Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37837 

1The Department is awarding Stabilization 

program funds in two phases. In the first phase, the 

Department is awarding 67 percent of a State’s 

Education Stabilization Fund allocation, unless the 

State can demonstrate that additional funds are 

required to restore fiscal year 2009 State support for 

education, in which case the Department will 

award the State up to 90 percent of that allocation. 

In addition, the Department will award 100 percent 

of each State’s Government Services Fund 

allocation in Phase I. The Department will award 

the remainder of a State’s Education Stabilization 

Fund allocation in the second phase. A table listing 

the allocations to States under the Stabilization 

program is available at: http://www.ed.gov/ 

programs/ 

statestabilization/funding.html. 

[FR Doc. E9–17909 Filed 7–24–09; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–C 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

[Docket ID ED–2009–OESE–0007] 

RIN 1810–AB04 

State Fiscal Stabilization Fund 

Program 

Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance 

(CFDA) Numbers: 84.394 (Education 

Stabilization Fund) and 84.397 

(Government Services Fund). 

AGENCY: Department of Education. 

ACTION: Notice of proposed 

requirements, definitions, and approval 

criteria. 

SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education 

(Secretary) proposes requirements, 

definitions, and approval criteria for the 

State Fiscal Stabilization Fund 

(Stabilization) program. The Secretary 

may use one or more of these 

requirements, definitions, and approval 

criteria in awarding funds under this 

program in fiscal year (FY) 2010. The 

requirements, definitions, and approval 

criteria proposed in this notice are 

based on the assurances regarding 

education reform that grantees are 

required to provide in exchange for 

receiving funds under the Stabilization 

program. We take this action to specify 

the data and information that grantees 

must collect and report with respect to 

those assurances and to help ensure 

grantees’ ability to collect and report the 

required data and information. 

DATES: We must receive your comments 

on or before August 28, 2009. 

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments 

through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 

or via postal mail, commercial delivery, 

or hand delivery. We will not accept 

comments by fax or by e-mail. Please 

submit your comments only one time in 

order to ensure that we do not receive 

duplicate copies. In addition, please 

include the Docket ID and the term 

‘‘State Fiscal Stabilization Fund’’ at the 

top of your comments. 

• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 

http://www.regulations.gov to submit 

your comments electronically. 

Information on using Regulations.gov, 

including instructions for accessing 

agency documents, submitting 

comments, and viewing the docket, is 

available on the site under ‘‘How To Use 

This Site.’’ 

• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, 

or Hand Delivery. If you mail or deliver 

your comments about these proposed 

requirements, definitions, and approval 

criteria, address them to Office of 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

(Attention: State Fiscal Stabilization 

Fund Comments), U.S. Department of 

Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

Room 3E108, Washington, DC 20202– 

6200. 

• Privacy Note: The Department’s 

policy for comments received from 

members of the public (including those 

comments submitted by mail, 

commercial delivery, or hand delivery) 

is to make these submissions available 

for public viewing in their entirety on 

the Federal eRulemaking Portal at http: 

//www.regulations.gov. Therefore, 

commenters should be careful to 

include in their comments only 

information that they wish to make 

publicly available on the Internet. 

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: 

James Butler. Telephone: (202) 260– 

2274 or by e-mail: 

phase2comments@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. 

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 

Invitation to Comment: We invite you 

to submit comments regarding this 

notice. To ensure that your comments 

have maximum effect in developing the 

notice of final requirements, definitions, 

and approval criteria, we urge you to 

identify clearly the specific proposed 

requirements, definitions, and approval 

criteria that each comment addresses. 

We invite you also to assist us in 

complying with the specific 

requirements of Executive Order 12866 

and its overall requirement of reducing 

regulatory burden that might result from 

these proposed requirements, 

definitions, and approval criteria. Please 

let us know of any further ways we 

could reduce potential costs or increase 

potential benefits while preserving the 

effective and efficient administration of 

this program. 

During and after the comment period, 

you may inspect all public comments 

about this notice by accessing 

Regulations.gov. You may also inspect 

the public comments in person in Room 

3E108, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., 

Washington, DC, between the hours of 

8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, 

DC, time, Monday through Friday of 

each week except Federal holidays. 

Assistance to Individuals with 

Disabilities in Reviewing the 

Rulemaking Record: On request we will 

provide an appropriate accommodation 

or auxiliary aid to an individual with a 

disability who needs assistance to 

review the comments or other 

documents in the public rulemaking 

record for this notice. If you want to 

schedule an appointment for this type of 

accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 

contact the person listed under FOR

FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT. 

Purpose of Program: The State Fiscal 

Stabilization Fund program provides 

approximately $48.6 billion in formula 

grants to States to help stabilize State 

and local budgets in order to minimize 

and avoid reductions in education and 

other essential services, in exchange for 

a State’s commitment to advance 

essential education reform in key areas. 

Program Authority: American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, 

Division A, Title XIV—State Fiscal 

Stabilization Fund, Public Law 111–5. 

Proposed Requirements 

Note: The proposed requirements are listed 

following the background for this section. 

Background: Section 14005(d) of 

Division A of the American Recovery 

and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) 

requires a State receiving funds under 

the Stabilization program to provide 

assurances in four key areas of 

education reform: (a) Achieving equity 

in teacher distribution, (b) improving 

collection and use of data, (c) standards 

and assessments, and (d) supporting 

struggling schools. For each area of 

reform, the ARRA prescribes specific 

action(s) that the State must assure that 

it will implement. In addition, section 

14005(a) of the ARRA requires a State 

that receives funds under the 

Stabilization program to submit an 

application to the Department 

containing such information as the 

Secretary may reasonably require. In 

this notice, we propose specific data 

and information requirements (the 

assurance indicators and descriptors) 

that a State receiving funds under the 

Stabilization program must meet with 

respect to the statutory assurances. We 

also propose specific requirements for a 

plan that a State must submit (the State 

plan), as part of its application for the 

second phase 1 of funding under the 

Stabilization program, describing its 

ability to collect and report the required 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

37838 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 

2We note that descriptions of the teacher 

performance evaluation systems used in LEAs also 

provide necessary context for data on teacher 

performance ratings or levels. When viewed in 

isolation, data on teacher performance ratings or 

levels are open to interpretation and may ultimately 

not be meaningful. 3See Leithwood, K., Louis, K. S., Anderson, S., 

and Walhstrom, K., (2004). How leadership 

influences student learning. Minneapolis, MN: 

University of Minnesota. 4 If, however, the State requires the use of specific 

teacher and principal evaluation systems by its 

LEAs, it could directly provide descriptions of 

those systems in lieu of individual system 

descriptions by its LEAs. 

data and other information. Together, 

these two sets of proposed requirements 

aim to provide transparency on the 

extent to which a State is implementing 

the actions for which it has provided 

assurance. Increased access to and focus 

on this information will better enable 

States and other stakeholders to identify 

strengths and weaknesses in education 

systems and determine where 

concentrated reform effort is warranted. 

We also intend to use the data and 

information that States collect and 

report in assessing whether a State is 

qualified to participate in and receive 

funds under other reform-oriented 

programs administered by the 

Department. 

As discussed elsewhere in this notice, 

a proposed assurance indicator or 

descriptor may relate to data or other 

information that States currently collect 

and report to the Department, or to data 

or other information for which the 

Department is itself the source. In those 

cases, we do not propose any new data 

or information collection requirements 

for a State; rather, the Department will 

provide the State with the relevant data 

or other information that the State 

would be required to confirm and make 

publicly available. (In confirming the 

data or information, the State would not 

be required to perform any additional 

analysis or verification.) In the other 

cases, the proposed requirement would 

constitute new data or information 

collection and reporting responsibilities 

for the State, to the extent the State does 

not currently collect and report such 

data or information for other purposes. 

Following is a description of the 

proposed indicators and descriptors in 

each education reform area and the 

proposed State plan requirements. The 

Department recognizes that requests for 

data and information should reflect an 

integrated and coordinated approach 

among the various programs supported 

with ARRA funds, particularly the 

Stabilization, Race to the Top, School 

Improvement Grants, and Statewide 

Longitudinal Data Systems programs. 

Accordingly, the Department will 

continue to evaluate the proposed 

requirements for this program in context 

with those other programs. 

Achieving Equity in Teacher 

Distribution 

Regarding education reform area (a) 

(achieving equity in teacher 

distribution), section 14005(d)(2) of the 

ARRA requires a State receiving funds 

under the Stabilization program to 

assure that it will take actions to 

improve teacher effectiveness and 

comply with section 1111(b)(8)(C) of the 

Elementary and Secondary Education 

Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA) (20 

U.S.C. 6311), in order to address 

inequities in the distribution of highly 

qualified teachers between high- and 

low-poverty schools and to ensure that 

low-income and minority children are 

not taught at higher rates than other 

children by inexperienced, unqualified, 

or out-of-field teachers. In order to 

provide indicators of the extent to 

which a State is taking such actions, we 

propose to require that the State provide 

data and other information on student 

access to highly qualified teachers in 

high- and low-poverty schools, on how 

teacher and principal performance is 

evaluated, and on the distribution of 

performance evaluation ratings or levels 

among teachers and principals. 

With respect to student access to 

highly qualified teachers in high- and 

low-poverty schools, States are 

currently required to collect and report 

data to the Department, through the 

EDFacts system, on the extent to which 

core academic courses in such schools 

are taught by highly qualified teachers. 

Because such data are currently 

available, we do not propose to require 

any new data or information collection 

by a State in this area; rather, the 

Department would provide the State 

with the data it most recently submitted, 

which the State would be required to 

confirm and make publicly available. 

With respect to evaluation of teacher 

performance, we propose to require that 

a State provide descriptive information 

on the teacher performance evaluation 

systems used in local educational 

agencies (LEAs) in the State, including 

an indication of whether any official 

systems used to evaluate teacher 

performance include student 

achievement outcomes as an evaluation 

criterion. With respect to teacher 

performance ratings or levels, we 

propose to require that a State provide 

data on the distribution of performance 

ratings or levels in its LEAs as well as 

an indication of whether such ratings or 

levels are available to the public by 

school for each LEA. When properly 

developed and implemented, local 

evaluation systems perform a principal 

role in measuring teacher effectiveness. 

We also believe that student 

achievement outcomes are a central 

factor in evaluation systems that yield 

fair and reliable assessments of teacher 

performance. The data and information 

on teacher performance ratings or levels, 

together with the descriptive 

information on teacher performance 

evaluation systems, will provide greater 

transparency on the design and usage of 

teacher evaluation systems and will 

serve as an important indicator of the 

extent to which effective teachers are 

equitably distributed within LEAs and 

States.2 Moreover, this information will 

help States and other stakeholders 

correct inequities in the distribution of 

effective teachers as well as 

shortcomings in the design and usage of 

teacher performance evaluation systems. 

Regarding evaluation of principal 

performance, we propose requirements 

similar to those proposed for evaluation 

of teacher performance, except that we 

do not propose to require a State to 

indicate whether principal performance 

ratings or levels are available to the 

public by school in each LEA, as such 

information may be personally 

identifiable. Although the ARRA does 

not explicitly mention principals with 

respect to the assurance in this reform 

area, we believe that effective school 

administration is a key factor in 

effective teaching and learning. Studies 

show that school leadership is a major 

contributing factor to what students 

learn at school. Studies also show that 

strong teachers are more likely to teach 

in schools with strong principals.3

Information on principal performance 

will provide another useful snapshot of 

the steps being taken to ensure that 

effective school personnel are 

distributed equitably within LEAs and 

States. 

In order to meet the proposed 

requirements to describe the teacher and 

principal performance evaluation 

systems used in LEAs in the State, a 

State would not be required itself to 

develop such descriptions; it would be 

sufficient for the State to maintain a 

Web site that contains electronic links 

to descriptions developed by its LEAs.4

On such a Web site, the State could also 

include, by LEA, the data and 

information the State collects in order to 

meet the other proposed requirements 

that relate to evaluation of teacher and 

principal performance (i.e., the 

requirements to indicate whether 

official teacher and principal 

evaluations systems include student 

achievement outcomes as an evaluation 

criterion, to provide the number and 

percentage of teachers and principals 

rated at each performance rating or level 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37839 

5The Department is developing guidance to assist 

States in developing and implementing statewide 

longitudinal data systems that are consistent with 

the provisions of the America COMPETES Act and 

that comply with applicable student privacy 

requirements, including applicable requirements of 

the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act. We 

expect to issue preliminary guidance in this area in 

the near future. During the time this guidance is 

being developed, we expect that States will 

continue to work toward fully developing and 

implementing statewide longitudinal data systems. 

in official evaluation systems, and to 

indicate whether the number and 

percentage of teachers rated at each 

performance rating or level in official 

evaluations systems are publicly 

available for each school). In such a 

case, however, the State would be 

responsible for ensuring, through 

appropriate guidance or technical 

assistance, that the descriptions of 

teacher and principal performance 

evaluation systems maintained by LEAs 

contain the required information and 

are provided in an easily 

understandable format. 

