Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Notices 66363 

address, please refer to ‘‘File No. 265– 

26’’ on the subject line. 

SEC’s Internet Submission Form 

http://www.sec.gov/rules/other.shtml. 

Regular Mail 

Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission, Three Lafayette Centre, 

1155 21st Street, NW., Washington, DC 

20581, attention Office of the Secretary 

or Elizabeth M. Murphy, Secretary, 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

Mail Stop 1090, 100 F St., NE., 

Washington, DC 20549. Comments 

mailed to this address should be 

submitted in triplicate and should refer 

to File No. 265–26. 

Fax 

(202) 418–5521. Any statements 

submitted in connection with the 

committee meeting will be made 

available to the public. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Martin White, Committee Management 

Officer, at (202) 418–5129, Commodity 

Futures Trading Commission, Three 

Lafayette Centre, 1155 21st Street, NW., 

Washington, DC 20581; Ronesha Butler, 

Special Counsel, at (202) 551–5629, 

Division of Trading and Markets, 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

100 F St., NE., Washington, DC 20549; 

or Elizabeth M. Murphy, Committee 

Management Officer, at (202) 551–5400, 

Securities and Exchange Commission, 

100 F St., NE., Washington, DC 20549 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

meeting will be webcast on the CFTC’s 

Web site, http://www.cftc.gov. Members 

of the public also can listen to the 

meeting by telephone. The public access 

call-in numbers will be announced at a 

later date. The CFTC and SEC are 

providing less than fifteen calendar days 

Federal Register notice of this meeting 

because of the urgency of the issues 

being addressed. 

Authority: 5 U.S.C. app. 2 § 10(a)(2). 

By the Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission. 

Martin White, 

Committee Management Officer. 

By the Securities and Exchange 

Commission. 

Dated: October 25, 2010. 

Elizabeth M. Murphy, 

Committee Management Officer. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27315 Filed 10–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P; 8011–01–P 

COMMODITY FUTURES TRADING 

COMMISSION 

Sunshine Act Meetings 

The following notice of scheduled 

meetings is published pursuant to the 

provisions of the Government in the 

Sunshine Act, Public Law 94–409, 5 

U.S.C. 552b. 

AGENCY HOLDING THE MEETINGS: 

Commodity Futures Trading 

Commission. 

TIMES AND DATES: The Commission has 

scheduled four meetings for the 

following dates: 

November 10 from 1 p.m. to 4 p.m. 

November 19 from 9:30 a.m. to 5:30 

p.m. 

November 30 from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 

p.m. 

December 1 from 9:30 a.m. to 12:30 

p.m. 

PLACE: Three Lafayette Center, 1155 21st 

St., NW., Washington, DC, Lobby Level 

Hearing Room (Room 1000). 

STATUS: Open. 

MATTERS TO BE CONSIDERED: The 

Commission has scheduled these 

meetings to consider the issuance of 

various proposed rules. Agendas for 

each of the scheduled meetings will be 

made available to the public and posted 

on the Commission’s Web site at http:// 

www.cftc.gov at least seven (7) days 

prior to the meeting. In the event that 

the times or dates of the meetings 

change, an announcement of the change, 

along with the new time and place of 

the meeting will be posted on the 

Commission’s Web site. 

CONTACT PERSON FOR MORE INFORMATION: 

David A. Stawick, Secretary of the 

Commission, 202–418–5071. 

David A. Stawick, 

Secretary of the Commission. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27473 Filed 10–26–10; 4:15 pm] 

BILLING CODE 6351–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

[Docket ID ED–2009–OESE–0010] 

RIN 1810–AB06 

School Improvement Grants; American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 

2009 (ARRA); Title I of the Elementary 

and Secondary Education Act of 1965, 

as Amended (ESEA) 

ACTION: Final requirements for School 

Improvement Grants authorized under 

section 1003(g) of Title I of the ESEA. 

SUMMARY: The U.S. Secretary of 

Education (Secretary) is adopting as 

final, without changes, interim final 

requirements for the School 

Improvement Grants (SIG) program 

authorized under section 1003(g) of 

Title I of the ESEA. These final 

requirements are needed to incorporate 

new authority included in the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 

(Pub. L. 111–117) applicable to fiscal 

year (FY) 2010 SIG funds and FY 2009 

ARRA SIG funds. Specifically, the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 

expanded the group of schools that are 

eligible to receive SIG funds. In 

addition, the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2010 raised the 

maximum amount of SIG funds that a 

State educational agency (SEA) may 

award to a local educational agency 

(LEA) for each participating school from 

$500,000 to $2,000,000. These final 

requirements amend the final 

requirements for the SIG program that 

were published on December 10, 2009. 

DATES: These requirements are effective 

November 29, 2010. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

Patricia McKee. Telephone: 202–260– 

0826 or by e-mail: 

Patricia.McKee@ed.gov. 

