[Federal Register Volume 65, Number 29 (Friday, February 11, 2000)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 6936-6946]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 00-2722]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Part 611


Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants Program

AGENCY:  Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.

ACTION:  Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY:  The Assistant Secretary for Postsecondary Education proposes 
regulations for the three grant programs included in the Teacher 
Quality Enhancement Grant Programs, sections 202-204 of the Higher 
Education Act of 1965 (HEA), as amended. These proposed regulations 
contain selection criteria that would be used to select applicants for 
awards under the State Program, Partnership Program, and Teacher 
Recruitment Program. These proposed regulations also contain certain 
other requirements that would apply to the programs.

DATES:  We must receive your comments on or before March 13, 2000.

ADDRESSES:  All comments concerning these proposed regulations should 
be addressed to: Dr. Louis Venuto, Higher Education Programs, Office of 
Postsecondary Education, Office of Policy, Planning, and Innovation, 
1990 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006-8525: Telephone: 202-502-7763. 
Comments also may be sent by e-mail to: [email protected] or by FAX 
to; (202) 502-7699. If you prefer to send your comments through the 
Internet use the following address: [email protected]. You must include 
the term ``Teacher Quality'' in the subject line of your electronic 
message.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:  Dr. Louis Venuto, Higher Education 
Programs, Office of Postsecondary Education, Office of Policy, 
Planning, and Innovation, 1990 K Street, NW, Washington, DC 20006-8525: 
Telephone: (202) 502-7763. Inquiries also may be sent by e-mail to: 
[email protected] or by FAX to: (202) 260-9272. 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 
regulations.
    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 
regulations. 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 regulations in the Department of 
Education, Teacher Quality Program Office, 1990 K Street NW, 6th floor, 
Washington, DC. Comments are available for inspection between the hours 
of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each 
week except Federal holidays.
    In order to ensure sufficient time to prepare and review grant 
applications submitted for FY 2000, the Department will need to publish 
final regulations for these programs as soon as possible after the 
expiration of the public comment period. For this reason, while you 
have 30 days to submit public comment, we urge you to submit comments 
to us on or before February 25, 2000. In addition, we also urge those 
who wish to comment on the information collection requirements 
contained in the program application packages to send written comment 
on or before February 25, 2000. See the discussion in the section 
entitled ``Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995'' and the addressee 
identified in that section to whom comments should be sent.

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

[[Page 6937]]

review the comments or other documents in the public rulemaking record 
for these proposed regulations. 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 
(FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.

