[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 14 (Friday, January 21, 2000)]
[Notices]
[Pages 3427-3431]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-1515]


-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


National Awards Program for Effective Teacher Preparation

AGENCY:  Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI), 
Department of Education.

ACTION:  Notice of proposed eligibility and selection criteria.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY:  The Assistant Secretary for OERI proposes eligibility and 
selection criteria to govern competitions under the National Awards 
Program for Effective Teacher Preparation for fiscal year (FY) 2000 and 
future fiscal years. Under these criteria, the awards program would 
recognize model programs that prepare elementary school teachers or 
secondary school mathematics teachers, and that lead to improved 
student learning.

DATES:  We must receive your comments on or before March 6, 2000.

ADDRESSES:  Address all comments about these proposed definitions and 
selection criteria to Sharon Horn, Office of Educational Research and 
Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW., 
room 506E, Washington, DC 20208-5644. If you prefer to send your 
comments through the Internet, use the following address:
sharon__[email protected]
    You may also fax your comments to Sharon Horn at (202) 219-2198.
    If you want to comment on the information collection requirements 
you must send your comments to the Office of Management and Budget at 
the address listed in the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this 
preamble. You may also send a copy of these comments to the Department 
representative named in this section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Sharon Horn. Telephone: (202) 219-
2203. If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you 
may call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-
8339.
    Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an 
alternate format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer 
diskette) on request to the contact person listed in the preceding 
paragraph.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Invitation to Comment

    We invite you to submit comments regarding these proposed 
eligibility and selection criteria.
    We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific 
requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of 
reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed 
eligibility and selection criteria. Please let us know of any further 
opportunities we should take to reduce potential costs or increase 
potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient 
administration of the program.
    During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public 
comments about these proposed eligibility and selection criteria in 
room 506E, 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, between the 
hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday of 
each week except Federal holidays.

Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the 
Rulemaking Record

    On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or 
print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs 
assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public 
rulemaking record for these proposed eligibility and selection 
criteria. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of aid, 
you may call (202) 205-8113 or (202) 260-9895. If you use a TDD, you 
may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.

General Information

    Through this notice the Secretary proposes eligibility and 
selection criteria to govern applications for recognition that are 
submitted under the National Awards Program for Effective Teacher 
Preparation. The criteria established in this notice would be used to 
select award recipients in the program's initial year, FY 2000, and in 
subsequent fiscal years. The Secretary plans to publicly honor and 
recognize successful applicants.
    This new program, which is being proposed as part of a continuing 
effort to honor excellence in education, is the result of an increased 
emphasis across the country on teacher quality and the well-established 
principle that high-quality K-12 teachers are critical to the

[[Page 3428]]

ability of children in our nation's schools to achieve to high 
standards. Yet, while few would question that any effort to improve 
student learning depends on better teaching in schools, we are 
proposing this program in an effort to highlight the relationship 
between student learning and the quality of the programs preparing our 
public school teachers. To this point, there has not existed a 
systematic way to identify entities that have successfully linked their 
programs for preparing teachers to improved student achievement at the 
K-12 level. Given the current emphasis on heightened academic standards 
for elementary and secondary students and the need for teachers to gain 
the knowledge and skills necessary to teach to those standards, we 
believe the time is right to focus attention on those teacher 
preparation programs that are particularly effective in preparing 
teachers who, in turn, are effective in helping students improve their 
learning.
    We recognize that demonstrating the link between teacher 
preparation programs and the ability of program graduates to improve 
student learning is not an easy task. The difficulty involved, however, 
makes that link no less critical. We intend to select for awards no 
more than five pre-service teacher preparation programs that are on the 
leading edge in this effort. Our chief goal in recognizing these 
programs is to foster an understanding of how these noteworthy programs 
design their teacher preparation activities to increase K-12 student 
achievement and how their approaches can be replicated or built upon by 
other institutions that prepare teachers. For that reason, the criteria 
for selecting award recipients, as described in this notice, focus 
significantly on the ability of applicants to provide compelling 
evidence of effectiveness in preparing teachers who positively impact 
student learning.
    The timeliness of this new awards program is also supported by the 
fact that institutions producing teachers, and the states that certify 
them, are increasingly coming under scrutiny as the public seeks higher 
standards and greater accountability for public schools and school 
teachers. The Department, as well as many States, is currently 
implementing new accountability measures and reporting requirements for 
States and for colleges and universities receiving Federal grants to 
support teacher training programs. Some institutions have already 
implemented accountability measures, while others have started to take 
steps to improve and to become accountable for the teachers they train. 
We hope that bringing attention to those teacher preparation programs 
that are effective in this area will serve to assist other programs in 
their efforts to improve their level of accountability.
    In order to align the program with nation-wide efforts to improve 
achievement levels in math and reading, this awards program will focus, 
in its initial year, on programs that prepare elementary teachers 
(since elementary school teachers often teach both math and reading) 
and programs that prepare middle or high school mathematics teachers or 
both. Thus, to be selected for an award, applicants must be able to 
show that their graduates are effective in helping all students improve 
their learning in reading and mathematics at the elementary level or 
mathematics at the middle and high school level or both. By ``all 
students,'' we mean the diverse population of students that graduates 
of teacher education programs may encounter in the classroom or other 
educational setting, including regular and special education students, 
students from diverse backgrounds, and students with limited English 
proficiency. The selection process will also depend on the ability of 
applicants to demonstrate that their graduates have a depth of content 
knowledge in mathematics and reading or both, acquire general and 
content-specific pedagogical knowledge and skills, and develop skills 
to examine attitudes and beliefs about learners and the teaching 
profession.
    The Secretary will announce the final eligibility and selection 
criteria in a notice in the Federal Register. We will determine the 
final eligibility and selection criteria after considering responses to 
this notice and other information available to the Department.