If you use a telecommunications 

device for the deaf (TDD), call the 

Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 

1–800–877–8339. 

Individuals with disabilities can 

obtain this document in an accessible 

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

audiotape, or computer diskette) on 

request to the contact person listed 

under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION

CONTACT. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The 

Secretary published final requirements 

for the SIG program in the Federal 

Register on December 10, 2009 (74 FR 

65618). Subsequently, on December 16, 

2009, the President signed into law the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, 

which contained FY 2010 

appropriations for the Department, and 

which also included two provisions 

applicable to the use of both FY 2010 

SIG funds and FY 2009 ARRA SIG 

funds. First, the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2010 expanded 

eligibility for participation in the SIG 

program by permitting an SEA to award 

SIG funds for, and for an LEA to use 

those funds to serve, any school that is 

eligible to receive assistance under Title 

I, Part A and that: (1) Has not made 

adequate yearly progress (AYP) for at 

least two years; or (2) is in the State’s 

lowest quintile of performance based on 

proficiency rates. With respect to 

secondary schools, the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2010 gave priority 

to high schools with graduation rates 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
66364 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Notices 

1These two provisions apply only to FY 2009 

ARRA SIG funds and FY 2010 SIG funds; they do 

not apply to SIG funds made available through the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2009 (i.e., the 

regular FY 2009 SIG funds). Therefore, prior to 

October 1, 2010, regular FY 2009 SIG funds may not 

be spent pursuant to the flexibility in these 

provisions. Regular FY 2009 SIG funds, however, 

become subject to the requirements applicable to 

FY 2010 SIG funds on October 1, 2010 when they 

become carryover funds. See section 421(b)(2)(A) of 

the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 

1225(b)(2)(A)). Accordingly, in order to ensure 

compliance with the Consolidated Appropriations 

Act, 2010, we will consider LEAs’ obligations of 

SIG funds in the State as a whole prior to October 

1, 2010 to come from the State’s allocation of FY 

2009 ARRA SIG funds, which we believe in every 

State will be more than sufficient to cover those 

obligations. Beginning October 1, 2010, LEAs may 

use all SIG funds, including regular FY 2009 SIG 

funds, pursuant to the flexibility in these 

provisions, consistent with the final requirements 

as amended. 

below 60 percent. Second, the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 

raised the maximum subgrant size for a 

participating school from $500,000 to 

$2,000,000.1

On January 21, 2010, the Secretary 

published interim final requirements for 

the SIG program in the Federal Register 

(75 FR 3375) to incorporate this new 

authority into the SIG final 

requirements that were published on 

December 10, 2009. The interim final 

requirements became effective February 

8, 2010; however, at the time the interim 

final requirements were published, the 

Secretary invited public comment. 

During the public comment period, we 

received only one comment on the 

interim final requirements. That 

comment expressed general 

disagreement with the SIG final 

requirements published on December 

10, 2009 but did not address the 

changes to those requirements made by 

the interim final requirements. 

Absent any public comments 

addressing the changes to the December 

10 SIG final requirements made in the 

January 21 interim final requirements, 

the Secretary has determined that no 

substantive changes to the interim final 

requirements are necessary; hence, with 

the exception of two technical changes 

described herein, there are no 

differences between the interim final 

requirements and these final 

requirements. 

For the reasons explained in the 

preamble to the interim final 

requirements (75 FR 3375, 3376–80), the 

Secretary adopts as final the interim 

final requirements as follows: 

1. Section I.A.1—defining ‘‘greatest 

need’’: The Secretary amends the 

definitions of Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III 

schools to incorporate the expanded 

eligibility provided for in the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010. 

The final requirements do not change 

the definition of ‘‘persistently lowestachieving schools’’ as that definition is 

used to define Tier I and Tier II schools 

but permit an SEA, at its option, to 

identify additional schools in each tier. 

With respect to Tier I, in addition to 

the Title I schools in improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring that 

an SEA identifies as persistently lowestachieving schools, the SEA may identify 

any elementary school that (1) is eligible 

to receive Title I, Part A funds 

(including schools that receive Title I, 

Part A funds and those that do not); (2) 

either has not made AYP for at least two 

consecutive years or 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 (3) is no 

higher achieving on the State’s 

assessments combined than the highestachieving Tier I school that the SEA has 

identified under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of 

the definition of ‘‘persistently lowestachieving schools.’’ These newly eligible 

schools may be Title I schools that are 

not identified for improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring or 

schools eligible for, but not receiving, 

Title I, Part A funds, provided they meet 

the criteria in section I.A.1(a)(ii) of these 

final requirements. 