General

Background

    On October 8, 1998, the President signed into law the Higher 
Education Amendments of 1998 (Pub. L. 105-244). This law addresses the 
Nation's need to ensure that new teachers enter the classroom prepared 
to teach all students to high standards by authorizing, as Title II of 
the Higher Education Act (HEA), the Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants 
for States and Partnerships (Teacher Quality Programs). The new Teacher 
Quality Enhancement Grants Program provides an historic opportunity to 
effect positive change in the recruitment, preparation, licensing, and 
on-going support of teachers in America.
    The new Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants Program consists of 
three different competitive grant programs: (1) The State Grants 
Program, which is designed to help States promote a broad array of 
improvements in teacher licensure, certification, preparation, and 
recruitment; (2) the Partnership Grants for Improving Teacher 
Preparation Program, which is designed to have schools of education, 
schools of arts and sciences, high-need local educational agencies 
(LEAs), and others work together to ensure that new teachers have the 
content knowledge and skills their students need of them when they 
enter the classroom; and (3) the Teacher Recruitment Grants Program, 
which is designed to help schools and school districts with severe 
teacher shortages to secure the high-quality teachers that they need. 
Together, these programs are designed to increase student achievement 
by supporting comprehensive approaches to improving teacher quality.
State Grants Program (State Program)
    The State Grants Program offers a unique opportunity to support 
far-reaching efforts to redesign teacher education. Through the policy 
leadership of Governors, State legislatures, and other important 
partners, the program can assure the statewide support so essential to 
bringing about the important policy changes needed in teacher 
recruitment, preparation, licensing and certification, and retention. 
States are in the position to increase the expectations for newly 
state-certified and licensed teachers as well as test for and reward 
high-quality teaching.
    Under the program, each State may develop a program application 
that focuses on activities it chooses to conduct in one or more areas 
that are key to improving the quality of new teachers. In this regard, 
areas in which a State may propose to focus include:
     Teacher licensure, certification, and preparation policies 
and practices, including rigorous alternative routes to certification;
     Reforms that hold institutions of higher education (IHE) 
with teacher preparation programs accountable for preparing teachers 
who are highly competent in academic content areas and possess strong 
teaching skills;
     Wholesale redesign of teacher preparation programs, in 
collaboration with the schools of arts and sciences, in ways that 
promote stronger academic content and subject-matter knowledge of 
students in those programs;
     Improved linkages between IHEs and K-12 schools, with more 
time spent by college faculty and teacher education students in K-12 
classrooms, and greater use of technology in the teacher education 
programs;
     Use of new strategies to attract, prepare, support, and 
retain highly competent teachers in high-poverty urban and rural areas;
     Redesign and improvement of existing teacher professional 
development programs to improve the content knowledge, technology 
skills, and teaching skills of practicing teachers;
     Improved accountability for high-quality teaching through 
performance-based compensation and the expeditious removal of 
incompetent or unqualified teachers while ensuring due process; and
     Efforts to address the problem of social promotion and to 
prepare teachers to deal with the issues raised by ending social 
promotion.
Partnership Grants for Improving Teacher Education (Partnership 
Program)
    The purpose of the Partnership Program is to improve student 
learning by bringing about fundamental change and improvement in 
traditional teacher education programs. Through multi-year awards to a 
limited number of highly-committed partnerships, the Partnership 
Program is intended to ensure that new teachers have the content 
knowledge and teaching skills they need when they enter the classroom. 
Section 203(a) and (b) of the HEA provides that partnerships eligible 
for awards must comprise, at a minimum, a partnership institution, a 
school of arts and science, and a high-need LEA as the law defines 
these terms. Partnerships also may include other entities that can 
contribute expertise, resources or both to the teacher preparation 
project. A key aspect of the program is the active participation of all 
members of the partnership in the design and implementation of project 
activities.
    By law, successful applicants must propose to implement certain 
activities:
     The reform of teacher preparation programs so that these 
programs become accountable for producing teachers who are highly 
competent in the academic content areas in which they pan to teach;
     The provision of high quality and sustained pre-service 
clinical experiences and mentoring for new teachers, together with a 
substantial increase in the interaction between teachers, principals, 
and higher education faculty; and
     The creation of opportunities for enhanced and ongoing 
professional development that improves the academic content knowledge 
of teachers in fields in which they are or will be certified to teach.
    Beyond these minimum requirements, the Partnership program supports 
activities that propose to educate teachers in ways that reflect best 
research and practice, and embody high teaching standards. These 
activities include the preparation of teachers to work with diverse 
student populations so that all students they will teach can achieve to 
high State and local content and performance standards, and 
implementation of instructional programs whose effectiveness has been 
demonstrated through research.
    The Partnership Program also seeks to--
     Offer alternative routes into teaching to individuals who 
may have had careers in other professions, in the military or in other 
fields, and to educational paraprofessionals;
     Prepare teachers to successfully integrate technology into 
teaching and learning;
     Require prospective teachers to participate in intensive, 
structured, and clinically-based experiences with master teachers;
     Offer continuous assistance to graduates during their 
initial years in the classroom; and
     Prepare school principals, superintendents, and other 
school administrators to employ strong