    Note:  This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which the Assistant Secretary chooses to use these proposed 
eligibility and selection criteria, we invite applications through a 
notice in the Federal Register.

Proposed Eligibility, Application, and Selection Criteria

Eligible applicants:

    Eligible applicants would be institutions in the States (including 
the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the outlying areas) that 
prepare elementary teachers, or middle or high school mathematics 
teachers, for initial certification. Institutions of higher education 
as well as institutions that are not part of a college or university 
are eligible to apply. Since this program focuses on initial 
preparation of teachers, alternative certification programs are 
eligible, while in-service programs are not.
    For purposes of this notice, a ``teacher preparation program'' 
refers to a defined set of experiences that, taken as a whole, prepares 
participants for initial (or alternative) certification to teach. 
Detailed instructions for applying for this award, including formatting 
instructions, are provided within the application package and must be 
followed to receive an award.

Application Content Requirements

    Applicants would be free to develop their application in any way 
they choose as long as they comply with the requirements set out in the 
application package. In evaluating applications for the National Awards 
Program for Effective Teacher Preparation, reviewers will look to see 
whether the application, taken as a whole, demonstrates that the 
applicant's teacher preparation program leads to improved teacher 
effectiveness and increased student achievement at the K-12 level. In 
doing so, reviewers would be guided by the extent to which and how well 
applicants address the following components of the application, the 
most important of which would concern objective evidence of 
effectiveness under section C of the application.
    Sections A, B and D of the application provide reviewers with 
information describing the teacher preparation program and its 
potential as a model. Reviewers will use the information in these three 
sections to determine the extent to which there is a logical connection 
between the various aspects of the program and the results achieved. In 
other words, they will check for consistency between the information 
provided in these sections and the applicant's claims of effectiveness 
under section C. In section C, applicants provide formative, summative 
and confirming evidence that their program is effective in preparing 
graduates who are able to help all K-12 students improve their learning 
in reading and mathematics at the elementary level or mathematics at 
the middle or high school level.
    Where appropriate, the following proposed sections of the 
application include one or more questions that are designed to help 
applicants formulate their responses.

A. Background and Program Description

    In this section, applicants would provide the mission statement and 
goals and objectives of their teacher preparation program and describe 
the components of their program.

[[Page 3429]]

    In responding to this section, applicants would be encouraged to 
provide information about:
    1. Recruitment policies for faculty and candidates.
    2. Selection procedures for faculty and candidates.
    3. Program structure (e.g., course and field experiences, support 
for preservice and novice teachers, mechanisms for monitoring 
participants' progress).
    4. Resources that support the program.
    5. Methods for collaboration between the program and K-12 schools.
    6. Graduation or completion criteria and rates.
    7. Job placement and retention rates of graduates.

B. Program's Criteria for Effectiveness

    In this section, applicants would describe the principles, 
standards, or other criteria that the applicant uses to judge the 
effectiveness of its teacher preparation program.