To view a summary of the proposed 

requirements in this education reform 

area, please visit: http://www.ed.gov/ 

programs/statestabilization/ 

applicant.html. 

Improving Collection and Use of Data 

Regarding education reform area (b) 

(improving collection and use of data), 

section 14005(d)(3) of the ARRA 

requires a State receiving funds under 

the Stabilization program to provide an 

assurance that it will establish a 

statewide longitudinal data system that 

includes the elements described in 

section 6401(e)(2)(D) of the America 

COMPETES Act (20 U.S.C. 9871). To 

provide indicators of the extent to 

which a State is meeting that 

requirement, we propose that the State 

provide information on the elements of 

its statewide longitudinal data system 

and on whether the State provides 

teachers with data on student 

performance that include estimates of 

individual teacher impact on student 

achievement in a manner that is timely 

and informs instruction. 

With respect to the elements of 

statewide longitudinal data systems, we 

propose to require, consistent with the 

ARRA, that a State indicate whether its 

data system contains each of the 12 

elements described in section 

6401(e)(2)(D) of the America 

COMPETES Act 5. For pre-school 

through postsecondary education, these 

elements include: (1) A unique 

statewide student identifier that does 

not permit a student to be individually 

identified by users of the system; (2) 

student-level enrollment, demographic, 

and program participation information; 

(3) student-level information about the 

points at which students exit, transfer 

in, transfer out, drop out, or complete 

P–16 education programs; (4) the 

capacity to communicate with higher 

education data systems; and (5) an audit 

system assessing data quality, validity, 

and reliability. For preschool through 

grade 12 education, these elements 

include: (6) yearly State assessment 

records of individual students; (7) 

information on students not tested, by 

grade and subject; (8) a teacher 

identifier system with the ability to 

match teachers to students; (9) studentlevel transcript information, including 

on courses completed and grades 

earned; and (10) student-level college 

readiness test scores. Finally, for 

postsecondary education, the elements 

include: (11) information regarding the 

extent to which students transition 

successfully from secondary school to 

postsecondary education, including 

whether students enroll in remedial 

coursework; and (12) other information 

determined necessary to address 

alignment and adequate preparation for 

success in postsecondary education. 

These elements constitute the minimum 

requirements of a modern statewide 

longitudinal data system. To measure 

the progress of students and schools 

effectively and efficiently, it is 

imperative that the State’s data system 

contains these elements. 

With respect to teachers’ receipt of 

data on student performance that 

include estimates of individual teacher 

impact on student achievement, we 

propose to require a State to indicate 

whether it provides such data to 

teachers in grades in which the State 

administers reading/language arts and 

mathematics assessments. We believe 

that teachers’ receipt of these data 

should be a natural product of a 

statewide longitudinal data system that 

includes elements (1), (6), and (8) 

referenced in the preceding paragraph. 

Moreover, we believe that this is a key 

example of how reliable, high-quality 

data from the State’s system can drive 

education reform in general and 

improvements in the classroom in 

particular. 

To view a summary of the proposed 

requirements in this education reform 

area, please visit: http://www.ed.gov/ 

programs/statestabilization/ 

applicant.html. 

Standards and Assessments 

Regarding education reform area (c) 

(standards and assessments), section 

14005(d)(4) of the ARRA requires a State 

receiving funds under the Stabilization 

program to assure that it will: (A) 

Enhance the quality of the academic 

assessments it administers pursuant to 

section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA (20 

U.S.C. 6311) through activities such as 

those described in section 6112(a) of the 

ESEA (20 U.S.C. 7301a); (B) comply 

with the requirements of paragraphs 

(3)(C)(ix) and (6) of section 1111(b) of 

the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6311) and section 

612(a)(16) of the Individuals with 

Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 

1412) related to the inclusion of 

children with disabilities and limited 

English proficient students in State 

assessments, the development of valid 

and reliable assessments for those 

students, and the provision of 

accommodations that enable their 

participation in State assessments; and 

(C) take steps to improve State academic 

content standards and student academic 

achievement standards for secondary 

schools consistent with section 

6401(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the America 

COMPETES Act (20 U.S.C. 9871). To 

provide indicators of the extent to 

which a State is taking these actions, we 

propose that the State provide data and 

other information in the following areas: 

• Whether students are provided 

high-quality State assessments. 

• Whether the State is engaged in 

activities to enhance its assessments 

(with respect to paragraph (A) of the 

statutory assurance). 

• Whether students with disabilities 

and limited English proficient students 

are included in State assessment 

systems (with respect to paragraph (B) 

of the statutory assurance). 

• Whether the State makes available 

information regarding student academic 

performance compared to student 

academic performance in other States. 

• The extent to which students 

graduate from high school in four years 

with a regular high school diploma and 

continue on to pursue a college 

education or technical training (with 

respect to paragraph (C) of the statutory 

assurance). 

As States prepare to significantly 

improve the rigor and effectiveness of 

their standards and assessment systems, 

we believe this information will, in 

general, provide stakeholders with vital 

transparency on the current status of 

those systems and on the efforts to 

improve them that are currently 

underway. 

For two of the areas described above, 

namely, whether students are provided 

high-quality State assessments and 

whether students with disabilities and 

limited English proficient students are 

included in State assessment systems, 

States are currently required to collect 

and report data or other information to 

the Department. For instance, regarding 

whether students with disabilities and 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

37840 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 

6See below for the proposed requirements in 

these areas regarding standards and assessments 

that use other data and information currently 

available to the Department; these include 

Indicators (c)(3), (c)(4), and (c)(8). 

7These activities are supported by the Grants for 

Enhanced Assessment Instruments program. See 

http://www.ed.gov/programs/eag/index.html for 

more information on this program. 

8States must disaggregate these data by student 

subgroup consistent with the requirements of 

section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA. The student 

subgroups discussed in that section include: 

economically disadvantaged students, students 

from major racial and ethnic groups, students with 

disabilities, and students with limited English 

proficiency. 

9Although the statutory assurance concerns only 

Title I schools in corrective action and 

restructuring, we propose to require that States 

include Title I schools in improvement as well 

when providing data on the extent to which 

dramatic reforms to improve student academic 

achievement are being implemented. Making this 

addition would be consistent with the school 

reform strategies that States are implementing using 

funds available under section 1003(g) of the ESEA 

(School Improvement Grants), which are intended 

to be applied to schools in improvement as well as 

to schools in corrective action or restructuring. 

limited English proficient students are 

included in State assessment systems, 

States are currently required to report, 

through the EDFacts system (for the 

annual ESEA Consolidated State 

Performance Report), the number and 

percentage of such students who are 

included in State reading/language arts 

and mathematics assessments. 

Similarly, regarding whether students 

are provided high-quality State 

assessments, a State must currently 

submit information to the Department 

on its assessment system, which the 

Department reviews for compliance 

with the requirements of the ESEA and 

on the basis of which the Department 

issues an approval status. We propose to 

use these and other data and 

information currently available to the 

Department 6 as indicators of a State’s 

progress in these two areas; in these 

cases, the Department would provide 

the State with the data it most recently 

submitted, or the most recent 

determinations of the Department, 

which the State would be required to 

confirm and publicly report. 

Regarding the extent to which the 

State is engaged in activities to enhance 

its assessments, we propose to require, 

consistent with the statutory assurance, 

that a State indicate whether it is 

pursuing any of the activities described 

in section 6112(a) of the ESEA.7 These 

activities include: (1) Working in 

collaboration or consortia with other 

States or organizations to improve the 

quality, validity, and reliability of State 

academic assessments; (2) measuring 

student academic achievement using 

multiple measures of academic 

achievement from multiple sources; (3) 

charting student progress over time; and 

(4) evaluating student academic 

achievement using comprehensive 

instruments, such as performance and 

technology-based assessments. If a State 

indicates that it is engaged in any such 

activities, it would be required to briefly 

describe the nature of that activity. 

As a supplement to the data and 

information currently available to the 

Department regarding whether students 

with disabilities and limited English 

proficient students are included in State 

assessment systems (as discussed 

above), we propose to require a State to 

indicate whether it has completed, 

within the last two years, an analysis of 

the appropriateness and effectiveness of 

the accommodations it provides 

students with disabilities and limited 

English proficient students to ensure 

their meaningful participation in State 

assessments. This additional 

information will help provide a 

comprehensive picture of the effort a 

State is making to include these 

students in a valid and reliable 

assessment system consistent with the 

statutory assurance. Moreover, we note 

that States conducting such analyses 

can use results from those analyses to 

target resources and identify areas 

where improvements in the services 

provided to these students are needed. 

Regarding whether the State makes 

available information on student 

performance compared to performance 

of students in other States, Federal 

regulations require States to include in 

the annual State report cards required 

under section 1111(h)(1)(A) of the ESEA 

(20 U.S.C. 6311), beginning with report 

cards issued for the 2009–2010 school 

year, the most recent available student 

achievement results for the State from 

the National Assessment of Educational 

Progress (NAEP) administered by the 

Department (34 CFR 200.11(c)). Because 

of this regulatory requirement, we do 

not propose to require any new data 

collection by a State in this area; rather, 

in this case, the State would be required 

to confirm that its annual State report 

card contains this information. We 

believe that, when compared with 

student achievement results from State 

assessments (which a State is required 

by statute also to include in its annual 

State report card), student achievement 

results from NAEP provide a 

perspective on the extent to which a 

State has developed and is 

implementing high-quality academic 

content and student achievement 

standards. 

Regarding the extent to which 

students graduate from high school and 

continue on to pursue a college 

education or technical training, we 

propose to require that a State provide 

data on the following topics: The 

number and percentage of students, by 

subgroup, who graduate from high 

school using a four-year adjusted cohort 

graduation rate as required by 34 CFR 

200.19(b)(1)(i); the number of high 

school graduates (by subgroup) 8 who 

subsequently enroll in institutions of 

higher education (IHEs) as defined in 

section 101(a) of the Higher Education 

Act of 1965, as amended (HEA); and, of 

the high school graduates who enroll in 

public IHEs, the number (by subgroup) 

who complete at least one year’s worth 

of college credit applicable to a degree. 

These data will act as key indicators of 

the extent to which a State has 

developed and is implementing 

secondary school academic content and 

achievement standards that contribute 

effectively to student preparation for 

college without the need for 

remediation. 

To view a summary of the proposed 

requirements in this education reform 

area, please visit: http://www.ed.gov/ 

programs/statestabilization/ 

applicant.html. 

Supporting Struggling Schools 

Regarding education reform area (d) 

(supporting struggling schools), section 

14005(d)(5) of the ARRA requires a State 

receiving funds under the Stabilization 

program to provide an assurance that it 

will ensure compliance with the 

requirements of section 1116(b)(7)(C)(iv) 

and section 1116(b)(8)(B) of the ESEA 

(20 U.S.C. 6316) with respect to Title I 

schools identified for corrective action 

and restructuring. In order to provide 

indicators of the extent to which a State 

is implementing the statutory assurance, 

we propose that the State provide data 

on the extent to which dramatic reforms 

to improve student academic 

achievement are implemented in Title I 

schools in improvement under section 

1116(b)(1)(A) of the ESEA,9 in corrective 

action, or in restructuring, and on the 

extent to which charter schools are 

operating in the State. 

With respect to reforms implemented 

in Title I schools in improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring, we 

propose to require that a State provide 

data on the academic progress of such 

schools as well as on certain kinds of 

reform actions taken regarding those 

schools. We believe that these data, a 

supplement to existing data and 

information on Title I schools in 

improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring, will serve as useful 

indicators of the extent to which 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37841 

effective reforms are being implemented 

in these schools consistent with the 

intent of the ESEA and ARRA. 

Regarding the operation of charter 

schools in the State, we propose to 

require that a State provide data and 

other information on the number of 

charter schools that are permitted to 

operate in the State, the number that are 

currently operating, the number and 

identity of charter schools that have 

closed within the last five years, and the 

reason(s) (including financial, 

enrollment, academic, or other reasons) 

for the closure of any such school. 

Under section 1116(b)(8)(B) of the 

ESEA, LEAs must select and implement 

an alternative governance arrangement 

for a school in restructuring, and one 

allowable alternative is reopening the 

school as a charter school. Possessing 

greater autonomy in exchange for 

greater accountability, charter schools 

can become engines of innovation and 

serve as models for school reform. We 

believe these data will be useful in 

determining the extent to which 

opening charter schools is a viable 

reform option for LEAs with schools in 

restructuring and other struggling 

schools, and the extent to which charter 

schools are held accountable for their 

performance so that only highperforming options remain available. 

With respect to the number of charter 

schools that are currently operating, 

States are currently required to collect 

and report data on this topic to the 

Department through the EDFacts 

system. Because these data are currently 

available, we do not propose to require 

a new data collection by a State; rather, 

in this case, the Department would 

provide the State with the data it most 

recently submitted, which the State 

would be required to confirm and make 

publicly available. 

