Vol. 80 Monday, 

No. 26 February 9, 2015 

Part IV 

Department of Education 

34 CFR Ch. II 

Final Requirements––School Improvement Grants––Title I of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; Final Rule 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

7224 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

34 CFR Chapter II 

[Docket ID ED–2014–OESE–0079; CFDA 

Number: 84.377A] 

RIN 1810–AB22 

Final Requirements—School 

Improvement Grants—Title I of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965 

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and 

Secondary Education, Department of 

Education (Department). 

ACTION: Final requirements. 

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

adopts final requirements for the School 

Improvement Grants (SIG) program, 

authorized under section 1003(g) of title 

I of the Elementary and Secondary 

Education Act of 1965, as amended 

(ESEA). These final requirements make 

changes to the current SIG program 

requirements and implement language 

in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 

2014, that allows local educational 

agencies (LEAs) to implement 

additional interventions, provides 

flexibility for rural LEAs, and extends 

the grant period from three to five years. 

Additionally, the final requirements 

make changes that reflect lessons 

learned from four years of SIG 

implementation. 

DATES: These requirements are effective 

March 11, 2015. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Elizabeth Ross, U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 

Room 3C116, Washington, DC 20202. 

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

Elizabeth.Ross@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 

telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay 

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

8339. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Executive Summary 

Purpose of This Regulatory Action: 

These final requirements implement 

language in the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2014, to allow 

LEAs to implement evidence-based, 

whole-school reform strategies and 

State-determined school improvement 

intervention models, to provide 

flexibility for rural LEAs implementing 

a SIG intervention, and to extend the 

allowable grant period from three to five 

years. Additionally, the final 

requirements make changes that reflect 

lessons learned from four years of SIG 

implementation. This regulatory action 

is authorized by the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2014, and 20 U.S.C. 

6303(g). 

Summary of the Major Provisions of 

This Regulatory Action: As discussed in 

more depth in the notice of proposed 

requirements (NPR) published in the 

Federal Register on September 8, 2014 

(79 FR 53254), the Department makes 

the following revisions to the current 

SIG requirements to implement 

language in the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2014: Allowing 

five-year SIG awards; adding Statedetermined school improvement 

intervention models; adding evidencebased, whole-school reform models; and 

allowing rural LEAs to modify one SIG 

intervention model element. 

The Department also revises the 

current SIG requirements to strengthen 

program implementation based on 

lessons learned and input from 

stakeholders by: Adding an intervention 

model that focuses on improving 

educational outcomes in preschool and 

early grades; adding an LEA 

requirement to demonstrate the 

appropriateness of the chosen 

intervention model and to take into 

consideration family and community 

input in the selection of the model; 

adding an LEA requirement to 

continuously engage families and the 

community throughout implementation; 

adding an LEA requirement to monitor 

and support intervention 

implementation; adding an LEA 

requirement to regularly review external 

providers’ performance and hold 

external providers accountable; 

eliminating the ‘‘rule of nine’’; and 

revising reporting requirements. 

The Department also made revisions 

to clarify the current SIG requirements: 

Modifying the teacher and principal 

evaluation and support system 

requirements under the transformation 

model; clarifying the rigorous review 

process under the restart model; 

clarifying renewal criteria; defining 

‘‘greatest need’’ to include priority and 

focus schools for SEAs with approved 

ESEA flexibility requests; clarifying the 

timeline under which previously 

implemented interventions (in whole or 

in part) may continue as part of a SIG 

intervention; and clarifying 

requirements related to the posting of 

LEAs’ SIG applications. 

Additionally, the Department has 

removed references to fiscal year 2009 

and fiscal year 2010 funds and the 

differentiated accountability pilot 

because those references are no longer 

necessary. 

Finally, and as described in more 

detail in the Analysis of Comments and 

Changes section of this notice, the 

Department has made three additional 

changes to the proposed requirements in 

these final requirements in response to 

comments. First, the Department has 

clarified the name of the evidencebased, whole-school reform model. 

Second, the Department has clarified 

that an SEA may take into account, in 

awarding SIG funds, the extent to which 

an LEA demonstrates that it will 

implement one or more evidence-based 

strategies as part of the intervention 

model. Third, the Department has 

modified the definition of ‘‘wholeschool reform model developer’’ to 

eliminate the provision that allowed an 

entity or individual to serve as a wholeschool reform model developer if it had 

a high-quality plan for implementation 

and to require a developer to have a 

record of success implementing a 

whole-school reform model in a lowperforming school and to be selected 

through a rigorous review process that 

includes a determination that the entity 

or individual is likely to produce strong 

results for the school. 

Finally, and as described in more 

detail in the Analysis of Comments and 

Changes section of this notice, the 

Department has made two other changes 

to the proposed requirements based on 

the Consolidated and Further 

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, 

which Congress enacted after the 

publication of the NPR. First, the 

Department has aligned the requirement 

for evidence of effectiveness in the 

evidence-based, whole-school reform 

model with the definition of ‘‘moderate 

level of evidence’’ in the Education 

Department General Administrative 

Regulations, specifically by requiring 

that evidence of effectiveness include at 

least one study, rather than two studies, 

that meets the What Works 

Clearinghouse evidence standards. 

Second, the Department has modified 

the State-determined model to require 

that an SEA’s proposed model meet the 

definition of ‘‘whole-school reform 

model.’’ 

Costs and Benefits: The Department 

believes that the benefits of this 

regulatory action outweigh any 

associated costs to SEAs and LEAs, 

which would be financed with grant 

funds. The benefits of this action will be 

more effective State and local actions, 

using Federal funds, to turn around 

their lowest-performing schools and 

achieve significant improvement in 

educational outcomes for the students 

attending those schools. Please refer to 

the Regulatory Impact Analysis in this 

document for a more detailed 

discussion of costs and benefits. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 7225 

Consistent with Executive Order 

12866, the Secretary has determined 

that this action is economically 

significant and, thus, is subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

Budget under the order. 

Purpose of Program: In conjunction 

with title I funds for school 

improvement reserved under section 

1003(a) of the ESEA, SIG funds under 

section 1003(g) of the ESEA are used to 

improve student achievement in title I 

schools identified for improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring so as 

to enable those schools to make 

adequate yearly progress (AYP) and exit 

improvement status. 

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

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub. 

L. 113–76). 

We published a notice of proposed 

requirements for this program in the 

Federal Register on September 8, 2014 

(79 FR 53254). That notice contained 

background information and our reasons 

for the revisions to the existing SIG 

requirements. 

There are differences between the 

proposed requirements and these final 

requirements as discussed in the 

Analysis of Comments and Changes 

section elsewhere in this notice. 

Public Comment: In response to our 

invitation in the NPR, 235 parties 

submitted comments on the proposed 

requirements. 

Generally, we do not address 

technical and other minor changes, or 

suggested changes the law does not 

authorize us to make under the 

applicable statutory authority. In 

addition we do not address general 

comments that raised concerns not 

directly related to the proposed 

requirements. 

Analysis of Comments and Changes: 

An analysis of the comments and of any 

changes in the requirements since 

publication of the notice of proposed 

requirements follows. 

Allowing Five-Year Grant Awards 

Comment: Many commenters 

supported the proposal to allow an SEA 

to make a SIG award to an LEA for up 

to five years, including the Department’s 

proposal to permit an LEA to use one 

year for planning and other preimplementation activities. Many of 

these commenters stated that they 

believed a planning year would provide 

LEAs with needed additional time and 

resources to prepare for school 

turnaround efforts and would lead to 

increased sustainability of reforms 

among schools receiving SIG funds. One 

commenter recommended allowing an 

LEA to use SIG funds for two years of 

planning and pre-implementation 

activities, rather than one year. 

Discussion: We appreciate the strong 

support for the proposal to allow grant 

awards of up to five years, consistent 

with the Consolidated Appropriations 

Act, 2014, and agree with the 

commenters that planning is imperative 

to successful implementation of 

turnaround strategies. We believe one 

year of funding is sufficient for planning 

purposes under the SIG program, which 

is intended not to serve as a long-term 

funding stream but, rather, to provide a 

short-term infusion of funds for 

comprehensive and rapid school 

turnaround. We note, however, that an 

LEA may also use SIG funds for the 

planning or other pre-implementation 

activities it undertakes between the time 

it receives a SIG award and the 

beginning of the first grant year. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters requested 

that we allow an LEA to use SIG funds 

during the planning period for activities 

that involve assessing and addressing 

issues with the schools that feed 

students into an eligible school. 

Discussion: Under section 1003(g) of 

the ESEA and section I.A.1 of these final 

requirements, an LEA may use SIG 

funds only in a SIG-eligible school. It 

may not use SIG funds to serve a school 

not receiving a SIG grant that feeds 

students into a SIG eligible school. Of 

course, if a school that feeds students 

into a SIG-eligible school is itself 

eligible for SIG funds, an LEA may 

separately seek SIG funds to support 

interventions in that school. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A number of commenters 

recommended that the Department 

require LEAs to undertake needs 

analyses during a planning year. One 

such commenter suggested that if an 

LEA chooses to use the first year of its 

SIG award for planning, that LEA 

should require all SIG schools to 

conduct both comprehensive diagnostic 

needs and capacity assessments to serve 

as the basis for targeting student 

supports. Another commenter 

recommended that the Department 

require LEAs to provide evidence that 

they conducted an asset analysis prior 

to implementation, in order to identify 

the skills, people, and organizations in 

the community that can contribute 

resources and expertise in the design of 

the selected intervention. Another 

commenter suggested including, as part 

of the needs analysis, an analysis of the 

health needs of the community. Another 

commenter recommended requiring an 

SEA, either before or during the 

planning year, to assess the school’s and 

LEA’s performance and capacity to 

implement a SIG model in order to 

determine whether the LEA is able to 

make changes to support 

implementation. That commenter asked 

the Department to provide specific tools 

or criteria to support an SEA’s 

assessment of district readiness. Finally, 

one commenter recommended 

strengthening the monitoring of both 

LEAs and of schools, including an 

assessment of LEA capacity during a 

planning year or pre-implementation 

period to ensure that the LEA is making 

the changes needed to support full and 

effective implementation of the selected 

model. 

Discussion: We agree that an LEA 

should identify the needs of the 

individual schools it proposes to serve 

with SIG funds. Under section 

I.A.4(a)(1), each LEA applying to 

implement a SIG model in a school 

must use a needs analysis to ensure that 

the intervention to be implemented in 

the school will meet the specific needs 

of the school, which may include needs 

for academic and non-academic 

support. We do not believe it is 

necessary to require additional needs 

analyses, capacity assessments, or 

corresponding monitoring because the 

needs assessment requirement in 

section I.A.4(a)(1) is sufficient to ensure 

that each LEA reviews the particular 

needs in its schools. 

Although the needs analysis required 

under section I.A.4(a)(1) must be 

conducted as part of the application 

process and prior to receipt of SIG 

funds, an LEA may use the SIG funds it 

receives to conduct additional needs 

assessment activities, including, for 

example, more comprehensive 

diagnostic analyses, capacity and asset 

assessments, and assessments of 

students’ health needs, so long as those 

activities are a part of the LEA’s 

approved SIG application, are related to 

the implementation of the SIG model, 

and are reasonable and necessary. 

Additionally, an SEA may use its 

section 1003(a) funds or the SIG funds 

it reserves for administration, 

evaluation, and technical assistance 

expenses to support the costs of needs 

analyses by its LEAs with SIG schools. 

Because not all LEAs will benefit from 

each of these activities, we decline to 

require them. 

We also agree that an SEA should 

continue to monitor and work with its 

LEAs and schools to ensure they possess 

the capacity to implement a SIG model 

prior to awarding funds, including by 

providing specific tools that an LEA can 

use in assessing and building capacity. 

To that end, we note that, under section 

I.A.4(b), an SEA must consider the 

LEA’s capacity to implement the chosen 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

7226 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

intervention and may only fund an LEA 

that it determines can implement fully 

and effectively the chosen intervention. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters requested 

that the Department clarify the deadline 

by which an LEA implementing the 

turnaround or transformation model 

must replace the principal if the LEA 

receives funds for a planning year. 

Discussion: Under section I.A.4(a)(3), 

an LEA implementing the turnaround or 

transformation model in a school must 

replace the principal prior to the start of 

the first year of full implementation of 

the chosen SIG model. Accordingly, an 

LEA receiving a SIG award that includes 

a year of planning must replace the 

principal prior to the start of the first 

year of full implementation (i.e., prior to 

the start of the second grant year). That 

said, we strongly encourage an LEA 

implementing the turnaround or 

transformation model to replace the 

school’s principal as early as possible 

(consistent with applicable State and 

local laws and requirements) so that the 

incoming principal can prepare to lead 

the full and effective implementation of 

the model in the school. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked if an 

LEA may use the planning year to 

identify the model it will implement in 

a school. 

Discussion: An LEA must identify the 

SIG model it intends to implement in a 

school in its application to the SEA. The 

planning year is intended to provide the 

LEA with time and resources to prepare 

to fully implement that specific model. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended that the Department 

clarify, in light of the authority for SEAs 

to make SIG awards for up to five years, 

the maximum amount of SIG funds an 

LEA may receive per year per school; 

and several commenters requested that 

the Department clarify whether the 

annual per-school cap of $2 million 

allows an LEA to receive up to $10 

million for a school implementing a 

model over five years. One commenter 

also recommended that the Department 

specify the maximum amount of funds 

that an LEA may use for both a year of 

planning and pre-implementation 

activities and for a year of activities to 

sustain reforms following full 

implementation. 

Discussion: Section II.B.8 permits an 

LEA to receive up to $2 million per year 

per each school implementing an 

intervention model. Accordingly, an 

LEA may receive up to $10 million total 

for such a school over five years. 

We do not believe it is worthwhile to 

place a limit on the amount of SIG funds 

an LEA may use for a year of planning 

and pre-implementation activities or for 

a year of activities to sustain reforms 

following full implementation, and 

would expect that in either case the 

amount needed by an LEA is 

significantly less than the $2 million per 

year that it is eligible to receive. We 

remind SEAs and LEAs that an LEA 

may receive funds only for activities 

that are a part of the LEA’s approved 

SIG application, are related to the 

implementation of the SIG model, and 

are reasonable and necessary. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked 

whether the Department will require 

SEAs to frontload SIG awards to LEAs 

or whether SEAs could provide the first 

year of funding from fiscal year 2014 

SIG funds and make annual 

continuation awards thereafter. 

Discussion: The Department does not 

require an SEA to frontload SIG awards. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A few commenters 

suggested that the Department allow 

SEAs to provide more than five years of 

SIG funding to an LEA for a school. 

Another commenter suggested allowing 

two one-year renewal periods in 

addition to the five-year award 

permitted under the proposed 

requirements. Another commenter 

recommended that, for purposes of 

sustainability, an SEA should be 

permitted to renew an LEA’s SIG award 

for each school for up to four additional 

one-year periods after at least three 

years of full intervention 

implementation. This commenter also 

recommended reducing the level of 

funding for each subsequent, additional 

one-year period, in order to support 

sustainability. 

Discussion: Through the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2014, Congress 

allows SEAs to make SIG awards to 

LEAs for up to five years per school, 

notwithstanding section 1003(g)(5)(C) of 

the ESEA, which allows LEAs to receive 

two years of SIG funds, in addition to 

the currently allowable three years, for 

a school if the school is meeting 

improvement goals. Therefore, the 

Department cannot allow an SEA to 

make SIG awards beyond a five-year 

period, which includes any renewal 

years. Moreover, the goal of the SIG 

program is to support rigorous 

interventions aimed at turning around 

our Nation’s persistently lowestachieving schools, such that these 

schools will be able to sustain the 

reforms beyond five years without SIG 

funding, and not to provide continuous 

support. 

Changes: None. 

Adding State-Determined School 

Improvement Intervention Models 

Comment: Numerous commenters 

expressed support for the addition of a 

State-determined intervention model 

and for the alignment between the 

requirements of the State-determined 

model and the ESEA flexibility 

turnaround principles. A number of 

commenters suggested general 

modifications to the State-determined 

model requirement. These suggestions 

included: Allowing State-determined 

models that are already approved under 

ESEA flexibility; allowing Statedetermined models to address school 

performance in schools that are a part of 

the same feeder pattern; allowing an 

SEA without ESEA flexibility to 

implement a State-determined model 

based on the turnaround principles; 

allowing LEAs to propose Statedetermined models to their SEA; 

allowing an SEA to submit a Statedetermined model that includes a menu 

of strategies from which LEAs may 

select, in partnership with the SEA, 

based on need; requiring a Statedetermined model to be based on 

substantial evidence; allowing an SEA 

to add requirements to the Statedetermined model; and requiring 

alignment between the proposed Statedetermined model and the statewide 

systems of differentiated recognition, 

accountability, and support that SEAs 

are implementing under ESEA 

flexibility. Numerous commenters also 

recommended that the Department add 

specific requirements to the turnaround 

principles required under the Statedetermined model, including a 

requirement: To focus on physical 

fitness, health education, and nutrition; 

to conduct a school and community 

assets and needs assessment to identify 

students’ social, emotional, and health 

needs; if principal replacement is 

necessary, to appoint a new principal 

based on a track record of success with 

similar schools and an ability to 

demonstrate the necessary leadership 

competencies; and that school safety 

and discipline interventions included in 

State-determined models be evidencebased. 

We also received several comments 

asking for changes to the turnaround 

principles and to the requirement that a 

State-determined model include 

increased learning time (ILT). Several 

commenters suggested it is too 

restrictive to require ILT in all Statedetermined models and requested that 

the ILT requirement be eliminated or 

modified to be less restrictive. 

Several commenters expressed 

concern that the requirements for the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 7227 

State-determined model are too 

numerous and too rigid, and may cause 

undue burden to SEAs, LEAs, and 

schools, particularly SEAs that are 

currently pursuing turnaround strategies 

with emphases different from those 

required under the State-determined 

model. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

comments on the State-determined 

model but do not address the comments 

specifically, as we are revising the 

model consistent with applicable legal 

requirements. Since the publication of 

the NPR, Congress enacted the 

Consolidated and Further Continuing 

Appropriations Act, 2015. In the 

explanatory statement accompanying 

the Act, which functions as a conference 

report under section 4 of the 

Consolidated and Further Continuing 

Appropriations Act, 2015, the House 

Committee on Appropriations states that 

the language in the NPR implementing 

the State-determined model did not 

meet congressional intent, which was to 

provide flexibility from the existing SIG 

requirements to allow LEAs to 

implement alternative strategies. The 

explanatory statement further states that 

the Department must ensure that the 

final requirements strictly adhere to the 

language in the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2014. Accordingly, 

we are modifying the State-determined 

model requirements to allow an SEA to 

submit to the Secretary for 

consideration one State-determined 

model that meets the definition of a 

‘‘whole-school reform model’’ in section 

I.A.3 of the final requirements and that 

includes, at the SEA’s discretion, any 

other elements or strategies that the SEA 

determines will help improve student 

achievement, consistent with the 

explanatory statement accompanying 

the Consolidated and Further 

Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015. 

We note that the requirement that a 

State-determined model meet the 

definition of a ‘‘whole-school reform 

model’’ and include, at the SEA’s 

discretion, any other element or strategy 

that an SEA determines will help 

improve student achievement is also 

consistent with language in the report 

that accompanied the fiscal year 2014 

appropriations bill for the Department 

(Senate Report 113–71), in which the 

Senate Appropriations Committee stated 

that it expects that any approach taken 

with SIG funds will address schoolwide 

factors, including, for example, 

curriculum and instruction, social and 

emotional support services for students, 

and training and support for teachers 

and school leaders. We further note that 

an SEA that demonstrates that its 

proposed State-determined model meets 

the requirements of the evidence-based, 

whole-school reform model in section 

I.A.2(e) will not be required to make any 

additional demonstration for approval. 

