6936 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules

111.00 Neurological

A. Convulsive epilepsy must be

substantiated by at least one detailed

description of a typical seizure. Report of

recent documentation should include a

neurological examination with frequency of

episodes and any associated phenomena

substantiated.

Young children may have convulsions in

association with febrile illnesses. Proper use

of 111.02 and 111.03 requires that epilepsy

be established. Although this does not

exclude consideration of seizures occurring

during febrile illnesses, it does require

documentation of seizures during nonfebrile

periods.

There is an expected delay in control of

epilepsy when treatment is started,

particularly when changes in the treatment

regimen are necessary. Therefore, an

epileptic disorder should not be considered

to meet the requirements of 111.02 or 111.03

unless it is shown that convulsive episodes

have persisted more than three months after

prescribed therapy began.

B. Nonconvulsive epilepsy. ***

* * * * *

111.02 Major motor seizure disorder.

A. Convulsive epilepsy. In a child with an

established diagnosis of epilepsy, the

occurrence of more than one major motor

seizure per month despite at least three

months of prescribed treatment. * * *

* * * * *

B. Convulsive epilepsy syndrome. In a

child with an established diagnosis of

epilepsy, the occurrence of at least one major

motor seizure in the year prior to application

despite at least three months of prescribed

treatment. * * *

* * * * *

3. Significant mental disorder; or

* * * * *

111.03 Nonconvulsive epilepsy. ***

* * * * *

113.00 Neoplastic Diseases, Malignant

* * * * *

B. Documentation. * * * If an operative

procedure has been performed, the evidence

should include a copy of the operative note

and the report of the gross and microscopic

examination of the surgical specimen, along

with all pertinent laboratory and X-ray

reports or reports from other appropriate

medically acceptable imaging.* * *

* * * * *

114.08 Human immunodeficiency virus

(HIV) infection.

* * * * *

N. * * *

6. Sinusitis documented by radiography or

other appropriate medically acceptable

imaging.

* * * * *

PART 416—SUPPLEMENTAL

SECURITY INCOME FOR THE AGED,

BLIND, AND DISABLED

Subpart I—[Amended]

3. The authority citation for subpart I

of part 416 continues to read as follows:

Authority: Secs. 702(a)(5), 1611, 1614,

1619, 1631(a), (c) and (d)(1), and 1633 of the

Social Security Act (42 U.S.C. 902 (a)(5),

1382, 1382c, 1382h, 1383(a), (c), and (d)(1),

and 1383b); secs. 4(c) and 5, 6(c)–(e), 14(a)

and 15, Pub. L. 98–460, 98 Stat. 1794, 1801,

1802, and 1808 (42 U.S.C. 421 note, 423 note,

1382h note).

§ 416.926 [Amended]

4. Section 416.926a is amended by

removing paragraphs (d) (8) and (9), and

redesignating paragraph (d) (10), (11),

and (12) as paragraphs (d) (8), (9), and

(10).

[FR Doc. 00–2867 Filed 2–10–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4191–02–P

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Part 611

Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants

Program

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary

Education, Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for

Postsecondary Education proposes

regulations for the three grant programs

included in the Teacher Quality

Enhancement Grant Programs, sections

202–204 of the Higher Education Act of

1965 (HEA), as amended. These

proposed regulations contain selection

criteria that would be used to select

applicants for awards under the State

Program, Partnership Program, and

Teacher Recruitment Program. These

proposed regulations also contain

certain other requirements that would

apply to the programs.

DATES: We must receive your comments

on or before March 13, 2000.

ADDRESSES: All comments concerning

these proposed regulations should be

addressed to: Dr. Louis Venuto, Higher

Education Programs, Office of

Postsecondary Education, Office of

Policy, Planning, and Innovation, 1990

K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006–

8525: Telephone: 202–502–7763.

Comments also may be sent by e-mail

to: LouislVenuto@ed.gov or by FAX to;

(202) 502–7699. If you prefer to send

your comments through the Internet use

the following address:

comments@ed.gov. You must include

the term ‘‘Teacher Quality’’ in the

subject line of your electronic message.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.

Louis Venuto, Higher Education

Programs, Office of Postsecondary

Education, Office of Policy, Planning,

and Innovation, 1990 K Street, NW,

Washington, DC 20006–8525:

Telephone: (202) 502–7763. Inquiries

also may be sent by e-mail to:

LouislVenuto@ed.gov or by FAX to:

(202) 260–9272. 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 regulations.

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 regulations. 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 regulations in the

Department of Education, Teacher

Quality Program Office, 1990 K Street

NW, 6th floor, Washington, DC.

Comments are available for inspection

between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00

p.m., Eastern time, Monday through

Friday of each week except Federal

holidays.

In order to ensure sufficient time to

prepare and review grant applications

submitted for FY 2000, the Department

will need to publish final regulations for

these programs as soon as possible after

the expiration of the public comment

period. For this reason, while you have

30 days to submit public comment, we

urge you to submit comments to us on

or before February 25, 2000. In addition,

we also urge those who wish to

comment on the information collection

requirements contained in the program

application packages to send written

comment on or before February 25,

2000. See the discussion in the section

entitled ‘‘Paperwork Reduction Act of

1995’’ and the addressee identified in

that section to whom comments should

be sent.

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

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules 6937

review the comments or other

documents in the public rulemaking

record for these proposed regulations. 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 (FIRS) at 1–

800–877–8339.

General

Background

On October 8, 1998, the President

signed into law the Higher Education

Amendments of 1998 (Pub. L. 105–244).

This law addresses the Nation’s need to

ensure that new teachers enter the

classroom prepared to teach all students

to high standards by authorizing, as

Title II of the Higher Education Act

(HEA), the Teacher Quality

Enhancement Grants for States and

Partnerships (Teacher Quality

Programs). The new Teacher Quality

Enhancement Grants Program provides

an historic opportunity to effect positive

change in the recruitment, preparation,

licensing, and on-going support of

teachers in America.

The new Teacher Quality

Enhancement Grants Program consists

of three different competitive grant

programs: (1) The State Grants Program,

which is designed to help States

promote a broad array of improvements

in teacher licensure, certification,

preparation, and recruitment; (2) the

Partnership Grants for Improving

Teacher Preparation Program, which is

designed to have schools of education,

schools of arts and sciences, high-need

local educational agencies (LEAs), and

others work together to ensure that new

teachers have the content knowledge

and skills their students need of them

when they enter the classroom; and (3)

the Teacher Recruitment Grants

Program, which is designed to help

schools and school districts with severe

teacher shortages to secure the highquality teachers that they need.

Together, these programs are designed

to increase student achievement by

supporting comprehensive approaches

to improving teacher quality.

State Grants Program (State Program)

The State Grants Program offers a

unique opportunity to support farreaching efforts to redesign teacher

education. Through the policy

leadership of Governors, State

legislatures, and other important

partners, the program can assure the

statewide support so essential to

bringing about the important policy

changes needed in teacher recruitment,

preparation, licensing and certification,

and retention. States are in the position

to increase the expectations for newly

state-certified and licensed teachers as

well as test for and reward high-quality

teaching.