    (Note:
    Applications would not be evaluated against a given set of 
principles for all programs, but are expected to include relevant 
criteria for guiding program improvement and modifications).

    In responding to this section, applicants should consider the 
following questions:
    1. What are the criteria the program uses to evaluate its 
effectiveness?
    2. How does the program ensure that program components such as 
courses and instructional practices are consistent with the evaluation 
criteria under Question 1?

C. Evidence of Effectiveness

    In this section, applicants would provide three separate types of 
evidence that demonstrates the effectiveness of their teacher 
preparation program: formative, summative, and confirming evidence.
    ``Formative evidence'' refers to the use of data to make 
adjustments to the program throughout its various stages. These data 
are collected as participants (i.e., preservice teachers) move through 
the program.
    ``Summative evidence'' demonstrates that the program is effective 
in helping graduates acquire the necessary knowledge and skills to 
improve student learning. Summative evidence is collected as preservice 
teachers complete the program.
    ``Confirming evidence'' links teacher preparation and K-12 student 
learning by demonstrating that program graduates are effective in 
helping all K-12 students improve their learning. Confirming evidence 
is collected on graduates who are employed by schools or districts.
    Applicants would supply a brief description for each evidence item 
submitted. This description must include information about the nature 
of the data, the methods used to collect the data, and a summary of the 
data analysis.
    In responding to this section, applicants must consider the 
following questions:
    1. What evidence is there that the program, as envisioned in 
section A, gathers data about the effectiveness of the various stages 
of the program and uses that data to make improvements to the program? 
(Formative evidence)
    2. What evidence is there that the program is effective in helping 
graduates acquire the knowledge and skills needed to improve student 
learning for all K-12 students? (Summative evidence)

    (Note:
    Summative evidence in this section should address graduates' 
content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and skills, and skills to 
examine beliefs about learners and teaching as a profession.)

    3. What evidence is there that the program's graduates are 
effective in helping all K-12 students improve their learning in 
reading and mathematics at the elementary level or mathematics at the 
middle or high school level? (Confirming evidence)

D. Implications for the Field

    A major goal of the National Awards Program for Effective Teacher 
Preparation is to make information about successful programs available 
across the country to other programs that may be considering ways to 
improve their effectiveness. In this section, applicants would discuss 
the challenges they have faced and overcome in administering their 
teacher preparation program, as well as the resulting lessons they have 
learned.
    In responding to this section, applicants should consider the 
following:
    1. What is at least one significant challenge that the program 
encountered within the last five years and how was it overcome?

    (Note:
    Since demonstrating the link between teacher preparation and K-12 
student learning is a primary focus of the awards program, applicants 
should consider describing challenges related to this issue.)

    2. What lessons that would benefit others have been learned about 
designing, implementing, or evaluating a program that prepares 
graduates who are effective in helping improve student learning for all 
K-12 students?
    3. What program materials (e.g., videos, Web sites, course 
outlines, manuals, strategies, processes) are available that could 
benefit others?
    4. How have or could you help others adapt the aspects of your 
program that contribute most to graduates' effectiveness with K-12 
students?

Selection Criteria

    Reviewers would evaluate the information provided in each 
application based on three criteria: rigor, sufficiency, and 
consistency. These criteria, and the performance levels applicable to 
each, are identified in the rubric shown in Figure 1. Reviewers would 
use this rubric as the review instrument to judge the quality of each 
application.
    The Evidence of Effectiveness provided by an applicant under 
section C, the most critical portion of the application, would be 
evaluated on the basis of its rigor and sufficiency. The level of 
``rigor'' applied to the evidence submitted would be determined by the 
extent to which the qualitative or quantitative data presented is found 
to be valid and reliable. The level of ``sufficiency'' applied to the 
evidence submitted would be determined by the adequacy and the extent 
of the data provided.
    The application as a whole will be evaluated on the basis of its 
consistency. The level of ``consistency'' of the application would be 
based on the extent to which there is a logical link between various 
aspects of the program as described in Sections A, B and D of the 
application and the evidence of effectiveness provided under Section C. 
For example, if an applicant indicates in sections A, B, or D of its 
application that field experiences are important to the preparation of 
teachers, then the application should describe the variety of field 
experiences that are spread over the duration of the program and also 
include, for purposes of ``consistency,'' documentation of the 
effectiveness of these experiences.
    The rubric in Figure 1 identifies a range of performance levels, 
from 1 to 4, that reviewers will use to judge the quality of an 
application with regard to the three criteria--rigor, sufficiency and 
consistency. Reviewers will assign a level of the rubric, 1 to 4, for 
each criterion based on their judgment of how well the information 
provided in the application matches the descriptions in the rubric of 
the relevant performance levels. Prior to reviewing applications, 
reviewers will receive extensive training in using the rubric to ensure 
inter-rater reliability.

