3306 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 1995 / Notices

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

Office of Elementary and Secondary

Education

Consolidated State Plans Under

Section 14302 of Title I of the

Improving America’s Schools Act

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of proposed criteria and

request for comment.

SUMMARY: The Department of Education

proposes criteria for optional State

consolidated plans submitted under

section 14302 of the Elementary and

Secondary Education Act of 1965

(ESEA), as recently reauthorized by the

Improving America’s Schools Act, Pub.

L. 103–382 (IASA). Submitting a

consolidated plan will allow a State to

obtain funds under many Federal

programs through a single plan, rather

than through separate and detailed

program funding plans or applications.

The consolidated plan would explain

how all of the resources of Federal

programs included in the plan would

work together to promote the State’s

educational goals for all students while

effectively meeting the needs of the

programs’ intended beneficiaries. To

receive fiscal year (FY) 1995 program

funds, a State educational agency (SEA)

would need only to describe how it

would develop its final plan over the

following year, and to submit basic

information needed to ensure fiscal

accountability.

DATES: Written comments must be

received on or before February 13, 1995.

ADDRESSES: All comments should be

addressed to Thomas W. Payzant,

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and

Secondary Education, U.S. Department

of Education, 600 Independence Avenue

SW., Washington, DC 20202–6100. The

Internet address for submitting

comments is:

consolidatedllplan@ed.gov. The fax

number is (202) 205–0303.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

William Wooten, Office of Elementary

and Secondary Education, U.S.

Department of Education, 600

Independence Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC 20202–6100.

Telephone: (202) 260–1922. The

Internet address is:

consolidatedllplan@ed.gov. The fax

number is (202) 205–0303. Individuals

who use a telecommunications device

for the deaf (TDD) may call the Federal

Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–

800–877–8339 between 8 a.m. and 8

p.m. Eastern time, Monday through

Friday.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section

14302 of the ESEA, as reauthorized by

Title I of the IASA, permits the

Secretary to establish criteria under

which any SEA may obtain certain

Federal program funds through a single

consolidated plan rather than through

separate funding applications or plans.

As explained in section 14301, this

consolidated plan would enhance crossprogram coordination, planning and

service delivery, and the integration of

Federal program services with services

offered by States and localities as keys

to increased student achievement.

So that the development and use of

consolidated plans can achieve their

maximum potential, the Secretary

proposes to offer States a two-phase

process for completing their

consolidated plans: (1) Submission in

the spring of 1995 of a relatively simple

preliminary plan, followed by (2) the

State’s development and submission the

next year of a final consolidated plan.

This final plan would focus specifically

on how the Federal programs included

in the plan, while still serving their

intended beneficiaries, would support

State goals and education reform

strategies. In developing its

consolidated plan, a State is encouraged

to consider the relationship of this plan

to the State’s overall reform efforts,

including efforts under the Goals 2000:

Educate America Act or the School-toWork Opportunities Act. A State also is

encouraged to consider what waivers it

may need to carry out its reforms

effectively. Finally, each State is

encouraged to consider how its local

educational agencies (LEAs) and schools

can tap the full potential of consolidated

plans at the local level through the

authority offered to them under section

14305 of the ESEA.

These provisions for development of

consolidated State plans—particularly

when coupled with the Secretary’s new

waiver authority, contained in section

14401 of the ESEA (as well as in the

Goals 2000 and School-to-Work statutes)

and other provisions of the IASA that

offer new opportunities for flexibility—

also enable the Department to refocus its

administration of programs in ways that

can better assist a State in meeting its

education goals and objectives. Indeed,

the information contained in a

consolidated plan may help to clarify

why an SEA or LEA needs a waiver of

certain program requirements in order

to improve student achievement. The

Department will soon issue separate

guidance describing the process for

obtaining waivers of programmatic

requirements under section 14401.

Development of a consolidated State

plan, either in preliminary or final form,

is voluntary. It is the State’s decision

whether to submit a consolidated plan,

which of the eligible programs to

include in it if one is submitted, and

whether to add to a final consolidated

plan programs that were not included in

a preliminary plan. Moreover, an SEA

that submits a preliminary plan for FY

1995 could choose to forgo development

of the final consolidated plan during the

following year, and instead submit

individual program plans or

applications. Likewise, an SEA that

chooses for FY 1995 to submit

individual program plans or

applications could, in any subsequent

fiscal year, submit a final consolidated

plan.