To view a summary of the proposed 

requirements in this education reform 

area, please visit: http://www.ed.gov/ 

programs/statestabilization/ 

applicant.html. 

State Plans 

In addition to the specific data and 

information requirements relating to the 

four ARRA education reform assurances 

discussed above, we also propose 

requirements for a plan that a State must 

submit to the Department. In general, 

the State plan must describe the State’s 

current ability to collect the data or 

other information needed for the 

proposed assurance indicators and 

descriptors as well as the State’s current 

ability to make the data or information 

easily available to the public. If the State 

is currently able to fully collect and 

report the required data or other 

information, the State must provide the 

most recent data or information with its 

plan. If a State is not currently able to 

collect or report the data or other 

information, the plan must describe the 

State’s process and timeline for 

developing and implementing the 

means to do so as soon as possible but 

no later than September 30, 2011, the 

date by which funds received under the 

Stabilization program must be obligated. 

The State plan must describe the State’s 

collection and reporting abilities with 

respect to each individual indicator or 

descriptor. 

As discussed above, the data or 

information needed for an assurance 

indicator or descriptor is in some cases 

already reported to the Department by 

the State, or is provided by the 

Department. In those cases, it is 

understood that the State is currently 

able to collect the data or information; 

the State’s plan need only address the 

State’s ability to publicly report the data 

or information, and the State need not 

include the data or information with its 

plan. 

The proposed State plan requirements 

apply generally across the education 

reform areas discussed above with the 

exception of education reform area (b) 

(improving collection and use of data), 

for which we propose to apply slightly 

different plan requirements. 

Specifically, we propose to require that 

the State describe in the State plan 

whether the State’s data system includes 

the required elements of a statewide 

longitudinal data system and, if the data 

system does not, the State’s process and 

timeline for developing and 

implementing a system that meets all 

requirements as soon as possible but no 

later than September 30, 2011. As this 

indicator relates to a State’s ability to 

collect and report data, however, these 

requirements do not in effect differ 

substantially from the generally 

applicable State plan requirements (i.e., 

the requirements that the State describe 

its abilities to collect and report data or 

other information for a given indicator 

or descriptor). Moreover, the 

development and implementation of 

such a statewide longitudinal data 

system is intrinsic to a State’s ability to 

collect and report the data required by 

certain other indicators (e.g., the 

indicators on student enrollment and 

credit completion in institutions of 

higher education after graduation from 

high school). Such a statewide 

longitudinal data system can also 

produce and manage other data that 

States may use in developing and 

improving programs; targeting services; 

developing better linkages between 

preschool, elementary and secondary, 

and postsecondary systems, agencies, 

and institutions; and holding schools, 

LEAs, and institutions accountable for 

their performance. Most importantly, we 

believe these State plan requirements 

are supported by the statutory assurance 

for this education reform area which, as 

stated above, requires the State to assure 

that it will develop such a system. 

Similarly, regarding teachers’ receipt 

of data on student performance that 

includes estimates of individual teacher 

impact on student achievement, we 

propose to require that the State 

describe in the State plan whether the 

State provides teachers with such data 

and, if the State does not, the State’s 

process and timeline for developing and 

implementing the means to do so as 

soon as possible but no later than 

September 30, 2011. We believe this 

requirement is likewise supported by 

the statutory assurance insofar as it 

provides an illustration of the ways in 

which data from the State’s statewide 

longitudinal data system can be used to 

drive education reform. School and LEA 

leaders can use these data, in particular, 

in developing and providing 

professional development opportunities, 

assigning teachers, and implementing 

compensation and other human capital 

policies. 

In addition to requirements relating to 

a State’s ability to collect and report 

data or other information for the 

respective assurance indicators and 

descriptors, we propose other general 

requirements for the State plan relating 

to the State’s institutional infrastructure 

and capacity, the nature of any technical 

assistance or other support provided, 

the plan budget, and the processes the 

State employs for data and information 

quality assurance purposes. 

Our experience with data collections 

has shown that the development of a 

plan by the agency responsible for a 

collection is highly beneficial to all 

parties. For the Department and the 

public, a plan provides transparency on 

the agency’s abilities to collect and 

report the data and other information, as 

well as a framework for holding the 

agency accountable for meeting the 

respective collection and reporting 

requirements. For the agency (in this 

case, the State), the plan presents an 

opportunity to assess its capacity and 

resources with respect to the 

requirements and to develop and 

implement any processes needed in 

order to comply with those 

requirements. 

In developing a plan as proposed in 

this notice, the State is encouraged to 

consult with key stakeholders such as 

superintendents, educators, and parents 

as well as teacher union, business, 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

37842 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 

community, and civil rights leaders. 

Such consultation would ensure that 

these stakeholders are aware of the 

State’s current ability to meet the 

proposed requirements, can provide 

input on the means the State will 

develop to comply with the 

requirements, and can prepare to assist 

the State in implementing those means. 

Proposed Requirements 

The Secretary proposes the following 

requirements for the Stabilization 

program. We may apply these 

requirements in any year in which this 

program is in effect. 

I. Assurance Indicators and 

Descriptors: A State must collect and 

report data and other information for the 

following indicators and descriptors 

regarding the assurances that the State 

has provided in order to receive funds 

under the Stabilization program. 

(a) Achieving equity in teacher 

distribution. A State must collect and 

report data and other information on the 

extent to which students in high- and 

low-poverty schools in the State have 

access to highly qualified teachers, on 

how teacher and principal performance 

is evaluated, and on the distribution of 

performance evaluation ratings or levels 

among teachers and principals. 

Specifically, a State must— 

Indicator (a)(1). Confirm, for the State 

and for each LEA in the State, the 

number and percentage (including 

numerator and denominator) of core 

academic courses taught, in the highestpoverty and lowest-poverty schools, by 

teachers who are highly qualified 

consistent with section 9101(23) of the 

ESEA; 

Descriptor (a)(1). Describe, for each 

LEA in the State, the systems used to 

evaluate the performance of teachers; 

Indicator (a)(2). Indicate, for each 

LEA in the State, whether the systems 

used to evaluate the performance of 

teachers include student achievement 

outcomes as an evaluation criterion; 

Indicator (a)(3). Provide, for each LEA 

in the State whose teachers receive 

performance ratings or levels through an 

evaluation system, the number and 

percentage (including numerator and 

denominator) of teachers rated at each 

performance rating or level; 

Indicator (a)(4). Indicate, for each 

LEA in the State whose teachers receive 

performance ratings or levels through an 

evaluation system, whether the number 

and percentage (including numerator 

and denominator) of teachers rated at 

each performance rating or level are 

available for each school in the LEA in 

a manner easily accessible and a format 

easily understandable by the public; 

Descriptor (a)(2). Describe, for each 

LEA in the State, the systems used to 

evaluate the performance of principals; 

Indicator (a)(5). Indicate, for each 

LEA in the State, whether the systems 

used to evaluate the performance of 

principals include student achievement 

outcomes as an evaluation criterion; and 

Indicator (a)(6). Provide, for each LEA 

in the State whose principals receive 

performance ratings or levels through an 

evaluation system, the number and 

percentage (including numerator and 

denominator) of principals rated at each 

performance rating or level. 

(b) Improving collection and use of 

data. A State must collect and report 

information on the elements of its 

statewide longitudinal data system and 

on whether teachers receive data on 

student performance in a manner that is 

timely and informs instruction. 

Specifically, a State must— 

Indicator (b)(1). Indicate which of the 

12 elements described in section 

6401(e)(2)(D) of the America 

COMPETES Act are included in the 

State’s statewide longitudinal data 

system; and 

Indicator (b)(2). Indicate whether the 

State provides teachers of reading/ 

language arts and mathematics in grades 

in which the State administers 

assessments in those subjects with data 

on the performance of their students on 

those assessments that include estimates 

of individual teacher impact on student 

achievement, in a manner that is timely 

and informs instruction. 

(c) Standards and assessments. A 

State must collect and report data and 

other information on whether students 

are provided high-quality State 

assessments, on whether the State is 

engaged in activities to enhance its 

assessments, on whether students with 

disabilities and limited English 

proficient students are included in State 

assessment systems, on whether the 

State makes information available 

regarding student academic 

performance in the State compared to 

the academic performance of students in 

other States, and on the extent to which 

students graduate from high school in 

four years with a regular high school 

diploma and continue on to pursue a 

college education or technical training. 

Specifically, a State must— 

Indicator (c)(1). Confirm the approval 

status, as determined by the 

Department, of the State’s assessment 

system under section 1111(b)(3) of the 

ESEA with respect to reading/language 

arts, mathematics, and science 

assessments; 

Indicator (c)(2). Indicate whether the 

State is engaged in activities consistent 

with section 6112(a) of the ESEA to 

enhance the quality of its academic 

assessments; 

Descriptor (c)(1). Briefly describe the 

nature of any activities indicated in 

Indicator (c)(2); 

Indicator (c)(3). Confirm whether the 

State has developed and implemented 

valid and reliable alternate assessments 

for students with disabilities that are 

approved by the Department; 

Indicator (c)(4). Confirm whether the 

State’s alternate assessments for 

students with disabilities, if approved 

by the Department, are based on gradelevel, modified, or alternate academic 

achievement standards; 

Indicator (c)(5). Indicate whether the 

State has completed, within the last two 

years, an analysis of the appropriateness 

and effectiveness of the 

accommodations it provides students 

with disabilities to ensure their 

meaningful participation in State 

assessments; 

Indicator (c)(6). Confirm the number 

and percentage (including numerator 

and denominator) of students with 

disabilities who are included in State 

reading/language arts and mathematics 

assessments; 

Indicator (c)(7). Indicate whether the 

State has completed, within the last two 

years, an analysis of the appropriateness 

and effectiveness of the 

accommodations it provides limited 

English proficient students to ensure 

their meaningful participation in State 

assessments; 

Indicator (c)(8). Confirm whether the 

State provides native language versions 

of State assessments for limited English 

proficient students that are approved by 

the Department; 

Indicator (c)(9). Confirm the number 

and percentage (including numerator 

and denominator) of limited English 

proficient students who are included in 

State reading/language arts and 

mathematics assessments; 

Indicator (c)(10). Confirm that the 

State’s annual State Report Card (under 

ESEA section 1111(h)(1)) contains the 

most recent available State reading and 

mathematics NAEP results as required 

by 34 CFR 200.11(c); 

Indicator (c)(11). Provide, for the 

State, for each LEA in the State, for each 

high school in the State and, at each of 

these levels, by student subgroup 

(consistent with section 

1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA), the 

number and percentage (including 

numerator and denominator) of students 

who graduate from high school using a 

four-year adjusted cohort graduation 

rate as required by 34 CFR 

200.19(b)(1)(i); 

Indicator (c)(12). Provide, for the 

State, for each LEA in the State, for each 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37843 

high school in the State and, at each of 

these levels, by student subgroup 

(consistent with section 

1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA), of the 

students who graduate from high school 

consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(i), 

the number who enroll in an IHE as 

defined in section 101(a) of the HEA; 

and 

Indicator (c)(13). Provide, for the 

State, for each LEA in the State, for each 

high school in the State and, at each of 

these levels, by student subgroup 

(consistent with section 

1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA), of the 

students who graduate from high school 

consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(i) 

who enroll in a public IHE, the number 

who complete at least one year’s worth 

of college credit (applicable to a degree) 

within two years. 

(d) Supporting struggling schools. A 

State must collect and report data and 

other information on the extent to 

which reforms to improve student 

academic achievement are implemented 

in the State’s Title I schools in 

improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring under section 1116(b) of 

the ESEA, and on the extent to which 

charter schools are operating in the 

State. Specifically, a State must— 

Indicator (d)(1). Provide, for the State 

and for each LEA in the State, the 

number and percentage (including 

numerator and denominator) of schools 

in improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring that have made progress 

on State assessments in reading/ 

language arts in the last year; 

Indicator (d)(2). Provide, for the State 

and for each LEA in the State, the 

number and percentage (including 

numerator and denominator) of schools 

in improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring that have made progress 

on State assessments in mathematics in 

the last year; 

Indicator (d)(3). Provide, for the State 

and for each LEA in the State, the 

number and percentage (including 

numerator and denominator) of schools 

in improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring that have been turned 

around, consolidated, or closed in the 

last year; 

Indicator (d)(4). Provide, for the State, 

of the schools in improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring, the 

number and identity of schools in the 

lowest-achieving five percent that have 

been turned around, consolidated, or 

closed in the last year; 

Indicator (d)(5). Provide, for the State, 

of the schools in the lowest-achieving 

five percent of schools in improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring that 

have been turned around, consolidated, 

or closed in the last year, the number 

that are secondary schools; 

Indicator (d)(6). Provide, for the State 

and, if applicable, for each LEA in the 

State, the number of charter schools that 

are currently permitted to operate; 

Indicator (d)(7). Confirm, for the State 

and for each LEA in the State that 

operates charter schools, the number of 

charter schools currently operating; 

Indicator (d)(8). Provide, for the State 

and for each LEA in the State that 

operates charter schools, the number 

and identity of charter schools that have 

closed (including schools that were not 

reauthorized to operate) within the last 

five years; and 

Indicator (d)(9). Indicate, for each 

charter school that has closed within the 

last five years, whether the closure of 

the school was for financial, enrollment, 

academic, or other reasons. 