Under the program, each State may

develop a program application that

focuses on activities it chooses to

conduct in one or more areas that are

key to improving the quality of new

teachers. In this regard, areas in which

a State may propose to focus include:

• Teacher licensure, certification, and

preparation policies and practices,

including rigorous alternative routes to

certification;

• Reforms that hold institutions of

higher education (IHE) with teacher

preparation programs accountable for

preparing teachers who are highly

competent in academic content areas

and possess strong teaching skills;

• Wholesale redesign of teacher

preparation programs, in collaboration

with the schools of arts and sciences, in

ways that promote stronger academic

content and subject-matter knowledge of

students in those programs;

• Improved linkages between IHEs

and K–12 schools, with more time spent

by college faculty and teacher education

students in K–12 classrooms, and

greater use of technology in the teacher

education programs;

• Use of new strategies to attract,

prepare, support, and retain highly

competent teachers in high-poverty

urban and rural areas;

• Redesign and improvement of

existing teacher professional

development programs to improve the

content knowledge, technology skills,

and teaching skills of practicing

teachers;

• Improved accountability for highquality teaching through performancebased compensation and the

expeditious removal of incompetent or

unqualified teachers while ensuring due

process; and

• Efforts to address the problem of

social promotion and to prepare

teachers to deal with the issues raised

by ending social promotion.

Partnership Grants for Improving

Teacher Education (Partnership

Program)

The purpose of the Partnership

Program is to improve student learning

by bringing about fundamental change

and improvement in traditional teacher

education programs. Through multi-year

awards to a limited number of highlycommitted partnerships, the Partnership

Program is intended to ensure that new

teachers have the content knowledge

and teaching skills they need when they

enter the classroom. Section 203(a) and

(b) of the HEA provides that

partnerships eligible for awards must

comprise, at a minimum, a partnership

institution, a school of arts and science,

and a high-need LEA as the law defines

these terms. Partnerships also may

include other entities that can

contribute expertise, resources or both

to the teacher preparation project. A key

aspect of the program is the active

participation of all members of the

partnership in the design and

implementation of project activities.

By law, successful applicants must

propose to implement certain activities:

• The reform of teacher preparation

programs so that these programs become

accountable for producing teachers who

are highly competent in the academic

content areas in which they pan to

teach;

• The provision of high quality and

sustained pre-service clinical

experiences and mentoring for new

teachers, together with a substantial

increase in the interaction between

teachers, principals, and higher

education faculty; and

• The creation of opportunities for

enhanced and ongoing professional

development that improves the

academic content knowledge of teachers

in fields in which they are or will be

certified to teach.

Beyond these minimum requirements,

the Partnership program supports

activities that propose to educate

teachers in ways that reflect best

research and practice, and embody high

teaching standards. These activities

include the preparation of teachers to

work with diverse student populations

so that all students they will teach can

achieve to high State and local content

and performance standards, and

implementation of instructional

programs whose effectiveness has been

demonstrated through research.

The Partnership Program also seeks

to—

• Offer alternative routes into

teaching to individuals who may have

had careers in other professions, in the

military or in other fields, and to

educational paraprofessionals;

• Prepare teachers to successfully

integrate technology into teaching and

learning;

• Require prospective teachers to

participate in intensive, structured, and

clinically-based experiences with

master teachers;

• Offer continuous assistance to

graduates during their initial years in

the classroom; and

• Prepare school principals,

superintendents, and other school

administrators to employ strong

6938 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules

management and leadership skills that

can help increase student achievement.

Teacher Recruitment Grants Program

(Teacher Recruitment Program)

The Teacher Recruitment Program is

designed to address the challenge of

America’s teacher shortage by making

significant and lasting systemic changes

to the ways that teachers are recruited,

prepared, and supported as new

teachers in high-need schools. The

Teacher Recruitment Program supports

projects that use funds to—

• Award scholarships to help

students pay the costs of tuition, room,

board, and other expenses of completing

a teacher training program;

• Provide support services, if needed,

to enable scholarship recipients to

complete postsecondary education

programs; and

• Provide for follow-up services to

former scholarship recipients during

their first three years of teaching.

Alternatively, funds may be used to

develop and implement effective

mechanisms to ensure that high-need

LEAs and schools are able to effectively

recruit highly qualified teachers.

Both States and eligible partnerships

may receive awards under the Teacher

Recruitment Program. For both States

and partnerships, effective relationships

and partnerships among all those who

will implement project activities are

keys to effective Teacher Recruitment

Program activities. In particular, out of

these partnerships and relationships

will come (1) the recruitment strategies

that are so vital to meeting the severe

teaching needs of the high-need LEAs,

(2) the kind of teacher preparation

programs, which are built around

effective support from both schools of

education and schools of arts and

science and other areas of the IHE, that

recruited individuals will need in order

to be effective teachers to the diverse

student populations in those LEAs, and

(3) the support services these

individuals will need once they begin to

teach.

The Teacher Recruitment Program

also anticipates that projects will

provide prospective teachers with highquality teacher preparation and

induction programs that—

• Set high standards for teaching;

• Reflect the best research and

practice known across the country; and

• Prepare teachers to use technology

in their classrooms.

Finally, all three of the Teacher

Quality Enhancement Grant Programs

anticipate that when program funding

ceases, the work that States and

partnerships have begun will continue

and be sustained. Therefore, the ability

of grantees to sustain activities after the

end of the project is a key determinant

of success.

Need to Regulate

Regulations are needed in order to

establish appropriate selection criteria

and a small number of other

requirements for Fiscal Year (FY) 2000

and subsequent year competitions under

the Teacher Quality programs. As

explained in the following discussion,

new program-specific selection criteria

for competitions conducted under the

three Teacher Quality Programs are

needed to promote better quality

applications and greater consistency

among reviewers and across review

panels.

On February 8, 1999, the Department

published final regulations to govern

competitions conducted under the

Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant

Programs for fiscal year (FY) 1999 (64

FR 6189). In doing so, the Department

used its authority under section 437(d)

of the General Education Provisions Act

to waive rulemaking requirements for

regulations governing the first grant

competition under a new or

substantially revised program. This

notice of proposed rulemaking

establishes the proposed regulations for

the FY 2000 and subsequent year

competitions.

The State, Partnership, and Teacher

Recruitment Programs are key elements

in the Federal government’s strategy to

support State efforts to improve teacher

quality and recruit, prepare, and

support new teachers in high-need

schools and school districts. The

success of these programs depends upon

the preparation of applications that are

of the highest possible quality, and the

ability of reviewers to identify those

applicants with the most promise of

success. In order to guide the

preparation and identification of highquality applications under any of these

three Programs, application selection

criteria need to be established.

As a new program in FY 1999, the

Teacher Quality Program relied upon

general selection criteria in § 75.210 of

the Education Department General

Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) to

evaluate applications submitted under

the State and the Teacher Recruitment

Programs. The EDGAR criteria were

used for these two programs because we

believed that program-specific

regulations would not be needed to

generate high-quality applications and

permit reviewers a ready means to

evaluate them. However, those

reviewing applications under these

programs found that, notwithstanding

guidance in the program application

packages on what high-quality

applications likely would contain,

submitted applications generally not

only lacked sufficient specificity, but

also were difficult to evaluate under

these general selection criteria.