[[Page 6938]]

management and leadership skills that can help increase student 
achievement.
Teacher Recruitment Grants Program (Teacher Recruitment Program)
    The Teacher Recruitment Program is designed to address the 
challenge of America's teacher shortage by making significant and 
lasting systemic changes to the ways that teachers are recruited, 
prepared, and supported as new teachers in high-need schools. The 
Teacher Recruitment Program supports projects that use funds to--
     Award scholarships to help students pay the costs of 
tuition, room, board, and other expenses of completing a teacher 
training program;
     Provide support services, if needed, to enable scholarship 
recipients to complete postsecondary education programs; and
     Provide for follow-up services to former scholarship 
recipients during their first three years of teaching.
    Alternatively, funds may be used to develop and implement effective 
mechanisms to ensure that high-need LEAs and schools are able to 
effectively recruit highly qualified teachers.
    Both States and eligible partnerships may receive awards under the 
Teacher Recruitment Program. For both States and partnerships, 
effective relationships and partnerships among all those who will 
implement project activities are keys to effective Teacher Recruitment 
Program activities. In particular, out of these partnerships and 
relationships will come (1) the recruitment strategies that are so 
vital to meeting the severe teaching needs of the high-need LEAs, (2) 
the kind of teacher preparation programs, which are built around 
effective support from both schools of education and schools of arts 
and science and other areas of the IHE, that recruited individuals will 
need in order to be effective teachers to the diverse student 
populations in those LEAs, and (3) the support services these 
individuals will need once they begin to teach.
    The Teacher Recruitment Program also anticipates that projects will 
provide prospective teachers with high-quality teacher preparation and 
induction programs that--
     Set high standards for teaching;
     Reflect the best research and practice known across the 
country; and
     Prepare teachers to use technology in their classrooms.
    Finally, all three of the Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant 
Programs anticipate that when program funding ceases, the work that 
States and partnerships have begun will continue and be sustained. 
Therefore, the ability of grantees to sustain activities after the end 
of the project is a key determinant of success.

Need to Regulate

    Regulations are needed in order to establish appropriate selection 
criteria and a small number of other requirements for Fiscal Year (FY) 
2000 and subsequent year competitions under the Teacher Quality 
programs. As explained in the following discussion, new program-
specific selection criteria for competitions conducted under the three 
Teacher Quality Programs are needed to promote better quality 
applications and greater consistency among reviewers and across review 
panels.
    On February 8, 1999, the Department published final regulations to 
govern competitions conducted under the Teacher Quality Enhancement 
Grant Programs for fiscal year (FY) 1999 (64 FR 6189). In doing so, the 
Department used its authority under section 437(d) of the General 
Education Provisions Act to waive rulemaking requirements for 
regulations governing the first grant competition under a new or 
substantially revised program. This notice of proposed rulemaking 
establishes the proposed regulations for the FY 2000 and subsequent 
year competitions.
    The State, Partnership, and Teacher Recruitment Programs are key 
elements in the Federal government's strategy to support State efforts 
to improve teacher quality and recruit, prepare, and support new 
teachers in high-need schools and school districts. The success of 
these programs depends upon the preparation of applications that are of 
the highest possible quality, and the ability of reviewers to identify 
those applicants with the most promise of success. In order to guide 
the preparation and identification of high-quality applications under 
any of these three Programs, application selection criteria need to be 
established.
    As a new program in FY 1999, the Teacher Quality Program relied 
upon general selection criteria in Sec. 75.210 of the Education 
Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) to evaluate 
applications submitted under the State and the Teacher Recruitment 
Programs. The EDGAR criteria were used for these two programs because 
we believed that program-specific regulations would not be needed to 
generate high-quality applications and permit reviewers a ready means 
to evaluate them. However, those reviewing applications under these 
programs found that, notwithstanding guidance in the program 
application packages on what high-quality applications likely would 
contain, submitted applications generally not only lacked sufficient 
specificity, but also were difficult to evaluate under these general 
selection criteria.
    Hence, the Department's experience with applications submitted 
under the State and Teacher Recruitment Programs now convinces us that 
program-specific criteria--rather than those in EDGAR--would assist 
applicants to write better, more specific proposals that focus more 
closely on how they would address Title II program goals. We also are 
convinced that the use of program-specific selection criteria in these 
two programs would substantially help reviewers to make better 
judgments as they read, score proposals, and make evaluative comments. 
Regulations therefore are needed to establish program-specific criteria 
that reflect the goals and objectives of the Title II statute.
    The Department did use program-specific selection criteria rather 
than general criteria in EDGAR to evaluate both pre-applications and 
full applications submitted for the initial competition conducted in FY 
1999 under the Partnership Program. However, difficulties that 
reviewers had evaluating those pre-applications and full applications 
have convinced us that they, too, need to be modified. We now see that, 
in some respects, those criteria were too general. They helped 
applicants to sketch a broad vision of their projects, but reviewers 
often had difficulty finding enough specific detail in the pre-
applications and full applications to score them with precision. 
Reviewers also found that the generality of the program-specific 
criteria inhibited their ability to make fine distinctions among 
applications. We believe that revised, more specific, selection 
criteria for the Partnership Program are needed to improve the quality 
of applications and the review process.
    For the FY 2000 Title II competition, therefore, new program-
specific selection criteria have been drafted for all three Teacher 
Quality Program components. It is expected that these new criteria will 
provide clearer guidance to proposal writers, and will give reviewers a 
more reliable scoring system. By using the revised selection criteria, 
the complete selection process should result in funding strong projects 
likely to achieve key Title II goals. (Consistent with Sec. 75.210 of 
EDGAR, the application packages for these three programs will inform 
the public the total possible score for all criteria that apply to a 
program, and the assigned