Changes: We have modified the 

requirements in section II.B.1(b) to 

permit an SEA to submit to the 

Secretary for approval a Statedetermined model that meets the 

definition of ‘‘whole-school reform 

model’’ in section I.A.3 of the final 

requirements and that includes, at the 

SEA’s discretion, any other elements or 

strategies that the SEA determines will 

help improve student achievement. 

Comment: A few commenters asked 

that the Department clarify whether an 

SEA could elect to make the Statedetermined model available to only 

specific schools in the State. We 

received a few other comments asking 

the same question about other models 

under the SIG program. Several other 

commenters requested flexibility to 

allow SEAs to give priority to selected 

SIG intervention models, rather than 

making all SIG models available to SIG 

applicants. 

Discussion: As noted in question I–4 

of the March 1, 2012, SIG Guidance, 

available at http://www2.ed.gov/

programs/sif/sigguidance03012012.doc, 

an SEA may not require an LEA to 

implement a particular SIG model in 

one or more schools. Each LEA has the 

discretion to determine which model to 

implement for each school it elects to 

serve with SIG funds. The only 

exception to this is if, consistent with 

State law, the SEA takes over the LEA 

or school. Nothing in the requirements 

changes this rule. However, SEAs are 

not required to submit a Statedetermined model for approval by the 

Secretary. Under section I.A.2(g), if an 

SEA does not submit such a model for 

approval by the Secretary, an LEA in 

that State cannot use a State-determined 

model. 

We also note that, as described in 

question I–9 of the March 1, 2012, SIG 

Guidance, available at http://

www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/

sigguidance03012012.doc, an SEA may 

give priority to an LEA for SIG funding 

based on a variety of factors including, 

for example, the intervention an LEA is 

implementing in its SIG schools. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters 

encouraged the Department to consider 

two specific frameworks in reviewing 

State-determined models: Multi-tiered 

Systems of Support and A Framework 

for Safe and Successful Schools. 

Discussion: In order to encourage an 

SEA to submit for consideration a Statedetermined model that best addresses 

the needs of that SEA without imposing 

additional requirements beyond those in 

section II.B.1(b), we decline to include 

in the requirements a specific 

framework that we will use in reviewing 

State-determined models. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

clarification as to whether an eligible 

online school would be able to meet the 

requirements of the State-determined 

model. 

Discussion: An eligible online school 

would be able to meet the requirements 

of the State-determined model provided 

the LEA implementing the model in an 

eligible school can demonstrate that the 

school has met the requirements of the 

approved State-determined model. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

recommended revising section II.B.1(b) 

to permit SEAs to implement more than 

one State-determined model, citing 

concerns that limiting each SEA to one 

State-determined model may not 

sufficiently account for the complexity 

of school turnaround and for the 

diversity of LEAs and schools within a 

State. Several commenters also 

suggested that limiting SEAs to one 

State-determined intervention model 

may not faithfully reflect congressional 

intent. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ concern that given the 

diversity of LEAs and schools within a 

State, an SEA may wish to make more 

than one State-determined model 

available to its LEAs and schools. We 

also appreciate the commenters’ interest 

in ensuring that we are correctly 

interpreting congressional intent. 

Nevertheless, our reading of the 

pertinent language included in the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, 

and 20 U.S.C. 6303(g), ‘‘[t]hat funds 

available for school improvement grants 

may be used by a local educational 

agency to implement an alternative 

State-determined school improvement 

strategy . . .’’ (emphasis added), directs 

us to authorize each State to implement 

one State-determined model. 

Changes: None. 

Adding Evidence-Based, Whole-School 

Reform Strategies 

Comment: Two commenters suggested 

that the Department clarify that an LEA 

may implement an evidence-based, 

whole-school reform model 

independently of the other SIG 

intervention models. The commenters 

intimated that this clarification is 

needed because the Department referred 

in the NPR to this type of SIG 

intervention as a strategy but referred to 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

7228 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1The Department previously invited strategy 

developers and other entities to submit prospective 

strategies and research studies of the effectiveness 

of those strategies for review against the 

requirements for the evidence-based, whole-school 

reform strategy in the NPR. Based on the revisions 

to the evidence requirements described in this 

paragraph, we are re-opening the submission and 

review process. Accordingly, we invite model 

developers and other entities to submit prospective 

models and research studies of the effectiveness of 

those models for review against the revised 

evidence requirements in section I.A.2(e)(1) and the 

requirements of the definition of ‘‘whole-school 

reform model’’ in section I.A.3. If a model 

developer or other entity previously submitted a 

strategy based on the requirements set forth in the 

NPR, we will consider that strategy against the 

revised requirements. The previously submitted 

strategy should not be resubmitted. 

We intend to identify, from among the models 

submitted for review, those that meet the 

requirements in advance of the competition for 

fiscal year 2014 SIG funds. An LEA seeking to use 

SIG funds to implement, in partnership with a 

model developer, an evidence-based, whole-school 

reform model would be permitted to choose from 

among the models so identified by the Department. 

We will provide information regarding the 

submission and review of prospective models on 

our Web site at www.ed.gov/programs/sif/nprwholeschlreform.html. 

the other types of interventions as 

models. 

Discussion: Consistent with the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, 

an LEA may use SIG funds to 

implement an evidence-based, wholeschool reform model in partnership 

with a whole-school reform model 

developer and is not required to 

implement such a model within or 

together with another SIG intervention 

model. We are making technical 

changes to provide the suggested 

clarification. 

Changes: As needed throughout the 

final requirements, we have replaced 

references to ‘‘whole-school reform 

strategy’’ with ‘‘whole-school reform 

model’’ and references to ‘‘strategy 

developer’’ with ‘‘whole-school reform 

model developer.’’ 

Comment: A number of commenters 

expressed support for the inclusion in 

the SIG program of evidence-based, 

whole-school reform models; however, 

several of the commenters 

recommended that the Department 

lower or eliminate the evidence 

requirements for these models, asserting 

that the requirements are more stringent 

than intended by Congress or would 

result in too few whole-school reform 

models available to LEAs. Some of these 

commenters recommended that the 

Department allow LEAs to implement 

whole-school reform models supported 

by only a single study that meets What 

Works Clearinghouse evidence 

standards with or without reservations 

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

statistically significant favorable impact 

on a student academic achievement or 

attainment outcome, instead of at least 

two such studies. Some commenters 

also recommended that we allow or 

require SEAs to prioritize funding for 

whole-school reform models supported 

by more than one such study over those 

with only a single study. In a similar 

vein, other commenters recommended 

that the Department allow an exception 

to the evidence requirements for a 

whole-school reform model that is 

supported by a single study that found 

extraordinarily large impacts of the 

model on academic achievement or 

attainment, for which a second study is 

underway that would potentially meet 

the requirements, or that is otherwise 

promising. 

Discussion: Since the publication of 

the NPR, Congress enacted the 

Consolidated and Further Continuing 

Appropriations Act, 2015, which 

modifies the language in the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, 

by requiring that the evidence-based, 

whole-school reform model be based on 

evidence of effectiveness that includes 

at least one study instead of two studies. 

Based on this change, we are modifying 

the final requirements to align the 

requirement for evidence of 

effectiveness required under the 

evidence-based, whole-school reform 

model with the definition of ‘‘moderate 

level of evidence’’ in 34 CFR 77.1.1 We 

note that, as described in question I–9 

of the March 1, 2012, SIG Guidance, 

available at http://www2.ed.gov/

programs/sif/sigguidance03012012.doc, 

an SEA may create priorities within its 

application process to, for example, 

prioritize applications for whole-school 

reform models that are supported by 

more than one study. 

Changes: We have modified the 

requirements for evidence of 

effectiveness for the evidence-based, 

whole-school reform model under 

section I.A.2(e)(1) to require that 

evidence of effectiveness include at 

least one study, rather than two studies, 

that meets the What Works 

Clearinghouse evidence standards and 

by requiring that if the study meets the 

What Works Clearinghouse evidence 

standards with reservations, it include a 

large sample and a multi-site sample as 

defined in 34 CFR 77.1. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

allow, as evidence-based, whole-school 

reform models, combinations of discrete 

practices or interventions that 

individually meet the evidence 

requirements for these models (and that 

together would potentially meet 

requirements in the definition of 

‘‘whole-school reform model’’) but do 

not have evidence of effectiveness when 

implemented together. 

Discussion: We believe that, in 

allowing an LEA to implement, in 

partnership with a model developer, a 

whole-school reform model that is based 

on at least a moderate level of evidence 

that the model will have a statistically 

significant effect on student outcomes, 

Congress intended to require evidence 

of effectiveness for a model as 

implemented as a whole, not for the 

individual practices or interventions 

that may comprise a model as 

implemented separately. Accordingly, 

we do not believe it is appropriate to 

consider such ‘‘bundles’’ of evidencebased practices or interventions as 

evidence-based, whole-school reform 

models. We note, however, that an LEA 

is not prohibited from implementing 

one or more evidence-based practices or 

interventions under another SIG 

intervention model, and in fact, we 

encourage SEAs to prioritize LEAs that 

do so when making SIG awards. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that, to ensure wholeschool reform models are supported by 

evidence that conforms to current 

research standards, the Department 

specify that the evidence for these 

models must be consistent with the 

principles of scientific research as 

defined in the Strengthening Education 

through Research Act (H.R. 4366), a bill 

to reauthorize the Education Sciences 

Reform Act of 2002, currently under 

consideration by Congress. 

Discussion: The evidence 

requirements for the whole-school 

reform model in these final 

requirements incorporate evidence 

standards used by the Department’s 

What Works Clearinghouse to assess the 

quality of research on policies and 

practices across the educational 

spectrum. We believe that these existing 

standards are sufficient to ensure that 

the evidence supporting whole-school 

reform models under SIG is rigorous 

and reflects current standards of 

practice in educational research. We 

note that the standards recommended 

by the commenter are found in pending 

legislation and there is no guarantee that 

Congress will adopt them. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Two commenters 

expressed concerns that requirements in 

the definition of ‘‘whole-school reform 

model’’ are unnecessarily restrictive. 

Specifically, the commenters opposed, 

or recommended changes to, the 

requirement that a whole-school reform 

model be designed to be implemented 

for all students in a school, on the 

grounds that it would exclude models 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 7229 

designed to be implemented for 

students only in a single grade or subset 

of grades. One of these commenters also 

questioned the requirement that a 

whole-school reform model be designed 

to address, at a minimum and in a 

comprehensive and coordinated 

manner: School leadership; teaching 

and learning in at least one full 

academic content area (including 

professional learning for educators); 

student non-academic support; and 

family and community engagement. 

This commenter argued that the 

evidence of effectiveness of a reform 

model should be sufficient to warrant 

implementation of the model in a SIG 

school, regardless of the model’s 

content. The commenter also asserted 

that the definition of ‘‘whole-school 

reform model’’ is not supported by the 

language in the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2014, which allows 

LEAs to use SIG funds to implement 

evidence-based, whole-school reform 

models. 

Conversely, several commenters 

expressed concerns that the 

requirements for whole-school reform 

models are not sufficiently specific or 

stringent. One of these commenters 

recommended that the Department 

consider incorporating required 

elements of other SIG models into the 

definition of ‘‘whole-school reform 

model,’’ which the commenter asserted 

would result in increased rigor. Another 

commenter suggested that the 

Department require whole-school 

reform models to include student health 

and wellness programs, while another 

commenter recommended specifying 

that the models include professional 

learning for instructional support staff 

in addition to teachers. Lastly, one 

commenter suggested that an SEA 

would have difficulty in monitoring an 

LEA implementing a whole-school 

reform model, due to a perceived lack 

of specific requirements for this model. 

Discussion: As stated in Senate Report 

113–71 accompanying the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2014, the Senate 

Appropriations Committee expects that 

any approach taken with SIG funds will 

address schoolwide factors, including, 

for example, curriculum and 

instruction, social and emotional 

support services for students, and 

training and support for teachers and 

school leaders. We believe that the 

requirements in the definition of 

‘‘whole-school reform model,’’ 

including the requirement that a model 

be designed to be implemented for all 

students in a school (i.e., in a 

schoolwide manner), are consistent with 

congressional intent as described in the 

Senate Committee report. In addition, 

we believe these requirements capture, 

at an appropriate level of specificity, the 

aspects of school operation that are most 

likely to affect student achievement and 

attainment. Accordingly, we do not 

believe it is necessary to incorporate 

into the definition of ‘‘whole-school 

reform model’’ specific required 

elements of other SIG models or other 

specific elements recommended by the 

commenters. Finally, we note that an 

SEA may require its LEAs to describe in 

their applications—which the SEA 

should generally use as a basis for LEA 

monitoring—the specific contents of 

selected whole-school reform models, if 

the SEA deems it necessary for 

monitoring purposes. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

clarify, in the definition of ‘‘wholeschool reform model developer,’’ what 

constitutes a demonstrated record of 

success in implementing the model. The 

commenter also opposed allowing the 

definition to be met by a developer with 

a high-quality plan to implement the 

model together with the LEA, absent a 

demonstrated record of success 

implementing the model. This 

commenter claimed that such a 

definition would allow any entity or 

individual to qualify as a developer, 

regardless of experience. 

Discussion: We agree that the 

proposed definition of ‘‘whole-school 

reform model developer’’ was overly 

broad in that it permitted an entity or 

individual to qualify as a developer, 

regardless of experience. Accordingly, 

we are eliminating the option to meet 

the definition through a high-quality 

plan to implement a model. 

We decline, however, to specify what 

constitutes a ‘‘record of success’’ 

because we believe the current 

requirement strikes the appropriate 

balance between requiring a 

demonstration of some improvement 

while allowing the SEA the discretion to 

assess the sufficiency of the individual’s 

or entity’s record. To ensure that the 

SEA uses a rigorous process to make 

this determination, however, we are 

clarifying in paragraph (b)(2) of the 

definition that the SEA must use a 

rigorous review process to select the 

individual or entity and that the process 

must include a determination that the 

individual or entity is likely to produce 

strong results for the school. To prevent 

the definition from becoming too 

restrictive, however, we are eliminating 

the requirement that the whole-school 

reform model developer have a record of 

success implementing the model that 

the LEA seeks to implement in a school 

and replacing it with a requirement that 

the developer have a record of success 

in implementing any whole-school 

reform model. 

Changes: We have removed paragraph 

(b)(2) of the definition of ‘‘whole-school 

reform model developer’’ and adding 

language to final paragraph (b) of the 

definition to clarify the process by 

which an SEA must determine that a 

whole-school reform model developer 

has a demonstrated record of success. 

We also have changed the proposed 

requirement that the individual or entity 

have a record of success in 

implementing the chosen strategy to 

allow the individual or entity to 

demonstrate a record of success in 

implementing any whole-school reform 

model. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

require an LEA to conduct a review of 

the whole-school reform model 

developer with whom it proposes to 

partner to ensure that the developer 

meets the requirements in the definition 

of ‘‘whole-school reform model 

developer.’’ 

Discussion: Section II.A.2(c) requires 

an LEA to provide evidence of its strong 

commitment to implement an evidencebased, whole-school reform model 

through, among other things, a 

demonstration that it has partnered with 

a whole-school reform model developer 

as defined in section I.A(3). 

Additionally, section I.A.4 requires an 

SEA to consider the extent to which an 

LEA has provided such a demonstration 

in making an award. We believe these 

requirements are sufficient to ensure 

that an LEA’s partner meets the 

definition of a ‘‘whole-school reform 

model developer.’’ 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Department add requirements to 

ensure that developers build effective 

relationships with the schools and 

communities they serve, including by 

building the capacity of school staff to 

implement the model’s reforms. 

Discussion: The definition of ‘‘wholeschool reform model’’ includes 

requirements that the model be 

designed to address teaching and 

learning in at least one full academic 

content area (including professional 

learning for educators) and to address 

family and community engagement. We 

believe these requirements are adequate 

to ensure that an evidence-based, 

whole-school reform model 

implemented by an LEA in partnership 

with a developer can meaningfully 

involve, and be responsive to the needs 

of, the school’s educators and the 

broader community and to ensure that 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

7230 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

staff have the capacity to implement the 

model. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that, by allowing evidence-based, 

whole-school reform models, the 

Department intends to direct SIG funds 

toward established whole-school reform 

model developers. Another commenter 

suggested that the Department add 

requirements to ensure that wholeschool reform model developers are not 

unduly compensated for services 

provided. 

Discussion: An LEA seeking SIG 

funds may choose from among several 

intervention models and is not required 

to select and implement an evidencebased, whole-school reform model in 

partnership with a whole-school reform 

model developer. Moreover, as with any 

LEA receiving SIG funds, and consistent 

with question I–30 of the March 1, 2012, 

SIG Guidance, available at http://

www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/

sigguidance03012012.doc, an LEA 

implementing an evidence-based, 

whole-school reform model in 

partnership with a developer may use 

funds to cover only costs that are 

reasonable and necessary for 

implementation of the selected model. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

support for the requirement for an SEA 

to evaluate, when considering the 

strength of an LEA’s commitment, the 

extent to which the LEA demonstrates 

in its application that the evidence for 

its selected whole-school reform model 

includes a sample population or setting 

similar to the population or setting of 

the school to be served. However, this 

commenter expressed concern that the 

requirement might prevent certain LEAs 

from implementing an evidence-based, 

whole-school reform model. 

Specifically, the commenter suggested 

that a rural LEA would be prevented 

from implementing a whole-school 

reform model if the evidence for the 

model did not include a rural setting. 

Another commenter likewise expressed 

support for the requirement, but 

cautioned that the demonstrations 

required of LEAs might be unduly 

burdensome and, therefore, deter LEAs 

from selecting an evidence-based, 

whole-school reform model. 

Discussion: We believe that the 

commenters’ concerns are unwarranted. 

Insofar as whole-school reform models 

are designed to be implemented in lowperforming schools, we expect that an 

LEA should generally be able to 

demonstrate successfully a similarity 

between the SIG school it proposes to 

serve, including a SIG school in a rural 

LEA, and the schools in the samples of 

the research supporting the evidencebased, whole-school reform model. Of 

course, an LEA should be careful to 

ensure that a prospective whole-school 

reform model is appropriate for a school 

in light of its characteristics. It would 

likely be inappropriate, for instance, to 

implement a secondary school wholeschool reform model in an elementary 

school, or a whole-school reform model 

for schools with high concentrations of 

English learners in a school with few 

such students. 

In addition, we believe that any 

additional burden associated with the 

demonstration required would be 

outweighed by the benefits of 

implementing reforms that have been 

shown through rigorous research to be 

effective in improving student 

achievement and attainment. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that we permit an LEA 

seeking to implement an evidencebased, whole-school reform model to 

use SIG funds to partner with a 

community-based organization to 

implement out-of-school programming 

that complements and reinforces the 

selected whole-school reform model. 

Discussion: An LEA implementing an 

evidence-based, whole-school reform 

model in partnership with a wholeschool reform model developer is not 

prohibited under the requirements from 

using SIG funds also to partner with 

another organization to provide out-ofschool programming, provided the LEA 

has received sufficient funds to do so. 

Changes: None. 