With respect to Tier II, in addition to 

the secondary schools that are eligible 

for, but do not receive, Title I, Part A 

funds that an SEA identifies as 

persistently lowest-achieving schools, 

the SEA may identify any secondary 

school that (1) is eligible to receive Title 

I, Part A funds (including schools that 

receive Title I, Part A funds and those 

that do not); (2) either has not made 

AYP for at least two consecutive years 

or 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 (3) either is no higher 

achieving on the State’s assessments 

combined than the highest-achieving 

Tier II school that the SEA has 

identified under paragraph (a)(2)(i) of 

the definition of ‘‘persistently lowestachieving schools’’ or is a high school 

that has had a graduation rate that is 

less than 60 percent over a number of 

years. Tier II secondary schools that an 

SEA has identified as persistently 

lowest-achieving schools—i.e., 

secondary schools that are eligible for, 

but do not receive, Title I, Part A 

funds—are eligible without the need for 

an SEA or LEA to obtain a waiver of 

section 1003(g)’s limitation on serving 

only Title I schools in improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring. Tier 

II also may now include Title I 

secondary schools that are or are not in 

improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring if those schools meet the 

criteria in section I.A.1(b)(ii) of these 

final requirements and are not already 

captured in Tier I. 

With respect to Tier III, in addition to 

any Title I school in improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring that is 

not a Tier I or Tier II school, an SEA 

may identify any school that (1) is 

eligible for Title I, Part A funds 

(including schools that receive Title I, 

Part A funds and those that do not); (2) 

has not made AYP for at least two years 

or 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 (3) does not meet the 

requirements to be a Tier I or Tier II 

school. Thus, a Tier III school may be 

a Title I school in improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring, a 

school that receives Title I, Part A funds 

that is not in improvement, or a school 

that is eligible for, but does not receive, 

Title I, Part A funds, provided the 

school meets one of the two criteria in 

section I.A.1(c)(ii)(A) of these final 

requirements. 

The Secretary makes a technical 

change in section I.A.1(c)(i) that was not 

in the interim final requirements to 

make clear that a Tier III school may be 

a Title I school in improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring that is 

not a Tier I or a Tier II school. The 

addition of the phrase ‘‘or a Tier II’’ 

school in this section is necessary 

because a Title I secondary school in 

improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring could be a newly eligible 

Tier II school at an SEA’s option and, 

therefore, could not be a Tier III school. 

2. Section I.A.4—evidence of strongest 

commitment: The Secretary amends 

section I.A.4 to refer to Tier I and Tier 

II schools rather than persistently 

lowest-achieving schools to reflect the 

possibility that an SEA has added newly 

eligible schools to Tier I and Tier II. 

3. Sections I.B.2 and I.B.3—waivers 

for Tier I and Tier II Title I participating 

schools: The Secretary amends section 

I.B.2 to clarify that an SEA may seek a 

waiver of the school improvement 

timeline in section 1116(b) with respect 

to a Tier I or Tier II Title I participating 

school that implements a turnaround or 

restart model. The Secretary also 

amends section I.B.3 to clarify that an 

SEA may seek a waiver of the 

schoolwide program poverty threshold 

in section 1114(a) with respect to a Tier 

I or Tier II Title I participating school 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Notices 66365 

below that threshold in order that the 

school may implement one of the school 

intervention models through a 

schoolwide program. 

4. Section I.B.4—waiver to serve nonTitle I secondary schools: The Secretary 

removes section I.B.4, which permitted 

an SEA to seek a waiver to enable an 

LEA to use SIG funds to serve secondary 

schools that are eligible for, but do not 

receive, Title I, Part A funds, because it 

is no longer needed. 

5. New section I.B.4 (formerly section 

I.B.5)—extending the period of 

availability: In new section I.B.4, which 

permits an SEA to seek a waiver to 

extend the period of availability of SIG 

funds, the Secretary makes a technical 

change that was not in the interim final 

requirements to remove the phrase 

‘‘beyond September 30, 2011’’. That 

phrase applied to FY 2009 SIG funds 

but is not applicable to FY 2010 SIG 

funds, which are available through 

September 30, 2012 without a waiver of 

the period of availability. We are 

removing the phrase to ensure there is 

no confusion about the period of 

availability of FY 2010 SIG funds. Thus, 

an SEA requesting a waiver to extend 

the period of availability for its FY 2010 

SIG funds under this provision would 

be requesting a waiver for extension 

beyond September 30, 2012. 

6. Section II.A.1—LEA eligibility: The 

Secretary amends section II.A.1 to make 

clear that an LEA may apply for a SIG 

grant if the LEA 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, or Tier III school. 

7. Sections II.A.4 and II.A.5—LEA’s 

budget: The Secretary removes language 

that is no longer necessary from sections 

II.A.4 and II.A.5 regarding an LEA’s 

budget because the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2010 raised the 

maximum amount for each participating 

school from $500,000 to $2,000,000. 

Thus, an LEA’s budget can reflect more 

accurately the actual amount needed to 

implement one of the four school 

intervention models in each Tier I and 

Tier II school the LEA commits to serve, 

and the LEA can budget more accurately 

for its Tier III schools without concern 

that they generate funds for the LEA’s 

Tier I and Tier II schools. 