[[Page 3430]]



                            Figure 1. Rubric for Evaluating Evidence of Effectiveness
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Selection criteria
    Performance levels    --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      Rigor                     Sufficiency                  Consistency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4........................  The evidence is highly       There are extensive data     Components of the program
                            credible. The data are       that support claims of       are consistent with the
                            valid and indicators are     effectiveness. The           vision of the program.
                            free of bias. Reliability    evidence includes data       Program components are
                            is supported by multi-year   from multiple sources with   monitored to determine if
                            data from several sources.   multiple indicators.         they are being instituted
                                                                                      as designed. There is a
                                                                                      planned, logical link
                                                                                      between the program
                                                                                      components and the
                                                                                      outcomes. The evidence
                                                                                      supports the link between
                                                                                      program components and
                                                                                      program success. The
                                                                                      consistencies support the
                                                                                      credibility of the
                                                                                      evidence.
3........................  The evidence is credible.    There are adequate data to   There are minor
                            Validity has been            support the claims of        inconsistencies between
                            addressed for most of the    effectiveness. There are     the vision of the program
                            data. There may be some      multiple sources of          and program components.
                            questions of bias.           evidence and multiple        Some components of program
                            Reliability is supported     indicators for at least      may not be monitored or
                            by two or more years of      one source.                  there may be some
                            data from at least one                                    inconsistencies between
                            data source.                                              the evidence provided and
                                                                                      the identified successful
                                                                                      components of the program.
                                                                                      The inconsistencies do not
                                                                                      weaken the credibility of
                                                                                      the evidence.
2........................  The evidence has limited     There are limited data to    There are several
                            credibility. The rigor is    support the claims of        inconsistencies between
                            compromised by issues of     effectiveness. The data      the vision of the program
                            bias or validity/            are collected from only      and program components.
                            reliability. There are no    one or two sources. There    There are significant
                            multi-year data from any     are no multiple indicators   inconsistencies between
                            source.                      for the data source(s).      the evidence provided and
                                                                                      the identified successful
                                                                                      components of the program.
                                                                                      The inconsistencies raise
                                                                                      questions about the
                                                                                      credibility of the
                                                                                      evidence.
1........................  The evidence has little or   There are not enough data    There are numerous
                            no credibility. The rigor    to support claims of         inconsistencies between
                            is significantly             effectiveness. There is      the vision of the program
                            compromised by issues of     only a single source of      and its components. The
                            bias. The data lack          data.                        evidence provided is not
                            validity/reliability.                                     linked to the components
                            There is no multi-year                                    of the program that have
                            data. OR There is not                                     been identified as
                            enough information                                        contributing to the
                            provided to determine                                     program's success. The
                            rigor.                                                    inconsistencies raise
                                                                                      significant questions
                                                                                      about the credibility of
                                                                                      the evidence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Proposed Selection Procedures

    Award recipients would be selected through a five-stage process.
    Stage 1. During the first stage, applications would be initially 
screened by Department staff to determine whether the submitting party 
meets the eligibility requirements and whether the application contains 
all necessary information (including the three types of evidence 
required under section C) and meets the formatting requirements.
    Stage 2. The second stage of review, to determine up to 10 semi-
finalists, would be conducted by non-Departmental teams representing a 
broad range of teacher educators, practitioners (e.g., mathematicians, 
mathematics educators, K-12 teachers, reading specialists), and 
policymakers (e.g., superintendents, school board members, principals) 
who would evaluate the quality of the applications against the 
selection criteria and applicable performance levels.
    Stage 3. In the third stage, non-Department expert teams (team 
members would differ from the reviewers involved in Stages 2) would 
conduct site visits to verify information presented in the semi-
finalists' applications and, to the extent available, to collect 
additional information. These teams would draft site-visit reports of 
their findings.
    Stage 4. During the fourth stage, a non-Departmental national 
awards panel (panel members will differ from the reviewers involved 
Stages 2 and 3) would review the semi-finalist applications and site 
visit reports. Panel members will then present final recommendations to 
the Department on which teacher preparation programs merit national 
recognition.
    Stage 5. In the fifth and final stage, the Department will review 
data collected throughout the review process and select for national 
recognition up to 5 applications of the highest quality. The Secretary 
intends to publicly honor and recognize these awardees at a national 
ceremony in Washington, D.C.