Rural LEAs’ Modification of One SIG 

Intervention Model Element 

Comment: Many commenters 

supported the proposal to permit an 

LEA that is eligible for services under 

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

ESEA (rural LEA) to modify one element 

of the turnaround or transformation 

model and the proposal to collect data 

on the number of rural LEAs that 

implement SIG models with modified 

elements. Several commenters 

recommended extending the proposed 

flexibility for rural LEAs to the early 

learning model, in addition to the 

turnaround and transformation models. 

These commenters stated that for the 

same reasons that schools in rural LEAs 

need flexibility in implementing the 

transformation and turnaround models, 

these schools need flexibility in 

implementing the early learning model. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ support for the rural 

flexibility, which is consistent with 

language in the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2014. We believe 

that this rural flexibility should apply to 

the existing turnaround and 

transformation models to ensure that a 

rural LEA is able to implement 

successfully existing SIG models, 

despite potential capacity issues and 

other challenges. Through the rural 

flexibility, we recognize that a rural LEA 

may not be in a position to implement 

each element of the turnaround or 

transformation model because, for 

example, it lacks a pool of high-quality 

school leaders from which it can choose 

a principal replacement. The rural 

flexibility provides a rural LEA with an 

alternate method to meet the leadership 

requirements of the turnaround and 

transformation models. 

In designing the new models, we built 

in sufficient flexibility such that the 

rural flexibility is not necessary to make 

these models available to rural LEAs. 

The new models offer a broader array of 

intervention strategies among which a 

rural LEA may select the one that best 

fits the unique context and needs of its 

schools, based in part on the district’s 

capacity to implement the model. The 

addition of these new models, along 

with the rural flexibility provided in the 

turnaround and transformation models, 

should offer enough options such that a 

rural LEA is able to select and 

successfully implement an appropriate 

SIG model. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

allow a rural LEA to modify more than 

one SIG intervention model element. 

Discussion: The requirements 

allowing a rural LEA to modify just one 

element of a model are consistent with 

the language in the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2014, which states 

that a rural LEA may modify ‘‘not more 

than one’’ element of a SIG intervention 

model. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter expressed 

concern that a non-rural LEA may 

perceive the element that a rural LEA 

chooses to modify as less essential to 

the intervention model as a whole. 

Another commenter recommended that 

an LEA only be permitted to modify an 

element based on the LEA’s specific 

needs and context, rather than any 

element that the LEA fears is too 

difficult or controversial to implement. 

Discussion: We appreciate that 

allowing rural LEAs to modify an 

element of the turnaround or 

transformation model could create the 

perception that those elements are not 

necessary to successfully turn around a 

school. We believe, however, that rural 

LEAs face unique challenges and that 

increased flexibility will help those 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 7231 

2Available at: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/

guid/preschoolguidance2012.pdf. 

LEAs successfully turn around lowachieving schools. By requiring rural 

LEAs to demonstrate that they will meet 

the intent and purpose of the original 

element, we believe that they will 

maintain the integrity of the turnaround 

and transformation models. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended providing flexibility for 

rural schools in non-rural LEAs. 

Discussion: The proposed 

requirement permitting a rural LEA to 

modify one SIG intervention model 

element is consistent with the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, 

which requires that this flexibility apply 

to an LEA that is eligible under subpart 

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

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that the Department help build State 

and local capacity for supporting 

sustained rural school improvement. 

Discussion: We understand that some 

rural areas face unique challenges in 

turning around low-achieving schools, 

but we believe that the significant 

amount of funding available to 

implement the SIG models, as well as 

the new flexibility extended to rural 

LEAs, will help these LEAs and schools 

to overcome the resource limitations 

and capacity issues that have hindered 

successful rural school reform. We 

intend to continue to provide technical 

assistance to rural LEAs and schools on 

successful SIG implementation. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that the Department provide a rationale 

for requiring SEAs to report on the 

number of schools implementing 

models with a modified element. 

Another commenter asked that the 

Department require SEAs to make 

publicly available on the SEA’s Web site 

information about schools in rural LEAs 

implementing SIG models with 

modified elements. 

Discussion: Under section III.A(3) of 

the requirements, an SEA must report 

data on the number of rural schools 

implementing models with a modified 

element. We believe that these reporting 

requirements are necessary to ensure 

that the public and the Department have 

sufficient information to understand 

how the rural flexibility is being 

applied, and that they do not impose an 

unjustified or significant burden on 

SEAs. 

An SEA is required to post on its Web 

site, within 30 days of awarding SIG 

funds, all approved LEA applications. 

Because a rural LEA requesting to 

modify an element of a SIG model must 

demonstrate in its application how it 

will meet the intent and purpose of the 

original element, information about 

rural LEAs and any modifications to the 

models they are implementing will be 

available as part of the LEA’s 

application on the SEA’s Web site. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that the Department provide additional 

examples of elements that a rural LEA 

may request to modify, beyond 

replacing the principal. 

Discussion: We intend to issue 

guidance to assist SEAs and LEAs in 

implementing the rural flexibility. We 

encourage each rural LEA to take into 

account local context and need in 

making the decision regarding which 

element, if any, to modify. 

Changes: None. 

Adding Early Learning Model 

Comment: Several commenters 

supported the addition of the early 

learning model. One commenter 

believed that research in this area is 

undeniable and that the challenge in 

implementing high-quality preschool 

programs has been a lack of funding, 

which the early learning model can 

address for LEAs that choose this 

model. Other commenters noted that 

research shows the achievement gap 

begins before kindergarten and that 

investments in high-quality early 

learning programs help children from 

low-income families prepare for success 

in kindergarten. Another commenter 

particularly applauded the emphasis on 

all domains of development, not just 

academic, in the early learning model. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

commenters’ support. We believe the 

early learning model can lead to both 

short- and long-term positive outcomes 

for all children in a SIG school 

implementing this model, including, but 

not limited to, improved academic 

achievement, social development, lower 

rates of grade retention and placement 

in special education, and improved 

graduation rates. Educational 

improvement strategies that focus on 

preschool and the early grades can 

address the persistent and large 

achievement gaps by race and income 

that are evident upon kindergarten 

entry, often well entrenched by third 

grade, and that negatively affect both 

individual student outcomes in later 

grades and overall school performance. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Many of the commenters 

offering support for the addition of the 

early learning model submitted 

substantially identical requests to add a 

new requirement to section I.A.2(f) of 

the proposed requirements that would 

require an LEA implementing the 

proposed early learning model to 

provide a high-quality, evidence-based 

literacy intervention (that has at least 

two pieces of evidence of effectiveness) 

for students who, after one year in 

school, are identified as being at risk of 

literacy failure (using a reliable and 

valid screener). 

Discussion: We believe that there are 

a number of important activities that 

would be appropriate to address in an 

early learning model. We agree that 

early literacy interventions, particularly 

those that are evidence-based, can be an 

effective component of a broader 

strategy to turn around low-performing 

schools along with strategies that 

address social and emotional 

development, early math and science, 

and other domains of early 

development. Nothing in the proposed 

requirements would prevent an LEA 

from implementing such an intervention 

under any of the models. However, to 

permit LEAs flexibility to select those 

interventions that best address their 

local needs, we decline to require LEAs 

to implement an evidence-based literacy 

intervention under this model. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked for 

clarification about how the preschool 

requirements proposed for the early 

learning model are similar to or 

different from current guidelines for 

title I schools. 

Discussion: The Department’s nonregulatory guidance, Serving Preschool 

Children Through Title I Part A of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965, as Amended,2 is primarily 

focused on helping SEAs and LEAs 

understand how they may use ESEA 

title I, part A funds to support preschool 

programs consistent with all applicable 

statutory and regulatory requirements. 

Like all non-regulatory guidance, it does 

not impose any additional requirements 

on SEAs or LEAs beyond those of 

existing law and regulations. For 

example, the title I preschool nonregulatory guidance describes how title 

I funds may be used to support 

preschool programs and services for 

eligible children in the context of title 

I schoolwide programs, targeted 

assistance programs, and districtwide 

preschool programs. It also clarifies 

such issues as which children are 

eligible to participate in title I-funded 

preschool programs, the qualifications 

of teachers and paraprofessionals 

working in such programs, requirements 

for parental involvement in title I 

preschool programs, and the 

applicability of supplement-notsupplant provisions. In other words, the 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

7232 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

title I preschool non-regulatory 

guidance mainly addresses compliance 

with applicable requirements of title I, 

part A of the ESEA, rather than the 

implementation of high-quality 

preschool programs. 

The requirements of the new early 

learning model in the SIG program 

relating to high-quality preschool 

programs are based closely on the 

related requirements in the 

Department’s Preschool Development 

Grants program, which defines ‘‘highquality preschool program’’ to include 

elements that research suggests are most 

effective in promoting school readiness 

and improving long-term educational 

and life outcomes, especially for 

children from low-income families. 

More information on the Preschool 

Development Grants program may be 

found at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/ 

preschooldevelopmentgrants/

index.html. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

suggested that the Department add 

requirements within the early learning 

model to ensure adequate family and 

community engagement. One 

commenter suggested the Department 

require that professional development 

for all staff under this model include 

high-impact strategies for family 

engagement. Another commenter 

encouraged the Department to add a 

requirement in the early learning 

intervention model that the grantee 

design and implement initiatives and 

strategies that build the capacity of 

school staff and families to engage in 

effective partnerships that support 

student achievement and healthy 

development. A few commenters 

requested that the definition of a ‘‘highquality preschool program’’ be modified 

to include continuous and meaningful 

family and community engagement and 

proposed definitions for this term. 

Discussion: The Department agrees 

that family and community engagement, 

both on an ongoing basis and in 

selection of the appropriate SIG model, 

is an essential component to ensure 

successful turnaround of the lowest 

performing schools. As such, under 

sections I.A.4(a)(1) and I.A.4(a)(8), an 

SEA must consider the extent to which 

an LEA has demonstrated that it 

engaged families and the community in 

the selection of the SIG model and how 

the LEA will meaningfully engage 

families and the community on a 

continuous basis throughout 

implementation. These requirements 

apply across all models, including the 

early learning model. While we agree 

that family and community engagement 

may be one valuable area of professional 

development, we decline to add a 

specific requirement for professional 

development or capacity building 

regarding family and community 

engagement so that LEAs may determine 

which types of professional 

development and capacity building 

activities to offer based on the particular 

needs of their schools and communities. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

requested that the Department clarify 

that a high-quality, community-based 

provider may provide preschool 

services as part of the early learning 

model, either at the SIG school or 

through an existing high-quality child 

care or Head Start program within the 

LEA or nearby community. Many of 

these commenters argued that clarifying 

this aspect of implementation of the 

early learning model would help align 

SIG with other Department programs, 

such as the Preschool Development 

Grants and title I programs, through 

which the Department has encouraged 

mixed-delivery models for preschool 

services. Some commenters noted that 

allowing a community-based provider to 

provide preschool services as part of an 

early learning model is consistent with 

many LEAs’ provision of preschool 

services, including services that are 

supported with title I funds, and that 

existing providers may be better 

equipped to rapidly expand capacity 

and serve additional children, 

particularly because of their working 

knowledge of the community. One 

commenter hypothesized that explicitly 

allowing LEAs to partner with those 

existing programs to provide preschool 

services could help make the early 

learning model more attractive to LEAs. 

A couple of commenters 

recommended that if a SIG elementary 

school contracts with a child care or 

Head Start program to deliver preschool 

services, it should be required to 

describe how it will work to coordinate 

with the school on appropriate and 

effective transitions to build continuity 

of high-quality early learning. One 

commenter specifically suggested that 

libraries be listed as an eligible entity 

and allowable partner under the 

proposed early learning model. One 

commenter requested that the 

Department add a new element to the 

early learning model, requiring 

partnerships with external providers, 

such as community-based organizations 

and community-based media outlets, in 

order to increase the quality of the early 

learning program and its connections to 

the larger community. 

Discussion: As part of its 

implementation of the early learning 

model, an LEA may contract with a 

community-based provider to provide 

high-quality preschool programs for 

students enrolled in an elementary 

school implementing the model. This is 

consistent with the SIG program in 

general, which allows the use of 

external providers and other 

community-based organizations under 

any of the SIG models. Any SIG school 

working with a community-based 

provider should ensure coordination 

across all grades in the elementary 

school, including preschool, to ensure 

continuity of high-quality early learning 

and appropriateness of transitions. The 

Department will provide additional 

guidance to help LEAs and schools 

work with community-based providers 

to provide high-quality preschool 

programs as part of the comprehensive 

early learning model. LEAs may choose 

to use an external provider in 

implementing their early learning 

models, or enter into a partnership with 

various entities, such as school libraries. 

However, the Department’s intent is to 

provide sufficient flexibility for LEAs, 

so that they may take into account the 

local context and needs of the 

community to the greatest extent 

possible and, therefore, the Department 

declines to revise the proposed 

requirements based on these comments. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that we require curricula in the early 

learning model that employ high-quality 

multiplatform digital content and 

services. 

Discussion: The Department is 

prohibited from mandating State, LEA, 

or school curriculum under 20 U.S.C. 

7907. We therefore decline to make the 

commenter’s suggested change. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: A few commenters asked if 

a preschool must be physically located 

in the eligible elementary school and 

whether the preschool could be a feeder 

preschool for several schools, including 

the SIG-eligible school. 

Discussion: A preschool is not 

required to be physically located in the 

eligible elementary school. However, 

students must be enrolled in the SIG 

school that is implementing the early 

learning model to receive preschool 

services funded through the SIG 

program. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that we require an LEA to describe in its 

SIG application how the impact of highquality early learning experiences will 

be sustained over time. 

Discussion: Under section 

I.A.4(a)(12), an SEA must evaluate the 

extent to which an LEA demonstrates in 

its application for a SIG award that it 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 7233 

will sustain the reforms after the 

funding period ends. We believe this 

existing requirement is responsive to the 

commenter’s suggestion. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters noted 

concerns about relying on early learning 

as the sole focus of a school’s 

turnaround strategy. One commenter 

recommended adopting the early 

learning model as a turnaround strategy 

only in conjunction with at least one 

other strategy. Another commenter 

recommended that the Department 

require LEAs to demonstrate how an 

early learning model will complement 

and be linked to a school’s other reform 

strategies, particularly efforts to ensure 

that children read at grade level by the 

third grade. One commenter noted that 

it is unclear which requirements in the 

model apply across the whole school as 

opposed to just the early grades being 

added to the school. Specifically, the 

commenter thought it was unclear if the 

requirement to implement staff 

retention strategies, such as the 

provision of financial incentives and 

increased opportunities for promotion 

and career growth, applied to all grades 

or only the early grades. This 

commenter was concerned that the SEA 

may not be able to allocate enough 

funds to an LEA to implement the many 

requirements with fidelity in all grades 

while adding new early learning 

services to the school. 

Discussion: We recognize that early 

learning is only one strategy to turn 

around the persistently lowestperforming schools. As such, the early 

learning model includes requirements 

similar to those of the current 

transformation model to ensure all 

students across all grades in the 

elementary school are receiving 

services. For example, the model 

requires an LEA to implement rigorous, 

transparent, and equitable evaluation 

and support systems for teachers and 

principals; implement such strategies as 

financial incentives, increased 

opportunities for promotion and career 

growth, and more flexible work 

conditions; and use data to identify and 

implement an instructional program 

that is research-based, developmentally 

appropriate, and vertically aligned from 

one grade to the next. In this way, the 

early learning model is analogous to the 

other SIG models in that it is a 

comprehensive whole-school reform 

model. The early learning model 

requirements in section I.A.2(f)(1)(C) 

and sections I.A.2(f)(2)–(9) apply across 

the whole school, and we encourage 

each LEA implementing the early 

learning model to coordinate services 

across all grades in the school. An LEA 

may receive up to $2 million per year 

per school implementing the early 

learning model, which we believe is 

sufficient to implement the early 

learning model requirements with 

fidelity. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Many commenters 

encouraged the Department to include 

evidence-based home visiting services, 

either directly or through partnerships 

and contracts, as either an allowable or 

required activity under the early 

learning model. Commenters contended 

that well-designed home visiting 

systems improve child and family 

outcomes and increase parents’ ability 

to support their children’s development 

and success. A few of those commenters 

noted that adding this requirement 

would align SIG with other Department 

efforts and that some LEAs already use 

title I funds to provide home visiting 

services prior to school entry. Another 

commenter suggested that evidencebased home visiting should be an 

allowable activity under the definition 

of ILT and that this activity would be 

less costly than other activities required 

under ILT. 

Discussion: We agree that evidencebased home visiting services can be a 

valuable component of any school 

turnaround model. As such, home 

visiting is an allowable activity under 

all of the SIG models, although it does 

not meet the definition of ILT. To 

ensure continued flexibility regarding 

allowable uses of funds under the SIG 

program, we decline to reduce State and 

local discretion by adding a requirement 

that an LEA implementing the early 

learning model must provide home 

visiting services. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters 

opposed the requirement to replace the 

principal in the early learning model. 

Some of these commenters urged the 

Department to require applicants using 

the early learning model to provide 

support and professional development 

for principals as well as teachers, and 

base firing decisions only on fair and 

objective evaluations of the principal 

after the principal has been allowed 

time to implement the model. One 

commenter noted that an LEA’s needs 

analysis may reveal that the root cause 

for low student achievement is a lack of 

access to early learning and, as such, 

replacing the principal may not be 

necessary. This commenter also noted 

that, as currently written, the 

transformation model allows for the 

expansion of the school program to offer 

full-day kindergarten or prekindergarten to a school without many 

of the restrictions detailed in the newly 

proposed early learning model. One 

commenter also suggested that the 

Department clarify that the principal 

replacement requirement in section 

I.A.2(f)(2) refers to the leader of the SIGeligible school, not to the leader of the 

preschool. 

Discussion: We understand that 

replacing a school principal is one of 

the most challenging aspects of the early 

learning model; however, we also know 

that many of our lowest-achieving 

schools have failed to improve without 

leadership changes. We continue to 

believe that dramatic and wholesale 

changes in leadership are an appropriate 

intervention for creating an entirely new 

and improved school culture. We 

acknowledge that it can be difficult to 

identify, train, and retain qualified 

school leaders for the lowest-performing 

schools, but other Federal programs, 

including the Turnaround School 

Leaders program funded with SIG 

national activities funds, are helping to 

create incentives and supports to attract, 

train, and reward effective principals 

and improve strategies for recruitment, 

retention, and professional 

development. Additionally, flexibility 

within section I.B.1 of the requirements 

permits an LEA to retain a school 

principal who has held the position for 

two years or less prior to the 

implementation of the SIG model. We 

recognize that an LEA may expand the 

school day to offer full-day kindergarten 

or pre-kindergarten in a school 

implementing one of the other SIG 

models. The addition of the early 

learning model, however, provides 

another option for LEAs to consider in 

determining which interventions are 

necessary to turn around lowperforming schools. To clarify, any of 

the requirements of the early learning 

model, including the requirement to 

replace the principal, apply to the 

elementary school implementing the 

model, not to the leader of the preschool 

if the preschool is provided through a 

community-based provider with which 

the school contracts. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Several commenters stated 

that the proposed requirements for the 

early learning model are too prescriptive 

and establish requirements that are not 

feasible for LEAs to implement, 

particularly those LEAs that do not 

currently offer full-day kindergarten or 

preschool programs. One commenter 

suggested removing requirements not 

directly related to high-quality early 

learning to reduce the challenges of 

implementation. Another commenter 

recommended that the Department 

allow SEAs to make subgrants for early 

learning to LEAs that do not necessarily 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

7234 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

meet all the criteria in the requirements, 

so long as the SEA can demonstrate that 

the LEAs will meet the State’s own 

requirements for high-quality preschool 

programs or meet other recognized 

standards of quality, to allow LEAs to 

phase in early learning interventions. 