Hence, the Department’s experience

with applications submitted under the

State and Teacher Recruitment

Programs now convinces us that

program-specific criteria—rather than

those in EDGAR—would assist

applicants to write better, more specific

proposals that focus more closely on

how they would address Title II

program goals. We also are convinced

that the use of program-specific

selection criteria in these two programs

would substantially help reviewers to

make better judgments as they read,

score proposals, and make evaluative

comments. Regulations therefore are

needed to establish program-specific

criteria that reflect the goals and

objectives of the Title II statute.

The Department did use programspecific selection criteria rather than

general criteria in EDGAR to evaluate

both pre-applications and full

applications submitted for the initial

competition conducted in FY 1999

under the Partnership Program.

However, difficulties that reviewers had

evaluating those pre-applications and

full applications have convinced us that

they, too, need to be modified. We now

see that, in some respects, those criteria

were too general. They helped

applicants to sketch a broad vision of

their projects, but reviewers often had

difficulty finding enough specific detail

in the pre-applications and full

applications to score them with

precision. Reviewers also found that the

generality of the program-specific

criteria inhibited their ability to make

fine distinctions among applications.

We believe that revised, more specific,

selection criteria for the Partnership

Program are needed to improve the

quality of applications and the review

process.

For the FY 2000 Title II competition,

therefore, new program-specific

selection criteria have been drafted for

all three Teacher Quality Program

components. It is expected that these

new criteria will provide clearer

guidance to proposal writers, and will

give reviewers a more reliable scoring

system. By using the revised selection

criteria, the complete selection process

should result in funding strong projects

likely to achieve key Title II goals.

(Consistent with § 75.210 of EDGAR, the

application packages for these three

programs will inform the public the

total possible score for all criteria that

apply to a program, and the assigned

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules 6939

weight or maximum possible score for

all criteria that apply to a program, and

the assigned weight or maximum

possible score for each criterion or

factor under that criterion).

Finally, regulations are needed in two

other areas. First, all three programs

require applicants to develop strategies

in comprehensive areas related to

teacher preparation, licensure,

certification, or recruitment. The

experience with the initial grants

competition conforms that both

reviewers and successful applicants

would benefit from having applications

include detailed workplans that contain

project objectives, activities,

benchmarks, responsible parties, time

lines, and outcomes. In addition,

regulations are needed to clarify over

what period of time States are to meet

the 50 percent matching requirement in

section 205(c) of the statute.

The remainder of this section of this

notice explains in more detail the

regulations that we are proposing to

adopt for the three Teacher Quality

Enhancement Grant Programs.

Section 611.2 Pre-Application and

Application

Under § 611.2, an applicant for a grant

under the Teacher Quality Enhancement

Grants Program would be required to

submit with its application a proposed

multiyear workplan. At a minimum, the

applicant would have to specifically

identify, for each year of the project, the

project’s overall objectives, activities the

applicant proposes to implement to

promote each program objective,

benchmarks and time lines for

conducting project activities and

achieving the project’s objectives, who

would be responsible for conducting

and coordinating each activity,

measurable program outcomes that are

tied to each program objective, and the

evidence by which success in achieving

these objectives would be measured.

Applicants for grants under subpart C

(the Partnership Program) and subpart D

(the Teacher Recruitment Program)

would only have to provide a workplan

if they are invited, based on their preapplications, to submit a full

application.

Finally, § 611.2 would also require

any applicant that submits a preapplication for a grant under the

Partnership or Teacher Recruitment

Program to submit any budgetary

information that the Secretary may

require in the program’s application

package.

These workplans are necessary for

two reasons. Section 75.112(b) of

EDGAR requires all applicants to

include a narrative that describes how

and when, for each budget year of the

project, the applicant plans to meet each

project objective. However, for the 1999

grants competition, the submitted

applications did not contain the

specificity that reviewers desired for

making the most informed decisions

about the quality of applicants’

multiyear plans. This regulation is

needed both to address this problem

and to ensure that, for those applicants

receiving awards, the Department has

the information it needs to work with

applicants over the life of their projects

so that the projects can succeed.

Section 611.3 Procedures for Grant

Selection

Section 611.3 sets out the procedures

that we would use to select grants for

the Teacher Quality Program. In general,

we would use the procedures in 34 CFR

75.200–75.222. However, § 611.3 would

establish our use of program-specific

selection procedures identified in

§§ 611.12–611.32 to evaluate

applications for each of the three

programs, including the use of a

competitive priority for the State and

Partnership Programs.

In addition, § 611.3 would establish a

two-stage application process for both

the Partnership and Teacher

Recruitment Programs. The proposed

regulations would require applicants

under either of these Programs to submit

a pre-application. We would use the

selection criteria established for these

pre-applications to determine which

applicants should be invited to submit

full applications.

A two-stage process was used

successfully during the 1999 initial

competition under the Partnership

Program. We received substantial

feedback from applicants who favored

this process. They told us that it

permitted them to spend more time

planning their projects than they would

have had under the normal, single-stage,

process, and saved those applicants

whose pre-applications were not of

sufficiently high quality the time and

resources needed to prepare a full

program application. We also believe

that the quality of the full applications

likely benefited from the applicants’

receipt of reviewers’ comments on their

pre-applications, and reviewers told us

that they appreciated being able to focus

their time evaluating a limited number

of full applications that reflected sound

conceptual thinking. Therefore, we have

decided to make the pre-application

process a permanent feature of the

Partnership Program.

In addition, reviewers of applications

submitted under the initial Teacher

Recruitment Program grants competition

found that many applications lacked the

vision and specificity that the Program

needs. Given the importance of

successful Teacher Recruitment

Program projects, we believe that the

quality of applications for these projects

likewise would be enhanced by use of

a pre-application process. For this

reason, we are proposing to use this

two-step process for both the

Partnership and Teacher Recruitment

Programs.

In the event that two or more

applicants are ranked equally for the

last available award under any of the

three programs, the proposed

regulations would continue a tiebreaking procedure used during the FY

1999 competition. Under this

procedure, the Secretary would select

the applicant whose activities would

focus (or have the most impact) on LEAs

and schools located in one (or more) of

the Nation’s Empowerment Zones and

Enterprise Communities.

Finally, for the initial grant

competition under these three programs,

we developed program-specific

selection criteria only for the

Partnership Program. For reasons

discussed in the ‘‘Need to Regulate’’

section of this preamble, we are

proposing program-specific selection

criteria for applications submitted under

the State and Teacher Recruitment

Program, and revised program-specific

criteria for applications submitted under

the Partnership Program.

Selection Criteria to Govern the State

Program

Section 611.11 would establish the

selection criteria for the State Program.

