2)(I)(i); (34 CFR 200.20(b)). 

Department will require educational 

institutions and other recipients to keep 

the original individual responses from 

staff and students to requests for data on 

race and ethnicity for the length of time 

indicated in the instructions to the 

collection. If the Department determines 

that additional information will be 

needed to perform its functions 

effectively in a specific instance, the 

Department will request this additional 

information from educational 

institutions and other recipients. 

The EEOC published a notice in 

November 2005 that provided for the 

use of 7 categories to collect data on 

race and ethnicity from private 

employers. These 7 categories are: 

(1) Hispanics of any race; and, for 

non-Hispanics, 

(2) American Indian or Alaska Native, 

(3) Asian, 

(4) Black or African American, 

(5) Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific 

Islander, 

(6) White, and 

(7) Two or more races. 

It is the Department’s understanding 

that EEOC intends to use these 7 

categories to collect data on race and 

ethnicity from LEAs on their employees. 

The adoption of 7 categories for the 

Department collections would mean 

that the Department and EEOC would 

collect the same categories of data on 

race and ethnicity from LEAs. 

2. Reporting on Individuals Who Do 

Not Self-Identify a Race or Ethnicity. 

Some individuals will refuse to selfidentify their race and/or their ethnicity. 

The Department currently has a 

different approach for how educational 

institutions and other recipients may 

handle such respondents at the 

elementary and secondary level as 

compared with the postsecondary level 

and with adults served under the RSA 

programs. Currently elementary and 

secondary institutions must use 

observer identification if a student (or 

his or her parents) does not self-identify 

a race, and postsecondary institutions 

also may use observer identification. In 

addition, since 1990, postsecondary 

institutions have been permitted to 

report aggregate information on students 

or staff members who do not identify a 

race for the IPEDS in a ‘‘race unknown’’

category. Similarly, RSA recipients have 

been permitted to report aggregate 

information on its clients and staff using 

a ‘‘race unknown’’ category when 

clients or staff do not identify a race. 

The Department proposes to continue 

its current practice for handling missing 

data.8 Elementary and secondary 

institutions and other recipients would 

continue to use observer identification 

when a respondent leaves blank or 

refuses to self-identify his or her race 

and/or ethnicity. The Department would 

not include a ‘‘race and/or ethnicity 

unknown’’ category in its aggregate 

elementary and secondary collections of 

data on race and ethnicity. IPEDS would 

continue to include a ‘‘race and/or 

ethnicity unknown’’ category for 

reporting aggregate data from 

postsecondary institutions. Similarly, 

the RSA will continue to use a ‘‘race 

and/or ethnicity unknown’’ category for 

reporting aggregate data. The ‘‘race and/ 

or ethnicity unknown’’ category would 

not appear on forms provided to 

postsecondary students and staff or RSA 

recipients’ clients and staff. 

C. Multiple Race Responses under the 

No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The 

creation of a multiple race aggregation 

category implicates several 

requirements under the ESEA as 

reauthorized by NCLB regarding race 

and ethnicity. First, States, districts, and 

schools are held accountable for making 

adequate yearly progress (AYP) based, 

among other factors, on the proficiency 

in reading/language arts and 

mathematics of major racial and ethnic 

groups of students.9 Neither ESEA nor 

the ESEA regulations define what is a 

‘‘major’’ racial and/or ethnic group. 

States have this responsibility and the 

Department checks to ensure that States 

carry out that responsibility. 

Second, each State and school district 

that receives ESEA Title I funds must 

issue a report card that includes 

information on student achievement at 

each proficiency level on the State 

assessment, disaggregated by race and 

ethnicity, among other factors, at the 

State, district, and school levels.10 The 

same racial and ethnic groups that are 

examined to determine AYP are 

typically the groups examined in State 

report cards.11

Finally, the creation of a ‘‘two or more 

races’’ group will affect two provisions 

that require comparisons to prior years’