8. Section II.A.6—SIG funds are 

supplemental: The Secretary adds 

section II.A.6, which requires an LEA 

that commits to serve one or more Tier 

I, Tier II, or Tier III schools that do not 

receive Title I, Part A funds to ensure 

that each of those schools receives all of 

the State and local funds it would have 

received in the absence of the SIG 

funds. 

9. Sections II.B.4 and II.B.7 (formerly 

II.B.8)—priority for funding Tier I and 

Tier II schools: The Secretary amends 

sections II.B.4 and II.B.7 (as well as 

various other sections—e.g., sections 

II.A.1, II.A.3) to give equal status to Tier 

I and Tier II schools. Accordingly, 

sections II.B.4 and II.B.7 make clear that 

an LEA that applies to serve either Tier 

I or Tier II schools receives priority 

before an LEA that applies to serve only 

Tier III schools. Moreover, as section 

II.B.7 makes clear, an SEA must award 

SIG funds to each LEA to serve the Tier 

I and Tier II schools that the SEA has 

approved the LEA to serve before 

awarding any funds to an LEA to serve 

a Tier III school. In other words, an SEA 

must ensure that all Tier I and Tier II 

schools are funded before it funds the 

Tier III schools identified in its LEAs’ 

applications. 

10. Section II.B.5—size of LEA grant 

awards: The Secretary amends section 

II.B.5 to clarify that the Consolidated 

Appropriations Act, 2010 raised the 

maximum amount an LEA may receive 

per year for each Tier I, Tier II, and Tier 

III school the LEA commits to serve 

from $500,000 to $2,000,000. 

11. Section II.B.6—allocating SIG 

funds to LEAs: The Secretary removes 

section II.B.6, which governed the 

allocation of SIG funds to LEAs, because 

it is no longer needed after the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 

extended the maximum amount an LEA 

may receive for each school to 

$2,000,000. 

12. Section II.B.9 (formerly II.B.10)— 

2010 SIG appropriations: The Secretary 

removes the phrase ‘‘(depending on the 

availability of appropriations)’’ in 

section II.B.9(a) and (b) because the 

Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 

appropriated SIG funds for FY 2010. 

13. Section II.C—renewal for 

additional one-year periods: These final 

requirements amend section II.C.1(a) to 

require Tier III schools that receive SIG 

funds to meet ‘‘goals established by the 

LEA and approved by the SEA.’’ 

Final Requirements 

The Secretary adopts as final the 

interim final requirements (with the 

technical changes described herein) 

published in the Federal Register on 

January 21, 2010 (75 FR 3375). For the 

ease of the user of the final 

requirements, the Secretary has 

incorporated the changes made by these 

final requirements into the December 

10, 2009 final requirements as 

published at 74 FR 65618 and is 

publishing a combined set of SIG final 

requirements as follows: 

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 define three tiers of 

schools, in accordance with the 

requirements in paragraph 1, to enable 

the SEA to select those LEAs with the 

greatest need for such funds. From 

among the LEAs in greatest need, the 

SEA must select, in accordance with 

paragraph 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 meet the 

accountability requirements in this 

notice. Accordingly, an SEA must use 

the following definitions to define key 

terms: 

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 following tiers: 

(a) Tier I schools: (i) 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 

lowest-achieving schools.’’ 

(ii) 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)(1) Has not made adequate yearly 

progress for at least two consecutive 

years; or 

(2) 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)(i) of the 

definition of ‘‘persistently lowestachieving schools.’’ 

(b) Tier II schools: (i) 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.’’ 

(ii) 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)(1) Has not made adequate yearly 

progress for at least two consecutive 

years; or 

(2) 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 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
66366 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Notices 

(B)(1) Is no higher achieving than the 

highest-achieving school identified by 

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

definition of ‘‘persistently lowestachieving schools;’’ or 

(2) 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: (i) 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. 

(ii) 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)(1) Has not made adequate yearly 

progress for at least two years; or 

(2) 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. 

(iii) 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 funds. 

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 that the LEA 

commits to serve: 

(a) Turnaround model: (1) A 

turnaround model is one in which an 

LEA must— 

(i) Replace the principal and grant the 

principal sufficient operational 

flexibility (including in staffing, 

calendars/time, and budgeting) to 

implement fully a comprehensive 

approach in order to substantially 

improve student achievement outcomes 

and increase high school graduation 

rates; 

(ii) Using locally adopted 

competencies to measure the 

effectiveness of staff who can work 

within the turnaround environment to 

meet the needs of students, 

(A) Screen all existing staff and rehire 

no more than 50 percent; and 

(B) Select new staff; 

(iii) 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; 

(iv) 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; 

(v) 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; 

(vi) 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; 

(vii) 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; 

(viii) Establish schedules and 

implement strategies that provide 

increased learning time (as defined in 

this notice); and 

(ix) Provide appropriate socialemotional and community-oriented 

services and supports for students. 