The criteria would focus on the quality

of the project design, the significance of

the project, the quality of the resources,

and the quality of the management plan

and workplan. Section 611.12 would

establish selection criteria, which would

be used in addition to the selection

criteria in § 611.11, for any State

Program applicant that proposed teacher

recruitment activities. Although teacher

recruitment is not required for the State

Program, applicants may choose to

incorporate teacher recruitment into

their projects. If they do so, additional

selection criteria would be needed

because of the requirements governing

use of funds for teacher recruitment

activities in sections 202 and 204(d) of

the HEA. We therefore have added

selection criteria that would specifically

address teacher recruitment, so that peer

reviewers can judge the quality of the

teacher recruitment activities within a

State program.

Section 611.13 would establish a

competitive preference for the State

6940 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules

Program. As required by section

205(b)(2)(A) of the HEA, the Secretary

would determine the extent to which

the State’s proposed activities in any

one or more of three statutory priorities

are likely to yield successful and

sustained results. The statutory

priorities are (1) initiatives to reform

State teacher licensure and certification

requirements so that current and future

teachers possess strong teaching skills

and academic content knowledge in the

subject areas they will be certified or

licensed to teach; (2) innovative reforms

to hold IHEs with teacher preparation

programs accountable for preparing

teachers who are highly competent in

the academic content areas and have

strong teaching skills, and (3) innovative

efforts to reduce the teacher shortage

(including the high turnover) of highly

competent teachers in high-poverty

urban and rural areas.

Selection Criteria to Govern the

Partnership Program

Section 611.21 would establish the

selection criteria for the pre-application

for the Partnership Program. The

selection criteria would address project

goals and objectives, the level of

commitment to the partnership, the

quality of key project components, and

the anticipated specific outcomes of the

project. As with the State Program,

because of the requirements governing

use of funds for teacher recruitment

activities in sections 203 and 204(d) of

Title II, the Partnership Program, in

§ 611.22, would establish additional

criteria that would apply to any preapplication that proposes teacher

recruitment activities.

Sections 611.23 and 611.24 would

establish the selection criteria for the

full application. Section 611.23 would

apply to all applicants for Partnership

program grants, and § 611.24 would

apply to those applications that include

teacher recruitment activities. The

selection criteria for full applications

are similar to those we used to evaluate

applications in 1999 for the initial

competition under the program. They

focus on quality of project design,

significance of project activities, quality

of resources, and the quality of the

management plan and workplan.

As required by section 205(b)(2)(B) of

the statute, § 611.25 would establish a

competitive preference for Partnership

Program applications that involve

businesses. Under this section, the

Secretary would award up to ten

additional points on the basis of how

well the application includes a

significant role for private business in

the design and implementation of the

project.

Selection Criteria for the Teacher

Recruitment Program

Sections 611.31 and 611.32 would

establish the selection criteria for the

pre-application and the full application,

respectively. The selection criteria for

pre-applications would address the

same general areas as those for

Partnership Program pre-applications,

but would be tailored to matters related

to teacher recruitment. Similarly, the

selection criteria to govern full

applications submitted under the

Teacher Recruitment Program would

address the same general areas as those

for the State Program, but would be

tailored to matters related to teacher

recruitment.

Other Program Requirements

Section 611.61 would limit the

indirect costs that a recipient may

charge to Teacher Quality Program

funds to the maximum of either eight

percent or the amount determined

through operation of a negotiated

indirect cost rate. We are proposing this

regulation so that the indirect cost

limitation is applicable to all recipients

of program funds. By regulation

published in the Federal Register on

August 6, 1999 (64 FR 42837), this

limitation (formerly established in

§ 611.41) already applies to States and

LEAs. Regulations published in the

Federal Register on February 8, 1999

(64 FR 6189) applied this same indirect

cost limitation to IHEs and nonprofit

organizations that receive program

funds on the basis of the initial Teacher

Quality Program grant competitions.

However, through an oversight, the

Department had not previously

proposed to apply this limitation on

indirect costs to IHEs and nonprofit

agencies and that receive program funds

under the second and succeeding grant

competitions.

We recognize the legitimacy of a grant

recipient’s indirect costs. However, for

reasons presented in the May 19, 1999

NPRM that proposed this indirect cost

limitation for States and LEAs (64 FR

27403), we believe that having IHEs and

nonprofit organizations apply large,

generally applicable negotiated indirect

cost rates to compensate themselves out

of program funds for general overhead

and related expenses is inconsistent

with the purpose of the Teacher Quality

Programs and the expectations that

Congress and the Nation have for their

success. Therefore, given (1) the privotal

significance of the Teacher Quality

Programs, (2) the national need that

these programs have a maximum impact

on the quality and quantity of highlyqualified new teachers, and (3) the fact

that these programs are competitive, the

Secretary has determined that a

reasonable limitation on the indirect

cost rate that IHEs and nonprofit

organizations may charge to their

Teacher Quality Program funds is

appropriate. Section 611.61 would make

all recipients of program funds—States,

LEAs, IHEs, nonprofit organizations,

and other entities—subject to the same

limitation on indirect costs they may

charge to program funds.

Finally, § 611.62 would detail a

grantee’s matching requirements. As

required by section 205(c)(1) of the

statute, each State receiving a grant

under either the State Program or the

Teacher Recruitment Program would

have to provide, from non-Federal

sources, an amount equal to 50 percent

of the amount of the grant to carry out

the activities supported by the grant.

Section 611.52(a) would clarify that the

50 percent match would need to be

made annually during the project

period, with respect to each grant a

State receives. In addition, § 611.52(b)

repeats the requirement in section

205(c)(2) of the statute that each

partnership receiving a grant under the

Partnership Program or the Teacher

Recruitment Program be required to

provide, from non-Federal sources, an

amount equal to 25 percent of the grant

for the first year of the program, 35

percent of the grant for the second year

of the program, and 50 percent of the

grant for the third through fifth year of

the program.

We interpret these requirements, that

grantees provide each year a specified

percentage ‘‘of the grant’’ from nonfederal sources, to mean a specified

percentage of the amount of the federal

funds the Department annually awards.

Therefore, for example, a partnership

that is awarded $1 million per year in

federal funds would need to provide the

project $250,000 from non-federal funds

for the first year of project activities.

The required match from non-Federal

sources required by this section could

be made in cash or in kind.

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 regulations would

address the National Education Goal

that the Nation’s teaching force will

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules 6941

have the content knowledge and

teaching skills needed to instruct all

American students for the next century.

Clarity of the Regulations

Executive Order 12866 and the

President’s Memorandum of June 1,

1998 on ‘‘Plain Language in Government

Writing’’ require each agency to write

regulations that are easy to understand.

The Secretary 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? (A

‘‘section’’ is preceded by the symbol ‘‘§’’

and a numbered heading; for example,

§ 611.21 What are the selection criteria

for pre-applications?)

• 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?

Send any comments that concern how

the Department could make these

proposed regulations easier to

understand to the person listed in the

ADDRESSES section of the preamble.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

The Secretary certifies that these

proposed regulations would not have a

significant economic impact on a

substantial number of small entities.

Entities that would be affected by these

regulations are IHEs and LEAs. The

information burden on each of these

groups consists only of the time and

resources needed to submit grant

applications. Hence, the regulations

would not have a significant impact on

any entity because they would not

impose excessive regulatory burden or

require unnecessary Federal

supervision.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

Proposed §§ 611.2–611.25 contain

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 these sections

to the Office of Management and Budget

(OMB) for its review.