II. State Plans: A State receiving funds 

under the Stabilization program must 

develop and submit to the Department 

a comprehensive plan that includes the 

following information. 

(a) Indicator and descriptor 

requirements. Except as discussed in 

paragraph (c) of this section, the State 

must be able to collect and report the 

data or other information required by an 

assurance indicator or descriptor. To 

this end, the State must describe, for 

each assurance indicator or descriptor— 

(1) The State’s current ability to fully 

collect the required data or other 

information at least annually; 

(2) The State’s ability to fully report 

the required data or other information, 

at least annually through September 30, 

2011, in a manner easily accessible and 

a format easily understandable by the 

public; 

(3) If the State is not currently able to 

fully collect, at least annually, the data 

or other information required by the 

indicator or descriptor— 

(A) The State’s process and timeline 

for developing and implementing, as 

soon as possible but no later than 

September 30, 2011, the means to fully 

collect the data or information, 

including— 

(i) The milestones that the State 

establishes toward developing and 

implementing those means; 

(ii) The date by which the State 

expects to reach each milestone; and 

(iii) Any obstacles that may prevent 

the State from developing and 

implementing those means by 

September 30, 2011, including but not 

limited to requirements and 

prohibitions of State law and policy; 

(B) The nature and frequency of 

reports that the State will provide to the 

public regarding its progress in 

developing and implementing those 

means; and 

(C) The amount of funds the State is 

using or will use to develop and 

implement those means, and whether 

the funds are or will be Federal, State, 

or local funds; 

(4) If the State is not able to fully 

report, at least annually through 

September 30, 2011, in a manner easily 

accessible and a format easily 

understandable by the public, the data 

or other information required by the 

indicator or descriptor— 

(A) The State’s process and timeline 

for developing and implementing, as 

soon as possible but no later than 

September 30, 2011, the means to fully 

report the data or information, 

including— 

(i) The milestones that the State 

establishes toward developing and 

implementing those means; 

(ii) The date by which the State 

expects to reach each milestone; and 

(iii) Any obstacles that may prevent 

the State from developing and 

implementing those means by 

September 30, 2011, including but not 

limited to requirements and 

prohibitions of State law and policy; 

(B) The nature and frequency of 

reports that the State will provide to the 

public regarding its progress in 

developing and implementing those 

means; and 

(C) The amount of funds the State is 

using or will use to develop and 

implement those means, and whether 

the funds are or will be Federal, State, 

or local funds. 

(b) Data or other information. If the 

State is currently able to fully collect 

and report the data or other information 

required by the indicator or descriptor, 

the State must provide the most recent 

data or information with its plan. 

(c) Requirements for indicators in 

reform area (b) (improving collection 

and use of data). 

(1) With respect to Indicator (b)(1), the 

State must develop and implement a 

statewide longitudinal data system that 

includes each of the 12 elements 

described in section 6401(e)(2)(D) of the 

America COMPETES Act. To this end, 

the State must, in its plan— 

(A) Indicate which of the 12 elements 

are currently included in the State’s 

statewide longitudinal data system; 

(B) If the State’s statewide 

longitudinal data system does not 

currently include all 12 elements, 

describe— 

(i) The State’s process and timeline 

for developing and implementing, as 

soon as possible but no later than 

September 30, 2011, a statewide 

longitudinal data system that fully 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

37844 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 

includes all 12 elements, including the 

milestones that the State establishes 

toward developing and implementing 

such a system, the date by which the 

State expects to reach each milestone, 

and any obstacles that may prevent the 

State from developing and 

implementing such a system by 

September 30, 2011 (including but not 

limited to requirements and 

prohibitions of State law and policy); 

(ii) The nature and frequency of 

reports that the State will provide to the 

public regarding its progress in 

developing and implementing such a 

system; and 

(iii) The amount of funds the State is 

using or will use to develop and 

implement such a system, and whether 

the funds are or will be Federal, State, 

or local funds. 

(2) With respect to Indicator (b)(2), the 

State must provide teachers with data 

on the performance of their students 

that include estimates of individual 

teacher impact on student achievement 

consistent with the indicator. To this 

end, the State must— 

(A) Indicate whether the State 

provides teachers with such data; 

(B) If the State does not provide 

teachers with such data, describe— 

(i) The State’s process and timeline 

for developing and implementing, as 

soon as possible but no later than 

September 30, 2011, the means to 

provide teachers with such data, 

including the milestones that the State 

establishes toward developing and 

implementing those means, the date by 

which the State expects to reach each 

milestone, and any obstacles that may 

prevent the State from developing and 

implementing those means by 

September 30, 2011 (including but not 

limited to requirements and 

prohibitions of State law and policy); 

(ii) The nature and frequency of 

reports that the State will provide to the 

public regarding its progress in 

developing and implementing those 

means; and 

(iii) The amount of funds the State is 

using or will use to develop and 

implement those means, and whether 

the funds are or will be Federal, State, 

or local funds. 

(d) General requirements. The State 

must describe— 

(1) The agency or agencies in the State 

responsible for the development, 

execution, and oversight of the plan, 

including the institutional infrastructure 

and capacity of the agency or agencies 

as they relate to each of those tasks; 

(2) The agency or agencies, 

institutions, or organizations, if any, 

providing technical assistance or other 

support in the development, execution, 

and oversight of the plan, and the nature 

of such technical assistance or other 

support; 

(3) The overall budget for the 

development, execution, and oversight 

of the plan; 

(4) The processes the State employs to 

review and verify the required data and 

other information; and 

(5) The processes the State employs to 

ensure that, consistent with 34 CFR 

99.31(b), the required data and other 

information are not made publicly 

available in a manner that personally 

identifies students, where applicable. 

Proposed Definitions 

Background 

The ARRA contains definitions for 

several key terms applicable to the 

Stabilization program. The ARRA does 

not, however, define all terms relevant 

to the assurances that States must 

provide in order to receive funds under 

the program. In this notice, we propose 

definitions of key terms not defined in 

the ARRA (or, by reference, in the ESEA 

or the HEA) to prevent confusion 

regarding the assurance indicators and 

descriptors and to ensure that grantees 

develop plans that are consistent with 

the purposes of the ARRA and the 

Department’s requirements and 

intentions for the program. 

Proposed Definitions 

The Secretary proposes the following 

definitions for Stabilization program 

terms not defined in the ARRA (or, by 

reference, in the ESEA or the HEA). We 

may apply these definitions in any year 

in which this program is in effect. 

With respect to the requirement that 

a State collect and report on the extent 

to which students in high- and lowpoverty schools in the State have access 

to highly qualified teachers, highestpoverty school means, consistent with 

section 1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) of the ESEA, 

a school in the highest quartile of 

schools (at the State and LEA levels, 

respectively) using a measure of poverty 

determined by the State. Similarly, 

lowest-poverty school means, consistent 

with section 1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) of the 

ESEA, a school in the lowest quartile of 

schools (at the State and LEA levels, 

respectively) using a measure of poverty 

determined by the State. 

With respect to the requirements that 

a State indicate whether the official 

systems used to evaluate the 

performance of teachers and principals 

include student achievement outcomes 

as an evaluation criterion, student 

achievement outcomes means outcomes 

including, at a minimum, one of the 

following: student performance on 

summative assessments, or on 

assessments predictive of student 

performance on summative assessments, 

in terms of absolute performance, gains, 

or growth; student grades; and rates at 

which students are on track to graduate 

from high school. 

With respect to the requirement that 

a State collect and report the number of 

high school graduates who enrolled in 

a public IHE who complete at least one 

year’s worth of college credit (applicable 

to a degree) within two years, college 

credit (applicable to a degree) is used as 

that term is defined by the IHE granting 

such credit. 

With respect to the requirements that 

a State collect and report the numbers 

of Title I schools in improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring that 

have made progress on State 

assessments in reading/language arts 

and in mathematics in the last year, 

school that has made progress means a 

school whose gains on the assessment, 

in the ‘‘all students’’ category (as under 

section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(I) of the ESEA), 

are equal to or greater than the average 

gains of schools in the State on that 

assessment. 

With respect to the requirements that 

a State collect and report the number of 

Title I schools in improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring that 

have been turned around, consolidated, 

or closed in the last year, school that 

has been turned around means a school 

that has had a governance change 

(which must include a change in the 

school’s principal and other school 

leadership changes), implemented a 

new instructional focus, and replaced at 

least 50 percent of its staff as part of a 

planned intervention; school that has 

been consolidated means a school that 

has merged with another school so that 

students from both schools are educated 

together; and school that has been 

closed includes but is not limited to a 

school that has been closed and 

reopened under the management of a 

charter management organization or an 

educational management organization. 

With respect to the requirement that 

a State collect and report, of the Title I 

schools in improvement, corrective 

action, or restructuring, the number and 

identity of schools in the lowestachieving five percent that have been 

turned around, consolidated, or closed 

in the last year, lowest-achieving five 

percent is used as that term is defined 

by the State, except that in defining the 

term the State must consider both the 

absolute performance of schools on 

State assessments in reading/language 

arts and mathematics and whether 

schools have made progress on those 

assessments (see definition of school 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37845 

that has made progress above), and 

except that, if a State has fewer than 100 

schools in improvement, corrective 

action, or restructuring, the State must 

include at least five such schools. 

Proposed Approval Criteria 

Background 

Our experience with administering 

grant competitions and with reviewing 

proposals from States regarding their 

compliance with certain requirements of 

the ESEA (particularly the requirements 

in Title I of the ESEA relating to 

standards, assessments, and 

accountability) recommends the use of 

explicit criteria for approving the plans 

we propose to require of States receiving 

funds under this program. In addition to 

specifying the areas of focus in the 

review of these plans, such criteria also 

usefully indicate to States the qualities 

in a plan that make it approvable. 

In this notice we propose approval 

criteria relating to the quality and 

adequacy of the State plans. We intend 

to make determinations regarding the 

approval of a State’s plan based on the 

recommendations of a peer review using 

these criteria. We will issue guidance to 

peer reviewers providing more specific 

information on the final criteria as they 

relate to the respective final 

requirements. 

As noted above, a State must submit 

its plan as part of its application for the 

second phase of funding under the 

Stabilization program, through which 

the Department will award the 

remaining portion of a State’s total 

Stabilization allocation. A State that 

submits a plan that is determined to be 

sufficiently responsive to each 

requirement will immediately receive 

75 percent of the remainder of its total 

allocation of funds under the program. 

A State will receive the remaining 25 

percent of its remainder of funds only 

after its plan is approved in its entirety. 

Proposed Approval Criteria 

The Secretary proposes the following 

criteria for approving the plan of a State 

receiving funds under the Stabilization 

program. We may apply one or more of 

these criteria in any year in which this 

program is in effect. 

(a) Quality of the State plan. Except 

as described in paragraph (b), in 

determining the quality of the plan 

submitted by a State, we consider the 

following: 

(1) Whether the plan clearly and 

accurately describes the State’s abilities 

to collect and to report the data or other 

information required by an assurance 

indicator and descriptor; and 

(2) If the State is not currently able to 

fully collect and report the data or 

information required by an indicator or 

descriptor— 

(i) Whether the timeline and process 

for developing and implementing the 

means to fully collect and report the 

data or information are reasonable and 

sufficient to comply with the 

requirement; 

(ii) Whether any obstacles identified 

by the State as preventing it from 

developing and implementing the 

means to fully collect and report the 

data or information by September 30, 

2011 are sufficient to justify a delay in 

complying with the requirement; and 

(iii) Whether the reports that the State 

will provide to the public will be 

appropriately accessible and will 

sufficiently indicate the State’s progress 

in developing and implementing the 

means to comply with the requirement. 

(b) Quality of the State plan with 

respect to indicators in reform area (b) 

(improving collection and use of data). 