Other commenters suggested that the 

model should allow for phase in of new 

slots for preschool students due to the 

challenges in, and disruption that can 

be caused by, implementing many 

reforms at the same time. 

Discussion: We believe that all of the 

components of the early learning model, 

including the requirements relating to 

expanding high-quality preschool 

programs and addressing the needs of 

all students in the elementary school, 

are necessary to help ensure successful 

school turnaround and are feasible to 

implement. As with all of the SIG 

models, full implementation of all of the 

elements of the model must begin on the 

first day of the school year when the 

LEA begins full implementation. We 

note, however, that under section II.A.3 

of the requirements, LEAs have up to 

one full school year for planning and 

pre-implementation activities, during 

which they could begin phasing in 

various components of the early 

learning model. We believe that this 

one-year period is sufficient for an LEA 

to prepare to implement in a highquality manner an early learning model 

in a school at the start of the next school 

year. We also note that an LEA may 

choose one of the other SIG models to 

implement if it does not have the 

capacity to fully implement the early 

learning model. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Many commenters were 

pleased that full-day kindergarten was 

included in the proposed early learning 

model. Several commenters proposed 

that the Department further define ‘‘fullday’’ kindergarten to align with the 

definition in the Department’s Preschool 

Development Grants. One commenter 

noted that there is no standard 

definition of ‘‘full-day kindergarten’’ 

and requested that the Department 

adopt a definition to help ensure 

programs are comparable for evaluation 

and funding purposes and that students 

are receiving equitable opportunities. 

Another commenter recommended that 

we incorporate into the SIG 

requirements several additional 

definitions from the Department’s 

Preschool Development Grant program, 

including the definitions of ‘‘Early 

Learning Development Standards’’ and 

‘‘Essential Domains of School 

Readiness.’’ Another commenter 

recommended adding language to 

require kindergarten and early grades to 

meet the requirements under the 

definition of ‘‘high-quality preschool,’’ 

including the requirements that schools 

assign teachers with certifications and 

endorsements in early childhood 

education to the early grades. This 

commenter also suggested that teachers 

in the early grades should have 

credentials and professional 

development that recognize the 

specialized knowledge and skills 

needed to work with preschool through 

third-grade students. 

Discussion: Unlike the Preschool 

Development Grants program, the early 

learning model under the SIG program 

is a comprehensive approach to wholeschool turnaround. For that reason, the 

requirements reflect a balance between 

the Department’s interest in encouraging 

the implementation of a rigorous early 

learning intervention, as well as 

coordinated services for all students in 

the school, and our interest in allowing 

LEAs the flexibility to tailor their 

activities to fit local needs and context. 

For that reason, we decline to adopt the 

definition of ‘‘full-day’’ kindergarten or 

other definitions in the Preschool 

Development Grants program or to 

otherwise expand the requirements as 

suggested. We also decline to expand 

the requirements of a high-quality 

preschool program to apply to 

kindergarten or the early grades because 

the requirements in section I.A.2(f)(1)(C) 

and sections I.A.2(f)(2)–(9) are sufficient 

to ensure that all students in the school, 

regardless of grade, will benefit from the 

model. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Some commenters 

expressed support for the proposed 

requirement within the early learning 

model to provide joint planning time for 

educators across grades. One commenter 

encouraged the Department to require 

that the joint planning time include 

collaboration and professional 

development to ensure that educators 

serving in SIG schools have the capacity 

to serve children across the range of 

developmental domains. One 

commenter noted that it is unclear 

whether teachers in all grades in the 

elementary school are required to 

engage in joint planning and 

recommended requiring cross-grade 

planning for teachers teaching 

kindergarten through third grade. 

Discussion: We agree that joint 

planning across grades is an essential 

component of any school turnaround 

strategy, and that this component is 

particularly important in models that 

include the provision of high-quality 

preschool. We confirm that, to ensure 

continuity across grades, cross-grade 

planning across all grades is required 

under section I.A.2(f)(1)(C). 

Accordingly, we decline to limit this 

requirement to apply only to teachers of 

students in kindergarten to third grade. 

We also note that professional 

development, which we expect often 

includes collaboration, is required 

under section I.A.2(f)(8) and must be 

designed to ensure that staff have the 

capacity to implement successfully the 

school reform strategies. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

encouraged the Department to study the 

potential impact of investing in early 

learning, particularly because most 

current turnaround metrics focus on 

third grade and beyond. This 

commenter also suggested that the 

current SIG metrics provide a 

disincentive for LEAs to choose the 

early learning implementation model as 

assessment results in grades three and 

up are used as the primary determinant 

of a turnaround model’s success. The 

commenter suggested shifting the focus 

from standardized test scores to 

measures of professional practice, 

which could be used in combination 

with child outcome metrics. The 

commenter recommended that the SIG 

requirements explicitly authorize SEAs 

to adopt metrics of this kind for at least 

their elementary schools. 

Discussion: We agree that it is 

important to evaluate the impact of 

school turnaround efforts, which is why 

the Department will require SEAs and 

schools to collect and report data on the 

implementation of their chosen model, 

including the early learning model. 

Standardized test scores are not the 

primary metric that schools and SEAs 

must report. Rather, they are one of a 

number of measures that will be used to 

assess whether an LEA’s 

implementation of the chosen SIG 

model in a school is effective. Other 

measures include the absenteeism rate 

and number of discipline incidents. 

Although we do not require SEAs to 

report professional practice data, they 

are required to report on the distribution 

of teachers by performance level based 

on the LEA’s teacher evaluation system, 

which generally includes measures of 

professional practice. We encourage 

SEAs, LEAs, and schools to collect 

additional data, such as professional 

practice data, which can help provide a 

more holistic picture of whether a SIG 

model has been effectively 

implemented. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter stated that 

it is unclear from the proposed 

requirements whether the early learning 

model would apply to any LEA that 

receives SIG funding to implement any 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 7235 

3See ‘‘Investing in our Future: The Evidence Base 

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

on%20Preschool%20Education%20FINAL.pdf). 

Society for Research in Child Development and the 

Foundation for Child Development, October 2013. 

SIG model in an elementary school, or 

if it constitutes a new model for which 

an LEA may apply for SIG funds based 

on the early learning needs of its 

elementary schools. 

Discussion: To clarify, the early 

learning model is a new model under 

the SIG requirements. An LEA 

implementing another model is not 

required to meet the requirements of the 

early learning model. Likewise, 

although current grantees may add early 

learning strategies, such as high-quality 

preschool programs or full-day 

kindergarten, they are not required to do 

so. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the services of school social 

workers, school psychologists, and other 

school-employed support personnel 

should meet the requirements for on-site 

accessible comprehensive services. 

Discussion: Nothing in the 

requirements would preclude a school 

from fulfilling the requirements for onsite accessible comprehensive services 

by using support staff employed by the 

school to provide such services. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter contended 

that building a preschool program in a 

persistently low-performing school does 

not address the overall academic 

weaknesses that were responsible for 

the school’s identification by the State 

and recommended removing the early 

learning model and the definition of 

‘‘high-quality preschool.’’ The 

commenter argued that the early 

learning strategy incorrectly places an 

emphasis on a new cohort of young 

children, rather than focusing on the 

current students whose 

underperformance is the statutory target 

of the SIG program. 

Discussion: Consistent evidence 

demonstrates that participation in highquality early learning programs can lead 

to both short- and long-term positive 

outcomes for all students.3 We believe 

that, if a school focuses on improving or 

adding a high-quality preschool 

program, the positive effects will 

continue well into students’ educational 

future, thus improving the overall 

academic weaknesses that were 

responsible for the school’s 

identification by the State. By focusing 

on improving educational opportunities 

for students in the early years, schools 

can break the cycle of poor academic 

achievement before it even begins, 

which will then give these students a 

better chance at success throughout 

their academic careers. Further, 

although the early learning model’s 

primary focus is on early learners, the 

model also requires interventions 

designed to address the needs of all 

students at the school. Moreover, we 

note that under all of the SIG models, 

new students enroll in the school after 

the school has been identified as 

eligible. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that the Department require LEAs to 

provide early screenings for learning 

issues and delays in early literacy and 

math skill development, and provide 

appropriate interventions based on 

screening outcomes. 

Discussion: We agree that providing 

early screenings to identify students 

with disabilities is a meaningful 

activity, and is an allowable use of SIG 

funds under any of the SIG models. 

However, to ensure schools have the 

flexibility to tailor their interventions to 

local needs, we decline to require this 

activity under the early learning model. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Department require that the 

early learning model be coordinated and 

integrated fully with any existing State 

preschool program. 

Discussion: While we strongly believe 

that any efforts undertaken with SIG 

funding should closely align with 

turnaround work across the State and 

that there may be positive results from 

coordinating with a State’s preschool 

program, we decline to require that the 

early learning model be coordinated and 

fully integrated with the State preschool 

program. Given the disparity in State 

requirements regarding high-quality 

preschool programs, such a requirement 

may be unduly burdensome and too 

difficult to ensure consistency in 

implementation. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter suggested 

that the Department encourage 

approaches and partnerships that utilize 

technology for personalized learning by 

explicitly supporting the use of digital 

learning in the early learning model. 

The commenter believed this could be 

especially beneficial to schools in rural 

areas, which, the commenter suggested, 

should receive priority for SIG funding. 

Discussion: We agree that technology 

can be used to enhance personalized 

learning, particularly in rural areas, and 

digital learning is a permitted activity 

under the early learning model. 

However, we decline to specifically 

require digital learning. There are many 

valuable strategies that schools should 

consider in implementing a 

comprehensive school turnaround 

strategy and, therefore, we designed the 

models to identify general performance 

objectives while also maximizing an 

LEA’s discretion to choose the strategies 

that meet both these general objectives 

and the school’s particular needs. We 

also note that, as described in question 

I–9 of the March 1, 2012, SIG Guidance, 

available at http://www2.ed.gov/

programs/sif/sigguidance03012012.doc, 

an SEA may give priority to an LEA for 

SIG funding based on a variety of factors 

including, for example, the rural status 

of the school or LEA. 

Changes: None. 

Modifying the Teacher and Principal 

Evaluation and Support System 

Requirements Under the 

Transformation Model. 

Comment: A number of commenters 

expressed support for the proposed 

requirement in section I.A.2(d)(1)(A)(ii) 

revising the transformation model 

requirement for teacher and principal 

evaluation and support systems, with 

some noting that they supported the 

alignment between the proposed 

requirements for these systems and the 

requirements under ESEA flexibility. 

Other commenters supported the 

proposed requirement that teacher and 

principal evaluation and support 

systems use multiple measures. One 

commenter, however, recommended 

revising the requirement related to the 

use of data on student growth to allow, 

but not require, the use of multiple 

measures for the evaluation of teachers 

of tested grades and subjects (but to 

continue to require the use of data on 

student growth based on State 

assessments for teachers of tested grades 

and subjects) and to allow, but not 

require, alternate measures of student 

growth for the evaluation of teachers of 

non-tested grades and subjects. Another 

commenter recommended that the 

results of standardized tests should 

comprise only a small percentage of a 

teacher’s evaluation. One commenter 

noted that the link between children’s 

test scores and teacher and principal 

evaluations is not appropriate, 

especially for teachers of early grades. 

Discussion: We appreciate the 

comments supporting the alignment of 

the requirements for educator 

evaluation systems under the 

transformation model with the 

requirements for these systems under 

ESEA flexibility. We agree that this 

change will reduce the burden on LEAs 

in SEAs with approved ESEA flexibility 

requests because they will not have to 

implement separate evaluation systems. 

However, to ensure that such systems 

are both fair to educators and contribute 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

7236 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

to improved instruction for all students, 

we believe it is essential to maintain the 

proposed requirements for the use of 

multiple measures, including student 

growth for teachers of non-tested grades 

and subjects. We also believe that 

student growth based on State 

assessments should be a significant 

factor in evaluations of teachers of all 

tested grades and subjects because State 

assessments offer objective measures 

that are consistent across LEAs; while 

the Department has been flexible about 

defining what constitutes a ‘‘significant 

factor,’’ requiring student growth data to 

comprise only a small percentage of 

evaluations would not be consistent 

with this longstanding position. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended extending the 

requirement for teacher and principal 

evaluation and support systems to the 

turnaround model and requiring that the 

systems be used for decisions about 

financial incentives. The commenter 

also recommended that the Department 

revise the transformation model 

requirements to state specifically that 

the use of educator evaluation and 

support systems in decisions about 

retaining staff and selecting new staff is 

permissible. Finally, the commenter 

recommended requiring an LEA 

implementing the early learning model 

in a school to use the evaluation and 

support system to select new staff and 

prevent ineffective staff from 

transferring to the school. 

Discussion: We agree that it would be 

beneficial for all schools to implement 

teacher and principal evaluation and 

support systems that meet the 

requirements in section I.A.2(d)(1)(A)(ii) 

and to use the results of those systems 

in making personnel decisions 

generally, including in making 

decisions regarding the payment of 

financial incentives. We also note that 

implementing such an evaluation and 

support system is allowable under any 

SIG model, including the turnaround 

model. However, such systems generally 

are not designed to support the rigorous 

requirement for staffing changes under 

the turnaround model, which calls for 

screening and rehiring no more than 50 

percent of existing staff and hiring new 

staff. This is why the turnaround model 

instead requires the use of locally 

adopted competencies for this purpose. 

However, an LEA implementing the 

turnaround model in a school may use 

the results of a teacher and principal 

evaluation and support system in 

making personnel decisions, including 

hiring decisions, in addition to locally 

adopted competencies. 

We also note that an LEA 

implementing the transformation model 

already must use the results of the 

evaluations for personnel decisions, in 

accordance with section 

I.A.2(d)(1)(A)(ii)(6), and that an LEA 

implementing the early learning model 

already must use the results of the 

evaluations for personnel decisions, in 

accordance with section I.A.2(f)(3). 

Changes: None. 

Eliminating the ‘‘Rule of Nine’’ 

Comment: Four commenters 

supported eliminating the ‘‘rule of 

nine,’’ while one commenter disagreed 

with the elimination of this rule, based 

on the original premise that it promoted 

the selection of the most rigorous SIG 

interventions (i.e., turnaround and 

restart), which the commenter believed 

are more likely to result in improved 

student performance. 

Discussion: We appreciate the support 

for the elimination of the ‘‘rule of nine,’’ 

and note that, as stated in the NPR, it 

had limited impact. In addition, we 

believe that a rule limiting the specific 

interventions that an LEA may 

implement is inconsistent with the 

intent of Congress as demonstrated by 

the increased flexibility in the selection 

and implementation of SIG-funded 

intervention models provided in the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014. 

Changes: None. 

Adding LEA Requirement To 

Demonstrate Appropriateness of 

Chosen Intervention Model and Take 

Into Consideration Family and 

Community Input 

Comment: Many commenters 

supported proposed section I.A.4(a)(1), 

requiring an LEA to demonstrate the 

appropriateness of the chosen 

intervention model and to take into 

consideration family and community 

input in model selection. One 

commenter suggested that the 

Department require an LEA to 

demonstrate that it sought ‘‘broadbased’’ input from families and the 

community. Other commenters 

recommended requiring an LEA to 

engage and solicit input from all 

relevant stakeholders. 

However, one commenter opposed 

requiring an LEA to demonstrate in its 

application how it will meaningfully 

engage families and the community in 

the implementation of its chosen 

intervention, warning that the need to 

provide evidence of parent investment 

up front could prevent successful 

alternative operators (which we 

interpret to mean external providers) 

from working with SIG schools. 

Discussion: We appreciate the support 

for the requirements to demonstrate the 

appropriateness of the chosen 

intervention model and to take into 

consideration family and community 

input in the selection of the SIG model. 

However, we decline to set forth 

specific criteria that an LEA must meet 

to demonstrate family and community 

engagement, because the precise nature 

of such engagement may vary widely 

across different types of communities. 

However, we intend to provide 

guidance encouraging SEAs, in their 

review of the evidence of family and 

community engagement in an LEA’s SIG 

application, to examine whether the 

LEA sought input from all relevant 

stakeholders, including, for example, 

those representing English learners and 

students with disabilities. 

We do not agree that requiring a 

demonstration of parental involvement 

will prevent high-quality external 

providers from working with an LEA in 

SIG schools. In fact, we believe that the 

requirement that an LEA engage families 

and the community early in the process 

of planning its SIG intervention will 

result in increased transparency and 

accountability related to the selection 

of, and subsequent implementation by, 

external providers, which will help with 

implementing the model successfully. 

Changes: None. 

Adding LEA Requirement to 

Continuously Engage Families and the 

Community Throughout 

Implementation 

Comment: Many commenters 

supported proposed section I.A.4(a)(8), 

requiring an LEA to demonstrate in its 

SIG application how the LEA will 

meaningfully engage families and the 

community in the implementation of its 

selected intervention. Several 

commenters recommended that the 

Department provide additional 

technical assistance and guidance on 

what constitutes meaningful family and 

community engagement. One 

commenter requested that we require 

that schools enter into joint use 

agreements with the community, for 

example with regard to sharing space. 

Another commenter recommended that 

the Department clarify that the purpose 

of engaging families and the community 

is to improve student achievement and 

healthy development. The commenter 

also recommended adding language 

throughout the requirements to 

emphasize that family and community 

engagement would be an element of 

each of the intervention models. One 

commenter recommended expanding 

the family and community engagement 

requirements to promote the role of 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 7237 

community partners and intermediary 

organizations in school turnarounds, 

stating that such entities can provide 

expertise and capacity-building support 

essential to turning around lowperforming schools. 

Discussion: We agree that it is 

important that an LEA engage in 

meaningful family and community 

engagement, reach appropriate 

stakeholders, and ensure that the input 

the LEA receives is relevant and useful 

throughout the period of SIG 

implementation. We believe, however, 

that section I.A.4(a)(8) of the 

requirements, along with guidance that 

the Department will provide on this 

issue, will be sufficient to help ensure 

that an LEA engages in an ongoing and 

meaningful way with families and the 

community throughout the 

implementation of each SIG-funded 

intervention model. We also note that 

both the current and proposed 

requirements, including the 

requirements for each of the 

intervention models, provide ample 

flexibility for SIG grantees to partner 

with the broadest possible range of 

entities to obtain the support needed for 

successful implementation of their 

selected intervention models permitting, 

for example, specific interventions 

focused on improving student 

performance and encouraging healthy 

development of students. For these 

reasons, we decline to make the changes 

recommended by the commenters. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended requiring an SEA to 

report on how a SIG grantee obtains and 

uses family input during the 

implementation of its intervention 

model. 

Discussion: We believe that adding 

new reporting requirements related to 

family and community engagement 

would be unnecessarily burdensome 

because the data on family and 

community engagement lacks 

uniformity. We also believe that such an 

addition would be unnecessary because 

the new application requirements in 

section I.A.4(a)(1) related to family and 

community engagement are sufficient to 

ensure that LEAs meaningfully seek and 

incorporate this input into the selection 

and implementation of SIG-funded 

intervention models. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

clarification regarding whether the 

family and community engagement 

requirement in section I.A.2(d)(3)(A)(ii) 

under the transformation model differs 

from the family and community 

engagement requirement in section 

I.A.4(a)(8), which applies to all models. 