Collection of Information

Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant

Programs.

Applicants for funds under the State

Grants program, the Partnership

Program for Improving Teacher

Effectiveness, and the Teacher

Recruitment Grants Program would

need to submit program applications

and, for the Partnership Program and

Teacher Recruitment Program, preapplications that respond to the

selection criteria announced in this

notice. Applicants also would need to

include a detailed workplan with their

applications.

State Program

We collect information once for

applicants for State Program grant

awards. We estimate annual reporting

and recordkeeping burden for this

collection of information to average 200

hours for each application for 20 State

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. Thus, we estimate the

total annual reporting and

recordkeeping burden for this collection

on those preparing application under

the State Program to be 4,000 hours.

Partnership and Teacher Recruitment

Programs

For both the Partnership Program and

Teacher Recruitment Program, all

applicants must submit a preapplication; those with the highest

quality pre-applications would then be

invited to submit full applications. We

estimate annual reporting and

recordkeeping burden for this collection

of information to average 54 hours for

each of the 150 respondents expected to

submit pre-applications under the

Partnership Program, and 54 hours for

each of the 150 respondents expected to

submit pre-applications under the

Teacher Recruitment Program. These

estimates include the time for reviewing

instructions, searching existing data

sources, gathering and maintaining the

data needed, and completing and

reviewing the collection of information.

Thus, we estimate the total annual

reporting and recordkeeping burden

related to the preparation of preapplications to be 8,100 hours for each

of the two programs, or a total of 16,200

hours.

We estimate that of those applicants

who submitted pre-applications for

Partnership Program and Teacher

Recruitment Program grant awards, 25

under each program will be invited to

submit full program applications. We

estimate annual reporting and

recordkeeping burden for this collection

of information to average 200 hours for

each of the applications, including the

time for reviewing instructions,

searching existing data sources,

gathering and maintaining the data

needed, and completing and reviewing

the collection of information. Thus, we

estimate the total annual reporting and

recordkeeping burden for this collection

on those preparing application under

the Partnership Program to be 5,000

hours, and under the Teacher

Recruitment Program also to be 5,000

hours.

Summary

Finally, as discussed in the preceding

discussion, we estimate that the total

annual reporting and recordkeeping

burden for this collection as it relates to

all three Teacher Quality Enhancement

Grant Programs to be 30,200 hours. This

estimate includes the time for reviewing

instructions, searching existing data

sources, gathering and maintaining the

data needed, and completing and

reviewing the collection of information.

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 collections of

information contained in these

proposed regulations between 30 and 60

6942 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules

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 proposed regulations.

Requests for copies of the proposed

application packages for any or all of the

Teacher Quality Programs 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, D.C.

20202–4651. Requests may also be

electronically mailed to the Internet

address OCIOlIMGlIssues@ed.gov or

faxed to 202–708–9346.

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.

Assessment of Educational Impact

The Secretary particularly requests

comments on whether these proposed

regulations would require transmission

of information that any other agency or

authority of the United States gathers or

makes available.

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 these sites. If

you have questions about using the PDF,

call the U.S. Government Printing Office

(GPO) at 1–888–293–6448, 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.access.gpo.gov/nara/

index.html.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1021 et seq.

and 1024(e)

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance

Number 84.336: Teacher Quality

Enhancement Grants Program)

List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 611

Colleges and universities, Elementary

and secondary education, Grant

programs—education.

Dated: February 1, 2000.

A. Lee Fritschler,

Assistant Secretary For Postsecondary

Education.

For the reasons stated in the

preamble, the Secretary proposes to

amend part 611 of Chapter VI of title 34

of the Code of Federal Regulations as

follows:

PART 611—[AMENDED]

1. The authority citation for part 611

continues to read as follows:

Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1021 et seq., unless

otherwise noted.

2. Sections 611.2 and 611.3 are added

to Subpart A to read as follows:

§ 611.2 What must be included in a

Partnership or Teacher Recruitment

Program pre-application?

(a) In addition to a description of the

proposed multiyear project, timeline,

and budget information required by 34

CFR 75.112 and 75.117 and other

applicable law, an applicant for a grant

under this part must submit with its

application a proposed multiyear

workplan. At a minimum, this workplan

must identify, for each year at the

project—

(1) The project’s overall objectives;

(2) Activities that the applicant

proposes to implement to promote each

project objective;

(3) Benchmarks and timelines for

conducting project activities and

achieving the project’s objectives;

(4) Who will conduct and coordinate

these activities; and

(5) Measurable program outcomes that

are tied to each program objective, and

the evidence by which success in

achieving these objectives will be

measured;

(b)(1) In any application for a grant

under the Partnership Program, or under

the Teacher Recruitment Program that is

submitted on behalf of a partnership,

the workplan must identify which

partner will be responsible for which

activities.

(2) In any application for a grant

under the Teacher Recruitment Program

that is submitted on behalf of a State,

the workplan must identify which entity

in the State will be responsible for

which activities.

(c) An applicant that submits a preapplication for a Partnership Program

grant under § 611.3(b) (3) must also

submit any budgetary information that

the Secretary may require in the

program application package.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1021 et seq.)

§ 611.3 What procedures does the

Secretary use to award a grant?

The Secretary uses the selection

procedures in 34 CFR 75.200 through

75.222 except that—

(a)(1) For the State Grants Program,

the Secretary evaluates applications for

new grants on the basis of the selection

criteria and competitive preference

contained in §§ 611.11 through 611.13.

(2) For the Partnership Grants

Program, the Secretary—

(i) Uses a two-stage application

process to determine which applications

to fund;

(ii) Uses the selection criteria in

§§ 611.21 through 611.22 to evaluate the

pre-applications submitted for new

grants, and to determine those

applicants to invite to submit full

program applications; and

(iii) For those applicants invited to

submit full applications, uses the

selection criteria and competitive

preference in §§ 611.23 through 611.25

to evaluate the full program

applications.

(3) For the Teacher Recruitment

Grants Program, the Secretary—

(i) Uses a two-stage application

process to determine which applications

to fund;

(ii) Uses the selection criteria in

§§ 611.31 to evaluate the preapplications submitted for new grants,

and to determine those applicants to

invite to submit full program

applications; and

(iii) For those applicants invited to

submit full applications, uses the

selection criteria in §§ 611.32 to

evaluate the full program applications;

and

(b) In the event that two or more

applicants are ranked equally for the

last available award under any program,

the Secretary selects the applicant

whose activities will focus (or have

most impact) on LEAs and schools

located in one (or more) of the Nation’s

Empowerment Zones and Enterprise

Communities.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1021 et seq.)

3. Subpart B, consisting of §§ 611.11

through 611.13, is added, reading as

follows:

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules 6943

Subpart B—State Grants Program

§ 611.11 What are the program’s general

selection criteria?

In evaluating the quality of

applications, the Secretary uses the

following selection criteria.

(a) Quality of project design. (1) The

Secretary considers the quality of the

project design.