(2) A turnaround model may also 

implement other strategies such as— 

(i) Any of the required and 

permissible activities under the 

transformation model; or 

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

dual language academy). 

(b) Restart model: 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.) 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 strategies: 

(1) Developing and increasing teacher 

and school leader effectiveness. 

(i) Required activities. The LEA 

must— 

(A) Replace the principal who led the 

school prior to commencement of the 

transformation model; 

(B) Use rigorous, transparent, and 

equitable evaluation systems for 

teachers and principals that— 

(1) Take into account data on student 

growth (as defined in this notice) as a 

significant factor as well as other factors 

such as multiple observation-based 

assessments of performance and 

ongoing collections of professional 

practice reflective of student 

achievement and increased high school 

graduations rates; and 

(2) Are designed and developed with 

teacher and principal involvement; 

(C) 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; 

(D) 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 

successfully implement school reform 

strategies; and 

(E) 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 a transformation school. 

(ii) Permissible activities. An LEA 

may also implement other strategies to 

develop teachers’ and school leaders’ 

effectiveness, such as— 

(A) Providing additional 

compensation to attract and retain staff 

with the skills necessary to meet the 

needs of the students in a 

transformation school; 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Notices 66367 

2Research supports the effectiveness of welldesigned programs that expand learning time by a 

minimum of 300 hours per school year. (See 

Frazier, Julie A.; Morrison, Frederick J. ‘‘The 

Influence of Extended-Year Schooling on Growth of 

Achievement and Perceived Competence in Early 

Elementary School.’’ Child Development. Vol. 69 

(2), April 1998, pp.495–497 and research done by 

Mass2020.) Extending learning into before- and 

after-school hours can be difficult to implement 

effectively, but is permissible under this definition 

with encouragement to closely integrate and 

coordinate academic work between in school and 

out of school. (See James-Burdumy, Susanne; 

Dynarski, Mark; Deke, John. ‘‘When Elementary 

Schools Stay Open Late: Results from The National 

Evaluation of the 21st Century Community Learning 

Centers Program.’’ Educational Evaluation and 

Policy Analysis, Vol. 29 (4), December 2007, 

Document No. PP07–121.) (http:// 

www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/redirect_

PubsDB.asp?strSite=http://epa.sagepub.com/cgi/

content/abstract/29/4/296 

(B) Instituting a system for measuring 

changes in instructional practices 

resulting from professional 

development; or 

(C) 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. 

(i) Required activities. The LEA 

must— 

(A) 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; and 

(B) 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. 

(ii) Permissible activities. An LEA 

may also implement comprehensive 

instructional reform strategies, such 

as— 

(A) Conducting periodic reviews to 

ensure that the curriculum is being 

implemented with fidelity, is having the 

intended impact on student 

achievement, and is modified if 

ineffective; 

(B) Implementing a schoolwide 

‘‘response-to-intervention’’ model; 

(C) 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 limited 

English proficient students acquire 

language skills to master academic 

content; 

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

of the instructional program; and 

(E) 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. 

(i) Required activities. The LEA 

must— 

(A) Establish schedules and strategies 

that provide increased learning time (as 

defined in this notice); and 

(B) Provide ongoing mechanisms for 

family and community engagement. 

(ii) Permissible activities. An LEA 

may also implement other strategies that 

extend learning time and create 

community-oriented schools, such as— 

(A) Partnering with parents and 

parent organizations, faith- and 

community-based organizations, health 

clinics, other State or local agencies, 

and others to create safe school 

environments that meet students’ social, 

emotional, and health needs; 

(B) 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; 

(C) 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 

(D) Expanding the school program to 

offer full-day kindergarten or prekindergarten. 

(4) Providing operational flexibility 

and sustained support. 

(i) Required activities. The LEA 

must— 

(A) Give the school sufficient 

operational flexibility (such as staffing, 

calendars/time, and budgeting) to 

implement fully a comprehensive 

approach to substantially improve 

student achievement outcomes and 

increase high school graduation rates; 

and 

(B) 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). 

(ii) Permissible activities. The LEA 

may also implement other strategies for 

providing operational flexibility and 

intensive support, such as— 

(A) Allowing the school to be run 

under a new governance arrangement, 

such as a turnaround division within 

the LEA or SEA; or 

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

based on student needs. 

3. Definitions. 

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 

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 wellrounded 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 (c) 

teachers to collaborate, plan, and engage 

in professional development within and 

across grades and subjects.2

Persistently lowest-achieving schools 

means, as determined by the State— 

(a)(1) Any Title I school in 

improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring that— 

(i) 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 

(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; and 

(2) Any secondary school that is 

eligible for, but does not receive, Title 

I funds that— 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
66368 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Notices 

(i) 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 

(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. 