Discussion: The provisions are the 

same. We elected to retain the separate 

requirement in the transformation 

model out of concern that removing it 

could leave the impression that the 

Department is no longer requiring 

family and community engagement 

under the transformation model. 

Changes: None. 

Adding LEA Requirement To Monitor 

and Support Intervention and 

Implementation 

Comment: Several commenters 

supported proposed section I.A.4(a)(7), 

requiring an LEA to demonstrate how it 

will provide effective oversight and 

support for implementation of 

interventions in its schools. Some of 

these commenters requested guidance 

regarding the definition of ‘‘monitoring’’ 

in order to clarify what is required of 

LEAs, and one commenter questioned 

whether the requirement would be 

different for a charter LEA versus a 

traditional LEA. However, one 

commenter cautioned the Department 

not to specify how the monitoring and 

support should be conducted, stating 

that the approach will necessarily differ 

based on the context and capabilities of 

the LEA. 

Discussion: We believe the proposed 

requirements, which would apply to 

regular and charter LEAs alike, 

sufficiently address an LEA’s 

monitoring obligations in part because, 

as noted by the commenter, the 

monitoring approach will differ based 

on the context and capabilities of the 

LEA. However, we will work with SEAs 

to provide guidance and technical 

assistance to LEAs related to quality 

monitoring and the types of information 

SEAs and LEAs should consider in 

determining whether or not the LEA has 

adopted or should adopt a new 

governance structure. 

Changes: None. 

Adding LEA Requirements to Regularly 

Review External Providers’ 

Performance and Hold External 

Providers Accountable 

Comment: Several commenters 

supported proposed section I.A.4(a)(4), 

requiring an LEA to regularly review 

external providers’ performance and 

hold external providers accountable. 

One commenter also recommended 

requiring evidence that the LEA will 

recruit, screen, select, and execute 

contracts with any providers by the start 

of the school year. Similarly, another 

commenter recommended that the 

Department encourage LEAs to develop 

performance metrics with all providers 

at the onset of the partnership. One 

commenter, while supportive of the 

requirements, expressed concern about 

the capacity of smaller LEAs to engage 

in appropriate oversight and to identify 

appropriate providers. Additionally, one 

commenter requested more guidance for 

schools and LEAs on this issue. 

Discussion: We appreciate the support 

for requiring LEAs to hold external 

providers accountable for their 

performance. 

We recognize that an LEA may not 

have identified the external provider it 

will use at the time it applies for a SIG 

award; consequently, under section 

I.A.4(a)(4), the LEA must demonstrate 

that it will recruit, screen, and select 

external providers to ensure their 

quality and regularly review and hold 

the external providers accountable. We 

believe this requirement is sufficient to 

ensure that an LEA uses external 

providers effectively. We also believe 

that most LEAs will use the preimplementation or planning period to 

recruit and select external providers and 

develop the performance metrics against 

which the external provider will be 

evaluated. Moreover, under section 

I.A.4(a)(3), any external provider that 

will be used to implement the chosen 

SIG model must be in place on the first 

day of the first school year of full 

implementation. 

We acknowledge that smaller LEAs 

may face capacity challenges and 

caution LEAs to assess their ability to 

hold external providers accountable 

before committing to use them. We 

believe, however that the significant 

amount of SIG funding available to 

implement the intervention models will 

help these LEAs overcome any such 

limitations. 

We have previously issued guidance 

on external providers, available at 

http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/sigfaqfinalversion.doc. We intend to issue 

additional guidance to assist SEAs and 

LEAs in carrying out the requirements 

pertaining to external providers. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

clarification about which vendors the 

Department is referencing. 

Discussion: We understand this 

comment to ask to which external 

providers the requirements apply. All 

external providers that an LEA uses to 

help implement any aspect of a SIG 

model, regardless of the model being 

implemented, are subject to section 

I.A.4(a)(4). 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter opposed 

proposed section I.A.4(a)(4) regarding 

external providers out of apparent 

concern that it would change eligibility 

and could permit the award of SIG 

funds to entities other than school 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

7238 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

districts. This commenter stated that 

funds should flow from States to school 

districts. 

Discussion: The commenter 

misunderstood the proposed 

requirement, as only LEAs with schools 

that meet the definition under I.A.1 are 

eligible for an award of SIG funds. 

Changes: None. 

Clarifying the Rigorous Review Process 

Under the Restart Model 

Comment: Many commenters 

expressed support for the clarification of 

the rigorous review process in the 

restart model. One of these commenters 

asked that we require an LEA applying 

to implement the restart model to seek 

community input prior to choosing a 

charter operator. Another commenter 

recommended that we restrict selection 

of charter management organizations 

(CMOs) or education management 

organization (EMOs) further by 

prohibiting an LEA from contracting 

with a CMO or EMO with a track record 

of operating schools that do not improve 

student achievement or with significant 

compliance issues in the areas of civil 

rights, financial management, and 

student safety. 

Discussion: We agree that an LEA 

implementing the restart model should 

seek family and community input prior 

to implementing the model. In fact, 

under section I.A.4(a)(1) of the 

requirements, an SEA must evaluate the 

extent to which an LEA demonstrates in 

its application for a SIG award that it 

took into consideration family and 

community input in selecting the 

intervention for each school. We believe 

this provision creates sufficient 

safeguards to ensure that the community 

is involved in the selection of an 

appropriate intervention in a school. 

Additionally, section I.A.2(b)(1) requires 

an LEA to consider the extent to which 

any schools currently operated or 

managed by the selected charter school 

operator, CMO, or EMO have produced 

strong results over the prior three years, 

which creates sufficient safeguards to 

ensure that the LEA takes appropriate 

steps to choose a high-quality CMO or 

EMO. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter asked the 

Department to clarify whether, under 

the rigorous review process, an LEA 

with eligible schools that is in corrective 

action could meet the new rigorous 

review requirements and serve as a 

CMO under the restart model. 

Discussion: If an LEA can demonstrate 

that it has produced strong results over 

the past three years, despite being 

designated for corrective action, it may 

meet the requirements of the rigorous 

review process and serve as a CMO 

under the restart model. Such a 

demonstration may be possible, for 

example, for an LEA that has regularly 

raised student proficiency rates but still 

falls short of the 100 percent proficiency 

requirement under current law in a 

State that is not approved for ESEA 

flexibility. 

Changes: None. 

Defining ‘‘Greatest Need’’ To Include 

Priority Schools and Focus Schools for 

SEAs With Approved ESEA Flexibility 

Requests 

Comment: Four commenters 

supported aligning the definition of 

‘‘greatest need’’ with ESEA flexibility. 

One commenter recommended that the 

Department permit SEAs to limit SIG 

eligibility to priority schools only, in 

order to ensure that limited SIG funding 

is used in a State’s lowest-achieving 

schools. 

Discussion: We appreciate the support 

for aligning the eligibility provisions of 

the SIG requirements with ESEA 

flexibility for those SEAs with approved 

ESEA flexibility requests. As described 

in question I–9 of the March 1, 2012, 

SIG Guidance, available at http://

www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/

sigguidance03012012.doc, an SEA may 

create priorities within its application 

process to, for example, ensure an even 

distribution of urban and rural schools, 

incentivize evidence-based strategies, 

and encourage applications from LEAs 

without prior compliance issues. 

With regard to the comment that we 

should permit an SEA to provide SIG 

funds to priority schools only, we note 

that under section II.B.7, an SEA must, 

in making funding decisions, give 

priority to LEAs with priority schools, 

and that under section II.A.7 an LEA 

must apply to serve all of its priority 

schools before it may apply to serve one 

or more focus schools. Accordingly, a 

focus school may be served under SIG 

only if the LEA in which it is located 

is already serving all of its priority 

schools (or the LEA has no priority 

schools) and the SEA has already 

funded all LEAs with priority schools 

that submit approvable SIG 

applications. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter requested 

clarification as to whether a priority 

school implementing a SIG intervention 

model may exit priority status while 

receiving SIG funds. Another 

commenter asked whether receipt of a 

SIG award releases the school from the 

State’s priority school requirements and 

allows it to instead implement a SIG 

model. 

Discussion: In general, a school 

receiving a SIG grant would be deemed 

to be meeting the priority school 

requirements of ESEA flexibility and 

would not have to begin or continue 

separate implementation of a priority 

school intervention under the State’s 

approved ESEA flexibility request, 

unless the SEA has imposed additional 

requirements. A priority school that has 

begun implementing either a priority 

intervention or a SIG intervention may 

exit priority status but must continue to 

implement the intervention fully and 

effectively for the required three years, 

consistent with section II.A.4 of the 

requirements. 

Changes: None. 

Revising Reporting Requirements 

Comment: Several commenters 

supported the proposal to replace the 

truancy data reporting requirement with 

a requirement to report data on ‘‘chronic 

absenteeism.’’ One commenter 

recommended that the Department hold 

LEAs and schools implementing SIG 

models accountable for addressing 

chronic absenteeism, such as by 

requiring LEAs to use the data to trigger 

action when students reach a certain 

threshold of absences. 

Discussion: We appreciate the support 

for the change from truancy data to data 

on chronic absenteeism. We note that an 

LEA implementing a SIG model in a 

school may choose to use chronic 

absenteeism data to trigger specific 

interventions; for example, analyzing 

attendance data and using the results of 

the analysis to target interventions 

would be consistent with the 

expectation that each LEA 

implementing a SIG model in a school 

take steps to improve attendance rates at 

that school. We decline, however, to 

add this requirement to any of the 

models because we believe that each 

model offers a comprehensive approach 

to school turnaround, including through 

non-academic supports, and that 

therefore a separate requirement 

regarding attendance is not necessary. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: Many commenters 

recommended changing the chronic 

absenteeism measure from a certain 

number of days to a percentage of days 

enrolled, specifically from 15 days to 10 

percent of days enrolled. 

Discussion: We recognize that when 

absenteeism is being used for early 

intervention purposes, many authorities 

recommend that it is best measured as 

a percentage, comparing the days 

missed to the days of school already 

held. However, we have also 

determined that many LEAs can collect 

and report data on the number of days 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 7239 

missed by each individual student more 

accurately than they can calculate 

percentages due to the nature of the data 

collection, and thus decline to change 

the proposed measure at this time. 

Nonetheless, the Department is 

continuing outreach and analysis to 

determine the most reliable, valid, and 

least burdensome chronic absenteeism 

metric and may modify the current 

measure in the future if it determines 

another measure, such as a percentage 

based measure, is more appropriate. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department 

require LEAs to report school-level data 

by subgroup on the following metrics: 

(1) Graduation and dropout rates; (2) 

advanced course work participation 

rates; (3) college enrollment rates; (4) 

discipline incidents; and (5) chronic 

absenteeism rates. This commenter also 

recommended adding a metric for 

college persistence rates, as well as the 

number and percentage of students 

participating in advanced course work. 

Lastly, the commenter recommended 

that the metric for the distribution of 

teachers by performance level on an 

LEA’s teacher evaluation system also 

include the distribution of teachers (1) 

in their first or second year of teaching; 

(2) for whom there is insufficient data 

to receive a rating within the LEA’s 

teacher evaluation system; and (3) 

teaching outside of their certification 

area. 

Discussion: We agree that 

disaggregated reporting of key 

participation, attainment, and outcome 

measures, along with information on the 

distribution of effective teachers, is a 

useful and important method for 

identifying disparities in educational 

opportunities and outcomes. However, 

we decline to require LEAs to report on 

the measures recommended by the 

commenter due to a combination of (1) 

concerns over the validity and 

reliability of reporting data on small 

populations, such as subgroups within a 

school or even a district; (2) the 

availability of data on postsecondary 

outcomes; and (3) a longstanding 

emphasis on minimizing data collection 

and reporting burdens on schools, LEAs, 

and SEAs. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended that the Department use 

the Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) 

as the data source for discipline 

incidents rather than EDFacts. The 

commenter stated that using the CRDC 

data would reveal disparities in 

discipline rates among students of color 

and students with disabilities compared 

to their peers and provide more 

actionable data for schools in their 

school improvement efforts. 

Discussion: We recognize the value of 

the detailed data collected and reported 

via the CRDC, including discipline data. 

However, because the CRDC is collected 

biannually, using CRDC data instead of 

EDFacts data would support less 

frequent analysis and use of data by 

schools implementing school 

improvement models. 

Changes: None. 

Requests To Add Additional Models 

Comment: Many commenters 

submitted substantially similar requests 

to add a new ‘‘community schools’’ 

model to the list of models eligible for 

funding under the SIG program. 

Commenters generally defined this 

model as the leveraging of community 

resources to provide culturally relevant 

and rigorous curricula; extended-day 

instruction; wrap-around supports 

addressing the physical health, mental 

health, and social and emotional needs 

of students; effective professional 

development for all teachers and staff; 

positive discipline and social 

development practices; and strong 

family and community engagement. 

More than half of these commenters also 

recommended making community 

schools the only turnaround model 

eligible for SIG funding. 

Discussion: We agree that the 

community schools concept can be an 

effective strategy for building broad 

support for comprehensive, communitybased efforts to turn around lowperforming schools. This is why, as 

noted by one commenter, the 2009 SIG 

requirements included the similar 

‘‘community-oriented schools’’ strategy 

as a permissible element of the 

transformation model. Another 

commenter also recognized the 

integration of the community schools 

strategy into the transformation model, 

observing that the most frequently 

adopted model (the transformation 

model) is the one that most closely 

resembles the community schools 

concept. Moreover, we believe that the 

community schools approach is not 

only fully consistent with the 

transformation model, but also provides 

a framework for successful 

implementation of other existing SIG 

models, including the turnaround and 

restart models, as well as the new Statedetermined model. This is a key reason 

for the new requirement in section 

I.A.4(a)(8) that SEAs consider the extent 

to which an LEA’s application for SIG 

funds, regardless of the model selected, 

demonstrates how the LEA will 

meaningfully engage families and the 

community throughout implementation. 

We do not believe, however, that the 

community schools strategy, by itself, 

would be sufficient to ensure that 

communities and schools undertake the 

kind of rigorous, transformational 

changes required to break the cycle of 

failure in our lowest-performing schools 

and maximize the effective use of 

taxpayer dollars under the SIG program. 

SIG performance data suggest that the 

schools adopting the most rigorous 

interventions, such as changes in 

leadership and staffing under the 

turnaround model and new school 

management under the restart model, 

generate the highest gains in student 

achievement. For these reasons, we 

decline to make ‘‘community schools’’ a 

new model eligible for funding under 

the SIG program or to make it the sole 

model eligible for new SIG funds. 

Changes: None. 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended adding a new high school 

intervention model because, in the 

commenter’s words, a high school 

diploma is the gateway to success and 

the ultimate goal of a K–12 education. 

This commenter reasoned that the 

proposed high school intervention 

model would ensure that high schools 

implement the strategies that are unique 

to them and necessary to address the 

misalignment between student 

outcomes and the needs of the twentyfirst-century workforce. The commenter 

envisioned the high school intervention 

model requiring the alignment of reform 

between low-performing high schools 

and their feeder middle schools. Many 

of the requirements in the commenter’s 

suggested model were similar to those 

in the current and newly proposed SIG 

models, such as: Job-embedded 

professional development; evaluation 

and support systems for teachers and 

principals that meet the requirements 

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

and ILT, among others. 

Discussion: We agree that graduating 

high school is a key to a successful 

career in the twenty-first century. We 

believe, however, that offering the 

commenter’s proposed model would 

overlap with existing SIG models. In 

particular, there would be overlap with 

the transformation model, which has 

many of the same elements as the 

commenter’s suggested high school 

intervention model. If an SEA wanted to 

implement a model based on the 

commenter’s high school intervention 

model, it could do so under the 

transformation model. 

Changes: None. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

7240 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Request To Add New Evidence of 

‘‘Strongest Commitment’’ 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended revising the evidence of 

strongest commitment requirement in 

section I.A.4(a) to include a focus on 

school leadership. More specifically, the 

commenter suggested requiring LEAs to 

describe the steps they will take to 

review the capacity of the school leader, 

as well as activities designed to build 

capacity, to lead a successful 

turnaround prior to full implementation 

of the selected intervention model. 

Another commenter requested 

clarification that the turnaround leader 

may be someone other than the 

principal. 

Discussion: The requirements 

regarding school leadership vary among 

the intervention models eligible for 

funding under the SIG program. The 

turnaround and transformation models 

require principal replacement in 

recognition of the key role played by 

principals in leading instruction and 

creating a positive school culture. The 

restart model relies on dramatic changes 

in school management and leadership 

by a high-quality charter school 

operator, CMO, or EMO. The new 

evidence-based model may not 

necessarily involve changes in school 

leadership. With the limited exception 

of the State-determined model, the 

emphasis is on identifying a new school 

leader who already has demonstrated 

capacity to lead a school turnaround, 

and not on building such capacity 

during the planning or preimplementation phase of a SIG grant. 

For this reason, we decline to make the 

change to section I.A.4(a) recommended 

by the commenter. We also note that 

there is nothing in the final 

requirements that prevents someone 

other than the principal from serving as 

the turnaround leader in a SIG school. 

Changes: None. 

Promoting Evidence-Based Strategies 

Comment: One commenter 

recommended requiring that an SEA 

give priority in making SIG awards to 

applicants proposing to implement 

strategies proven to be effective. Other 

commenters recommended that the 

Department require LEAs to 

demonstrate that their proposed 

strategies are supported by evidence of 

effectiveness. 

Discussion: We agree that SEAs 

should take into account the extent to 

which LEA applications for SIG funds 

include one or more strategies 

supported by evidence of effectiveness. 

Accordingly, we are revising section 

I.A.4(a) of the final requirements to 

require SEAs to consider such evidence 

in determining which LEAs have ‘‘the 

strongest commitment’’ to the effective 

use of SIG funds and section II.B to 

allow SEAs to prioritize LEAs that have 

demonstrated the greatest evidence base 

for their proposed strategies if funding 

is not sufficient to permit awards to all 

LEAs with approvable applications. 

Changes: We have made three 

changes in the final requirements to 

address this comment. First, we added 

in section I.A.4(a)(13) (Evidence of 

strongest commitment) a requirement 

that the SEA, when considering the 

strength of the LEA’s commitment, 

evaluate the extent to which an LEA 

demonstrates that it will implement, to 

the extent practicable, one or more 

evidence-based strategies (as defined in 

this notice). We have also added in 

section II.B.9(b) a requirement that, if an 

SEA does not have sufficient SIG funds 

to make awards to each LEA with 

eligible schools, the SEA may take into 

account the extent to which an LEA 

applying for a SIG award demonstrates 

in its application that it will implement 

one or more evidence-based strategies 

(as defined in this notice). Finally, in 

section I.A.3 we defined ‘‘evidencebased strategy’’ to mean a strategy 

supported by at least ‘‘moderate 

evidence of effectiveness’’ as defined in 

34 CFR 77.1. 

New Specific Improvement Strategies 

Comment: Multiple commenters 

recommended the use of specific 

improvement strategies as part of the 

SIG program, including: offering a 

comprehensive summer program to 

students in the bottom quintile of 

academic performance; promoting the 

acquisition of 21st century skills; 

partnering with community-based 

organizations to provide additional 

resources and support, including beforeand after-school and summer learning 

programs; aggregating performance data 

across models to support the 

identification of best practices, as well 

as the calculation of the return on 

investment for each model; providing 

additional supports to principals; 

purchasing technology to support a 

blended learning environment; 

providing job-embedded professional 

development; expanding support for 

charter schools; allowing magnet 

schools; promoting student health and 

school climate; strengthening current 

leadership and staff in turnaround 

schools; district-level direction in 

supporting the implementation of the 

transformation model; expanding the 

list of partnerships permitted under the 

transformation model to include 

behavioral and mental health agencies 

and providers; references to high-quality 

digital content and services and 

community-based public media outlets; 

greater attention to meeting students’ 

emotional and behavioral needs; 

requiring data systems that track a broad 

range of student outcomes; and specific 

requirements related to a 

comprehensive needs assessment by 

LEA applicants for SIG funds. 