(2) In determining the quality of the

project design, the Secretary considers

the extent to which—

(i) The project design will result in

systemic change in the way that all new

teachers are prepared, and includes

partners from all levels of the education

system;

(ii) The Governor and other relevant

execution and legislative branch

officials, the K–16 education system or

systems, and the business community

are directly involved in and committed

to supporting the proposed activities;

(iii) Project goals and performance

objectives are clear, measurable

outcomes are specified, and a feasible

plan is presented for meeting them;

(iv) The project is likely to initiate or

enhance and supplement systemic State

reforms in one or more of the following

areas; teacher recruitment, preparation,

licensing, and certification;

(v) The applicant will ensure that a

diversity of perspectives are

incorporated into operation of the

project, including those of parents,

teachers, employers, academic and

professional groups, and other

appropriate entities; and

(vi) The project design in based on

up-to-date knowledge from research and

effective practice.

(b) Significance. (1) The Secretary

considers the significane of the project.

(2) In determining the significance of

the project, the Secretary considers the

extent to which—

(i) The project involves the

development or demonstration of

promising new strategies or exceptional

approaches in the way new teachers are

recruited, prepared, certified, or

licensed;

(ii) Project outcomes lead directly to

improvements in teaching quality and

student achievement as measured

against rigorous academic standards;

(iii) The State is committed to

institutionalize the project after federal

funding ends; and

(iv) Project strategies, methods, and

accomplishments are replicable, thereby

permitting other States to benefit from

them.

(c) Quality of resources. (i) The

Secretary considers the quality of the

project’s resources.

(2) In determining the quality of the

project design, the Secretary considers

the extent to which—

(i) Support available to the project,

including personnel, equipment,

supplies, and other resources, is

sufficient to ensure a successful project;

(ii) Budgeted costs that are reasonable

and justified in relation to the design,

outcomes, and potential significance of

the project; and

(iii) The applicant’s matching share of

the budgeted costs demonstrates a

significant commitment to successful

completion of the project and to project

continuation after federal funding ends.

(d) Quality of management plan and

workplan. (1) The Secretary considers

the quality of the project’s management

plan and workplan.

(2) In determining the quality of the

management plan and workplan, the

Secretary considers the following

factors:

(i) The extent to which the

management plan and workplan are

designed to achieve goals and objectives

of the project, and include clearly

defined activities, responsibilities,

timelines, milestones, and measurable

outcomes for accomplishing project

tasks.

(ii) The adequacy of procedures to

ensure feedback and continuous

improvements in the operation of the

project.

(iii) The qualifications, including

training and experience, of key

personnel charged with implementing

the project successfully.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1021 et seq.)

§ 611.12 What additional selection criteria

are used for an application proposing

teacher recruitment activities?

In reviewing applications that

propose to undertake teacher

recruitment activities, the Secretary also

considers the following selection

criteria:

(a) In addition to the elements

contained in § 611.11(a) (‘‘Quality of

project design’’), the Secretary considers

the extent to which the project

addresses—

(1) Systemic changes in the ways that

new teachers are to be recruited,

supported and prepared; and

(2) Systemic efforts to recruit,

support, and prepare prospective

teachers from disadvantaged and other

underrepresented backgrounds.

(b) In addition to the elements

contained in § 611.11(b),

(‘‘Significance’’), the Secretary considers

the applicant’s commitment to continue

recruitment activities, scholarship

assistance, and preparation and support

of additional cohorts of new teachers

after funding under this part ends.

(c) In addition to the elements

contained in § 611.11(c) (‘‘Quality of

resources’’), the Secretary considers the

impact of the project on high-need LEAs

and high-need schools based upon—

(1) The amount of scholarship

assistance the project will provide

students from federal and non-federal

funds;

(2) The number of students who will

receive scholarships; and

(3) How those students receiving

scholarships will benefit from highquality teacher preparation and an

effective support system during their

first three years of teaching.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1021 et seq.)

§ 611.13 What competitive preference

does the Secretary provide?

The Secretary provides a competitive

preference on the basis of how well the

State’s proposed activities in any one or

more of the following statutory

priorities are likely to yield successful

and sustained results:

(a) Initiatives to reform State teacher

licensure and certification requirements

so that current and future teachers

possess strong teaching skills and

academic content knowledge in the

subject areas they will be certified or

licensed to teach.

(b) Innovative reforms to hold higher

education institutions with teacher

preparation programs accountable for

preparing teachers who are highly

competent in the academic content

areas and have strong teaching skills.

(c) Innovative efforts to reduce the

shortage (including the high turnover) of

highly competent teachers in highpoverty urban and rural areas.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1021 et seq.)

4. Subpart C, consisting of §§ 611.21

through 611.25, is added, reading as

follows:

Subpart C—Partnership Grants

Program

§ 611.21 What are the program’s selection

criteria for pre-applications?

In evaluating the quality of preapplications, the Secretary uses the

following selection criteria.

(a) Project goals and objectives. (1)

The Secretary considers the goals and

objectives of the project design.

(2) In determining the quality of the

project goals and objectives, the

Secretary considers the following

factors:

(i) The partnership’s vision for

producing significant and sustainable

improvements in teacher education.

6944 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules

(ii) The needs the partnership will

address.

(iii) How the partnership and its

activities would be sustained once

federal support ends.

(b) Partnering commitment. (1) The

Secretary considers the partnering

commitment embodied in the project.

(2) In determining the quality of the

partnering commitment, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) Evidence of how well the

partnership would be able to

accomplish objectives working together

that its individual members could not

accomplish working separately.

(ii) The significance of the roles given

to each principal partner in

implementing project activities.

(c) Quality and comprehensiveness of

key project components. (1) The

Secretary considers the quality and

comprehensiveness of key project

components in the process of preparing

new teachers.

(2) In determining the quality and

comprehensiveness of key project

components in the process of preparing

new teachers, the Secretary considers

the extent to which—

(i) Specific activities are designed and

would be implemented to ensure that

students preparing to be teachers are

adequately prepared, including

activities designed to ensure that they

have adequate content knowledge, are

able to use technology effectively to

promote instruction, and participate in

extensive, supervised clinical

experiences;

(ii) Specific activities are designed

and would be implemented to ensure

adequate support for those who have

completed the teacher preparation

program during their first years as

teachers; and

(iii) The project design reflects best

research and practice.

(d) Specific project outcomes. (1) The

Secretary considers the specific

outcomes the project would produce in

the preparation of new teachers.

(2) In determining the specific

outcomes the project would produce in

the preparation of new teachers, the

Secretary considers the following

factors:

(i) The extent to which important

aspects of the partnership’s existing

teacher preparation system would

change.

(ii) The quality of the performance

measures to be used to demonstrate

success.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1021 et seq.)

§ 611.22 What additional selection criteria

are used for a pre-application that proposes

teacher recruitment activities?

In reviewing pre-applications that

propose to undertake teacher

recruitment activities, the Secretary also

considers the following selection

criteria:

(a) In addition to the elements

contained in § 611.21(a) (‘‘Project goals

and objectives’’), the Secretary considers

the extent to which—

(1) The partnership’s vision responds

to LEA needs for a diverse and high

quality teaching force, and will lead to

reduced teacher shortages in these high

need LEAs; and

(2) The partnership will sustain its

work after federal funding has ended by

recruiting, providing scholarship

assistance, training and supporting

additional cohorts of new teachers.