(b) To identify the lowest-achieving 

schools, a State must take into account 

both— 

(i) 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 

(ii) The school’s lack of progress on 

those assessments over a number of 

years in the ‘‘all students’’ group. 

Student growth means the change in 

achievement for an individual student 

between two or more points in time. For 

grades in which the State administers 

summative assessments in reading/ 

language arts and mathematics, student 

growth data must be based on a 

student’s score on the State’s assessment 

under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA. A 

State may also include other measures 

that are rigorous and comparable across 

classrooms. 

4. Evidence of strongest commitment. 

(a) In determining the strength of an 

LEA’s commitment to ensuring that 

school improvement funds are used to 

provide adequate resources to enable 

Tier I and Tier II 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— 

(i) Analyze the needs of its schools 

and select an intervention for each 

school; 

(ii) Design and implement 

interventions consistent with these 

requirements; 

(iii) Recruit, screen, and select 

external providers, if applicable, to 

ensure their quality; 

(iv) Align other resources with the 

interventions; 

(v) Modify its practices or policies, if 

necessary, to enable it to implement the 

interventions fully and effectively; and 

(vi) Sustain the reforms after the 

funding period ends. 

(b) The SEA must consider the LEA’s 

capacity to implement the interventions 

and may approve the LEA to serve only 

those Tier I and Tier II schools for 

which the SEA determines that the LEA 

can implement fully and effectively one 

of the interventions. 

B. Providing flexibility 

1. An SEA may award school 

improvement funds to an LEA for a Tier 

I or Tier II school that has implemented, 

in whole or in part, an intervention that 

meets the requirements under section 

I.A.2(a), 2(b), or 2(d) of these 

requirements within the last two years 

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) or 2(b) 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 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), or 2(d) of these requirements. 

4. An SEA may seek a waiver from the 

Secretary to extend the period of 

availability of school improvement 

funds so as to make those funds 

available to the SEA and its LEAs for up 

to three years. 

5. If an SEA does not seek a waiver 

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

seek a waiver. 

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, or Tier III 

school. 

2. In its application, in addition to 

other information that the SEA may 

require— 

(a) The LEA must— 

(i) Identify the Tier I, Tier II, and Tier 

III schools it commits to serve; 

(ii) Identify the intervention it will 

implement in each Tier I and Tier II 

school it commits to serve; 

(iii) Demonstrate that it has the 

capacity to use the school improvement 

funds to provide adequate resources and 

related support to each Tier I and Tier 

II school it commits to serve in order to 

implement fully and effectively one of 

the four interventions identified in 

section I.A.2 of these requirements; 

(iv) Provide evidence of its strong 

commitment to use school improvement 

funds to implement the four 

interventions by addressing the factors 

in section I.A.4(a) of these requirements; 

(v) Include a timeline delineating the 

steps the LEA will take to implement 

the selected intervention in each Tier I 

and Tier II school identified in the 

LEA’s application; and 

(vi) Include a budget indicating how 

it will allocate school improvement 

funds among the Tier I, Tier II, and Tier 

III schools it commits to serve. 

(b) If an LEA has nine or more Tier 

I and Tier II schools, the LEA may not 

implement the transformation model in 

more than 50 percent of those schools. 

3. The LEA must serve 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 these 

rigorous interventions 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 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 four 

interventions identified in section I.A.2 

of these requirements. 

4. The LEA’s budget for each Tier I 

and Tier II school it commits to serve 

must be of sufficient size and scope to 

ensure that the LEA can implement one 

of the rigorous interventions identified 

in section I.A.2 of these requirements. 

The LEA’s budget must cover the period 

of availability of the school 

improvement funds, taking into account 

any waivers extending the period of 

availability received by the SEA or LEA. 

5. The LEA’s budget for each Tier III 

school it commits to serve must include 

the services it will provide the school, 

particularly if the school meets 

additional criteria established by the 

SEA. 

6. An LEA that commits to serve one 

or more Tier I, Tier II, or Tier III 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 

funds. 

7. 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. 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Notices 66369 

8. (a) To monitor each Tier I and Tier 

II school that receives school 

improvement funds, an LEA must— 

(i) Establish annual goals for student 

achievement on the State’s assessments 

in both reading/language arts and 

mathematics; and 

(ii) 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. 

9. If an LEA implements a restart 

model, it must hold the charter school 

operator, CMO, or EMO accountable for 

meeting the final requirements. 

B. SEA requirements 

1. 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. 

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— 

(i) Whether the LEA has agreed to 

implement one of the four interventions 

identified in section I.A.2 of these 

requirements in each Tier I and Tier II 

school included in its application; 

(ii) The extent to which the LEA’s 

application shows the LEA’s strong 

commitment to use school improvement 

funds to implement the four 

interventions by addressing the factors 

in section I.A.4(a) of these requirements; 

(iii) Whether the LEA has the capacity 

to implement the selected intervention 

fully and effectively in each Tier I and 

Tier II school identified in its 

application; and 

(iv) Whether the LEA has submitted a 

budget that includes sufficient funds to 

implement the selected intervention 

fully and effectively in each Tier I and 

Tier II school it identifies in its 

application and whether the budget 

covers the period of availability of the 

funds, taking into account any waiver 

extending the period of availability 

received by either the SEA or the LEA. 