Approval of a consolidated plan,

whether in preliminary or final form,

permits the Secretary to award funds

under the programs included in the

plan. Approval of a consolidated plan

also eliminates the need for an SEA,

under those included programs, to

submit separate program applications or

develop separate program planning

documents that otherwise would be

required by the program statutes.

Moreover, approval of a consolidated

plan establishes a different context for

any Departmental review of an SEA’s

administration of the included

programs.

The Secretary stresses that approval of

a consolidated plan does not alter the

obligation of an SEA and its grantees to

continue to comply with all

requirements of each program,

including those that would have been

described in plan or application

descriptions or assurances under the

statute. (See further discussion and

examples under ‘‘Assurances’’ to be

submitted as part of the first-year

(preliminary) consolidated plan.) In

addition, while an SEA that meets the

conditions of section 14201 of the ESEA

may consolidate administrative funds

under specified programs, approval of a

consolidated State plan does not

authorize commingling of program

funds. However, the Secretary is

authorized to waive certain program

requirements under waiver provisions

contained in the IASA, the Goals 2000:

Educate America Act, and the Schoolto-Work Opportunities Act.

The remainder of this notice identifies

the programs that might be included in

a consolidated plan, and proposed

questions that a State might address in

both the preliminary and final

consolidated plans. Appendix A to this

document contains the Department’s

preliminary guidance on the

consolidated plan; this guidance was

provided to members of the public who

attended a Federal program conference
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 1995 / Notices 3307

in Baltimore, Maryland, on December 2,

1994. Subject to review of the comments

received on this proposal, the Secretary

plans to announce final criteria for

consolidated State plans in February,

1995.

Programs That a State May Include in

a Consolidated Plan

Section 14302 permits an SEA to

include any of the following Stateadministered programs in its

consolidated State plan:

(1) Title I, Part A of the ESEA (LEA

Program).

(2) Title I, Part B of the ESEA (Even

Start Program).

(3) Title I, Part C of the ESEA (Migrant

Education).

(4) Title I, Part D of the ESEA

(Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk

Children).

(5) Title II of the ESEA (State and

local programs) (Professional

Development).

(6) Title III, Part A, subpart 2 of the

ESEA (Technology for Education).

(7) Title IV, Part A (other than the

Governor’s Programs in section 4114) of

the ESEA (Safe and Drug-Free Schools

and Communities).

(8) Title VI of the ESEA (Innovative

Education Program Strategies (formerly

Chapter 2)).

(9) State leadership programs under

Title II of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational

and Applied Technology Education Act

(Perkins Act).

(10) Programs under the Goals 2000:

Educate America Act.

(11) Programs under the School-toWork Opportunities Act.

In addition, under section

14302(a)(2)(F) of the ESEA, the

Secretary proposes to designate the

following additional programs that a

State may include in a consolidated

plan:

(12) Subtitle B of Title VII of the

Stewart B. McKinney Homeless

Assistance Act (the Education for

Homeless Children and Youth program)

(enacted in Title III, Part B of the IASA).

(13) All other State formula grant

programs under the Perkins Act.

The Secretary is considering whether

to designate Title VII, Part C of the

ESEA (the Emergency Immigrant

Education Program) for possible

inclusion in the consolidated State plan,

but is not proposing to do so at this time

in view of the significant relationship of

this program to other Federal initiatives

for addressing immigration-related

issues.

Certain programs that the statute

specifically identifies for possible

inclusion in a consolidated State plan,

such as the Technology for Education

program in Title III, Part A, subpart 2 of

the ESEA, are competitive, rather than

formula, grant programs. These

competitive programs (and others that

the Secretary later may designate) can

promote innovation in specific aspects

of a State’s reform effort, and so can

play an important role in a consolidated

State plan for the overall use of Federal

program funds. On the other hand,

competitive grant programs present

special challenges for consolidated

plans; not only must their applications

be reviewed against competitive

selection criteria and processed on a

longer time-line than is needed for

formula grant programs, but the

programs often fund projects with a

National purpose. Until these competing

principles can be better resolved, the

Secretary proposes that an SEA that

includes a competitive grant program in

its consolidated State plan still will

need to meet the application content,

selection criteria, and closing dates

established for that program.