[[Page 6939]]

weight or maximum possible score for all criteria that apply to a 
program, and the assigned weight or maximum possible score for each 
criterion or factor under that criterion).
    Finally, regulations are needed in two other areas. First, all 
three programs require applicants to develop strategies in 
comprehensive areas related to teacher preparation, licensure, 
certification, or recruitment. The experience with the initial grants 
competition conforms that both reviewers and successful applicants 
would benefit from having applications include detailed workplans that 
contain project objectives, activities, benchmarks, responsible 
parties, time lines, and outcomes. In addition, regulations are needed 
to clarify over what period of time States are to meet the 50 percent 
matching requirement in section 205(c) of the statute.
    The remainder of this section of this notice explains in more 
detail the regulations that we are proposing to adopt for the three 
Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant Programs.

Section 611.2 Pre-Application and Application

    Under Sec. 611.2, an applicant for a grant under the Teacher 
Quality Enhancement Grants Program would be required to submit with its 
application a proposed multiyear workplan. At a minimum, the applicant 
would have to specifically identify, for each year of the project, the 
project's overall objectives, activities the applicant proposes to 
implement to promote each program objective, benchmarks and time lines 
for conducting project activities and achieving the project's 
objectives, who would be responsible for conducting and coordinating 
each activity, measurable program outcomes that are tied to each 
program objective, and the evidence by which success in achieving these 
objectives would be measured. Applicants for grants under subpart C 
(the Partnership Program) and subpart D (the Teacher Recruitment 
Program) would only have to provide a workplan if they are invited, 
based on their pre-applications, to submit a full application.
    Finally, Sec. 611.2 would also require any applicant that submits a 
pre-application for a grant under the Partnership or Teacher 
Recruitment Program to submit any budgetary information that the 
Secretary may require in the program's application package.
    These workplans are necessary for two reasons. Section 75.112(b) of 
EDGAR requires all applicants to include a narrative that describes how 
and when, for each budget year of the project, the applicant plans to 
meet each project objective. However, for the 1999 grants competition, 
the submitted applications did not contain the specificity that 
reviewers desired for making the most informed decisions about the 
quality of applicants' multiyear plans. This regulation is needed both 
to address this problem and to ensure that, for those applicants 
receiving awards, the Department has the information it needs to work 
with applicants over the life of their projects so that the projects 
can succeed.