In determining the quality of the plan 

submitted by a State as it relates to the 

indicators in reform area (b), we 

consider the following: 

(1) Whether the plan clearly and 

accurately describes the State’s ability to 

meet the plan requirement for the 

indicator (i.e., in the case of Indicator 

(b)(1), the requirement to develop and 

implement a statewide longitudinal data 

system that includes each of the 12 

elements described in section 

6401(e)(2)(D) of the America 

COMPETES Act; and in the case of 

Indicator (b)(2), the requirement to 

provide teachers with data on the 

performance of their students that 

include estimates of individual teacher 

impact on student achievement); and 

(2) If the State does not currently meet 

the plan requirement for the indicator— 

(i) Whether the timeline and process 

for developing and implementing the 

means to meet the requirement are 

reasonable and sufficient to comply 

with the requirement; 

(ii) Whether any obstacles identified 

by the State as preventing it from 

developing and implementing the 

means to meet the requirement by 

September 30, 2011 are sufficient to 

justify a delay in complying with the 

requirement; and 

(iii) Whether the reports that the State 

will provide to the public will be 

appropriately accessible and will 

sufficiently indicate the State’s progress 

in developing and implementing the 

means to comply with the requirement. 

(c) Adequacy of the State plan. In 

determining the adequacy of the plan 

submitted by a State, we consider the 

following: 

(1) Whether the institutional 

infrastructure and capacity of the 

agency or agencies responsible for the 

development, implementation, and 

oversight of the plan, together with any 

technical assistance or other support 

provided by other agencies, institutions, 

or organizations, are adequate to comply 

with the indicator and descriptor 

requirements individually and as a 

whole; 

(2) Whether the funds the State is 

using or will use are adequate to comply 

with the indicator and descriptor 

requirements both individually and as a 

whole; 

(3) Whether the processes the State 

employs to review and verify the 

required data and information are 

adequate to ensure that the data and 

information are accurate and of high 

quality; and 

(4) Whether the processes the State 

employs are adequate to ensure that, 

where applicable, the required data and 

other information are not made publicly 

available in a manner that personally 

identifies students. 

Final Requirements, Definitions, and 

Approval Criteria 

We will announce the final 

requirements, definitions, and approval 

criteria for the Stabilization program in 

a notice in the Federal Register. We will 

determine the final requirements, 

definitions, and approval criteria after 

considering any comments submitted in 

response to this notice and other 

information available to the Department. 

This notice does not preclude us from 

proposing additional requirements, 

definitions, and approval criteria, 

subject to meeting applicable 

rulemaking requirements. 

Note: This notice does not solicit 

applications. In any year in which we choose 

to use one or more of these requirements, 

definitions, and approval criteria, we invite 

applications through a notice in the Federal 

Register. 

Executive Order 12866 

The proposed costs have been 

reviewed in accordance with Executive 

Order 12866. Under the terms of the 

order, the Department has assessed the 

costs and benefits of this regulatory 

action. 

In assessing the potential costs and 

benefits—both quantitative and 

qualitative—of these proposed 

requirements, the Department has 

determined that the benefits of the 

proposed requirements exceed the costs. 

The Department also has determined 

that this regulatory action does not 

unduly interfere with State, local, and 

tribal governments in the exercise of 

their governmental functions. 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

37846 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 

To assist the Department in 

complying with the requirements of 

Executive Order 12866, the Secretary 

invites comments on whether there may 

be further opportunities to reduce any 

potential costs or increase potential 

benefits resulting from these proposed 

requirements without impeding the 

effective and efficient administration of 

the Stabilization program. 

Need for Federal Regulatory Action 

These proposed requirements, 

definitions, and approval criteria are 

needed to implement the State Fiscal 

Stabilization Fund program in a manner 

that the Secretary believes will best 

enable the program to achieve its 

objectives of supporting meaningful 

education reforms in the States while 

helping to stabilize State and local 

budgets and minimize reductions in 

education and other essential services. 

In particular, the proposals included in 

this notice are necessary to advance the 

four key educational reforms listed in 

the ARRA, particularly by ensuring 

better reporting and more public 

availability of information on the 

progress of implementation in each of 

the four reform areas. The proposed 

requirement for each State to establish 

a longitudinal data system that includes 

the elements specified in the America 

COMPETES Act will have an especially 

significant impact on the availability of 

data that can be used in developing and 

improving programs; targeting services; 

developing better linkages between 

preschool, elementary and secondary 

schools, and postsecondary systems, 

agencies, and institutions; and holding 

schools, LEAs, and institutions 

accountable for their performance. 

Establishment of such a system by each 

participating State is also required 

under the ARRA. 

Further, the proposed requirement for 

each State to commit to developing 

procedures for providing teachers of 

reading/language arts and mathematics 

with data on the performance of their 

students that includes estimates of 

individual teacher impact reflects a 

need to ensure that teachers have better 

data on how well they are educating 

their students and that school and LEA 

leaders have valuable information that 

they can use in developing and 

providing professional development 

opportunities, assigning teachers, and 

implementing compensation and other 

human capital policies. 

The proposed definitions included in 

this notice are necessary to give clearer 

meaning to some of the terms used in 

the descriptions of the requirements and 

approval criteria. The proposed 

approval criteria themselves are needed 

in order to provide for a clear and 

objective set of standards that the 

Secretary would use in ensuring that 

each State, before receiving the 

remainder of its Stabilization program 

allocation, has in place a plan for 

collecting and reporting the required 

data and meeting the other requirements 

proposed in this notice. 

Regulatory Alternatives Considered 

A likely alternative to promulgation of 

the types of requirements, definitions, 

and approval criteria proposed in this 

notice would be for the Secretary to 

release the remaining Stabilization 

program funds without establishing 

specific reporting or other requirements. 

Under such a scenario, participating 

States would still be required to meet 

the statutory requirements (that is, to 

take actions to improve teacher 

effectiveness and the equitable 

distribution of highly qualified teachers, 

to establish longitudinal data systems 

that include the elements specified in 

the America COMPETES Act, to 

enhance the quality of their standards 

and assessments, to ensure the inclusion 

of students with disabilities and limited 

English proficient students in their 

assessments, and to take steps to 

improve consistently low-performing 

schools), but there would be no 

assurance of consistent and complete 

reporting of States’ progress and no 

uniform mechanism for measuring and 

comparing States’ performance. 

Additionally, the need for teachers to 

obtain better information on their 

students’ educational progress would 

likely be unfulfilled. While the 

Department is interested in public 

comment on the feasibility and 

advisability of the various requirements 

proposed herein, the Secretary regards 

disbursement of the remaining 

Stabilization program funds without 

implementation of the reporting and 

other proposed requirements as a 

missed opportunity for bringing about 

needed educational reforms at a critical 

time. 

Summary of Costs and Benefits 

The Department has analyzed the 

costs of complying with the proposed 

requirements. Some of the costs will be 

very minimal and others more 

significant. As an example of a 

requirement that will result in minimal 

burden and cost, States are currently 

required to report annually, through 

EDFacts (the Department’s centralized 

data collection and warehousing 

system), for the State as a whole and for 

each LEA, the number and percentage of 

core academic courses taught, in the 

highest-poverty and lowest-poverty 

schools, by teachers who are highly 

qualified. Proposed indicator (a)(1) 

would require that they confirm the data 

they have reported, which should not be 

a time-consuming responsibility. As a 

second example, the proposed 

requirement to confirm the approval 

status of the State’s assessment system 

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

determined by the Department, should 

also require minimal effort. 

Other proposed requirements will 

impose significant new costs, but the 

Department believes that the benefits 

resulting from the requirements will 

exceed those costs. The major benefit of 

these requirements, taken in their 

totality, is better and more publicly 

available information on the status of 

activities related to the reform areas 

identified in the authorizing statute for 

the Stabilization program. As described 

in detail below, research indicates or 

suggests that progress on each of the 

reforms will contribute to improved 

student outcomes. The provision of 

better information (on teacher 

qualifications, teacher and principal 

evaluation systems, State student 

longitudinal data systems, State 

standards and assessment systems, 

student success in high school and 

postsecondary education, efforts to turn 

around low-performing schools, and 

charter school reforms) to policymakers, 

educators, parents, and other 

stakeholders will assist in their efforts to 

further the reforms. In addition, State 

reporting of these data will help the 

Department determine the impact of the 

unprecedented level of funding made 

available by the ARRA. Further, the data 

and plans that States submit will inform 

Federal education policy, including the 

upcoming reauthorization of the ESEA. 

States will be able to draw on Federal 

resources in meeting some of the 

requirements. The proposed 

requirements that would result in the 

most significant costs are related to the 

implementation of a State data system 

that can track individual student 

transitions from high school to college. 

To support these efforts, States may 

receive Federal funds from the 

Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems 

program, through which the Department 

has made over $187 million available 

since fiscal year 2005. The ARRA 

provided an additional $250 million for 

that program, and the Administration’s 

budget request for fiscal year 2010 

includes an additional $65 million. In 

addition, it is important to note that 

States may use funds available through 

the Stabilization program’s Government 

Services Fund (over $8.8 billion) to 

develop and implement the systems 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37847 

10State Teacher Policy Yearbook: 2008, page 68. 

http://www.nctq.org/stpy08/reports/ 

stpy_national.pdf. 

necessary to report on these 

performance indicators. 

The following is a detailed analysis of 

the estimated costs of implementing the 

specific proposed requirements, 

followed by a discussion of the 

anticipated benefits. The costs of 

implementing specific paperworkrelated requirements are also shown in 

the tables in the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 section of this notice. 

Distribution of Highly Qualified 

Teachers 

Section 14005(d)(2) of the ARRA 

requires a State receiving funds under 

the Stabilization program to assure, in 

the Stabilization program application, 

that it will address inequities in the 

distribution of highly qualified teachers. 

In response to this requirement, the 

Department is proposing to require 

States to confirm, for the State and for 

each LEA in the State, the number and 

percentage of core academic courses 

taught, in the highest-poverty and 

lowest-poverty schools, by teachers who 

are highly qualified. Because States will 

have previously submitted this 

information to the Department through 

the EDFacts system, we anticipate that 

the costs of complying with this 

requirement would be minimal. A State 

likely would need only to ensure that it 

had correctly aggregated and reported 

data received from its LEAs. The 

Department expects that each State 

would require one hour of staff time to 

complete this effort, at a cost of $30 per 

hour. For the 50 States, the District of 

Columbia, and Puerto Rico, the total 

estimated level of effort would be 52 

hours at a cost of $1,560. 

Teacher and Principal Evaluation 

Systems 

Section 14005(d)(2) also requires 

States to take actions to improve teacher 

effectiveness. To accomplish that goal, 

States must first have a means of 

assessing teacher success. A limited 

number of States have implemented 

statewide teacher and principal 

evaluation systems, while in the other 

States the responsibility for evaluating 

teachers and principals rests with the 

LEAs or schools. Little is known about 

the design of these systems across the 

Nation, but the collection and reporting 

of additional information would create 

a resource that additional States and 

LEAs can draw on in building their own 

systems. The Department, therefore, 

proposes to require States to collect and 

publicly report information about these 

evaluation systems. 

Specifically, the Department is 

proposing to require that States 

describe, for each LEA in the State, the 

systems used to evaluate the 

performance of teachers and principals. 

Further, the Department proposes to 

require States to indicate, for each LEA 

in the State, whether the systems used 

to evaluate the performance of teachers 

and principals include student 

achievement outcomes as an evaluation 

criterion. 

The level of effort required to respond 

to these proposed requirements would 

likely vary depending on the types of 

teacher and principal evaluation 

systems in place in a given State or LEA. 

The Department believes that, if a 

system is in place at the State level, the 

response burden would be low, because 

the State will have the required 

information readily available. According 

to the National Council on Teacher 

Quality, 12 States require LEAs to use 

a State-developed instrument to 

evaluate teachers or to develop an 

equivalent instrument that must be 

approved by the State.10 For these 12 

States, the Department estimates that a 

total of 72 hours (6 hours per State) 

would be required to respond to these 

proposed requirements, for a total cost, 

at $30 per hour, of $2,160. The 2,632 

LEAs located in these States would not 

be involved in the response to these 

proposed requirements. 

In the 40 States that do not have 

statewide teacher and principal 

evaluation systems in place, the level of 

effort required would likely be 

significantly higher. For each of these 

States, the Department estimates that 

360 hours would be required at the State 

level to develop and administer a survey 

of LEAs (including designing the survey 

instrument, disseminating it, providing 

training or other technical assistance to 

LEAs on completing the survey, 

collecting the data and other 

information, checking accuracy, and 

public reporting), which would amount 

to a total of 14,400 hours and a total 

estimated State cost of $432,000 

(assuming, again, a cost per hour of 

$30). The 12,368 LEAs located in these 

States would bear the cost of collecting 

and reporting the data to their States. 

For the purpose of the burden estimates 

in this section, the Department 

estimates that 75 percent of these LEAs 

(9,276) have official teacher and 

principal evaluation systems in place. 

For those LEAs, we estimate that 3 

hours would be required to respond to 

these proposed requirements. For the 

estimated 3,092 LEAs that do not have 

an official evaluation system in place, 

we estimate that 2 hours would be 

required. The Department, thus, 

estimates that LEAs would need to 

spend a total of 34,012 hours to respond 

to these proposed requirements at a total 

cost of $850,300. This estimate is 

speculative because the Department was 

unable to find information about the 

prevalence of teacher and principal 

evaluation systems in LEAs. We invite 

comments that provide information on 

the prevalence of these systems in LEAs 

(so that we may further refine our 

estimates) and on the potential costs of 

meeting the requirements for LEAs that 

have or do not have such a system. 