As stated in the ‘‘Invitation to

Comment’’ section of this notice, the

public is invited to suggest other grant

programs, both formula and

discretionary, that should be available

for inclusion in a consolidated State

plan, and how that plan can best

accommodate these other programs.

The Preliminary (First-Year)

Consolidated Plan Descriptions

The preliminary consolidated plan for

FY 1995 program funds would identify

the Federal programs that the plan

covers, and address the following three

areas with respect to the programs

included in it:

1. Goals or Objectives

What are the goals and objectives that

the SEA hopes to achieve through the

development and use of a consolidated

program plan, and how do they relate to

the needs of the intended beneficiaries

of programs included in the plan? In

answering these questions, include:

• Ways in which consolidated plans

for use of Federal program funds are

already being developed and used, and

the impediments to success that are now

most evident.

2. Process for Developing the Final

Consolidated Plan

What process and timelines will the

SEA use during the following year to

develop its final consolidated plan?

Include the State’s strategies for—

• Coordinating the planning for the

use of Federal program funds with the

State’s overall education reform efforts

(including planning under Goals 2000

and School-to-Work for participating

States).

• Bringing together all key

individuals—Governors, State program

officials, LEA and school

administrators, teachers, adult

education administrators, parents, and

others who can play a key role in

coordinating and integrating each

program included in the plan with State

and locally funded activities—in the

development and review of the final

consolidated State plan.

3. Fiscal Accountability

To ensure fiscal accountability and

the availability of information that the

Secretary needs to distribute program

funds, provide for each included

program, where applicable—

• The amount of funds provided

under each program that will be used to

carry out State-level activities (whether

or not those activities are performed by

the SEA), and a general description of

how these funds will be used.

• The procedures and criteria that the

SEA will use to distribute program

funds within the State where the

program statute provides no in-State

funding formula. (Programs that the

Secretary thus far has identified as

having no statutory in-State funding

formula are the following: Even Start,

Migrant Education, Neglected,

Delinquent, or At-Risk Children (the

local agency program in Part D, Subpart

2), Safe and Drug-Free Schools and

Communities, Innovative Education,

McKinney Homeless Assistance, and the

Perkins Act, Title III.)

• The amount of funds, if any,

provided under each program that the

State would consolidate for State

administration under section 14201 of

the ESEA, along with a statement

confirming that the SEA has determined

that a majority of its resources come

from non-Federal sources.

Assurances

In addition, an SEA also would

provide in its preliminary plan a set of

assurances that include the following:

• Those required by section 14306 of

the ESEA, which are repeated in

Appendix B.

• A general assurance that, unless

and until these requirements are

waived, the SEA and its subgrantees

will continue to comply with all

operational requirements of each

program, including those that the

program statute may express in terms of

application or plan descriptions or

assurances.

Example 1: An SEA includes the

Migrant Education Program (MEP) (Title

I, Part C of the ESEA) in its preliminary
3308 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 1995 / Notices

consolidated plan. The SEA does not

need to submit a State application, or

any of the descriptions described in

section 1304 of Title I, Part C. It also

does not need to prepare the separate

comprehensive service-delivery plan, as

otherwise required for the MEP under

section 1306(a) of the ESEA; that MEP

plan is not required because it is

addressed within the consolidated State

plan. However, the SEA’s receipt of

MEP funds under an approved,

preliminary consolidated plan still

would require the SEA to develop and

carry out activities for migratory

children as identified in the

comprehensive plan requirements of

section 1306(a).

Example 2: An SEA includes the Safe

and Drug-Free Schools and

Communities program (Title IV, Part A,

of the ESEA) in its preliminary

consolidated plan. The SEA does not

need to submit the State application

under section 4112 of Title IV, Part A,

or any of the application descriptions,

such as the description contained in

section 4112(b)(4) of how the SEA will

coordinate its program activities with

the Governor’s drug and violence

prevention programs funded under

section 4114, and prevention efforts of

other State agencies. However, the

SEA’s receipt of Safe and Drug-Free

Schools and Communities program

funds under an approved, preliminary

consolidated plan still would require

the SEA to meet all applicable program

requirements, including coordinating its

program with relevant programs and

activities of the Governor and other

State agencies.

Example 3: An SEA includes the Title

I, Part A (ESEA) program in its

preliminary consolidated plan. The SEA

does not need to submit the State plan,

or any of the State plan descriptions

described in section 1111 of Title I, Part

A.