(c) An SEA may, consistent with State 

law, take over an LEA or specific Tier 

I or Tier II schools in order to 

implement the interventions in these 

requirements. 

(d) An SEA may not require an LEA 

to implement a particular model in one 

or more schools unless the SEA has 

taken over the LEA or school. 

(e) To the extent that a Tier I or Tier 

II 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. 

3. An SEA must post on its Web site, 

within 30 days of awarding School 

Improvement Grants to LEAs, all final 

LEA applications 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 and Tier II 

school. 

4. If an SEA does not have sufficient 

school improvement funds to award, for 

up to three years, a grant to each LEA 

that submits an approvable application, 

the SEA must give priority to LEAs that 

apply to serve Tier I or Tier II schools. 

5. 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 or 

more than $2,000,000 per year for each 

Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III school that the 

LEA commits to serve. 

6. If an SEA does not have sufficient 

school improvement funds to allocate to 

each LEA with a Tier I or Tier II 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 the distribution of Tier I and 

Tier II schools among such LEAs in the 

State to ensure that Tier I and Tier II 

schools throughout the State can be 

served. 

7. An SEA must award funds to serve 

each Tier I and Tier II school that its 

LEAs commit to serve, and that the SEA 

determines its LEAs have the capacity to 

serve, prior to awarding funds to its 

LEAs to serve any Tier III schools. If an 

SEA has awarded school improvement 

funds to its LEAs for each Tier I and 

Tier II school that its LEAs commit to 

serve in accordance with these 

requirements, the SEA may then, 

consistent with section II.B.9, award 

remaining school improvement funds to 

its LEAs for the Tier III schools that its 

LEAs commit to serve. 

8. In awarding School Improvement 

Grants, an SEA must apportion its 

school improvement funds in order to 

make grants to LEAs, as applicable, that 

are renewable for the length of the 

period of availability of the funds, 

taking into account any waivers that 

may have been requested and received 

by the SEA or an individual LEA to 

extend the period of availability. 

9. (a) If not every Tier I school in a 

State is served with FY 2009 school 

improvement funds, an SEA must carry 

over 25 percent of its FY 2009 funds, 

combine those funds with FY 2010 

school improvement funds, and award 

those funds to eligible LEAs consistent 

with these requirements. This 

requirement does not apply in a State 

that does not have sufficient school 

improvement funds to serve all the Tier 

I schools in the State. 

(b) If each Tier I school in a State is 

served with FY 2009 school 

improvement funds, an SEA may 

reserve up to 25 percent of its FY 2009 

allocation and award those funds in 

combination with its FY 2010 funds 

consistent with these requirements. 

10. In identifying Tier I and Tier II 

schools in a State for purposes of 

allocating funds appropriated for School 

Improvement Grants under section 

1003(g) of the ESEA for any year 

subsequent to FY 2009, an SEA must 

exclude from consideration any school 

that was previously identified as a Tier 

I or Tier II school and in which an LEA 

is implementing one of the four 

interventions identified in these 

requirements using funds made 

available under section 1003(g) of the 

ESEA. 

11. An SEA that is participating in the 

‘‘differentiated accountability pilot’’ 

must ensure that its LEAs use school 

improvement funds available under 

section 1003(g) of the ESEA in a Tier I 

or Tier II school consistent with these 

requirements. 

12. 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. If an SEA or an individual LEA 

requests and receives a waiver of the 

period of availability of school 

improvement funds, an SEA— 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
66370 Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Notices 

(a) Must renew the School 

Improvement Grant for each affected 

LEA for additional one-year periods 

commensurate with the period of 

availability if the LEA demonstrates that 

its Tier I and Tier II schools are meeting 

the requirements in section II.A.8, and 

that its Tier III schools are meeting the 

goals established by the LEA and 

approved by the SEA; and 

(b) May renew an LEA’s School 

Improvement Grant if the SEA 

determines that the LEA’s schools are 

making progress toward meeting the 

requirements in section II.A.8 or the 

goals established by the LEA. 

2. If an SEA does not renew an LEA’s 

School Improvement Grant because the 

LEA’s participating schools are not 

meeting the requirements in section 

II.A.8 or the goals established by the 

LEA, the SEA may reallocate those 

funds to other eligible LEAs, consistent 

with these requirements. 

D. State Reservation for Administration, 

Evaluation, and Technical Assistance 

An SEA may reserve from the school 

improvement 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. 