Goals 2000: Educate America Act

    The Goals 2000: Educate America Act (Goals 2000) focuses the 
Nation's education reform efforts on the eight National Education Goals 
and provides a framework for meeting them. Goals 2000 promotes new 
partnerships to strengthen schools and expands the Department's 
capacities for helping communities to exchange ideas and obtain 
information needed to achieve the goals.
    These proposed eligibility and selection criteria would address the 
National Education Goal that the Nation's teaching force will have the 
content knowledge and teaching skills needed to instruct all American 
students for the next century.

[[Page 3431]]

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This notice and the proposed application packet contains 
information collection requirements. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act 
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the Department of Education has submitted 
a copy of this notice and the application package to the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) for its review.
    Collection of Information: National Awards Program for Effective 
Teacher Preparation.
    Entities that prepare elementary teachers, or middle or high school 
mathematics teachers, for initial certification are eligible to apply 
for national recognition of the quality of their teacher preparation 
program. Information in the application would include:
    (1) A description of the applicant's teacher preparation program in 
terms of its mission, goals, and components.
    (2) The evaluation criteria used by the applicant's program.
    (3) Available evidence to support the effectiveness of the 
applicant's program in preparing teachers to improve student learning 
at the K-12 level.
    (4) Implications or lessons that the applicant's program can 
provide the field of teacher preparation. Applications also would be 
limited in page number and have to meet basic formatting requirements. 
The Department would use this information to select the highest-quality 
applicants through a review of responses provided in the application 
and site visits that can confirm the accuracy of information contained 
in the application.
    All information is to be collected once only from each applicant. 
Annual reporting and record keeping burden for this collection of 
information is estimated to average 50 hours for each response for 50 
respondents, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching 
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and 
completing and reviewing the collection of information. For the 10 
applicants selected for site reviews, there will be an additional 
annual reporting and record keeping burden that is estimated to average 
20 hours for each response. Thus, the total annual reporting and record 
keeping burden for this collection is estimated to be 2,700 hours.
    If you want to comment on the information collection requirements, 
please send your comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory 
Affairs, OMB, room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC 
20503; Attention: Desk Officer for U.S. Department of Education. You 
may also send a copy of these comments to the Department representative 
named in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
    We consider your comments on this proposed collection of 
information in--
     Deciding whether the proposed collection is necessary for 
the proper performance of our functions, including whether the 
information will have practical use;
     Evaluating the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of 
the proposed collection, including the validity of our methodology and 
assumptions;
     Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the 
information we collect; and
     Minimizing the burden on those who must respond. This 
includes exploring the use of appropriate automated, electronic, 
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms 
of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of 
responses.
    OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of 
information contained in this notice of proposed eligibility and 
selection criteria between 30 and 60 days after publication of this 
document in the Federal Register. Therefore, to ensure that OMB gives 
your comments full consideration, it is important that OMB receives the 
comments within 30 days of publication. This does not affect the 
deadline for your comments to us on the notice of proposed eligibility 
and selection criteria.

Intergovernmental Review

    This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the 
regulations in 34 CFR Part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive 
order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened 
federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State 
and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal 
financial assistance.
    This document is intended to provide early notification of our 
specific plans and actions for this program.

Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 8001

Electronic Access to This Document

    You may review this document, as well as all other Department of 
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe 
Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at either of the 
following sites:
http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm
http://www.ed.gov/news.html
    To use the PDF you must have the Adobe Acrobat Reader Program with 
Search, which is available free at either of the previous sites. If you 
have questions about using the PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing 
Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, D.C. 
area, at (202) 512-1530.

    Note:  The official version of this document is the document 
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the 
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal 
Regulations is available on GPO Access at: http://www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html


    Dated: January 18, 2000.
C. Kent McGuire,
Assistant Secretary for Educational Research and Improvement.
[FR Doc. 00-1515 Filed 1-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-U