However, the SEA’s receipt of Title I,

Part A program funds under an

approved, preliminary consolidated

plan still would require the SEA to carry

out all of the requirements contained in

section 1111 with regard to standards

and assessments and other provisions to

support teaching and learning.

The Secretary is considering whether

the final instructions for the preliminary

consolidated plan should include a list,

program-by-program, of all application

and plan descriptions and assurances

that the SEA’s general assurance would

cover in the absence of a waiver.

Relationship to the Goals 2000 and

School-to-Work Initiatives

The Goals 2000 statute provides

States and communities with an

opportunity to strengthen and broaden

their education reform efforts by

developing comprehensive plans to

enable all children to learn to

challenging academic standards. The

School-to-Work Opportunities initiative

may also play a significant role in a

State’s education reform efforts by

helping to establish transition systems

for youth that integrate challenging

academic content with high quality

work-based learning experience leading

to postsecondary education and careeroriented entry into the workforce. A

State’s participation in these initiatives

is voluntary, as it is with all Federal

programs. States that choose to

participate in Goals 2000 and School-toWork are encouraged to integrate their

development of consolidated State plans

under section 14302 of the ESEA with

their Goals 2000 and School-to-Work

plans and activities. However, since

these initiatives are designed as possible

frameworks for the use of local, State

and Federal resources to support a

State’s overall education reform

strategy, the Secretary is not proposing

that submission of a consolidated State

plan, in either preliminary or final form,

would alter application or planning

requirements under Goals 2000 or

School-to-Work.

The Final (Second-Year) Consolidated

State Plan

The final consolidated plan will

provide an opportunity for SEAs to

consider how the resources of those

Federal programs included in the plan

can be used directly to support their

States’ overall improvement strategies.

The following proposal for the content

of this final plan reflects the

Department’s current thinking on what

issues and questions a State might

address in a final, second-year plan.

After reviewing comment on this notice,

the Department intends to continue

collaboration with the public on

modifications that may be needed, as

well as on the formulation of additional

examples that can better illustrate how

States might address the questions

presented.

Possible Issues To Be Addressed in a

Final (Second-Year) Consolidated Plan

1. What is the SEA’s vision (including

specific goals) for improving its

educational system throughout the

State? How do these goals relate directly

to raising student academic

achievement, geared to challenging

academic standards, of all children who

benefit from Federal programs included

in the consolidated plan? In answering

these questions, the State must address

the following:

• How the State will meet the

standards and assessment requirements

of Title 1, Part A, section 1111(b) of the

ESEA to ensure the use of challenging

academic content standards and highquality assessments aligned with the

standards.

• What goals and performance

indicators will the State establish to

determine the effectiveness of programs

included in the plan (e.g., improved

professional development based upon

realigned teacher certification

requirements under the Eisenhower

Professional Development program

(Title II, Part B of the ESEA), or

additional performance indicators for

safe and drug-free schools under the

Safe and Drug-Free Schools and

Communities program (Title IV, Part A

of the ESEA).

2. How will the Federal resources of

those programs support, on the basis of

identified needs, State and local efforts

to reach the State’s specific goals and

enable intended program beneficiaries

to reach the challenging academic

standards established in the State? (The

Secretary recognizes that, given varying

SEA responsibilities for the programs

that a State might include in its

consolidated plan, not all of the issues

raised by this question may be equally

relevant to individual programs.)

Example 1: If a State determines that

one of its goals to improve education is

increasing the percentage of youth who

complete high school, the State might

describe how Federal program funds fit

into State efforts to reach that goal.

Example 2: If the State has established

overall goals for professional

development, it should describe how it

will use resources (not limited to Title

II, ESEA) to reach these goals.

In answering Question 2, a State

should consider addressing such critical

areas as the following:

• How the needs of children served

by the program are identified.

• The most significant barriers to

more effective use of Federal funds, and

how the State and individual programs

will work together to overcome these

barriers.

• Any waivers of Federal statutes or

regulations the State may need to

support its consolidated plan.

• How program administrators in the

State will maintain the kind of

communication and coordination

needed to draw effectively on all

Federal resources as outlined in the

plan.

• How program administrators

throughout the State will make the

strategies outlined in the consolidated

plan part of their daily work.
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 1995 / Notices 3309

1The ESEA was reauthorized in Title I of the

Improving America’s Schools Act.