E. A State Whose School Improvement 

Grant Exceeds the Amount the State 

May Award to Eligible LEAs 

In some States in which a limited 

number of Title I schools are identified 

for improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring, the SEA may be able to 

make School Improvement Grants, 

renewable for additional years 

commensurate with the period of 

availability of the funds, to each LEA 

with a Tier I, Tier II, or Tier III school 

without using the State’s full allocation 

under section 1003(g) of the ESEA. An 

SEA in this situation may reserve no 

more than five percent of its FY 2009 

allocation of school improvement funds 

for administration, evaluation, and 

technical assistance expenses under 

section 1003(g)(8) of the ESEA. The SEA 

may retain sufficient school 

improvement funds to serve, for 

succeeding years, each Tier I, II, and III 

school that generates funds for an 

eligible LEA. The Secretary may 

reallocate to other States any remaining 

school improvement funds from States 

with surplus 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. The 

Department already collects most of 

these data through EDFacts and will 

collect data on two metrics through 

SFSF reporting. Accordingly, an SEA 

must only report the following new data 

with respect to school improvement 

funds: 

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 or Tier II school, 

school-level data on the metrics 

designated on the following chart as 

‘‘SIG’’ (School Improvement Grant): 

Metric Source Achievement 

indicators 

Leading 

indicators 

SCHOOL DATA 

Which intervention the school used (i.e., turnaround, restart, closure, or transformation).NEW SIG.

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

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

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

Number of minutes within the school year ....................................................................... NEW 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.

NEW SIG .................. ✓ 

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

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

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

Student attendance rate ................................................................................................... EDFacts .................... ✓ 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 208 / Thursday, October 28, 2010 / Notices 66371 

Metric Source Achievement 

indicators 

Leading 

indicators 

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

early-college high schools, or dual enrollment classes.

NEW SIG HS only .... ✓ 

College enrollment rates ................................................................................................... NEW SFSF Phase II 

HS only.

✓ 

STUDENT CONNECTION AND SCHOOL CLIMATE 

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

Truants .............................................................................................................................. EDFacts .................... ✓ 

TALENT 

Distribution of teachers by performance level on LEA’s teacher evaluation system ....... NEW SFSF Phase II ✓ 

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

4. An SEA must report these metrics 

for the school year prior to 

implementing the intervention, if the 

data are available, to serve as a baseline, 

and for each year thereafter for which 

the SEA allocates school improvement 

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. 

Executive Order 12866 

Under Executive Order 12866, the 

Secretary must determine whether a 

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 local 

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 set forth in the Executive 

order. The Secretary has determined 

that this regulatory action is not 

significant under section 3(f) of the 

Executive order. 

We have also determined that this 

regulatory action does not unduly 

interfere with State, local, and tribal 

governments in the exercise of their 

governmental functions. 

We summarized the potential costs 

and benefits of these final requirements 

in the interim final requirements at 75 

FR 3375, 3382. 

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification 

The Secretary certifies that these final 

requirements will not have a significant 

economic impact on a substantial 

number of small entities for the reasons 

summarized in the interim final 

requirements at 75 FR 3375, 3382–3383. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

These final requirements contain 

information collection requirements that 

are subject to review by OMB under the 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 

U.S.C. 3501–3520). The Department 

received emergency approval for the 

information collections in the SIG final 

requirements published on December 

10, 2009, under OMB Control Number 

1810–0682. OMB approved changes 

described in the interim final 

requirements at 75 FR 3375, 3383 on 

January 20, 2010. On June 10, 2010, the 

Department submitted a request to OMB 

for regular approval of this collection 

and received approval on September 22, 

2010, under the OMB control number 

1810–0682, which lasts until September 

30, 2013. 

Intergovernmental Review 

This program is not subject to 

Executive Order 12372 and the 

regulations in 34 CFR 79. 

Electronic Access to This Document 

You may 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) on the Internet 

at the following site: http://www.ed.gov/ 

news/fedregister. 

To use PDF, you must have Adobe 

Acrobat Reader, which is available free 

at this site. 

Note: The official version of this document 

is the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the Code 

of Federal Regulations is available on GPO 

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

index.html. 

Dated: October 25, 2010. 

Arne Duncan, 

Secretary of Education. 

[FR Doc. 2010–27313 Filed 10–27–10; 8:45 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY 

Federal Energy Regulatory 

Commission 

Combined Notice of Filings #1 

October 21, 2010. 

Take notice that the Commission 

received the following electric corporate 

filings: 

Docket Numbers: EC11–11–000 

Applicants: Champion Energy 

Marketing LLC, EDF Trading North 

America, LLC 

Description: Section 203 Application 

of Champion Energy Marketing LLC and 

EDF Trading North America, LLC. 

Filed Date: 10/20/2010 

Accession Number: 20101020–5152 

Comment Date: 5 p.m. Eastern Time 

on Wednesday, November 10, 2010 


emcdonald on DSK2BSOYB1PROD with NOTICES