Section 611.3 Procedures for Grant Selection

    Section 611.3 sets out the procedures that we would use to select 
grants for the Teacher Quality Program. In general, we would use the 
procedures in 34 CFR 75.200-75.222. However, Sec. 611.3 would establish 
our use of program-specific selection procedures identified in 
Secs. 611.12-611.32 to evaluate applications for each of the three 
programs, including the use of a competitive priority for the State and 
Partnership Programs.
    In addition, Sec. 611.3 would establish a two-stage application 
process for both the Partnership and Teacher Recruitment Programs. The 
proposed regulations would require applicants under either of these 
Programs to submit a pre-application. We would use the selection 
criteria established for these pre-applications to determine which 
applicants should be invited to submit full applications.
    A two-stage process was used successfully during the 1999 initial 
competition under the Partnership Program. We received substantial 
feedback from applicants who favored this process. They told us that it 
permitted them to spend more time planning their projects than they 
would have had under the normal, single-stage, process, and saved those 
applicants whose pre-applications were not of sufficiently high quality 
the time and resources needed to prepare a full program application. We 
also believe that the quality of the full applications likely benefited 
from the applicants' receipt of reviewers' comments on their pre-
applications, and reviewers told us that they appreciated being able to 
focus their time evaluating a limited number of full applications that 
reflected sound conceptual thinking. Therefore, we have decided to make 
the pre-application process a permanent feature of the Partnership 
Program.
    In addition, reviewers of applications submitted under the initial 
Teacher Recruitment Program grants competition found that many 
applications lacked the vision and specificity that the Program needs. 
Given the importance of successful Teacher Recruitment Program 
projects, we believe that the quality of applications for these 
projects likewise would be enhanced by use of a pre-application 
process. For this reason, we are proposing to use this two-step process 
for both the Partnership and Teacher Recruitment Programs.
    In the event that two or more applicants are ranked equally for the 
last available award under any of the three programs, the proposed 
regulations would continue a tie-breaking procedure used during the FY 
1999 competition. Under this procedure, the Secretary would select the 
applicant whose activities would focus (or have the most impact) on 
LEAs and schools located in one (or more) of the Nation's Empowerment 
Zones and Enterprise Communities.
    Finally, for the initial grant competition under these three 
programs, we developed program-specific selection criteria only for the 
Partnership Program. For reasons discussed in the ``Need to Regulate'' 
section of this preamble, we are proposing program-specific selection 
criteria for applications submitted under the State and Teacher 
Recruitment Program, and revised program-specific criteria for 
applications submitted under the Partnership Program.

Selection Criteria to Govern the State Program

    Section 611.11 would establish the selection criteria for the State 
Program. The criteria would focus on the quality of the project design, 
the significance of the project, the quality of the resources, and the 
quality of the management plan and workplan. Section 611.12 would 
establish selection criteria, which would be used in addition to the 
selection criteria in Sec. 611.11, for any State Program applicant that 
proposed teacher recruitment activities. Although teacher recruitment 
is not required for the State Program, applicants may choose to 
incorporate teacher recruitment into their projects. If they do so, 
additional selection criteria would be needed because of the 
requirements governing use of funds for teacher recruitment activities 
in sections 202 and 204(d) of the HEA. We therefore have added 
selection criteria that would specifically address teacher recruitment, 
so that peer reviewers can judge the quality of the teacher recruitment 
activities within a State program.
    Section 611.13 would establish a competitive preference for the 
State

[[Page 6940]]

Program. As required by section 205(b)(2)(A) of the HEA, the Secretary 
would determine the extent to which the State's proposed activities in 
any one or more of three statutory priorities are likely to yield 
successful and sustained results. The statutory priorities are (1) 
initiatives to reform State teacher licensure and certification 
requirements so that current and future teachers possess strong 
teaching skills and academic content knowledge in the subject areas 
they will be certified or licensed to teach; (2) innovative reforms to 
hold IHEs with teacher preparation programs accountable for preparing 
teachers who are highly competent in the academic content areas and 
have strong teaching skills, and (3) innovative efforts to reduce the 
teacher shortage (including the high turnover) of highly competent 
teachers in high-poverty urban and rural areas.