2Congress expressed the purpose of consolidating

existing program applications into a single plan in

section 14301 of the ESEA: ‘‘To improve teaching

and learning by encouraging greater cross-program

coordination, planning, and service delivery under

this Act and enhanced integration of programs

under this Act with educational activities carried

out with State and local funds.’’

• If a State chooses to consolidate its

use of State administration funds (under

section 14201 of the ESEA), how the

consolidation of these funds relates to

the consolidated State plan under

section 14302.

• Any critical timelines and

benchmarks that will guide related and

ongoing activities.

3. How will the State enable

interested local educational agencies, in

accordance with section 14305 of the

ESEA, to develop their own

consolidated plans for the use of Federal

funds, and help to develop the capacity

of LEAs and schools to use all of their

funds to support high academic

achievement for all intended program

beneficiaries?

4. For an individual school whose

activities are supported with Federal

funds, how can the needs of its students

be better met through implementation of

the consolidated plan? The answer to

this question might illustrate how a

State’s thinking about the usefulness of

a consolidated plan is rooted in the

daily activities of schools and students.

An SEA also would provide an update

on any significant changes in the

procedures for distribution of funds, as

well as in the amounts and general uses

of funds reserved for administrative and

State-level activities, from those

described in the preliminary

consolidated plan.

Review of Consolidated Plans

The Secretary proposes that the

State’s preliminary consolidated plan be

approved without peer review, but is

strongly considering using a peer review

process that involves the assistance and

advice of State officials, and others with

relevant expertise, for approving the

final State consolidated plan.

Public Participation Requirements

Section 14303(7) of the ESEA

requires, as one of the SEA’s general

assurances, that ‘‘before the

[consolidated plan] was submitted to

the Secretary, the State has afforded a

reasonable opportunity for public

comment on the plan * * * and has

considered such comment.’’ (This

assurance applies both to consolidated

State plans under section 14302 and to

all individual State plans or

applications submitted under individual

programs.)

Invitation to Comment

The Secretary invites comments from

all interested members of the public on

this proposal for the content of the

consolidated State plan. The Secretary

is particularly interested in receiving

comments on whether—

• There are additional grant

programs, either formula or

discretionary, that the Secretary should

consider designating for possible

inclusion in a consolidated State plan,

and how that plan can best

accommodate these programs.

• The proposed contents of the

preliminary (first-year) consolidated

plan are reasonable and whether they

need to be modified or clarified.

• The issues proposed to be

addressed in the final, (second-year)

consolidated plan are clearly expressed

and properly formulated, and what

additional examples, if any, should be

included to clarify the kind of

information that the State would need to

provide.

All comments submitted in response

to this notice will be available for public

inspection, during and after the

comment period, in room 4000, Portals

Building, 1250 Maryland Avenue SW.,

Washington, DC 20202.

Dated: January 6, 1995.

Thomas W. Payzant,

Assistant Secretary for Elementary and

Secondary Education.

Appendix A—Department of Education

Preliminary Guidance Document: The IASA

Consolidated Plan (December 1, 1994)

(Note: This document was distributed to

those who attended the Office of Elementary

and Secondary Education/Office of Bilingual

Education and Minority Languages Affairs

conference in Baltimore, Maryland, on

December 2, 1994. It is intended to provide

useful background information.)

A New Approach

• The recently enacted Improving

America’s Schools Act (IASA) stresses, in a

variety of ways, the need to rethink how

Federal, State and local education programs

can fit together into a unified system that

focuses on one principal goal: Enabling all

students to achieve to challenging standards.

The Act reinforces the Federal government’s

limited supporting role in this effort. At the

same time, it encourages the Secretary of

Education to remove barriers to State and

local efforts to meet student educational

needs. Indeed, the IASA permits the

Secretary to take steps to ensure that the way

in which the Department administers its

programs is itself a part of, rather than a

hindrance to, educational reform.

• The IASA authorizes the Secretary to

waive statutes or regulations that impede

efforts to increase the quality of student

instruction or improve student academic

performance. It also permits the Secretary to

eliminate the need for States to submit to the

Department a myriad of different program

funding applications. Instead, the IASA

authorizes submission of a single

consolidated plan that, for the programs that

it covers, focuses on cross-program

coordination, integration of services and

improved service delivery as keys to student

achievement. This authority extends to State

formula grant programs in the Elementary

and Secondary Education Act (ESEA),1 as

well as to the Goals 2000: Educate America

Act, the School-to-Work Opportunities Act,

and State leadership programs under the

Perkins Vocational Education Act.