Discussion: Nearly all of the activities 

and approaches recommended by the 

commenters are already either required 

or permitted under one or more of the 

intervention models eligible for funding 

under the SIG program. For example, an 

LEA could convert a SIG school into a 

magnet school, which may promote 

college and career readiness as well as 

more diverse and integrated classrooms, 

while still meeting all other SIG model 

requirements. The Department 

continues to endeavor to strike the right 

balance between rigor and flexibility in 

the SIG program, viewing each as 

equally important to the development 

and implementation of successful 

school turnaround plans. For this 

reason, we decline to reduce State and 

local discretion by adding specific 

requirements in the areas suggested by 

the commenters. We intend, however, to 

issue guidance that will assist SEAs and 

LEAs in better understanding the broad 

spectrum of allowable activities and 

uses of SIG funds. 

Changes: None. 

Impact of Regulatory Changes on 

Existing Grantees 

Comment: One commenter requested 

that the Department clarify the impact 

of these requirements on existing 

grantees, including the use of new 

models. 

Discussion: We intend to clarify the 

impact of these final requirements on 

existing grantees through new nonregulatory guidance. In general, we 

anticipate that most new requirements, 

including the availability of new 

intervention models, will apply to new 

SIG awards made by States with FY 

2014 SIG funds. Such application of the 

new requirements is consistent with the 

fact that key changes in this notice were 

required in large part by the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014. 

One exception to the general rule that 

the new requirements will apply only to 

new SIG subgrantees would be that 

current SIG subgrantees may under 

certain circumstances be able to avail 

themselves of continued 

implementation and sustainability 

awards under the expanded five-year 

award period authorized by the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 7241 

4A ‘‘priority school’’ is defined as a school that, 

based on the most recent data available, has been 

identified as among the lowest-performing schools 

in the State. The total number of priority schools 

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

I schools in the State. A priority school is— 

A school among the lowest five percent of title 

I schools in the State based on the achievement of 

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

the statewide assessments that are part of the SEA’s 

differentiated recognition, accountability, and 

support system, combined, and has demonstrated a 

lack of progress on those assessments over a 

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

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

with a graduation rate less than 60 percent over a 

number of years; or 

Continued 

and implemented through these final 

requirements. 

Changes: None. 

Excessive Regulation 

Comment: Two commenters 

expressed general concerns about the 

complexity and potential administrative 

burden of the proposed requirements, 

stating that they would inhibit locally 

driven innovation and that the 

Department should regulate only where 

absolutely necessary. 

Discussion: The Secretary agrees with 

the commenters on the importance of 

ensuring that the Department regulate 

only where necessary, in the least 

burdensome manner possible, and that 

special care be taken to avoid potential 

barriers to State and local creativity and 

innovation in the use of SIG funds to 

turn around the Nation’s lowestperforming schools. The regulatory 

action was undertaken only in response 

to new legislation in the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2014, establishing a 

number of new requirements for the SIG 

program. After careful review of the new 

requirements, the Department 

determined that new regulations were 

required to ensure that the requirements 

would be implemented in the least 

burdensome and most effective manner 

possible, consistent with congressional 

intent. We also made other minor 

changes to existing SIG regulations 

aimed at clarifying State and local 

responsibilities in the administration of 

the SIG program, while also eliminating 

certain provisions determined to be 

outdated or obsolete. In the case of each 

new requirement, the Department 

considered whether the desired 

outcome could be achieved through 

regulation or non-regulatory guidance, 

choosing to add regulatory language 

only where necessary. 

Changes: None. 

Requested Changes to Requirements 

Outside the Scope of the NPR 

Comments: Several commenters asked 

the Department to change existing 

requirements that we did not propose to 

change in the NPR. 

Discussion: These commenters 

requested that the Department make 

changes to SIG program requirements 

that were not proposed for change in the 

NPR. However, we stated in the NPR 

that we were requesting comments on 

the proposed revisions rather than all of 

the SIG program requirements. We 

therefore will not respond to comments 

on requirements that were unchanged 

by the NPR, as they are outside the 

scope of this rulemaking. 

Changes: None. 

Final Requirements 

The Assistant Secretary for 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

establishes the following requirements 

for the SIG program. The Assistant 

Secretary may use these requirements 

for any year in which funds are 

appropriated for SIG authorized under 

1003(g) of the ESEA: 

I. SEA Priorities in Awarding School 

Improvement Grants 

A. Defining key terms. To award 

School Improvement Grants to its LEAs, 

consistent with section 1003(g)(6) of the 

ESEA, an SEA must select those LEAs 

with the greatest need for such funds, in 

accordance with the requirements in 

paragraph I.A.1. From among the LEAs 

in greatest need, the SEA must select, in 

accordance with paragraph I.A.2, those 

LEAs that demonstrate the strongest 

commitment to ensuring that the funds 

are used to provide adequate resources 

to enable the lowest-achieving schools 

to improve academic achievement. Key 

terms are defined as follows: 

1. Greatest need. An LEA with the 

greatest need for a School Improvement 

Grant must have one or more schools in 

at least one of the categories described 

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

LEA with the greatest need for a School 

Improvement Grant in a State with an 

approved ESEA flexibility request must 

have one or more schools in at least one 

of the categories described in section 

I.A.1(d)–(e): 

(a) Tier I schools: 

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

in improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring that is identified by the 

SEA under paragraph (a)(1) of the 

definition of ‘‘persistently lowestachieving schools.’’ 

(2) At its option, an SEA may also 

identify as a Tier I school an elementary 

school that is eligible for title I, Part A 

funds that— 

(A)(i) Has not made adequate yearly 

progress for at least two consecutive 

years; or 

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

performance based on proficiency rates 

on the State’s assessments under section 

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

language arts and mathematics 

combined; and 

(B) Is no higher achieving than the 

highest-achieving school identified by 

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

definition of ‘‘persistently lowestachieving schools.’’ 

(b) Tier II schools: 

(1) A Tier II school is a secondary 

school that is eligible for, but does not 

receive, title I, Part A funds and is 

identified by the SEA under paragraph 

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

lowest-achieving schools.’’ 

(2) At its option, an SEA may also 

identify as a Tier II school a secondary 

school that is eligible for title I, Part A 

funds that— 

(A)(i) Has not made adequate yearly 

progress for at least two consecutive 

years; or 

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

performance based on proficiency rates 

on the State’s assessments under section 

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

language arts and mathematics 

combined; and 

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

highest-achieving school identified by 

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

definition of ‘‘persistently lowestachieving schools’’; or 

(ii) Is a high school that has had a 

graduation rate as defined in 34 CFR 

200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent 

over a number of years. 

(c) Tier III schools: 

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

in improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring that is not a Tier I or a Tier 

II school. 

(2) At its option, an SEA may also 

identify as a Tier III school a school that 

is eligible for title I, Part A funds that— 

(A)(i) Has not made adequate yearly 

progress for at least two years; or 

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

performance based on proficiency rates 

on the State’s assessments under section 

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

language arts and mathematics 

combined; and 

(B) Does not meet the requirements to 

be a Tier I or Tier II school. 

(3) An SEA may establish additional 

criteria to use in setting priorities among 

LEA applications for funding and to 

encourage LEAs to differentiate among 

Tier III schools in their use of School 

Improvement Grants funds. 

(d) Priority schools: A priority school 

is a school identified as a priority school 

pursuant to an SEA’s approved ESEA 

flexibility request and consistent with 

the ESEA flexibility definition of 

‘‘priority school.’’ 4

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

7242 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

A Tier I or Tier II school under the SIG program 

that is using SIG funds to implement a school 

intervention model. 5A ‘‘focus school’’ is defined as a title I school 

in the State that, based on the most recent data 

available, is contributing to the achievement gap in 

the State. The total number of focus schools in a 

State must equal at least 10 percent of the title I 

schools in the State. A focus school is— 

A school that has the largest within-school gaps 

between the highest-achieving subgroup or 

subgroups and the lowest-achieving subgroup or 

subgroups or, at the high school level, has the 

largest within-school gaps in graduation rates; or 

A school that has a subgroup or subgroups with 

low achievement or, at the high school level, low 

graduation rates. 

An SEA must also identify as a focus school a 

title I high school with a graduation rate less than 

60 percent over a number of years that is not 

identified as a priority school. 

These determinations must be based on the 

achievement and lack of progress over a number of 

years of one or more subgroups of students 

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

terms of proficiency on the statewide assessments 

that are part of the SEA’s differentiated recognition, 

accountability, and support system, combined, or, 

at the high school level, graduation rates for one or 

more subgroups. 

(e) Focus schools: A focus school is a 

school identified as a focus school 

pursuant to an SEA’s approved ESEA 

flexibility request and consistent with 

the ESEA flexibility definition of ‘‘focus 

school.’’ 5

2. Strongest commitment. An LEA 

with the strongest commitment is an 

LEA that agrees to implement, and 

demonstrates the capacity to implement 

fully and effectively, one of the 

following rigorous interventions in each 

Tier I and Tier II school or, for an SEA 

with an approved ESEA flexibility 

request, each priority and focus school, 

that the LEA commits to serve: 

(a) Turnaround model: 

(1) A turnaround model is one in 

which an LEA must implement each of 

the following elements: 

(A) Replace the principal and grant 

the principal sufficient operational 

flexibility (including in staffing, 

calendars/time, and budgeting) to 

implement fully each element of the 

turnaround model. 

(B) Using locally adopted 

competencies to measure the 

effectiveness of staff who can work 

within the turnaround environment to 

meet the needs of students— 

(i) Screen all existing staff and rehire 

no more than 50 percent; and 

(ii) Select new staff. 

(C) Implement such strategies as 

financial incentives, increased 

opportunities for promotion and career 

growth, and more flexible work 

conditions that are designed to recruit, 

place, and retain staff with the skills 

necessary to meet the needs of the 

students in the turnaround school. 

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

development that is aligned with the 

school’s comprehensive instructional 

program and designed with school staff 

to ensure that they are equipped to 

facilitate effective teaching and learning 

and have the capacity to successfully 

implement school reform strategies. 

(E) Adopt a new governance structure, 

which may include, but is not limited 

to, requiring the school to report to a 

new ‘‘turnaround office’’ in the LEA or 

SEA, hire a ‘‘turnaround leader’’ who 

reports directly to the Superintendent or 

Chief Academic Officer, or enter into a 

multi-year contract with the LEA or SEA 

to obtain added flexibility in exchange 

for greater accountability. 

(F) Use data to identify and 

implement an instructional program 

that is research-based and vertically 

aligned from one grade to the next as 

well as aligned with State academic 

standards. 

(G) Promote the continuous use of 

student data (such as from formative, 

interim, and summative assessments) to 

inform and differentiate instruction in 

order to meet the academic needs of 

individual students. 

(H) Establish schedules and 

implement strategies that provide 

increased learning time (as defined in 

these requirements). 

(I) Provide appropriate socialemotional and community-oriented 

services and supports for students. 

(2) A turnaround model may also 

implement other strategies such as— 

(A) Any of the required and 

permissible activities under the 

transformation model; or 

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

dual language academy). 

(b) Restart model: 

(1) A restart model is one in which an 

LEA converts a school or closes and 

reopens a school under a charter school 

operator, a charter management 

organization (CMO), or an education 

management organization (EMO) that 

has been selected through a rigorous 

review process. (A CMO is a non-profit 

organization that operates or manages 

charter schools by centralizing or 

sharing certain functions and resources 

among schools. An EMO is a for-profit 

or non-profit organization that provides 

‘‘whole-school operation’’ services to an 

LEA.) The rigorous review process must 

include a determination by the LEA that 

the selected charter school operator, 

CMO, or EMO is likely to produce 

strong results for the school. In making 

this determination, the LEA must 

consider the extent to which the schools 

currently operated or managed by the 

selected charter school operator, CMO, 

or EMO, if any, have produced strong 

results over the past three years (or over 

the life of the school, if the school has 

been open for fewer than three years), 

including— 

(A) Significant improvement in 

academic achievement for all of the 

groups of students described in section 

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

(B) Success in closing achievement 

gaps, either within schools or relative to 

all public elementary school and 

secondary school students statewide, for 

all of the groups of students described 

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

ESEA; 

(C) High school graduation rates, 

where applicable, that are above the 

average rates in the State for the groups 

of students described in section 

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

(D) No significant compliance issues, 

including in the areas of civil rights, 

financial management, and student 

safety; 

(2) A restart model must enroll, 

within the grades it serves, any former 

student who wishes to attend the 

school. 

(c) School closure: School closure 

occurs when an LEA closes a school and 

enrolls the students who attended that 

school in other schools in the LEA that 

are higher achieving. These other 

schools should be within reasonable 

proximity to the closed school and may 

include, but are not limited to, charter 

schools or new schools for which 

achievement data are not yet available. 

(d) Transformation model: A 

transformation model is one in which 

an LEA implements each of the 

following elements: 

(1) Developing and increasing teacher 

and school leader effectiveness. 

(A) Required activities. The LEA 

must— 

(i) Replace the principal who led the 

school prior to commencement of the 

transformation model; 

(ii) Implement rigorous, transparent, 

and equitable evaluation and support 

systems for teachers and principals, 

designed and developed with teacher 

and principal involvement, that— 

(1) Will be used for continual 

improvement of instruction; 

(2) Meaningfully differentiate 

performance using at least three 

performance levels; 

(3) Use multiple valid measures in 

determining performance levels, 

including as a significant factor data on 

student growth (as defined in these 

requirements) for all students (including 

English learners and students with 

disabilities), and other measures of 

professional practice (which may be 

gathered through multiple formats and 

sources), such as observations based on 

rigorous teacher performance standards, 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 7243 

teacher portfolios, and student and 

parent surveys; 

(4) Evaluate teachers and principals 

on a regular basis; 

(5) Provide clear, timely, and useful 

feedback, including feedback that 

identifies needs and guides professional 

development; and 

(6) Will be used to inform personnel 

decisions. 

(iii) Use the teacher and principal 

evaluation and support system 

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

these requirements to identify and 

reward school leaders, teachers, and 

other staff who, in implementing this 

model, have increased student 

achievement and high school graduation 

rates and identify and remove those 

who, after ample opportunities have 

been provided for them to improve their 

professional practice, have not done so; 

and 

(iv) Implement such strategies as 

financial incentives, increased 

opportunities for promotion and career 

growth, and more flexible work 

conditions that are designed to recruit, 

place, and retain staff with the skills 

necessary to meet the needs of students 

in the school, taking into consideration 

the results from the teacher and 

principal evaluation and support system 

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

these requirements, if applicable. 

(B) Permissible activities. An LEA 

may also implement other strategies to 

develop teachers’ and school leaders’ 

effectiveness, such as— 

(i) Providing additional compensation 

to attract and retain staff with the skills 

necessary to meet the needs of the 

students in a transformation school; 

(ii) Instituting a system for measuring 

changes in instructional practices 

resulting from professional 

development; or 

(iii) Ensuring that the school is not 

required to accept a teacher without the 

mutual consent of the teacher and 

principal, regardless of the teacher’s 

seniority. 

(2) Comprehensive instructional 

reform strategies. 

(A) Required activities. The LEA 

must— 

(i) Use data to identify and implement 

an instructional program that is 

research-based and vertically aligned 

from one grade to the next as well as 

aligned with State academic standards; 

(ii) Promote the continuous use of 

student data (such as from formative, 

interim, and summative assessments) to 

inform and differentiate instruction in 

order to meet the academic needs of 

individual students; and 

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

development (e.g., regarding subjectspecific pedagogy, instruction that 

reflects a deeper understanding of the 

community served by the school, or 

differentiated instruction) that is aligned 

with the school’s comprehensive 

instructional program and designed 

with school staff to ensure they are 

equipped to facilitate effective teaching 

and learning and have the capacity to 

implement successfully school reform 

strategies. 

(B) Permissible activities. An LEA 

may also implement comprehensive 

instructional reform strategies, such 

as— 

(i) Conducting periodic reviews to 

ensure that the instruction is 

implemented with fidelity to the 

selected curriculum, is having the 

intended impact on student 

achievement, and is modified if 

ineffective; 

(ii) Implementing a schoolwide 

‘‘response-to-intervention’’ model; 

(iii) Providing additional supports 

and professional development to 

teachers and principals in order to 

implement effective strategies to 

support students with disabilities in the 

least restrictive environment and to 

ensure that English learners acquire 

language skills to master academic 

content; 

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

of the instructional program; and 

(v) In secondary schools— 

(1) Increasing rigor by offering 

opportunities for students to enroll in 

advanced coursework (such as 

Advanced Placement; International 

Baccalaureate; or science, technology, 

engineering, and mathematics courses, 

especially those that incorporate 

rigorous and relevant project-, 

inquiry-, or design-based contextual 

learning opportunities), early-college 

high schools, dual enrollment programs, 

or thematic learning academies that 

prepare students for college and careers, 

including by providing appropriate 

supports designed to ensure that lowachieving students can take advantage 

of these programs and coursework; 

(2) Improving student transition from 

middle to high school through summer 

transition programs or freshman 

academies; 

(3) Increasing graduation rates 

through, for example, credit-recovery 

programs, re-engagement strategies, 

smaller learning communities, 

competency-based instruction and 

performance-based assessments, and 

acceleration of basic reading and 

mathematics skills; or 

(4) Establishing early-warning systems 

to identify students who may be at risk 

of failing to achieve to high standards or 

graduate. 

(3) Increasing learning time and 

creating community-oriented schools. 

(A) Required activities. The LEA 

must— 

(i) Establish schedules and strategies 

that provide increased learning time (as 

defined in these requirements); and 

(ii) Provide ongoing mechanisms for 

family and community engagement. 

(B) Permissible activities. An LEA 

may also implement other strategies that 

extend learning time and create 

community-oriented schools, such as— 

(i) Partnering with parents and parent 

organizations, faith- and communitybased organizations, health clinics, 

other State or local agencies, and others 

to create safe school environments that 

meet students’ social, emotional, and 

health needs; 

(ii) Extending or restructuring the 

school day so as to add time for such 

strategies as advisory periods that build 

relationships between students, faculty, 

and other school staff; 

(iii) Implementing approaches to 

improve school climate and discipline, 

such as implementing a system of 

positive behavioral supports or taking 

steps to eliminate bullying and student 

harassment; or 

(iv) Expanding the school program to 

offer full-day kindergarten or prekindergarten. 

(4) Providing operational flexibility 

and sustained support. 

(A) Required activities. The LEA 

must— 

(i) Give the school sufficient 

operational flexibility (such as staffing, 

calendars/time, and budgeting) to 

implement fully each element of the 

transformation model to substantially 

improve student achievement outcomes 

and increase high school graduation 

rates; and 

(ii) Ensure that the school receives 

ongoing, intensive technical assistance 

and related support from the LEA, the 

SEA, or a designated external lead 

partner organization (such as a school 

turnaround organization or an EMO). 