The Department is also proposing to 

require States to provide, for each LEA 

in the State whose teachers and 

principals receive performance ratings 

or levels through an evaluation system, 

the number and percentage of teachers 

and principals rated at each 

performance rating or level. Finally, the 

Department proposes to require States to 

indicate, for each LEA in the State 

whose teachers receive performance 

ratings or levels through an official 

evaluation system, whether the number 

and percentage of teachers rated at each 

performance rating or level is publicly 

available for each school in the LEA in 

a manner that is easily accessible and in 

a format easily understandable by the 

public. We were unable to find 

information on whether LEAs will have 

this information readily available in a 

centralized data system and, therefore, 

invite comment on this issue. For the 

purpose of this estimate, we assume that 

60 percent of LEAs will have the 

necessary information in their central 

office or will be so small that collecting 

this information will be a simple 

process. Applying this percentage to the 

estimated 11,908 LEAs that have in 

place an official system to evaluate 

teacher and principal performance 

(which includes the 2,632 LEAs in 

States with statewide systems, as well as 

the estimated 9,276 LEAs in other States 

that have their own local systems), the 

Department estimates that the total 

burden of responding to these proposed 

requirements would be 59,540 hours (5 

hours per affected LEA) and $1,488,500. 

We estimate that each of the other 4,763 

LEAs will need to spend 40 hours to 

respond. The Department, therefore, 

estimates the total LEA burden for these 

requirements to be 260,264 hours across 

the Nation at an estimated total cost of 

$6,506,600 (assuming a cost per hour of 

$25). 

States would then need to collect 

these data, most likely by including 

these items in the survey instrument 

that they will develop to respond to the 

other proposed requirements in this 

section, and will then need to aggregate 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

37848 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 

11As noted earlier in this notice, the student 

subgroups include: economically disadvantaged 

students, students from major racial and ethnic 

groups, students with limited English proficiency, 

and students with disabilities. 

and publicly report the data. We 

estimate that this will require 8 hours of 

effort per State, for a total burden of 416 

hours at a cost of $12,480. For more 

detailed estimates of costs for these 

proposed requirements, please see the 

tables in the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 section of this notice. 

State Data Systems 

Section 14005(d)(3) requires States to 

assure that they will establish a 

longitudinal data system that includes 

the elements described in section 

6401(e)(2)(D) of the America 

COMPETES Act. To track State progress 

in this reform area, the Department 

proposes to require each State to 

indicate which of the 12 elements are 

included in the State’s statewide 

longitudinal data system. The costs of 

reporting this information should be 

minimal. Moreover, most States are 

already reporting information on ten of 

the 12 elements to the Data Quality 

Campaign, a national effort to encourage 

State policymakers to use high-quality 

education data to improve student 

achievement. The Department expects 

that States will be able to readily 

provide information on whether the two 

remaining elements are included in 

their data systems and that it should 

take little time for the States that have 

not been reporting to the Data Quality 

Campaign to provide information on 

their data systems. We, therefore, 

estimate that States would need only 2 

hours to respond to this requirement, for 

a total level of effort of 104 hours at an 

estimated cost of $3,120. 

The Department also proposes to 

require that States report, for each LEA 

in the State, whether the State provides 

teachers of reading/language arts and 

mathematics in the grades in which the 

State administers assessments in those 

subjects with data on the performance of 

their students on those assessments that 

include estimates of individual teacher 

impact on student achievement, in a 

manner that is timely and informs 

instruction. The Department believes 

that making such information available 

would help improve the quality of 

instruction and the quality of teacher 

evaluation and compensation systems. 

Under the State Plan section, we discuss 

the costs of developing systems for the 

provision of such information in all 

States. The costs of merely reporting on 

whether a State currently provides this 

information to teachers should be 

minimal. We estimate that each State 

would spend one hour to report this 

information, for a total level of effort of 

52 hours at a cost of $1,560. 

State Assessments 

In response to the section 

14005(d)(4)(A) requirement that States 

enhance the quality of their student 

assessments, the Department proposes 

to require that the States confirm certain 

existing data and other information and 

submit some new information about 

their assessment systems. Specifically, 

the Department proposes to require each 

State to confirm the approval status, as 

determined by the Department, of the 

State’s assessment system (with respect 

to reading/language arts, mathematics, 

and science assessments) and indicate 

whether and how the State is engaged 

in activities authorized under the Grants 

for Enhanced Assessment Instruments 

program that would enhance the quality 

of the State’s academic assessments. In 

addition, States would be required to 

confirm that their annual State Report 

Card (issued pursuant to the 

requirements of ESEA section 1111(h)) 

contains the most recent available State 

reading and mathematics NAEP results. 

The Department estimates that each 

State would require six hours to 

respond to these proposed 

requirements, for a total cost of $9,360. 

Section 14005(d)(4)(B) requires States 

to assure that they will administer valid 

and reliable assessments for children 

with disabilities and limited English 

proficient students. To measure State 

progress on this assurance, the 

Department proposes to require States 

to: Confirm whether the State has 

developed and implemented valid and 

reliable alternate assessments for 

students with disabilities that have been 

approved by the Department; confirm 

whether the State’s alternative 

assessments for students with 

disabilities, if approved by the 

Department, are based on grade-level, 

modified, or alternate academic 

achievement standards; indicate 

whether the State has completed, within 

the last two years, an analysis of the 

appropriateness and effectiveness of the 

accommodations it provides students 

with disabilities to ensure their 

meaningful participation in State 

assessments; indicate whether the State 

has completed, within the last two 

years, an analysis of the appropriateness 

and effectiveness of the 

accommodations it provides limited 

English proficient students to ensure 

their meaningful participation in State 

assessments; and confirm whether the 

State provides native language versions 

of State assessments for limited English 

proficient students. To respond to these 

five proposed indicators, the 

Department estimates that the 50 States, 

the District of Columbia, and Puerto 

Rico would each require five hours, for 

a total cost of $7,800. 

In addition, the Department proposes 

to require that States confirm the 

number and percentage of students with 

disabilities and limited English 

proficient students who are included in 

State reading/language arts and 

mathematics assessments. The 

Department expects that each State 

would, on average, require one hour of 

staff time to complete this effort, at a 

cost of $30 per hour. The burden 

estimated for this requirement is 

minimal because the States will have 

already submitted this information to 

the Department through the EDFacts 

system. For the 50 States, the District of 

Columbia, and Puerto Rico, the total 

estimated level of effort would be 52 

hours at cost of $1,560. 

High School and Postsecondary Success 

Section 14005 (d)(4)(C) requires States 

to assure, in their Stabilization Fund 

applications, that they take steps to 

improve their State academic content 

standards and student academic 

achievement standards consistent with 

section 6401(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the American 

COMPETES Act, which calls for States 

to identify and make any necessary 

changes to their secondary school 

graduation requirements, academic 

content standards, academic 

achievement standards, and the 

assessments students take preceding 

graduation from secondary school in 

order to align those requirements, 

standards, and assessments with the 

knowledge and skills necessary for 

success in academic credit-bearing 

coursework in postsecondary education, 

in the 21st century workforce, and in 

the Armed Forces without the need for 

remediation. Several of the indicators 

and descriptors proposed in this notice 

are aligned with this provision of the 

America COMPETES Act. 

First, the Department proposes to 

require each State to report, for the State 

and each LEA and high school in the 

State and, at each of these levels, by 

student subgroup,11 the number and 

percentage of students who graduate 

from high school as determined using 

the four-year adjusted cohort graduation 

rate. The Department believes that State 

efforts to comply with the Department’s 

October 29, 2008 regulation requiring 

the use of a four-year adjusted cohort 

graduation rate in the determination of 

adequate yearly progress under Title I of 

the ESEA are now underway (see 34 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37849 

12http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/survey. 13According to data States submitted to the 

Department through the Consolidated State 

Performance Report 2007–08, there are a total of 

15,016 LEAs across the Nation, 14,040 of which 

receive Title I, Part A funds. 

14We do acknowledge, however, that although 

the statute does not set a deadline for State 

establishment of the required data systems, item 

(c)(ii)(A) under State Plans in this notice would 

require States to have in place State longitudinal 

data systems that fully include all 12 elements 

described in the America COMPETES Act by 

September 30, 2011. Putting a full system in place 

by that date might increase costs to States or, 

alternatively, might reduce costs (if the more rapid 

establishment of a system results in efficiencies). 

The Department invites comments on the cost 

implications of the proposed deadline. 

15According to the Digest of Education Statistics, 

2008, almost 2.8 million first-time freshmen 

enrolled in IHEs in fall 2007. See http:// 

nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/ 

dt08_198.asp. Also according to the Digest, in fall 

2005, 6,073,240 students were enrolled in private 

elementary and secondary schools. At that time, 

enrollment in public elementary and secondary 

schools was 49,113,298. Extrapolating from those 

data, the Department estimates that 11 percent of 

all first-time postsecondary students graduated from 

private schools. See http://nces.ed.gov/programs/ 

digest/d08/tables/dt08_058.asp. 

16http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/ 

dt08_223.asp. 

17Note that a table in the Paperwork Reduction 

Act of 1995 section of this notice provides the 

burden estimates by IHE, but that this narrative 

provides national estimates using the total number 

of students included in the data requirement. 

CFR 200.19(b)(1)(i)). Some additional 

effort would be required to collect and 

report these data for all schools as the 

current regulations apply only to Title I 

schools. 

Based on the Data Quality Campaign’s 

2008 survey of the 50 States and the 

District of Columbia, which found that 

42 States have the capacity to calculate 

the National Governors Association 

longitudinal graduation rate,12 the 

Department believes that most States are 

well-situated to collect and report these 

data, or have the processes underway to 

make such reporting possible by 

September 30, 2011. In fulfillment of the 

proposed requirement, the Department 

estimates that States would need to 

distribute to non-Title I LEAs the survey 

instrument they are using to collect this 

information from Title I LEAs and to 

input the data from these surveys, 

which would require an estimated 8 

hours per State. The new LEA burden to 

respond to this indicator would be 

limited to the approximately 976 LEAs 

that do not receive Title I funds.13 The 

Department estimates that these LEAs 

would spend an average of 40 hours to 

respond to this indicator for a total LEA 

effort of 39,040 hours. The total 

estimated cost is, therefore, $976,000. 

In addition, the Department is 

proposing that States report, for the 

State, for each LEA in the State, for each 

high school in the State and, at each of 

these levels, by student subgroup, the 

number of students who graduate from 

high school consistent with 34 CFR 

200.19(b)(1)(i) who enroll in an IHE and, 

of those students who enroll in a public 

IHE, the number who complete at least 

one year’s worth of college credit 

(applicable to a degree) within two 

years. The proposed requirements 

would entail considerable coordination 

among high schools, LEAs, SEAs, and 

IHEs. The Department expects that SEAs 

would have to develop a system to make 

this data collection and sharing 

possible, which they could at least 

partially achieve by establishing a 

longitudinal data system that includes 

the elements described in section 

6401(e)(2)(D) of the America 

COMPETES Act. As discussed above, 

section 14005(d)(3) of the ARRA 

requires States to assure, in their 

Stabilization Fund application, that they 

will establish such a data system. 

Because the requirement to establish 

such a system flows from the statute, 

not from these proposed requirements, 

the Department does not include the 

costs of establishing such a system in 

the costs of these proposed 

requirements.14 In addition, States will 

be able to use Government Services 

funds that they receive as part of their 

Stabilization allocation to support these 

efforts, and may compete for funds from 

the Statewide Longitudinal Data 

Systems program. Further, the efforts of 

the National Student Clearinghouse, a 

non-profit organization that provides 

student enrollment and degree 

verification services, demonstrate that 

there is significant interest in 

information sharing between IHEs and 

LEAs; more than 3,300 colleges that 

enroll over 92 percent of US college 

students and hundreds of LEAs 

participate in the Clearinghouse’s 

efforts. The Department expects that 

LEAs and IHEs that currently provide 

data to this system may require less 

effort to respond to this proposed 

requirement. 

With respect to the proposed 

requirement on reporting postsecondary 

enrollments, the Department expects 

that LEAs would need to enter, into 

their State’s statewide longitudinal data 

system, data on each high school 

graduate’s plans after high school, 

including the IHE where the student 

intends to enroll, if applicable. 

According to the Digest of Education 

Statistics, approximately 2,492,000 

students who graduated from public 

high schools enrolled in IHEs as firsttime freshmen in fall 2007.15 Holding 

that number constant, the Department 

estimates that LEAs would be able to 

enter data for these students at a pace 

of 20 students per hour, which would 

result in a total level of LEA effort of 

124,600 hours at a cost of $3,115,000. 