• To make educational reform truly

comprehensive, its reach must extend

beyond challenging content standards and

new teaching methods to the very way in

which we administer our many programs. A

consolidated plan can become a driving force

for thinking about how all Federal, State and

local activities might work together in a

common and coherent effort. Indeed, this

consolidated plan, when used along with

other means of promoting State systemic

reform under the IASA, Goals 2000 and the

School-to-Work Act, can go a long way

toward helping all of us change the way in

which we do business, so that student

academic achievement, rather than

individual program administration, truly is

the focus of our work.

The Department’s Strategy

General Approach to Consolidated

Planning. The new authority that the IASA

gives to the Secretary to approve a

consolidated program plan offers an

unprecedented opportunity to tap the full

potential of Federal programs. This authority

can convert the current program-by-program

application process into a process for

renewed thinking about how these programs

collectively can fit together, notwithstanding

their distinct purposes and different

beneficiaries, to increase the quality of

student instruction and the level of student

academic performance.2 A truly consolidated

application—one that is more than a

repackaged compilation of even the best

individual program applications—can reflect

the kind of broad, creative planning effort

that is needed to complement other

educational reform efforts and strategies.

The Department is working hard to

develop criteria for a State’s consolidated

plan that can help State and local officials,

teachers and other school staff, and parents

begin to take advantage of the opportunities

that a consolidated plan presents. Because

the law was only recently passed, because

the issues are complex, and because

extensive collaboration with stakeholders is

required, any decisions thus far are

preliminary. However, knowing the

substantial interest that the prospect of a

consolidated plan has generated, and the

reality that State planning under the IASA

already has begun, the Department wants to

offer whatever guidance that it currently can

provide about what a plan might contain and

how it might be developed. The Department

expects to provide more information in

coming weeks.
3310 Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 1995 / Notices

Because a spring 1995 deadline for plan

submission and review would not permit full

public discussion of how to achieve the

maximum potential of consolidated

planning, the Department intends to

implement the IASA’s consolidated plan

provision in two stages. States choosing to

submit a consolidated plan as the basis for

its FY 1995 program funding will only have

to prepare a first year ‘‘preliminary’’ plan.

During the following year, these States would

develop and submit a final, comprehensive,

consolidated plan that will be the basis for

program funding for FY 1996 and beyond.

Each State that submits a consolidated plan

under this process may choose among the

programs that are eligible for inclusion under

the Act. Submitting individual program

applications for FY 1995 does not preclude

a State from submitting a full comprehensive

plan the following year.

The First Year Consolidated Plan. The

preliminary consolidated plan for FY 1995

funding would describe—for programs that

the State expects the final plan to cover—

how the State will develop a specific and

comprehensive plan to support the kinds of

cross-program coordination, program

integration and effective modes of service

delivery that will better enable all children

to achieve to challenging standards. This

preliminary plan also would address certain

program-by-program application

requirements that the Secretary determines

must be reviewed before FY 1995 grant

awards are made. The Secretary intends to

keep the number of these additional

requirements that must be addressed in the

preliminary plan to the minimum needed for

basic accountability. The Secretary plans to

announce these minimum-content

requirements by mid-February, 1995.

State Planning Activities During the First

Year. During the first year after the

preliminary plan is approved, States would

have the opportunity to continue their

consolidated planning process. In doing so,

States would be able, among other things, to:

(1) engage in consolidated planning that is

integrated with other broad-ranging and

systemic efforts such as those under Goals

2000 and the School-to-Work Acts; and (2)

request from the Department—as they can do

at any time—waivers of program

requirements that they may need to

implement their consolidated plans

effectively.

During this planning period, States also

would be responsible for implementing the

requirements of their individual programs

whether or not those requirements were

addressed in the preliminary consolidated

plan.