(B) Permissible activities. The LEA 

may also implement other strategies for 

providing operational flexibility and 

intensive support, such as— 

(i) Allowing the school to be run 

under a new governance arrangement, 

such as a turnaround division within 

the LEA or SEA; or 

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

based on student needs. 

(e) Evidence-based, whole-school 

reform model: An evidence-based, 

whole-school reform model— 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

7244 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

6What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and 

Standards Handbook (Version 3.0), which can 

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

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

procedures_v3_0_standards_handbook.pdf. 

(1) Is supported by evidence of 

effectiveness, which must include at 

least one study of the model that— 

(A) Meets What Works Clearinghouse 

evidence standards with or without 

reservations; 6

(B) Found a statistically significant 

favorable impact on a student academic 

achievement or attainment outcome, 

with no statistically significant and 

overriding unfavorable impacts on that 

outcome for relevant populations in the 

study or in other studies of the 

intervention reviewed by and reported 

on by the What Works Clearinghouse; 

and 

(C) If meeting What Works 

Clearinghouse evidence standards with 

reservations, includes a large sample 

and a multi-site sample as defined in 34 

CFR 77.1 (Note: multiple studies can 

cumulatively meet the large and multisite sample requirements so long as each 

study meets the other requirements in 

this section); 

(2) Is a whole-school reform model as 

defined in these requirements; and 

(3) Is implemented by the LEA in 

partnership with a whole-school reform 

model developer as defined in these 

requirements. 

(f) Early learning model: An LEA 

implementing the early learning model 

in an elementary school must— 

(1) Implement each of the following 

early learning strategies— 

(A) Offer full-day kindergarten; 

(B) Establish or expand a high-quality 

preschool program (as defined in these 

requirements); 

(2) Provide educators, including 

preschool teachers, with time for joint 

planning across grades to facilitate 

effective teaching and learning and 

positive teacher-student interactions; 

(3) Replace the principal who led the 

school prior to commencement of the 

early learning model; 

(4) Implement rigorous, transparent, 

and equitable evaluation and support 

systems for teachers and principals, 

designed and developed with teacher 

and principal involvement, that meet 

the requirements described in section 

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

(5) Use the teacher and principal 

evaluation and support system 

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

these requirements to identify and 

reward school leaders, teachers, and 

other staff who, in implementing this 

model, have increased student 

achievement and identify and remove 

those who, after ample opportunities 

have been provided for them to improve 

their professional practice, have not 

done so; 

(6) Implement such strategies as 

financial incentives, increased 

opportunities for promotion and career 

growth, and more flexible work 

conditions that are designed to recruit, 

place, and retain staff with the skills 

necessary to meet the needs of students 

in the school, taking into consideration 

the results from the teacher and 

principal evaluation and support system 

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

these requirements, if applicable; 

(7) Use data to identify and 

implement an instructional program 

that— 

(A) Is research-based, 

developmentally appropriate, and 

vertically aligned from one grade to the 

next as well as aligned with State early 

learning and development standards 

and State academic standards; and 

(B) In the early grades, promotes the 

full range of academic content across 

domains of development, including 

math and science, language and literacy, 

socio-emotional skills, self-regulation, 

and executive functions; 

(8) Promote the continuous use of 

student data (such as from formative, 

interim, and summative assessments) to 

inform and differentiate instruction in 

order to meet the educational and 

developmental needs of individual 

students; and 

(9) Provide staff ongoing, high-quality, 

job-embedded professional development 

such as coaching and mentoring (e.g., 

regarding subject-specific pedagogy, 

instruction that reflects a deeper 

understanding of the community served 

by the school, or differentiated 

instruction) that is aligned with the 

school’s comprehensive instructional 

program and designed with school staff 

to ensure they are equipped to facilitate 

effective teaching and learning and have 

the capacity to implement successfully 

school reform strategies. 

(g) Approved State-determined model: 

An LEA may implement an intervention 

developed or adopted by its SEA that 

has been approved by the Secretary, 

consistent with section II.B.1(b). 

3. Definitions. 

Evidence-based strategy means a 

strategy supported by at least moderate 

evidence of effectiveness as defined in 

34 CFR 77.1. 

High-quality preschool program 

means an early learning program that 

includes structural elements that are 

evidence-based and nationally 

recognized as important for ensuring 

program quality, including at a 

minimum— 

(a) High staff qualifications, including 

a teacher with a bachelor’s degree in 

early childhood education or a 

bachelor’s degree in any field with a 

State-approved alternate pathway, 

which may include coursework, clinical 

practice, and evidence of knowledge of 

content and pedagogy relating to early 

childhood, and teaching assistants with 

appropriate credentials; 

(b) High-quality professional 

development for all staff; 

(c) A child-to-instructional staff ratio 

of no more than 10 to 1; 

(d) A class size of no more than 20 

with, at a minimum, one teacher with 

high staff qualifications as outlined in 

paragraph (a) of this definition; 

(e) A full-day program; 

(f) Inclusion of children with 

disabilities to ensure access to and full 

participation in all opportunities; 

(g) Developmentally appropriate, 

culturally and linguistically responsive 

instruction and evidence-based 

curricula, and learning environments 

that are aligned with the State early 

learning and development standards, for 

at least the year prior to kindergarten 

entry; 

(h) Individualized accommodations 

and supports so that all children can 

access and participate fully in learning 

activities; 

(i) Instructional staff salaries that are 

comparable to the salaries of local K–12 

instructional staff; 

(j) Program evaluation to ensure 

continuous improvement; 

(k) On-site or accessible 

comprehensive services for children and 

community partnerships that promote 

families’ access to services that support 

their children’s learning and 

development; and 

(l) Evidence-based health and safety 

standards. 

Increased learning time means using 

a longer school day, week, or year 

schedule to significantly increase the 

total number of school hours to include 

additional time for— 

(a) Instruction in one or more core 

academic subjects, including English, 

reading or language arts, mathematics, 

science, foreign languages, civics and 

government, economics, arts, history, 

and geography; 

(b) Instruction in other subjects and 

enrichment activities that contribute to 

a well-rounded education, including, for 

example, physical education, service 

learning, and experiential and workbased learning opportunities that are 

provided by partnering, as appropriate, 

with other organizations; and 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 7245 

7Evidence from the field shows that increasing 

learning time in a strategic, high-quality manner is 

often a key element of successful school 

turnaround. See ‘‘The Case for Improving and 

Expanding Time in School: A Review of Key 

Research and Practice, available at 

www.timeandlearning.org/files/CaseforMoreTime_

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

April 2012. 

(c) Teachers to collaborate, plan, and 

engage in professional development 

within and across grades and subjects.7

Persistently lowest-achieving schools 

means, as determined by the State— 

(a)(1) Any title I school in 

improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring that— 

(A) Is among the lowest-achieving five 

percent of title I schools in 

improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring or the lowest-achieving 

five title I schools in improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring in the 

State, whichever number of schools is 

greater; or 

(B) Is a high school that has had a 

graduation rate as defined in 34 CFR 

200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent 

over a number of years; and 

(2) Any secondary school that is 

eligible for, but does not receive, title I 

funds that— 

(A) Is among the lowest-achieving five 

percent of secondary schools or the 

lowest-achieving five secondary schools 

in the State that are eligible for, but do 

not receive, title I funds, whichever 

number of schools is greater; or 

(B) Is a high school that has had a 

graduation rate as defined in 34 CFR 

200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent 

over a number of years. 

(b) To identify the lowest-achieving 

schools, a State must take into account 

both— 

(1) The academic achievement of the 

‘‘all students’’ group in a school in 

terms of proficiency on the State’s 

assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of 

the ESEA in reading/language arts and 

mathematics combined; and 

(2) The school’s lack of progress on 

those assessments over a number of 

years for the ‘‘all students’’ group. 

Student growth means the change in 

student achievement for an individual 

student between two or more points in 

time. For the purpose of this definition, 

student achievement means— 

(a) For grades and subjects in which 

assessments are required under section 

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

on such assessments and may include 

other measures of student learning, such 

as those described in paragraph (b) of 

this definition, provided they are 

rigorous and comparable across schools 

within an LEA. 

(b) For grades and subjects in which 

assessments are not required under 

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

alternative measures of student learning 

and performance, such as student 

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

and objective performance-based 

assessments; student learning 

objectives; student performance on 

English language proficiency 

assessments; and other measures of 

student achievement that are rigorous 

and comparable across schools within 

an LEA. 

Whole-school reform model means a 

model that is designed to— 

(a) Improve student academic 

achievement or attainment; 

(b) Be implemented for all students in 

a school; and 

(c) Address, at a minimum and in a 

comprehensive and coordinated 

manner, each of the following: 

(1) School leadership. 

(2) Teaching and learning in at least 

one full academic content area 

(including professional learning for 

educators). 

(3) Student non-academic support. 

(4) Family and community 

engagement. 

Whole-school reform model developer 

means an entity or individual that— 

(a) Maintains proprietary rights for the 

model; or 

(b) If no entity or individual 

maintains proprietary rights for the 

model, has a demonstrated record of 

success in implementing a whole-school 

reform model (as defined in these 

requirements) and is selected through a 

rigorous review process that includes a 

determination that the entity or 

individual is likely to produce strong 

results for the school. 

4. Evidence of strongest commitment. 

(a) In determining the strength of an 

LEA’s commitment to ensuring that 

School Improvement Grants funds are 

used to provide adequate resources to 

enable Tier I, Tier II, priority, and focus 

schools to improve student achievement 

substantially, an SEA must consider, at 

a minimum, the extent to which the 

LEA’s application demonstrates that the 

LEA has taken, or will take, action to— 

(1) In selecting the intervention for 

each eligible school— 

(A) Ensure that the selected 

intervention is designed to meet the 

specific needs of the school, based on a 

needs analysis that, among other things, 

analyzes the needs identified by 

families and the community; and 

(B) Take into consideration family 

and community input. 

(2) Design and implement 

interventions consistent with these 

requirements; 

(3) Use the School Improvement 

Grants funds to provide adequate 

resources and related support to each 

school it commits to serve in order to 

implement fully and effectively the 

selected intervention on the first day of 

the first school year of full 

implementation; 

(4) Recruit, screen, and select external 

providers, if applicable, to ensure their 

quality, and regularly review and hold 

accountable such providers for their 

performance; 

(5) Align other resources with the 

selected intervention; 

(6) Modify its practices or policies, if 

necessary, to enable it to implement the 

selected intervention fully and 

effectively; 

(7) Provide effective oversight and 

support for implementation of the 

selected intervention for each school it 

proposes to serve, such as by creating an 

LEA turnaround office; 

(8) Meaningfully engage families and 

the community in the implementation 

of the selected intervention on an 

ongoing basis; 

(9) For an LEA eligible for services 

under subpart 1 or 2 of part B of title 

VI of the ESEA that chooses to modify 

one element of the turnaround or 

transformation model under section 

I.B.6 of these requirements, meet the 

intent and purpose of that element; 

(10) For an LEA that applies to 

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

eligible schools— 

(A) Implement a model with evidence 

of effectiveness that includes a sample 

population or setting similar to the 

population or setting of the school to be 

served; and 

(B) Partner with a whole-school 

reform model developer, as defined in 

these requirements; 

(11) For an LEA that applies to 

implement the restart model in one or 

more eligible schools, conduct a 

rigorous review process, as described in 

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

operator, CMO, or EMO that it has 

selected to operate or manage the school 

or schools; 

(12) Sustain the reforms after the 

funding period ends; and 

(13) Implement, to the extent 

practicable, in accordance with its 

selected SIG intervention model, one or 

more evidence-based strategies (as 

defined in this notice). 

(b) The SEA must consider the LEA’s 

capacity to implement the interventions 

and may approve the LEA to serve only 

those Tier I, Tier II, priority, and focus 

schools for which the SEA determines 

that the LEA can implement fully and 

effectively one of the interventions. 

B. Providing flexibility. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

7246 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

1. An SEA may award School 

Improvement Grants funds to an LEA 

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

school that has implemented, in whole 

or in part, an intervention that meets the 

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

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

requirements during the school year in 

which the LEA applies for School 

Improvement Grants funds or during the 

two school years prior to the school year 

in which the LEA applies for School 

Improvement Grants funds, so that the 

LEA and school can continue or 

complete the intervention being 

implemented in that school. 

2. An SEA may seek a waiver from the 

Secretary of the requirements in section 

1116(b) of the ESEA in order to permit 

a Tier I or Tier II title I participating 

school implementing an intervention 

that meets the requirements under 

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

2(g) of these requirements in an LEA 

that receives a School Improvement 

Grant to ‘‘start over’’ in the school 

improvement timeline. Even though a 

school implementing the waiver would 

no longer be in improvement, corrective 

action, or restructuring, it may receive 

School Improvement Grants funds. 

3. An SEA may seek a waiver from the 

Secretary to enable a Tier I or Tier II 

title I participating school that is 

ineligible to operate a title I schoolwide 

program and is operating a title I 

targeted assistance program to operate a 

schoolwide program in order to 

implement an intervention that meets 

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

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

requirements. 

4. An SEA may seek a waiver from the 

Secretary to extend the period of 

availability of School Improvement 

Grants funds so as to make those funds 

available to the SEA and its LEAs for up 

to five years. 

5. If an SEA does not seek a waiver 

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

seek a waiver. 

6. An LEA eligible for services under 

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

ESEA may modify one element of the 

turnaround or transformation model so 

long as the modification meets the 

intent and purpose of the original 

element, in accordance with section 

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

II. Awarding School Improvement 

Grants to LEAs 

A. LEA requirements. 

1. An LEA may apply for a School 

Improvement Grant if it receives title I, 

Part A funds and has one or more 

schools that qualify under the State’s 

definition of a ‘‘Tier I,’’ ‘‘Tier II,’’ ‘‘Tier 

III,’’ ‘‘priority,’’ or ‘‘focus’’ school. 

2. In its application, in addition to 

other information that the SEA may 

require, the LEA must— 

(a) Identify the schools it commits to 

serve; 

(b) Identify the intervention it will 

implement in each Tier I, Tier II, 

priority, and focus school it commits to 

serve; 

(c) Provide evidence of its strong 

commitment to use School 

Improvement Grants funds to 

implement the selected intervention by 

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

of these requirements; 

(d) Include a timeline delineating the 

steps the LEA will take to implement 

the selected intervention in each school 

identified in the LEA’s application; and 

(e) Include a budget indicating how it 

will allocate School Improvement 

Grants funds among the schools it 

commits to serve that is of sufficient 

size and scope and that: 

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

and focus school the LEA commits to 

serve, ensures that the LEA can 

implement one of the interventions 

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

sections I.A.2(d)–(g) of these 

requirements for a minimum of three 

years and no more than five years; and 

(2) For each Tier III school the LEA 

commits to serve, includes the services 

it will provide the school, particularly if 

the school meets additional criteria 

established by the SEA, for a minimum 

of three years and no more than five 

years. 

3. An LEA that intends to use the first 

year of its School Improvement Grants 

award for planning and other preimplementation activities for an eligible 

school must include in its application to 

the SEA a description of the activities, 

the timeline for implementing those 

activities, and a description of how 

those activities will lead to successful 

implementation of the selected 

intervention. 

4. The LEA must serve: 

(a) In an SEA with an approved ESEA 

flexibility request, each priority school 

unless the LEA demonstrates that it 

lacks sufficient capacity to undertake 

one of the interventions described in 

section I.A.2 of these requirements in 

each priority school, in which case the 

LEA must indicate the priority schools 

that it can effectively serve. An LEA 

may not serve with School Improvement 

Grants funds awarded under section 

1003(g) of the ESEA a priority or focus 

school in which it does not implement 

one of the interventions identified in 

section I.A.2 of these requirements. 

(b) In all other SEAs, each Tier I 

school unless the LEA demonstrates that 

it lacks sufficient capacity (which may 

be due, in part, to serving Tier II 

schools) to undertake one of the 

interventions described in section I.A.2 

of these requirements in each Tier I 

school, in which case the LEA must 

indicate the Tier I schools that it can 

effectively serve. An LEA may not serve 

with School Improvement Grants funds 

awarded under section 1003(g) of the 

ESEA a Tier I or Tier II school in which 

it does not implement one of the 

interventions identified in section I.A.2 

of these requirements. 

5. An LEA that commits to serve 

schools that do not receive title I, Part 

A funds must ensure that each such 

school it serves receives all of the State 

and local funds it would have received 

in the absence of the School 

Improvement Grants funds. 

6. An LEA in which one or more Tier 

I schools are located and that does not 

apply to serve at least one of these 

schools may not apply for a grant to 

serve only Tier III schools. 

7. An LEA in which one or more 

priority schools are located and that 

does not apply to serve all of these 

schools may not apply for a grant to 

serve one or more focus schools. 

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

priority, and focus school that receives 

School Improvement Grants funds, an 

LEA must— 

(1) Establish annual goals for student 

achievement on the State’s assessments 

in both reading/language arts and 

mathematics; and 

(2) Measure progress on the leading 

indicators in section III of these 

requirements. 

(b) The LEA must also meet the 

requirements with respect to adequate 

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

the ESEA, if applicable. 

9. An LEA must hold the charter 

school operator, CMO, EMO, or other 

external provider accountable for 

meeting these requirements, if 

applicable. 

B. SEA requirements. 

1. (a) To receive a School 

Improvement Grant, an SEA must 

submit an application to the Department 

at such time, and containing such 

information, as the Secretary shall 

reasonably require. 

(b) In its application to the 

Department, each SEA may submit one 

State-determined intervention model for 

the Secretary’s review and approval. To 

be approved, a State-determined model 

must be a whole-school reform model as 

defined in these requirements and, at 

the SEA’s discretion, may also include 

any other elements or strategies that the 

SEA determines will help improve 

student achievement. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 7247 

2. (a) An SEA must review and 

approve, consistent with these 

requirements, an application for a 

School Improvement Grant that it 

receives from an LEA. 

(b) Before approving an LEA’s 

application, the SEA must ensure that 

the application meets these 

requirements, particularly with respect 

to— 

(1) Whether the LEA has agreed to 

implement one of the interventions 

identified in section I.A.2 of these 

requirements in each Tier I and Tier II 

school or, for an SEA with an approved 

ESEA flexibility request, each priority 

and focus school included in its 

application; 

(2) The extent to which the LEA’s 

application demonstrates the LEA’s 

strong commitment to use School 

Improvement Grants funds to 

implement the selected intervention by 

addressing the factors in section I.A.4 of 

these requirements; 

(3) Whether the LEA has the capacity 

to implement the selected intervention 

fully and effectively in each school 

identified in its application; and 

(4) Whether the LEA has submitted a 

budget that includes sufficient funds to 

implement the selected intervention 

fully and effectively in each school it 

identifies in its application. 

3. An SEA may, consistent with State 

law, take over an LEA or specific Tier 

I, Tier II, priority, or focus schools in 

order to implement the interventions in 

these requirements. 

4. An SEA may not require an LEA to 

implement a particular intervention in 

one or more schools unless the SEA has 

taken over the LEA or school. 

5. To the extent that a school 

implementing a restart model becomes a 

charter school LEA, an SEA must hold 

the charter school LEA accountable, or 

ensure that the charter school authorizer 

holds it accountable, for complying with 

these requirements. 

6. An SEA must post on its Web site, 

within 30 days of awarding School 

Improvement Grants to LEAs and within 

30 days of approving any amendments 

to LEA applications, all approved LEA 

applications (including applications to 

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

focus schools and approved 

amendments) as well as a summary of 

those grants that includes the following 

information: 

(a) Name and National Center for 

Education Statistics (NCES) 

identification number of each LEA 

awarded a grant. 