The State would then likely need to 

request that each IHE in the State 

confirm a student’s enrollment, using 

the statewide longitudinal data system 

to obtain data on students who intended 

to enroll within the State. Based on data 

from the 2006 Integrated Postsecondary 

Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 

2007,16 the Department estimates that 

2,043,440 first-time freshmen (82 

percent of all first-time freshmen who 

graduated from public high schools) 

enroll in IHEs in their home State. The 

Department estimates that IHEs will be 

able to confirm enrollment for 20 

students per hour, for a total of 102,172 

hours of IHE effort at a total cost of 

$2,554,300 (assuming a cost of $25 per 

hour).17

States would also likely need to 

request that IHEs outside the State 

confirm the enrollment of students who 

indicated that they would enroll in 

those institutions. Again, based on data 

from the 2006 IPEDS, Spring 2007, the 

Department estimates that 448,560 

students who graduate from public high 

schools each year enroll in IHEs in 

States outside their home State. The 

Department estimates that it will take 

States 30 minutes per student to 

complete this process, including 

contacting out-of-State IHEs, obtaining 

the necessary information from them, 

and including data on those students in 

their public reports. This element of the 

proposed requirement, therefore, would 

result in a national total of 224,280 

hours of State effort at a total cost of 

$6,726,840. As with students who enroll 

in IHEs in their home State, the 

Department estimates that IHEs will be 

able to confirm enrollment for 20 

students per hour, for a total of 22,428 

hours of IHE effort at a total cost of 

$560,700. 

Finally, to meet the proposed 

requirement that they publicly report 

the number of students who enroll in 

IHEs, States would need to aggregate the 

data received from all IHEs and would 

then need to run analyses and publicly 

post the data for the State, for each LEA, 

for each high school and, at each of 

these levels, by student subgroup. The 

Department estimates that each State 

would need 40 hours to conduct these 

analyses and post these data, for a total 

State burden of 2,080 hours at a cost of 

$62,400. 

The proposed requirement that States 

report the number of students enrolling 

in a public IHE who complete at least 

one year’s worth of college credit 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

37850 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 

applicable toward a degree within two 

years would also entail a collaborative 

process between SEAs and IHEs. Again, 

based on data from the Digest of 

Education Statistics, the Department 

estimates that 2,492,000 first-time 

freshmen enroll in public IHEs. Further, 

the Department estimates that, once a 

State has established a system for the 

collection and reporting of these data, 

IHEs will be able to enter data for 20 

students an hour; thus, the total 

estimated level of effort to respond to 

this proposed requirement would be 

approximately 124,600 hours of IHE 

effort at an estimated cost of $3,115,000, 

assuming a cost of $25 per hour. 

As with the previous indicator, States 

would likely need to request that IHEs 

outside the State report whether the 

students enrolled in those institutions 

have completed at least one year’s worth 

of college credit. Again, the Department 

estimates that 448,560 students who 

graduate from public high schools each 

year enroll in IHEs in States outside 

their home State. The Department 

estimates that it will take States 30 

minutes per student to complete this 

process, including contacting out-ofState IHEs, obtaining the necessary 

information from them, and including 

data on those students in their public 

reports. This element of the proposed 

requirement, therefore, would result in 

a national total of 224,280 hours of State 

effort at a total cost of $6,726,840. As 

with students who enroll in IHEs in 

their home State, the Department 

estimates that IHEs will be able to report 

whether students obtained a year or 

more of college credit for 20 students 

per hour, for a total of 22,428 hours of 

IHE effort at a total cost of $560,700. 

Finally, as with the previous 

indicator, States would need to 

aggregate the data received from all IHEs 

and would then need to run analyses 

and publicly post the data for at the 

State, LEA, and school levels and at 

each of these levels, by student 

subgroup. The Department estimates 

that each State would need 40 hours to 

conduct these analyses and post these 

data, for a total State burden of 2,080 

hours at a cost of $62,400. 

Supporting Struggling Schools 

A key goal of the ARRA is to ensure 

that States and LEAs provide targeted, 

intensive support and effective 

interventions to turn around schools 

identified for corrective action and 

restructuring under Title I of the ESEA. 

Section 14005(d)(5) requires States to 

ensure compliance with the Title I 

requirements in this area. To track State 

progress, the Department proposes to 

require States to provide, for each LEA 

in the State and aggregated at the State 

level, the number and percentage of 

schools in improvement, corrective 

action, or restructuring that have made 

progress on State assessments in 

reading/language arts and mathematics 

in the last year, and the number and 

percentage of schools in improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring that 

have been turned around, consolidated, 

or closed in the last year. States would 

also be required to report the number 

and identity of schools in the lowestachieving five percent of the schools in 

improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring that have been turned 

around, consolidated, or closed in the 

last year, as well as the number of those 

schools (i.e., the schools in the lowestachieving five percent of the schools in 

improvement, corrective action, or 

restructuring that have been turned 

around, consolidated, or closed in the 

last year) that are secondary schools. 

The Department believes that States 

will already have available the data 

needed to report on the indicators 

related to the total number and 

percentage of schools in improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring that 

have made progress on State 

assessments, although they might need 

to run new analyses of the data. 

However, the Department expects that 

States would have to collect new data 

on the schools in improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring (in 

general and in the lowest-achieving five 

percent) that have been turned around, 

consolidated, or closed. In addition, the 

State will need to define the schools in 

the lowest-achieving five percent. We 

estimate that this data collection will 

entail two hours of effort in each of the 

1,173 LEAs (the number of LEAs that, 

according to data reported to EDFacts, 

had at least one school in improvement, 

corrective action, or restructuring in the 

2007–08 school year). As a result, the 

Department estimates that the total LEA 

burden for this proposed requirement 

would be 2,346 hours at a cost of 

$58,650. States would then need to 

aggregate these data, in addition to the 

effort they will spend responding to the 

other indicators that relate to struggling 

schools. The Department estimates that 

each State would require 16 hours of 

effort to respond, for a total cost of 

$83,610. 

Charter Schools 

The Department believes that the 

creation and maintenance of highquality charter schools is a key strategy 

for promoting successful models of 

school reform. To determine the level of 

State effort in this area, the Department 

proposes to require States to provide, at 

the State level and, if applicable, for 

each LEA in the State, the number of 

charter schools that are currently 

permitted to operate and the number 

that are currently operating. We expect 

that this information will be readily 

available, and that States will need only 

one hour to respond to this proposed 

requirement. 

In addition, the Department proposes 

to require States to report, at the State 

and, if applicable, LEA levels, the 

number and identity of charter schools 

that have closed within the last five 

years and to indicate, for each such 

school, whether the closure was for 

financial, enrollment, academic, or 

other reasons. The Department estimates 

that SEAs would likely also have this 

information readily available (although 

some may need to obtain additional 

information from their LEAs) and would 

need five hours to report it. The 

Department assumes that the effort to 

respond to these proposed requirements 

would be limited to the 42 States 

(including the District of Columbia and 

Puerto Rico) that allow charter schools. 

The Department thus estimates that the 

State effort required to respond to these 

indicators would total 210 hours at a 

cost of $6,300. 

State Plans 

This notice proposes to require States, 

as a condition of receiving their 

remaining funding for the Stabilization 

program, to submit a plan to the 

Department that describes the State’s 

current ability to fully collect and report 

data for the proposed indicators and 

descriptors at least annually and in a 

manner easily accessible and a format 

easily understandable by the public. If 

the State is currently able to fully collect 

and report the data or other information 

required by the indicator or descriptor, 

the State must provide the most recent 

data or information with its plan. If a 

State is not currently able to fully 

collect and report the required data or 

other information, the plan must 

describe the process that the State will 

undertake in order to have the means to 

fully collect and report such data or 

information as soon as possible but no 

later than September 30, 2011. 

As a part of this plan, the State would 

be required to establish milestones and 

a date by which the State expects to 

reach each milestone, describe the 

nature and frequency of publicly 

available reports that the State will 

publish on its progress, and identify the 

amount and source (i.e., whether 

Federal, State or local) of funds that will 

support the efforts necessary to collect 

and report the data or information. The 

level of effort involved in preparing 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37851 

18According to the Digest of Education Statistics, 

49,298,945 students were enrolled in public 

elementary and secondary schools in fall 2006. See 

http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/ 

dt08_033.asp. 

19For example, see http:// 

dataqualitycampaign.org/files/publicationsdqc_academic_growth-100908.pdf and http:// 

www.dataqualitycampaign.org/files/MeetingsDQC_Quarterly_Issue_Brief_092506.pdf. 

these elements of the plan will vary 

from State to State based on individual 

State progress in each reform area. For 

example, according to the Data Quality 

Campaign’s 2008 survey of the 50 States 

and the District of Columbia, 48 States 

have ‘‘a unique statewide student 

identifier that connects student data 

across key databases across years,’’ 28 

States have the ‘‘[a]bility to match 

student-level p-12 and higher education 

data,’’ and 21 States have a ‘‘statewide 

teacher identifier with a teacher-student 

match.’’ States that have taken these 

steps have built a foundation for the 

efforts that would be necessary to meet 

some of the proposed requirements, and 

will likely need to spend less time 

completing these elements of their 

plans. The Department estimates that, in 

total, each State will need an average of 

396 hours to prepare these sections of 

the plan; thus, the total hours that 

would be necessary to meet this 

proposed requirement for the 50 States, 

the District of Columbia, and Puerto 

Rico would be 20,592 hours, for a total 

cost of $617,760. For more detailed 

estimates of costs for each specific 

proposed requirement, please see the 

tables in the Paperwork Reduction Act 

of 1995 section of this notice. 

As part of the planning requirements, 

the Department proposes to require each 

State to indicate whether it provides 

teachers of reading/language arts and 

mathematics with data on the 

performance of their students that 

includes estimates of individual teacher 

impact on student achievement and, if 

the State does not do so, to describe a 

process and timeline for doing so by 

September 30, 2011. The Department 

understands that only a small number of 

States (approximately three) currently 

provide this type of information to their 

teachers. However, most other States 

that are developing State longitudinal 

data systems have included teacher 

identifiers in those systems and, thus, 

have part of the infrastructure to 

produce and report these data. The 

Department also understands that there 

are currently only a limited number of 

providers with which States can 

contract for the development of ‘‘valueadded’’ or other mechanisms for using 

information from the State data systems 

to produce estimates of individual 

teacher impact. This limited capacity 

may make the costs of acquiring this 

assistance higher than they would be 

otherwise. However, the Department 

assumes that as the market grows, more 

providers will enter the field and costs 

will come down. 

The Department further estimates that 

30 percent of all K–12 public school 

teachers are teaching reading/language 

arts or mathematics in the grades in 

which the State administers 

assessments. Based on this assumption, 

the Department estimates that the State 

assessment results for approximately 

14,790,000 students (30 percent of all 

students enrolled in public elementary 

and secondary schools) would be 

included in the calculations necessary 

for States to meet this proposed 

requirement.18 The Department 

estimates that the State cost of analyzing 

the data, verifying with teachers that the 

correct teacher-subject-student 

connection is made in the system, and 

publishing the information online in a 

user-friendly format would be 2 dollars 

per student, for a total State cost of 

$29,940,000. 

The Department also understands that 

an important element of State efforts to 

inform teachers of the estimated impact 

of their teaching on student 

achievement is providing professional 

development for principals and teachers 

on the interpretation and use of those 

data in raising student achievement. 

However, since the proposed planning 

requirements would not require States 

to provide this professional 

development, we have not included its 

cost in the estimated costs of these 

proposed requirements. 

In addition, the Department proposes 

to require States to describe in their 

plans the following: the entities 

responsible for the development, 

execution, and oversight of the plan; the 

agencies or organizations that will 

provide any technical assistance or 

other support that is necessary; the 

overall budget for the development, 

execution, and oversight of the plan; the 

processes that the State employs to 

review and verify the required data and 

other information; and the processes the 

State employs to ensure that, consistent 

with 34 CFR 99.31(b), the required data 

and other information are not made 

publicly available in a manner that 

personally identifies students, where 

applicable. The Department estimates 

that this management and oversight 

section of the plan will require 80 hours 

per State, for a total national estimate of 

4,160 hours at a cost of $124,800. The 

total estimated cost to States of 

preparing the plans is, thus, $742,560. 

Total Estimated Costs 

The Department estimates that the 

total burden of responding to these 

proposed requirements would be 

494,650 hours and $44,779,500 for 

SEAs, 426,250 hours and $10,656,250 

for LEAs, and 249,200 hours and 

$6,230,000 for IHEs, for a total burden 

of 1,170,100 hours at a cost of 

$61,665,750. 

Benefits 

The principal benefits of the proposed 

requirements are those resulting from 

the reporting and public availability of 

information on each State’s progress in 

the four reform areas described in the 

ARRA. The Department believes that the 

information gathered and reported as a 

result of these requirements will 

improve public accountability for 

performance, help States, LEAs, and 

schools learn from one another and 

make improvements in what they are 

doing, and inform the ESEA 

reauthorization process. 