The Final Consolidated Plan. On the basis

of their comprehensive planning, States

would develop and submit to the Secretary

their final, comprehensive, consolidated

plans. The Department soon will begin

working with interested States and others to

develop guidance on how consolidated State

planning can support an integrated,

Statewide service delivery system that

promotes higher student achievement. These

plans also might need to include some

minimum program-specific information that

will be determined by the Secretary in close

consultation with the field. Approval of this

comprehensive plan—along with any waivers

that may be needed to implement it—would

be the basis on which funds for covered

programs would be awarded for FY 1996 and

beyond.

Questions and Answers

The following information tries to address

significant questions about the Department’s

strategy for implementing the consolidated

plan provisions in the IASA.

Q1. What programs may a State include in

its consolidated plan?

(Note: The following answer contains both

a limited number of minor clarifications to

the list of programs that the statute

specifically identifies for possible inclusion

in a consolidated State plan, and those

additional programs that the Secretary is

proposing to designate for possible inclusion

in the plan. These clarifications and

additions, which are reflected in the

foregoing notice, were made after release of

the guidance document.)

A1. ESEA programs may include: Title I,

Part A (LEA Program); Title I, Part B (Even

Start); Title I, Part C (Migrant Education);

Title I, Part D (Neglected, Delinquent, or AtRisk Children); Title II (State and local

programs) (Professional Development); Title

III, Part A, subpart 2 (Technology for

Education); Title IV, Part A (other than the

Governor’s Programs in section 4114) (Safe

and Drug-Free Schools and Communities);

and Title VI (Innovative Education Program

Strategies (formerly Chapter 2)). A State also

may include the following non-ESEA

programs: State leadership programs under

Title II of the Carl D. Perkins Vocational and

Applied Technology Education Act;

Programs under the Goals 2000: Educate

America Act; and Programs under the

School-to-Work Opportunities Act. (See

section 14302, and the definition of ‘‘covered

program’’ in section 14101 of the ESEA.)

The IASA authorizes the Secretary to

designate other programs that may be

included as well. The Secretary proposes to

designate Subtitle B of Title VII of the

Stewart B. McKinney Homeless Assistance

Act (the Education for Homeless Children

and Youth program) (enacted in Title III, Part

B of the IASA), and all other State formula

grant programs under the Perkins Act. The

Secretary plans to provide a final list of

designated programs by mid-February.

Q2. Will States that submit a consolidated

plan to the Department have the option of

choosing which among these programs to

include?

A2. Yes, selection of programs to include

in a consolidated plan, like the decision to

submit a consolidated plan at all, is entirely

at the discretion of the State.

Q3. Will a State have to submit any other

funding application for programs that are

included in its consolidated plan?

A3. No. For programs that a State includes

in its consolidated plan, that plan will

substitute for any application requirements

that are contained in the individual program

statutes.

Q4. Since the ESEA authorizes the

Secretary to approve many individual

program applications for the duration of the

Act, why would review and approval of the

consolidated plan be performed in two

stages?

A4. Section 14301 of the ESEA, unlike

many of the application requirements for

individual programs, does not require the

Secretary to approve a consolidated plan for

any particular period of time. Rather, it gives

the Secretary broad authority to ‘‘establish

procedures and criteria’’ that will govern the

process for submitting the consolidated plan.

The Secretary believes that a two-stage

process, with submission of an initial plan in

the spring of calendar year 1995, followed

later by submission of a more comprehensive

plan, is the best and most practical way to

promote the broad and critical thinking at all

levels that is needed to develop a strong

consolidated plan.

Q5. Could funds awarded under a

consolidated plan be co-mingled and treated

as if they were from one funding source?

A5. No, unless the State receives a waiver

of existing requirements that govern the way

it accounts for funds—perhaps as part of the

State’s overall reform strategy under Goals

2000. Otherwise, while the Secretary’s

approval of a consolidated plan permits the

Department to award funds under each

program that the plan covers, it does not

change the existing responsibility of States to

account for those funds separately.

Q6. Would the Secretary’s approval of a

consolidated plan in any way change the

basic purposes or beneficiaries of programs

that the plan covers?

A6. No.

Q7. For those programs that a State

includes in its consolidated plan, would the

State be expected to address any application

requirements that are contained in individual

program statutes?

A7. Yes. In order to administer programs

properly, a State’s consolidated plan also

would need to address certain application

requirements under individual program

statutes that the Secretary determines must

be reviewed before program grant awards are

made.

Q8. If program application requirements

are not addressed in the consolidated plan,

do these requirements still have to be met?