(b) Amount of each LEA’s grant. 

(c) Name and NCES identification 

number of each school to be served. 

(d) Type of intervention to be 

implemented in each Tier I, Tier II, 

priority, and focus school. 

7. If an SEA does not have sufficient 

School Improvement Grants funds to 

award, for at least three years, a grant to 

each LEA that submits an approvable 

application, the SEA must give priority 

to LEAs to serve Tier I or Tier II schools 

or, for an SEA with an approved ESEA 

flexibility request, the SEA must give 

priority to LEAs to serve priority 

schools. 

8. An SEA must award a School 

Improvement Grant to an LEA in an 

amount that is of sufficient size and 

scope to support the activities required 

under section 1116 of the ESEA and 

these requirements. The LEA’s total 

grant may not be less than $50,000 for 

each school it commits to serve and, for 

each school in which the LEA commits 

to fully implement an intervention that 

meets the requirements under section 

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

these requirements, may be up to 

$2,000,000 per year. 

9. If an SEA does not have sufficient 

School Improvement Grants funds to 

allocate to each LEA with a Tier I or 

Tier II school or, in an SEA with an 

approved ESEA flexibility request, to 

each LEA with a priority or focus 

school, an amount sufficient to enable 

the school to implement fully and 

effectively the specified intervention 

throughout the period of availability, 

including any extension afforded 

through a waiver, the SEA may take into 

account— 

(a) the distribution of Tier I, Tier II, 

priority, and focus schools among such 

LEAs in the State to ensure that Tier I 

and Tier II schools or, in an SEA with 

an approved ESEA flexibility request, 

priority and focus schools throughout 

the State can be served and 

(b) the extent to which an LEA 

applying for a SIG award demonstrates 

in its application that it will implement 

one or more evidence-based strategies 

(as defined in this notice) as part of the 

SIG intervention model it implements in 

a school. 

10. In identifying Tier I, Tier II, 

priority, and focus schools in a State for 

purposes of allocating funds 

appropriated for School Improvement 

Grants under section 1003(g) of the 

ESEA, an SEA must exclude from 

consideration any school that was 

previously identified as a Tier I, Tier II, 

priority, or focus school and in which 

an LEA is implementing one of the 

interventions identified in these 

requirements using funds made 

available under section 1003(g) of the 

ESEA. 

11. Before submitting its application 

for a School Improvement Grant to the 

Department, the SEA must consult with 

its Committee of Practitioners 

established under section 1903(b) of the 

ESEA regarding the rules and policies 

contained therein and may consult with 

other stakeholders that have an interest 

in its application. 

C. Renewal for additional one-year 

periods. 

1. An SEA must renew the School 

Improvement Grant for each affected 

LEA for additional one-year periods, 

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

requirements, if the LEA demonstrates 

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

schools are meeting the annual goals for 

student achievement established by the 

LEA consistent with section II.A.8 of 

these requirements, and that its Tier III 

schools are meeting the goals 

established by the LEA and approved by 

the SEA. 

2. An SEA may renew an LEA’s 

School Improvement Grant with respect 

to a particular school, subject to the 

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

the SEA determines that, with respect to 

that school— 

(a) The school is making progress 

toward meeting the annual goals for 

student achievement established by the 

LEA consistent with section II.A.8 of 

these requirements; 

(b) The school is making progress on 

the leading indicators in section III of 

these requirements; 

(c) The LEA is implementing 

interventions in the school with fidelity 

to applicable requirements and to the 

LEA’s application; or 

(d) The LEA’s Tier III school is 

making progress toward the goals 

established by the LEA. 

3. If an SEA does not renew an LEA’s 

School Improvement Grant with respect 

to a particular school, the SEA may 

reallocate those funds to other eligible 

LEAs, consistent with these 

requirements. 

4. An SEA, prior to renewing the 

School Improvement Grant of an LEA 

that received funds for a full year of 

planning and other pre-implementation 

activities for a particular school, must 

review the performance of the LEA in 

that school during the planning year 

against the LEA’s approved application 

and determine that the LEA will be able 

to fully implement its chosen 

intervention for the school on the first 

day of the following school year. 

5. An SEA may renew an LEA’s 

School Improvement Grant for a 

particular school, after three years of 

continuous intervention 

implementation in that school, after the 

SEA has determined that such renewal 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

7248 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

is appropriate pursuant to the criteria in 

sections II.C.1–C.2 of these 

requirements, for up to an additional 

two years for continued full 

implementation of the intervention or 

for activities related to sustaining 

reforms in the school. An SEA may not 

renew an LEA’s School Improvement 

Grant if doing so would result in more 

than five years of continuous School 

Improvement Grants funding with 

respect to a particular school. 

6. Nothing in these requirements 

diminishes an SEA’s authority to take 

appropriate enforcement action with 

respect to an LEA that is not complying 

with the terms of its grant. 

D. State reservation for 

administration, evaluation, and 

technical assistance. 

An SEA may reserve from the School 

Improvement Grants funds it receives 

under section 1003(g) of the ESEA in 

any given year no more than five 

percent for administration, evaluation, 

and technical assistance expenses. An 

SEA must describe in its application for 

a School Improvement Grant how the 

SEA will use these funds. 

III. Reporting and Evaluation 

A. Reporting metrics. 

To inform and evaluate the 

effectiveness of the interventions 

identified in these requirements, the 

Secretary will collect data on the 

metrics in the following chart. 

Accordingly, an SEA must report only 

the following new data with respect to 

School Improvement Grants: 

1. A list of the LEAs, including their 

NCES identification numbers, that 

received a School Improvement Grant 

under section 1003(g) of the ESEA and 

the amount of the grant. 

2. For each LEA that received a 

School Improvement Grant, a list of the 

schools that were served, their NCES 

identification numbers, and the amount 

of funds or value of services each school 

received. 

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

focus school, school-level data on the 

metrics designated on the following 

chart as ‘‘SIG’’ (School Improvement 

Grants): 

Metric Source Achievement 

indicators 

Leading 

indicators 

SCHOOL DATA 

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

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

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

SIG.

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

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

SIG.

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

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

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

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

STUDENT OUTCOME/ACADEMIC PROGRESS DATA 

Percentage of students at or above each proficiency level on State assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics (e.g., Basic, Proficient, Advanced), by grade and by student subgroup.EDFacts ... ✓ 

Student participation rate on State assessments in reading/language arts and in mathematics, by 

student subgroup.

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

Average scale scores on State assessments in reading/language arts and in mathematics, by 

grade, for the ‘‘all students’’ group, for each achievement quartile, and for each subgroup.

SIG .......... ✓ 

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

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

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

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

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

high schools, or dual enrollment classes.

SIG ..........

HS only ....

........................ ✓ 

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

STUDENT CONNECTION AND SCHOOL CLIMATE 

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

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

TALENT 

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

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

4. An SEA must report these metrics 

for the school year prior to 

implementing the intervention, if the 

data exist, to serve as a baseline, and for 

each year thereafter for which the SEA 

allocates School Improvement Grants 

funds under section 1003(g) of the 

ESEA. With respect to a school that is 

closed, the SEA need report only the 

identity of the school and the 

intervention taken—i.e., school closure. 

B. Evaluation. 

An LEA that receives a School 

Improvement Grant must participate in 

any evaluation of that grant conducted 

by the Secretary. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we 

choose to use this priority and these 

definitions, we invite applications 

through a notice in the Federal Register. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 7249 

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 

Regulatory Impact Analysis 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether this 

regulatory action is ‘‘significant’’ and, 

therefore, subject to the requirements of 

the Executive order and subject to 

review by the Office of Management and 

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

Order 12866 defines a ‘‘significant 

regulatory action’’ as an action likely to 

result in a rule that may— 

(1) Have an annual effect on the 

economy of $100 million or more, or 

adversely affect a sector of the economy, 

productivity, competition, jobs, the 

environment, public health or safety, or 

State, local, or tribal governments or 

communities in a material way (also 

referred to as an ‘‘economically 

significant’’ rule); 

(2) Create serious inconsistency or 

otherwise interfere with an action taken 

or planned by another agency; 

(3) Materially alter the budgetary 

impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, 

or loan programs or the rights and 

obligations of recipients thereof; or 

(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues 

arising out of legal mandates, the 

President’s priorities, or the principles 

stated in the Executive order. 

This final regulatory action will have 

an annual effect on the economy of 

more than $100 million because fiscal 

year 2014 appropriations for the 

program, which the Department will 

award to SEAs in fiscal year 2015, are 

approximately $506 million. Therefore, 

this final action is ‘‘economically 

significant’’ and subject to review by 

OMB under section 3(f)(1) of Executive 

Order 12866. Notwithstanding this 

determination, we have assessed the 

potential costs and benefits, both 

quantitative and qualitative, of this 

regulatory action and have determined 

that the benefits justify the costs. 

We have also reviewed this regulatory 

action under Executive Order 13563, 

which supplements and explicitly 

reaffirms the principles, structures, and 

definitions governing regulatory review 

established in Executive Order 12866. 

To the extent permitted by law, 

Executive Order 13563 requires that an 

agency— 

(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 

upon a reasoned determination that 

their benefits justify their costs 

(recognizing that some benefits and 

costs are difficult to quantify); 

(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the 

least burden on society, consistent with 

obtaining regulatory objectives and 

taking into account—among other things 

and to the extent practicable—the costs 

of cumulative regulations; 

(3) In choosing among alternative 

regulatory approaches, select those 

approaches that maximize net benefits 

(including potential economic, 

environmental, public health and safety, 

and other advantages; distributive 

impacts; and equity); 

(4) To the extent feasible, specify 

performance objectives, rather than the 

behavior or manner of compliance a 

regulated entity must adopt; and 

(5) Identify and assess available 

alternatives to direct regulation, 

including economic incentives—such as 

user fees or marketable permits—to 

encourage the desired behavior, or 

provide information that enables the 

public to make choices. 

Executive Order 13563 also requires 

an agency ‘‘to use the best available 

techniques to quantify anticipated 

present and future benefits and costs as 

accurately as possible.’’ The Office of 

Information and Regulatory Affairs of 

OMB has emphasized that these 

techniques may include ‘‘identifying 

changing future compliance costs that 

might result from technological 

innovation or anticipated behavioral 

changes.’’ 

We are issuing these final 

requirements only on a reasoned 

determination that their benefits justify 

their costs. In choosing among 

alternative regulatory approaches, we 

selected those approaches that would 

maximize net benefits. Based on the 

analysis that follows, the Department 

believes that this regulatory action is 

consistent with the principles in 

Executive Order 13563. 

We also have determined that this 

regulatory action will not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

In this regulatory impact analysis we 

discuss the potential costs and benefits 

and the regulatory alternatives we 

considered. 

Summary of Potential Costs and 

Benefits 

The Department believes that the final 

requirements will not impose significant 

costs on SEAs and LEAs that receive 

SIG funds. State and local costs of 

implementing the final requirements 

(including State costs of applying for 

grants, distributing grant funds to LEAs, 

ensuring compliance with the proposed 

requirements, and reporting to the 

Department; and LEA costs of applying 

for subgrants and implementing 

interventions) will be financed through 

grant funds. We do not believe that the 

final requirements will impose burden 

that SEAs or LEAs will need to meet 

from other sources. 

This regulatory action will continue 

to drive SIG funds to LEAs that have the 

lowest-achieving schools in amounts 

sufficient to turn those schools around 

and significantly increase student 

achievement. It will also continue to 

require participating LEAs to adopt the 

most effective approaches to turning 

around low-achieving schools. In short, 

we believe that this action will ensure 

that limited SIG funds continue to be 

put to their optimum use—that is, that 

they are targeted to where they are most 

needed and used in the most effective 

manner possible. The benefits, then, 

will be more effective schools serving 

children from low-income families and 

a better education for those children. 

Regulatory Alternatives Considered 

As discussed elsewhere, the 

Department believes that the final 

requirements are needed to ensure that 

the SIG program is implemented in a 

manner that, among other things, is 

consistent with the programmatic 

changes made by Congress in the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014. 

One alternative to promulgation of the 

final requirements would be for the 

Department to allocate fiscal year 2014 

SIG funds without establishing any new 

requirements governing their use. Under 

such an alternative, States and LEAs 

would need to implement the new 

provisions in the appropriations 

language without key regulatory support 

from the Department. For instance, each 

State would be responsible for ensuring, 

for its LEAs that seek to use SIG funds 

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

school, that the strategy selected by the 

LEA constitutes whole-school reform 

and is supported by at least moderate 

evidence of effectiveness. We do not 

believe that States generally possess the 

capacity or expertise needed to meet 

this responsibility with the amount of 

rigor expected by Congress. 

Elsewhere in this section under 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we 

identify and explain burdens 

specifically associated with information 

collection requirements. 

Accounting Statement 

As required by OMB Circular A–4 

(available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/ 

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

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

have prepared an accounting statement 

showing the classification of the 

expenditures associated with the 

provisions of this regulatory action. This 

table provides our best estimate of the 

changes in annual monetized transfers 

as a result of this regulatory action. 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

7250 Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 

Expenditures are classified as transfers 

from the Federal Government to SEAs. 

ACCOUNTING STATEMENT CLASSIFICATION OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES

[In millions] 

Category Transfers 

Annualized Monetized 

Transfers.

$506. 

From Whom To 

Whom?.

From the Federal 

Government to 

SEAs. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–3520), we have 

assessed the potential information 

collections in these proposed 

regulations that would be subject to 

review by OMB (School Improvement 

Grants OMB Control number 1810– 

0682). In conducting this analysis, the 

Department examined the extent to 

which the amended regulations would 

add information collection requirements 

for public agencies. Based on this 

analysis, the Secretary has concluded 

that these amendments to the School 

Improvement Grants regulations would 

not impose additional burden associated 

with information collection 

requirements. 

Changes to the SEA Applications 

Under final requirement section 

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

of the required application it submits to 

the Department to receive SIG funds, 

one State-determined intervention 

model for review and approval by the 

Secretary. These final requirements 

require an SEA to submit a Statedetermined intervention model as part 

of its application, if a State chooses to 

implement this model. 

Under the burden estimates currently 

approved by OMB, 52 SEAs will 

complete, review, and post SEA and 

LEA applications for a total of 46,800 

annual burden hours at a cost of $30 per 

hour, totaling an annual cost of 

$1,404,000. These final requirements do 

not change the currently approved 

annual burden for SEAs. 

Revising Reporting Requirements 

The final requirements make a 

number of clarifications to the reporting 

requirements. First, final requirement 

section III.A.3 eliminates the metric for 

‘‘Truants’’ and replaces it with ‘‘Chronic 

absenteeism rates.’’ Second, final 

requirement III.A clarifies the correct 

source for each of the required metrics 

and removes references to the SFSF 

previously approved under OMB data 

collection 1810–0695. Finally, final 

requirements in section III.A.3 require 

an SEA to report, with respect to 

schools receiving SIG awards, the 

number of schools implementing 

models with a modified element 

pursuant to section I.B.6 and which 

models are being implemented in those 

schools. 

Under the reporting burden estimates, 

52 SEAs will report SEA and LEA 

requirements for a total of 3,640 annual 

burden hours at a cost of $30 per hour 

totaling an annual cost of $109,200. 

These final requirements add burden to 

the currently approved annual burden 

for SEAs. 

Changes to the LEA Application 

The final requirements also add to the 

existing requirements in section I.A.4(a) 

(Evidence of strongest commitment) 

information that, under section II.A.2(c), 

the LEA must include in the LEA 

application related to an evidencebased, whole-school reform strategy (for 

those LEAs that propose to implement 

such a strategy); meaningful family and 

community engagement; LEA oversight 

and support of SIG implementation; 

review of, and accountability for, 

external provider performance; 

implementation of an evidence-based 

strategy or strategies, if practicable; the 

review process for selecting a charter 

school operator, CMO, or EMO; and 

implementation of evidence-based 

strategies. 

Under the burden estimates that are 

currently approved by OMB, 3,050 LEAs 

will complete an application for a total 

of 183,000 annual burden hours at a cost 

of $25 per hour totaling an annual cost 

of $4,575,000. These final requirements 

do not change the approved annual 

burden for LEAs. 

Collection of Information 

STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY ESTIMATE

SIG Activity Number of 

SEAs Hours/Activity Hours Cost/Hour Cost 

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

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

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

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

LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY ESTIMATE

SIG Activity Number of 

LEAs Hours/Activity Hours Cost/Hour Cost 

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

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

Waiver of Congressional Review Act 

These regulations have been 

determined to be major for purposes of 

the Congressional Review Act (CRA) (5 

U.S.C. 801, et seq.). Generally, under the 

CRA, a major rule takes effect 60 days 

after the date on which the rule is 

published in the Federal Register. 

Section 808(2) of the CRA, however, 

provides that any rule which an agency 

for good cause finds (and incorporates 

the finding and a brief statement of 

reasons therefor in the rule issued) that 

notice and public procedure thereon are 

impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary 

to the public interest, shall take effect at 

such time as the Federal agency 

promulgating the rule determines. 

These final requirements implement 

language in the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub L. 113– 

76), that modifies the SIG program in 

substantial ways, described below. The 

Department must award SIG funds to 

State educational agencies (SEAs) in 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2

Federal Register / Vol. 80, No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2015 / Rules and Regulations 7251 

enough time that they can conduct 

competitions for LEAs to apply for the 

SIG funds and begin implementation by 

the start of the 2015–2016 school year. 

Even on an extremely expedited 

timeline, it is impracticable for the 

Department to adhere to a 60-day 

delayed effective date for the final 

requirements and make grant awards to 

SEAs such that there is sufficient time 

for them to conduct competitions. When 

the 60-day delayed effective date is 

added to the time the Department will 

need to receive SEA applications 

(approximately 30 days from the date on 

which these final requirements become 

effective), review the applications 

(approximately 14 days), and finally 

approve applications (approximately 30 

days), the Department will not be able 

to allocate funds authorized under the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, 

and section 1003(g) of title I of the ESEA 

to all qualified applicants before June 

2015, leaving SEAs almost no time to 

conduct LEA competitions before the 

start of the school year. Therefore, 

waiting the full 60 days would cause an 

undue burden to SEAs and LEAs by 

giving them a shorter period of time to 

plan for and implement the new SIG 

requirements. With approximately $506 

million at stake, the delayed effective 

date would be impracticable and 

contrary to the public interest. The 

Department has therefore determined 

that, pursuant to section 808(2) of the 

CRA, the 60-day delay in the effective 

date generally required for 

congressional review is impracticable, 

contrary to the public interest, and 

waived for good cause. 

Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

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

print, audiotape, or compact disc) on 

request to the program contact person 

listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

Electronic Access to This Document: 

The official version of this document is 

the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the 

official edition of the Federal Register 

and the Code of Federal Regulations is 

available via the Federal Digital System 

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

can view this document, as well as all 

other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF). To use PDF you must 

have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is 

available free at the site. 

You may also access documents of the 

Department published in the Federal 

Register by using the article search 

feature at: www.federalregister.gov. 

Specifically, through the advanced 

search feature at this site, you can limit 

your search to documents published by 

the Department. 

Deborah Delisle, 

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and 

Secondary Education. 

[FR Doc. 2015–02570 Filed 2–4–15; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

mstockstill on DSK4VPTVN1PROD with RULES2