(b) In addition to the elements

contained in § 611.21(c) (‘‘Quality and

comprehensiveness of key project

components’’), the Secretary considers

the extent to which the project will—

(1) Significantly improve recruitment

of new students, including those from

disadvantaged and other

underrepresented backgrounds; and

(2) Provide scholarship assistance and

adequate training to preservice students,

as well as induction support for those

who become teachers after graduating

from the teacher preparation program.

(c) In addition to the elements

contained in § 611.21(d) (‘‘Specific

project outcomes′′), the Secretary

considers the extent to which the

project addresses the number of new

teachers to be produced and their ability

to teach effectively in high-need

schools.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1021 et seq.)

§ 611.23 What are the program’s general

selection criteria for full applications?

In evaluating the quality of

applications, the Secretary uses the

following selection criteria.

(a) Quality of project design. (1) The

Secretary considers the quality of the

project design.

(2) In determining the quality of the

project design, the Secretary considers

the following factors:

(i) The extent of evidence of

institution-wide commitment to high

quality teacher preparation that

includes significant policy and practice

changes supported by key leaders, and

which result in permanent changes to

ensure that preparing teachers is a

central mission of the entire university.

(ii) The extent to which the

partnership creates and sustains

collaborative mechanisms to integrate

professional teaching skills, including

skills in the use of technology in the

classroom, with strong academic

content from the arts and sciences.

(iii) The extent of well-designed and

extensive preservice clinical

experiences for students, including

mentoring and other forms of support,

implemented through collaboration

between the K–12 and higher education

partners.

(iv) Whether a well-planned,

systematic induction program is

established for new teachers to increase

their chances of being successful in

high-need schools.

(v) The strength of linkages within the

partnership between higher education

and high need schools or school

districts so that all partners have

important roles in project design,

implementation, governance and

evaluation.

(vi) Whether the project design is

based on up-to-date knowledge from

research and effective practice,

especially on how students learn.

(b) Significance of project activities.

(1) The Secretary considers the

significance of project activities.

(2) In determining the quality of the

project design, the Secretary considers

the following factors:

(i) How well the project involves

promising new strategies or exceptional

approaches in the way new teachers are

recruited, prepared and inducted into

the teaching profession.

(ii) The extent to which project

outcomes include preparing teachers to

teach to their State’s highest K–12

standards and that are likely to result in

improved K–12 student achievement.

(iii) The extent of the partnership’s

commitment to institutionalize the

project after federal funding ends.

(iv) The extent to which the

partnership is committed to

disseminating effective practices to

others and is willing to provide

technical assistance about ways to

improve teacher education.

(v) How well the partnership will

integrate its activities with other

education reform efforts underway in

the State or communities where the

partners are located, and will coordinate

its work with local, State or federal

teacher training, teacher recruitment, or

professional development programs.

(c) Quality of resources. (1) The

Secretary considers the quality of

resources of project activities.

(2) In determining the quality of

resources, the Secretary considers the

extent to which—

(i) Support available to the project,

including personnel, equipment,

supplies, and other resources, is

sufficient to ensure a successful project;

Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules 6945

(ii) Budgeted costs are reasonable and

justified in relation to the design,

outcomes, and potential significance of

the project; and

(iii) The applicant’s matching share of

the budgeted costs demonstrates a

significant commitment to successful

completion of the project and to project

continuation after federal funding ends.

(d) Quality of management plan and

workplan. (1) The Secretary considers

the quality of the management plan and

workplan.

(2) In determining the quality of the

management plan, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the

management plan and workplan are

designed to achieve goals and objectives

of the project, and include clearly

defined activities, responsibilities,

timelines, milestones, and measurable

outcomes for accomplishing project

tasks.

(ii) The extent to which the

management plan and workplan reflect

an effective, inclusive, and responsive

governance and decision-making

structure that will permit all partners to

participate in and benefit from project

activities, and to use evaluation results

to ensure continuous improvements in

the operations of the project.

(iii) The qualifications, including

training and experience, of key

personnel charged with implementing

the project successfully.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1021 et seq.)

§ 611.24 What additional selection criteria

are used for a full application that proposes

teacher recruitment activities?

In reviewing full applications that

propose to undertake teacher

recruitment activities, the Secretary also

considers the following selection

criteria:

(a) In addition to the elements

contained in § 611.23(a) (‘‘Quality of

project design’’), the Secretary considers

the extent to which the project reflects—

(1) A commitment to recruit, support

and prepare additional well-qualified

new teachers for high need schools;

(2) Appropriate academic and student

support services; and

(3) A well-considered strategy for

addressing shortages of well-qualified

and well-trained teachers in high-need

LEAs, especially teachers from

disadvantaged and other unrepresented

backgrounds.

(b) In addition to the elements

contained in § 611.23(b) (‘‘Significance

of project activities’’), the Secretary

considers the extent to which the

project promotes the recruitment,

scholarship assistance, preparation, and

support of additional cohorts of new

teachers.

(c) In addition to the elements

contained in § 611.23(c) (‘‘Quality of

resources’’), the Secretary considers the

impact of the project on high-need LEAs

and high-need schools based upon—

(1) The amount of scholarship

assistance the project will provide

students from federal and non-federal

funds;

(2) The number of students who will

receive scholarships; and

(3) How those students receiving

scholarships will benefit from highquality teacher preparation and an

effective support system during their

first three years of teaching.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1021 et seq.)

§ 611.25 What competitive preference

does the Secretary provide?

The Secretary provides a competitive

preference on the basis of how well the

project includes a significant role for

private business in the design and

implementation of the project.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1021 et seq.)

5. Subpart D, consisting of §§ 611.31

and 611.32, is added, reading as follows:

Subpart D—Teacher Recruitment

Grants Program

§ 611.31 What are the program’s selection

criteria for pre-applications?

In evaluating pre-applications, the

Secretary considers the following

criteria:

(a) Project goals and objectives. (1)

The Secretary considers the goals and

objectives of the project design.

(2) In determining the quality of the

project goals and objectives, the

Secretary considers how the partnership

or State applicant intends to—

(i) Produce significant and sustainable

improvements in teacher recruitment,

preparation, and support.

(ii) Reduce teacher shortages in highneed LEAs and schools, and improve

student achievement in the schools in

which teachers who participate in its

project will teach.

(b) Partnership commitment. (1) The

Secretary considers the partnering

commitment embodied in the project.

(2) In determining the quality of the

partnering commitment, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) What the partnership, or State and

its partners, can accomplish by working

together that could not be achieved by

working separately.

(ii) How the project proposed by the

partnership or State is driven by the

needs of LEA partners.

(c) Quality of key project components.

(1) The Secretary considers the quality

of key project components.

(2) In determining the quality of key

project components, the Secretary

considers the following factors:

(i) The extent to which the project

would make significant and lasting

systemic changes in how the applicant

recruits, trains, and supports new

teachers, and reflect knowledge gained

from research and practice.