A8. Yes. Unless a State receives a waiver

of a requirement under the applicable

authority in the IASA, Goals 2000, or Schoolto-Work Acts, the Secretary’s approval of a

consolidated plan eliminates the need to

provide further application information, but

does not affect the State’s responsibility to

meet requirements identified in program

statutes.

Q9. Can a State that already has an

approved plan under Goals 2000 use the plan

as the basis of its IASA consolidated plan?

A9. Yes. In fact, the Department would

encourage it to do so.

Q10. Will there be discussion with the

public about the specific content and

program-by-program information required to

be included in the consolidated plan?

A10. Yes. Section 14302(b) of the Act

requires the Secretary to collaborate with

SEAs, and, as appropriate, with other State

agencies, LEAs, public and nonprofit

organizations and institutions, private
Federal Register / Vol. 60, No. 9 / Friday, January 13, 1995 / Notices 3311

schools, and representatives of parents,

students and teachers in implementing

consolidated plans. Many officials, agencies

and organizations at all levels are interested

in the potential benefits of developing

consolidated plans, and the Department

strongly desires to include all those

interested in the discussion of what plans

should contain. The Department likely will

use a range of direct and indirect means of

conveying information and soliciting

reaction.

Q11. When does the Department anticipate

that State and local officials and others will

receive specific instructions about what to

include in the first-year consolidated plan,

and the time-line for submission and review?

A11. The Department is aware that early

and careful planning about the content of

good first-year consolidated plans will

require early notice about their expected

content. The Department intends to

distribute more information on the content of

consolidated plans during January, so that

States have sufficient time to (1) think

carefully about how a consolidated plan can

propel new dynamic thinking about real

program coordination (2) how [sic] their

consolidated planning supports reform

strategies that they may be developing under

Goals 2000, and (3) prepare a proposed plan

and solicit and review public comment on its

content if they choose to submit a

consolidated plan.

The Department expects to issue final

guidance on the content and format of the

preliminary consolidated plan by midFebruary, as well to announce any other

programs that may be included in it. While

no schedule for submission and review of

preliminary plans has yet been developed,

the Department would like that schedule to

be the same as schedules established for

submission and approval of individual FY

1995 program applications.

Q12. Does the IASA contain any

requirement that a State discuss the content

of a preliminary consolidated plan with the

public before submitting it to the Secretary?

A12. Yes. The Act requires a State to offer

a reasonable opportunity for the public to

comment on its consolidated plan, and to

consider that comment, before submitting the

plan to the Secretary. This requirement

would apply both to the preliminary

consolidated plans and to the final

consolidated plans. Public comment on a

consolidated plan does not necessarily, by

itself, meet any other individual program

requirements for public comment.

Appendix B—General Assurances

Applicable to Each Program Covered by the

Preliminary (First Year) Consolidated Plan

• Each program will be administered in

accordance with all applicable statutes,

regulations, program plans, and applications.

• The control of funds provided under

each program and title to property acquired

with program funds will be in a public

agency, in a nonprofit private agency,

institution, or organization, or in an Indian

tribe if the law authorizing the program

provides for assistance to these entities.

• The public agency, nonprofit private

agency, institution, or organization, or Indian

tribe will administer the funds and property

to the extent required by the authorizing law.

• The State will adopt and use proper

methods of administering each program,

including—

(A) The enforcement of any obligations

imposed by law on agencies, institutions,

organizations, and other recipients

responsible for carrying out each program;

(B) The correction of deficiencies in

program operations that are identified

through audits, monitoring, or evaluation;

and

(C) The adoption of written procedures for

the receipt and resolution of complaints

alleging violations of law in the

administration of each program.

• The State will cooperate in carrying out

any evaluation of each program conducted by

or for the Secretary or other Federal officials.

• The State will use fiscal control and fund

accountability procedures that will ensure

proper disbursement of, and accounting for,

Federal funds paid to the State under each

program.

• The State will—

(A) Make reports to the Secretary as may

be necessary to enable the Secretary to

perform the Secretary’s duties under each

program; and

(B) Maintain records, provide information

to the Secretary, and afford access to the

records as the Secretary may find necessary

to carry out the Secretary’s duties.

• The State has afforded a reasonable

opportunity for public comment on the plan

and has considered this comment.

[FR Doc. 95–868 Filed 1–12–95; 8:45 am]

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P