A second major benefit is that better 

public information on State and local 

progress in the four reform areas will 

likely spur more rapid progress on those 

reforms, because States and LEAs that 

appear to be lagging in one or more 

areas may see a need to redouble their 

efforts. The Department believes that 

more rapid progress on the essential 

educational reforms will have major 

benefits nationally, and that these 

reforms have the potential to drive 

dramatic improvements in student 

outcomes. 

For example, statewide longitudinal 

data systems are essential tools in 

advancing education reform. With these 

systems in place, States can assess the 

effectiveness of specific interventions, 

schools, principals, and teachers by 

tracking individual student 

achievement, high school graduation, 

and postsecondary enrollment and 

credit. They can, for example, track the 

academic achievement of individual 

students over time, even if those 

students change schools during the 

course of their education. By analyzing 

this information, decision-makers can 

determine if a student’s ‘‘achievement 

trajectory’’ will result in his or her being 

college- or career-ready, and can better 

target services based on the student’s 

academic needs.19

The Department also believes that 

States’ implementation of these 

requirements will lead to more 

widespread development and 

implementation of better teacher and 

principal evaluation systems. In 

particular, the availability of accurate, 

complete, and valid achievement data is 

essential to implementing better systems 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

37852 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 

20See: Braun, Henry I. Using Student Progress To 

Evaluate Teachers: A Primer on Value-Added 

Models. Educational Testing Service, Policy 

Information Center, 2005; Marsh, Julie A.; Pane, 

John F.; Hamilton, Laura S. Making Sense of DataDriven Decision Making in Education: Evidence 

from Recent RAND Research. Santa Monica, CA: 

RAND Corporation, 2006; and Sanders, William L. 

‘‘Value-Added Assessment from Student 

Achievement Data: Opportunities and Hurdles.’’ 

Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, Vol. 

14, No. 4, p. 329–339, 2000. 

21Center for Educator Compensation Reform: 

http://cecr.ed.gov/. 

22A table listing the allocations to States under 

the Stabilization program is available at: http:// 

www.ed.gov/programs/statestabilization/ 

funding.html. 

of teacher and principal evaluation. 

Value-added models, for example, can 

provide an objective estimate of the 

impact of teachers on student learning 

and achievement.20 Further, they can be 

used by schools, LEAs, or States to 

reward excellence in teaching or school 

leadership, as a component of 

performance-based compensation 

systems, or to identify schools in need 

of improvement or teachers who may 

require additional training or 

professional development.21

The proposed requirements will have 

additional benefits to the extent that 

they provide States with incentives to 

address inequities in the distribution of 

effective teachers, improve the quality 

of State assessments, and undergo 

intensive efforts to improve struggling 

schools. Numerous studies document 

the substantial impact of improved 

teaching on educational outcomes and 

the need to take action to turn around 

the lowest-performing schools, 

including high schools (and their feeder 

middle schools) that enroll a 

disproportionate number of the students 

who fail to complete a high school 

education and receive a regular high 

school diploma. The Department 

believes that more widespread adoption 

of these reforms would have a 

significant, positive impact on student 

achievement. 

Although these benefits are not easily 

quantified, the Department believes they 

will exceed the projected costs. 

Accounting Statement: As required by 

OMB Circular A–4 (available at http:// 

www.Whitehouse.gov/omb/Circulars/ 

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

have prepared an accounting statement 

showing the classification of the 

expenditures associated with the 

provisions of this proposed regulatory 

action. This table provides our best 

estimate of the Federal payments to be 

made to States under this program as a 

result of this proposed regulatory action. 

Expenditures are classified as transfers 

to States. 

TABLE—ACCOUNTING STATEMENT

CLASSIFICATION OF ESTIMATED EXPENDITURES

Category Transfers 

Annual monetized 

transfers.

$12,621,790,599. 

From Whom to Whom Federal Government 

to States. 

The Stabilization program provides 

approximately $48.6 billion in formula 

grants to States.22 As previously noted, 

the Department is awarding 

Stabilization program funds in two 

phases. In the first phase, the 

Department is awarding 67 percent of a 

State’s Education Stabilization Fund 

allocation, unless the State can 

demonstrate that additional funds are 

required to restore fiscal year 2009 State 

support for education, in which case the 

Department will award the State up to 

90 percent of that allocation. In 

addition, the Department will award 

100 percent of each State’s Government 

Services Fund allocation in Phase I. The 

Department will award the remainder of 

a State’s Education Stabilization Fund 

allocation in the second phase. Thus, 

depending on the total amount of funds 

States receive in the first phase, up to 

$12.6 billion may be available in the 

second phase. 

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 

This notice contains information 

collection requirements that are subject 

to review by the Office of Management 

and Budget (OMB) under the Paperwork 

Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501– 

3520). It is our plan to offer a comment 

period for the information collection at 

the time of the final notice. At that time, 

the Department will submit the 

information collection to OMB for its 

review and provide the burden hours 

associated with each requirement for 

comment. However, because it is likely 

that the information collection will be 

reviewed under emergency OMB 

processing, the Department encourages 

the public to comment on the burden 

hours associated with each requirement 

in this notice. 

A description of the specific proposed 

information collection requirements is 

provided in the following tables along 

with preliminary estimates of the 

annual recordkeeping burden for these 

requirements. Included in a preliminary 

estimate is the time for collecting and 

tracking data, maintaining records, 

calculations, and reporting. The first 

table presents the estimated indicators 

burden for SEAs, the second table 

presents the estimated indicators 

burden for LEAs, the third table 

presents the estimated indicators 

burden for IHEs, and the fourth table 

presents the estimated State plan 

burden for SEAs. 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–P 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2

Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37853 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN29JY09.037</GPH>
37854 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN29JY09.038</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37855 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN29JY09.039</GPH>
37856 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN29JY09.040</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37857 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN29JY09.041</GPH>
37858 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN29JY09.042</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37859 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN29JY09.043</GPH>
37860 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN29JY09.044</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37861 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN29JY09.045</GPH>
37862 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN29JY09.046</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37863 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN29JY09.047</GPH>
37864 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN29JY09.048</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37865 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN29JY09.049</GPH>
37866 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN29JY09.050</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37867 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN29JY09.051</GPH>
37868 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN29JY09.052</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37869 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN29JY09.053</GPH>
37870 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN29JY09.054</GPH>
Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 37871 


mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2EN29JY09.055</GPH>
37872 Federal Register / Vol. 74, No. 144 / Wednesday, July 29, 2009 / Notices 

Regulatory Flexibility Act 

Certification: The Secretary certifies that this 

proposed regulatory action will not have 

a significant economic impact on a 

substantial number of small entities. 

The small entities that this proposed 

regulatory action will affect are small 

LEAs receiving funds under this 

program and small IHEs. This proposed regulatory action will 

not have a significant economic impact 

on small LEAs because they will be able 

to meet the costs of compliance with 

this regulatory action using the funds 

provided under this program. With respect to small IHEs, the U.S. 

Small Business Administration Size 

Standards define these institutions as 

‘‘small entities’’ if they are for-profit or 

nonprofit institutions with total annual 

revenue below $5,000,000 or if they are 

institutions controlled by small 

governmental jurisdictions, which are 

comprised of cities, counties, towns, 

townships, villages, school districts, or 

special districts, with a population of 

less than 50,000. Based on data from the 

Department’s Integrated Postsecondary 

Education Data System (IPEDS), up to 

532 small IHEs with revenues of less 

than $5 million may be affected by this 

proposed requirement. These small IHEs 

represent only 15 percent of degreegranting IHEs. In addition, only 161,155 

students (0.7 percent) enrolled in 

degree-granting IHEs in fall 2007 

attended these small institutions. As the 

burden for indicators (c)(12) and (c)(13) 

is driven by the number of students for 

whom IHEs would be required to submit 

data, small IHEs will require 

significantly less effort to adhere to 

these proposed regulations than would 

be the case for larger IHEs. Based on 

IPEDS data, the Department estimates 

that 18,050 of these students are firsttime freshmen. As stated earlier in the 

Summary of Costs and Benefits section 

of this notice, the Department estimates 

that, as required by proposed indicator 

(c)(12), IHEs will be able confirm the 

enrollment of 20 first-time freshmen per 

hour. Applying this estimate to the 

estimated number of first-time freshmen 

at small IHEs, the Department estimates 

that these IHEs would need to spend 

8,058 hours to respond to this proposed 

requirement at a total cost of $201,450 

(assuming a cost of $25 per hour). The effort involved in reporting the 

number of students enrolling in a public 

IHE who complete at least one year’s 

worth of college credit applicable 

toward a degree within two years as 

required by indicator (c)(13) would also 

apply to small IHEs. For this proposed 

requirement, the Department also 

estimates that IHEs will be able to report 

the credit completion status of 20 firsttime freshmen per hour. Again applying 

this data entry rate to the estimated 

number of first-time freshmen at small 

IHEs, the Department estimates that 

these IHEs would need to spend 8,058 

hours to respond to this proposed 

requirement at a total cost of $201,450. 

The total cost of these proposed 

requirements for small IHEs is, 

therefore, $402,900, and the estimated 

cost per small IHE is $757. The 

Department has, therefore, determined 

that the regulations would not represent 

a significant burden on small 

not-for-profit IHEs. 

It is also important to note that States 

may use their Government Services 

Fund allocations to help small IHEs 

meet the costs of complying with the 

requirements that affect them, and 

public IHEs may use Education 

Stabilization Fund dollars they receive 

for that purpose. 

In addition, the Department believes 

the benefits provided under this 

proposed regulatory action will 

outweigh the burdens on these 

institutions of complying with the 

proposed requirements. One of these 

benefits will be the provision of better 

information on student success in 

postsecondary education to 

policymakers, educators, parents, and 

other stakeholders. The Department 

believes that the information gathered 

and reported as a result of these 

requirements will improve public 

accountability for performance; help 

States, LEAs, and schools learn from 

one another and improve their decisionmaking; and inform Federal 

policymaking. 

A second major benefit is that better 

public information on State and local 

progress in the four reform areas will 

likely spur more rapid progress on those 

reforms, because States and LEAs that 

appear to be lagging in one area or 

another may see a need to redouble their 

efforts. The Department believes that 

more rapid progress on the essential 

educational reforms will have major 

benefits nationally, and that these 

reforms have the potential to drive 

dramatic improvements in student 

outcomes. The proposed requirements 

that apply to IHEs should, in particular, 

spur more rapid implementation of P– 

16 State longitudinal data systems. 

The Secretary invites comments from 

small IHEs and small LEAs as to 

whether they believe this proposed 

regulatory action would have a 

significant economic impact on them 

and, if so, requests evidence to support 

that belief. 

Assessment of Educational Impact: 

In accordance with section 411 of the 

General Education Provisions Act, 20 

U.S.C. 1221e–4, the Department invites 

comment on whether these 

requirements do not require 

transmission of information that any 

other agency or authority of the United 

States gathers or makes available. Intergovernmental Review: This 

program is subject to Executive Order 

12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR 

part 79. One of the objectives of the 

Executive Order is to foster an 

intergovernmental partnership and a 

strengthened federalism. The Executive 

Order relies on processes developed by 

State and local governments for 

coordination and review of proposed 

Federal financial assistance. 

This document provides early 

notification of our specific plans and 

actions for this program. Accessible Format: Individuals with 

disabilities can obtain this document in 

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

print, audiotape, or computer diskette) 

on request to the program contact 

person listed under FOR FURTHER

INFORMATION CONTACT. Electronic Access to This Document: 

You can view this document, as well as 

all other documents of this Department 

published in the Federal Register, in 

text or Adobe Portable Document 

Format (PDF) on the Internet at the 

following site: http://www.ed.gov/news/ 

fedregister. To use PDF you must have Adobe 

Acrobat Reader, which is available free 

at this site. If you have questions about 

using PDF, call the U.S. Government 

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

888–293–6498; or in the Washington, 

DC, area at (202) 512–1530. 

Note: The official version of this document 

is the document published in the Federal 

Register. Free Internet access to the official 

edition of the Federal Register and the Code 

of Federal Regulations is available on GPO 

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

index.html. 

Dated: July 22, 2009. 

Arne Duncan, 

Secretary of Education. 

[FR Doc. E9–17906 Filed 7–24–09; 11:15 am] 

BILLING CODE 4000–01–C 

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION 

Institute of Education Sciences; 

Overview Information; Grant Program 

for Statewide Longitudinal Data 

Systems; Notice Inviting Applications 

for New Awards Under the American 

Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 

2009. 

Catalog of Federal Domestic 

Assistance (CFDA) Number: 84.384A. 

Dates: 

Applications Available: July 24, 2009 

(Request for Applications [RFA]); 

August 10, 2009 (Application Package). 

mstockstill on DSKH9S0YB1PROD with NOTICES2