(ii) The extent to which the project

would be implemented in ways that

significantly improve recruitment,

scholarship assistance to preservice

students, training, and induction

support for new entrants into teaching.

(d) Specific project outcomes. (1) The

Secretary considers the specific

outcomes the project would produce in

the recruitment, preparation, and

placement of new teachers.

(2) In determining the specific

outcomes the project would produce in

the recruitment, preparation, and

placement of new teachers, the

Secretary considers the following

factors:

(i) The number of teachers to be

produced and the quality of their

preparation.

(ii) The partnership’s or State’s

commitment to sustaining the work of

the project after federal funding has

ended by recruiting, providing

scholarship assistance, training, and

supporting additional cohorts of new

teachers.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1021 et seq.)

§ 611.32 What are the program’s general

section criteria?

In evaluating the quality of full

applications, the Secretary uses the

following selection criteria.

(a) Quality of the project design. (1)

The Secretary considers the quality of

the project design for ensuring that

activities to recruit and prepare new

teachers are a central mission of the

project.

(2) In considering the quality of the

project design for ensuring that

activities to recruit and prepare new

teachers are a central mission of the

project, the Secretary considers the

extent to which the project design—

(i) Shows evidence of institutional or

(in the case of a State applicant) Statelevel commitment both to recruitment of

additional new teachers, and to highquality teacher preparation that

includes significant policy and practice

changes supported by key leaders that

result in permanent changes to current

institutional practices;

(ii) Creates and sustains collaborative

mechanisms to integrate professional

6946 Federal Register / Vol. 65, No. 29 / Friday, February 11, 2000 / Proposed Rules

teaching skills, including skills in the

use of technology in the classroom, with

academic content provided by the

school of arts and sciences;

(iii) Includes well-designed academic

and student support services as well as

carefully planned and extensive

preservice clinical experiences for

students, including mentoring and other

forms of support, that are implemented

through collaboration between the K–12

and higher education partners;

(iv) Includes establishment of a wellplanned, systematic induction program

for new teachers that increases their

chances of being successful in highneed schools;

(v) Includes strong linkages among the

partner institutions of higher education

and high-need schools and school

districts (or, in the case of a State

applicant, between the State and these

entities in its project), so that all those

who would implement the project have

important roles in project design,

implementation, governance, and

evaluation;

(vi) Responds to the shortages of wellqualified and well-trained teachers in

high-need school districts, especially

from disadvantaged and other

underrepresented backgrounds; and

(vii) Is based on up-to-date knowledge

from research and effective practice.

(b) Significance. (1) The Secretary

considers the significance of the project.

(2) In determining the significance of

the project, the Secretary considers the

extent to which—

(i) The project involves promising

new strategies or exceptional

approaches in the way new teachers are

recruited, prepared, and inducted into

the teaching profession;

(ii) Project outcomes include

measurable improvements in teacher

quality and in the number of wellprepared new teachers, and that are

likely to result in improved K–12

student achievement;

(iii) The project will be

institutionalized after federal funding

ends, including recruitment,

scholarship assistance, preparation, and

support of additional cohorts of new

teachers;

(iv) The project will disseminate

effective practices to others, and to

provide technical assistance about ways

to improve teacher recruitment and

preparation; and

(v) The project will integrate its

activities with other education reform

activities underway in the State or

communities in which the project is

based, and will coordinate its work with

local, State, and federal teacher

recruitment, training, and professional

development programs.

(c) Quality of resources. (1) The

Secretary considers the quality of the

project’s resources.

(2) In determining the quality of the

project’s resources, the Secretary

considers the extent to which—

(i) The amount of support available to

the project, including personnel,

equipment, supplies, student

scholarship assistance, and other

resources is sufficient to ensure a

successful project.

(ii) Budgeted costs are reasonable and

justified in relation to the design,

outcomes, and potential significance of

the project.

(iii) The applicant’s matching share of

budgeted costs demonstrates a

significant commitment to successful

completion of the project, and to project

continuation after federal funding ends.

(d) Quality of management plan and

workplan. (1) The Secretary considers

the quality of the project’s management

plan and workplan.

(2) In determining the quality of the

management plan and workplan, the

Secretary considers the following

factors:

(i) The extent to which the

management plan and workplan are

designed to achieve goals and objectives

of the project, and include clearly

defined activities, responsibilities,

timelines, milestones, and measurable

outcomes for accomplishing project

tasks.

(ii) The extent to which the project

has an effective, inclusive, and

responsive governance and

decisionmaking structure that will

permit all partners to participate in and

benefit from project activities, and to

use evaluation results to continuously

improve project operations.

(iii) The qualifications, including

training and experience, of key

personnel charged with implementing

the project successfully.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1021 et seq.)

6. Subpart F is revised to read as

follows:

Subpart F—Other Grant Conditions

§ 611.61 What is the maximum indirect

cost rate that applies to a recipient’s use of

program funds?

Notwithstanding 34 CFR 75.560

through 75.562 and 34 CFR 80.22, the

maximum indirect cost rate that any

recipient of funds under the Teacher

Quality Enhancement Grants Program

may use to charge indirect costs to these

funds is the lesser of—

(a) The rate established by the

negotiated indirect cost agreement; or

(b) Eight percent.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1021 et seq.)

§ 611.62 What are a grantee’s matching

requirements?

(a)(1) Each State receiving a grant

under the State Grants Program or

Teacher Recruitment Grants Program

must provide, from non-federal sources,

an amount equal to 50 percent of the

amount of the grant to carry out the

activities supported by the grant

(2) The 50 percent match required by

paragraph (a)(1) of this section must be

made annually during the project

period, with respect to each grant award

the State receives.

(b) Each partnership receiving a grant

under the Partnership Grant Program or

the Teacher Recruitment Grant Program

must provide, from non-federal sources,

an amount equal to—

(1) 25 percent of the grant award for

the first year of the grant;

(2) 35 percent of the grant award for

the second year of the grant; and

(3) 50 percent of the grant award for

each succeeding year of the grant.

(c) The match from non-federal

sources required by paragraphs (a) and

(b) of this section may be made in cash

or in kind.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1021 et seq.)

[FR Doc. 00–2722 Filed 2–10–00; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–M

LIBRARY OF CONGRESS

Copyright Office

37 CFR Part 201

[Docket No. RM 2000–2]

Cable Compulsory License; Definition

of a Network Station

AGENCY: Copyright Office, Library of

Congress.

ACTION: Notice of inquiry.

SUMMARY: The Copyright Office of the

Library of Congress is opening a

rulemaking proceeding to determine the

scope and application of the definition

of a network station under the cable

statutory license of the Copyright Act.

DATES: Initial comments should be

received no later than April 11, 2000.

Reply comments are due by May 11,

2000.

ADDRESSES: If sent by mail, an original

and twelve copies of comments and

reply comments should be addressed to:

Office of the Copyright General Counsel,

PO Box 70977, Southwest Station,

Washington, DC 20024. If hand

delivered, an original and twelve copies

of comments and reply comments

should be brought to: Office of the