data. State report cards must report the 

most recent two-year trend in student 

achievement by racial and ethnic 

group.12 In addition, to take advantage 

of the ‘‘safe harbor’’ method of making 

AYP (where a school can make AYP by 

decreasing the percent of students who 

are not proficient on statewide 

assessments by 10%), a State must 

compare a group’s current assessment 

data to the prior year’s data, and must 

examine the group’s performance on the 

State’s additional indicator, including 

its graduation rate.13

States will continue to have discretion 

in determining what racial and ethnic 

groups will be deemed ‘‘major’’ for 

purposes of fulfilling these ESEA 

requirements. The States vary 

substantially in the number and 

distribution of multiple race individuals 

and are in the best position to decide 

how these requirements should be 

applied to their populations. States 

implementing this new guidance will 

not necessarily be changing the race and 

ethnicity categories used for AYP 

purposes. If a State makes changes to 

the racial and ethnic categories it will 

use under the ESEA, the State must 

submit an amendment to its Title I 

accountability plan to the Department. 

D. Bridging Data to Prior Years’ Data. 

States, educational institutions and 

other recipients also may propose to 

‘‘bridge’’ the ‘‘two or more races’’

category into single race categories or 

the new single race categories into the 

previous single race categories. Bridging 

involves adopting a method for being 

able to link the new data collected using 

the two-part question with data 

collected before the publication of this 

guidance by the Department. If States, 

educational institutions and other 

recipients do bridge data, the bridging 

method should be documented and 

available for the Department to review, 

if necessary. 

One method is to redistribute the new 

data collected under this guidance using 

the new racial categories and relate 

them back to the racial categories used 

before the publication of this guidance. 

For example, if a State’s new data 

collection results in 200 students falling 

in the ‘‘two or more races’’ category at 

the same time that there is a combined 

drop in the number in the two single 

race categories of Black or African 

American students and White students, 

the State can adopt a method to link the 

200 students in the ‘‘two or more races’’

category to the previously used Black 

and White categories. 

Another method is assigning a 

proportion of the ‘‘two or more races’’

respondents into the new five singlerace categories. If educational 

institutions or other recipients choose to 

bridge, they may use one of several 

bridging techniques. For example, they 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 151 / Monday, August 7, 2006 / Notices 44871 

14See OMB, Provisional Guidance on the 

Implementation of the 1997 Standards for Federal 

Data on Race and Ethnicity, December 15, 2000; 

http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/inforeg/

statpolicy.html#dr (Appendix C). 

15For civil rights monitoring and enforcement 

purposes, OMB issued guidance in March 2000 on 

how Federal agencies can allocate multiple race 

responses to a single race response category. 

Multiple race responses that combine one minority 

race and white, for example, are to be allocated to 

the minority race. OMB, Bulletin 00–02, Guidance 

on Aggregation and Allocation of Data on Race for 

Use in Civil Rights Monitoring and Enforcement, 

(March 9, 2000); http://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/

bulletins/b00-02.html (OMB 2000 Guidance). 

16OMB 2000 Guidance. 

may select one of the bridging 

techniques in OMB’s Provisional 

Guidance on the Implementation of the 

1997 Standards for Federal Data on Race 

and Ethnicity.14 Educational 

institutions and other recipients also 

may choose to use the allocation rules 

developed by OMB in its Guidance on 

Aggregation and Allocation of Data on 

Race for Use in Civil Rights Monitoring 

and Enforcement.15 If a bridging 

technique is adopted, the same bridging 

technique must be used when reporting 

data throughout the educational 

institution or other recipient. For 

example, the same bridging technique 

should be used by the entire State for 

the purposes of NCLB. 

V. OMB Guidance on Aggregation and 

Allocation of Multiple Race Responses 

for Use in Civil Rights Monitoring and 

Enforcement 

OMB issued guidance in March 2000, 

for how Federal agencies will aggregate 

and allocate multiple race data for civil 

rights monitoring and enforcement.16

The guidance was issued to ensure that 

as the 1997 Standards are implemented, 

Federal agencies maintain their ‘‘ability 

to monitor compliance with laws that 

offer protections for those who 

historically have experienced 

discrimination.’’ Furthermore, OMB 

sought to ensure consistency across 

Federal agencies and to minimize the 

reporting burden for institutions such as 

businesses and schools that report 

aggregate data on race and ethnicity to 

Federal agencies. 

This OMB guidance encourages 

Federal agencies to collect aggregated 

information on a given population using 

the five single race categories and the 

four most common double race 

combinations. These four double race 

combinations are: (1) American Indian 

or Alaska Native and White, (2) Asian 

and White, (3) Black or African 

American and White, and (4) American 

Indian or Alaska Native and Black or 

African American. In addition to these 

categories, the March 2000 OMB 

guidance also encourages the 

aggregation of data on any multiple race 

combinations that comprise more than 

one percent of the population of interest 

to the Federal agency. The Bulletin also 

encourages the reporting of all 

remaining multiple race data by 

including a ‘‘balance’’ category so that 

all data sum to 100 percent. 

The OMB guidance also addresses 

how Federal agencies, including the 

Department, should allocate multiple 

race responses for the purpose of 

assessing and taking action to ensure 

civil rights compliance. The Department 

believes that requiring educational 

institutions and other recipients to 

report these four most common double 

race reporting combinations or 

information on multiple race 

individuals who represent more than 

one percent of the population on a stateby-state basis or other geographical basis 

would impose a substantial burden on 

educational institutions and other 

recipients without a corresponding 

benefit for recurring, aggregate data 

collections. However, in order to ensure 

that the Department has access to this 

information when needed for civil rights 

enforcement and other program 

purposes, the Department proposes to 

require educational institutions and 

other recipients to keep the original 

individual responses for data on race 

and ethnicity. This approach will 

provide the Department with access to 

this important information when 

needed. (See discussion in Part IV.A.5. 

of this notice.) 

VI. The Implementation Schedule 

Educational institutions and other 

recipients have consistently informed 

the Department that they will need three 

years from the time that the Department 

provided them final guidance to 

implement the new race and ethnicity 

standards. 

Educational institutions and other 

recipients will be required to implement 

this guidance, once issued in final, by 

the Fall of 2009. Although not required 

to do so, educational institutions and 

other recipients already collecting 

individual-level data in the manner 

specified by this notice are encouraged 

to immediately begin reporting 

aggregate data to the Department in 

accordance with this notice. 

Many educational institutions and 

other recipients have already taken 

significant steps to develop and 

implement new data systems for 

collecting, aggregating, and reporting 

data on race and ethnicity. Since the 

mid-1990s and certainly subsequent to 

the October 30, 1997, issuance of the 

1997 Standards, the Department has 

been meeting with educational agencies 

and organizations regarding the need for 

changes to the collection of data on race 

and ethnicity to be consistent with the 

1997 Standards. The opportunity for 

students and parents on their behalf to 

report their multiple race identity is 

vitally important. Multiple race children 

and their families were one of the 

primary impetuses for initiating the 

review of and modifying the standards. 

Also, with increasing automation of 

educational data systems, the 

Department believes that less than three 

years should be needed to implement 

data systems consistent with guidance 

in this area. The Department will work 

expeditiously to review any comments 

we receive and issue final guidance. 

The Department recognizes that its 

delay in issuing proposed guidance, 

including its decision to delay issuing 

guidance until after EEOC issued its 

guidance in final form as discussed in 

Part IV of this notice, may result in 

implementation difficulties for some 

educational institutions and other 

recipients. The Department regrets any 

inconvenience that its delay in issuing 

guidance may cause. Nevertheless, 

given the vital importance of collecting 

data on race and ethnicity under the 

1997 Standards and the fact that 

educational institutions and other 

recipients are being provided a 

considerable amount of time to comply 

with the 1997 Standards, the 

Department expects that all educational 

institutions and other recipients will 

meet this deadline. 

Electronic Access to This Document 

You may view 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 the following site: http://www.ed.gov/ 

news/fedregister. 

To use PDF you must have Adobe 

Acrobat Reader, which is available free 

at this site. If you have questions about 

using PDF, call the U.S. Government 

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

888–293–6498; or in the Washington, 

DC, area at (202) 512–1530. 

Note: The official version of this document 

is the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the Code 

of Federal Regulations is available on GPO 

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

index.html. 

Dated: July 31, 2006. 

Margaret Spellings, 

Secretary of Education. 

[FR Doc. 06–6695 Filed 8–4–06; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 


sroberts on PROD1PC70 with NOTICES