Selection Criteria to Govern the Partnership Program

    Section 611.21 would establish the selection criteria for the pre-
application for the Partnership Program. The selection criteria would 
address project goals and objectives, the level of commitment to the 
partnership, the quality of key project components, and the anticipated 
specific outcomes of the project. As with the State Program, because of 
the requirements governing use of funds for teacher recruitment 
activities in sections 203 and 204(d) of Title II, the Partnership 
Program, in Sec. 611.22, would establish additional criteria that would 
apply to any pre-application that proposes teacher recruitment 
activities.
    Sections 611.23 and 611.24 would establish the selection criteria 
for the full application. Section 611.23 would apply to all applicants 
for Partnership program grants, and Sec. 611.24 would apply to those 
applications that include teacher recruitment activities. The selection 
criteria for full applications are similar to those we used to evaluate 
applications in 1999 for the initial competition under the program. 
They focus on quality of project design, significance of project 
activities, quality of resources, and the quality of the management 
plan and workplan.
    As required by section 205(b)(2)(B) of the statute, Sec. 611.25 
would establish a competitive preference for Partnership Program 
applications that involve businesses. Under this section, the Secretary 
would award up to ten additional points on the basis of how well the 
application includes a significant role for private business in the 
design and implementation of the project.

Selection Criteria for the Teacher Recruitment Program

    Sections 611.31 and 611.32 would establish the selection criteria 
for the pre-application and the full application, respectively. The 
selection criteria for pre-applications would address the same general 
areas as those for Partnership Program pre-applications, but would be 
tailored to matters related to teacher recruitment. Similarly, the 
selection criteria to govern full applications submitted under the 
Teacher Recruitment Program would address the same general areas as 
those for the State Program, but would be tailored to matters related 
to teacher recruitment.

Other Program Requirements

    Section 611.61 would limit the indirect costs that a recipient may 
charge to Teacher Quality Program funds to the maximum of either eight 
percent or the amount determined through operation of a negotiated 
indirect cost rate. We are proposing this regulation so that the 
indirect cost limitation is applicable to all recipients of program 
funds. By regulation published in the Federal Register on August 6, 
1999 (64 FR 42837), this limitation (formerly established in 
Sec. 611.41) already applies to States and LEAs. Regulations published 
in the Federal Register on February 8, 1999 (64 FR 6189) applied this 
same indirect cost limitation to IHEs and nonprofit organizations that 
receive program funds on the basis of the initial Teacher Quality 
Program grant competitions. However, through an oversight, the 
Department had not previously proposed to apply this limitation on 
indirect costs to IHEs and nonprofit agencies and that receive program 
funds under the second and succeeding grant competitions.
    We recognize the legitimacy of a grant recipient's indirect costs. 
However, for reasons presented in the May 19, 1999 NPRM that proposed 
this indirect cost limitation for States and LEAs (64 FR 27403), we 
believe that having IHEs and nonprofit organizations apply large, 
generally applicable negotiated indirect cost rates to compensate 
themselves out of program funds for general overhead and related 
expenses is inconsistent with the purpose of the Teacher Quality 
Programs and the expectations that Congress and the Nation have for 
their success. Therefore, given (1) the privotal significance of the 
Teacher Quality Programs, (2) the national need that these programs 
have a maximum impact on the quality and quantity of highly-qualified 
new teachers, and (3) the fact that these programs are competitive, the 
Secretary has determined that a reasonable limitation on the indirect 
cost rate that IHEs and nonprofit organizations may charge to their 
Teacher Quality Program funds is appropriate. Section 611.61 would make 
all recipients of program funds--States, LEAs, IHEs, nonprofit 
organizations, and other entities--subject to the same limitation on 
indirect costs they may charge to program funds.
    Finally, Sec. 611.62 would detail a grantee's matching 
requirements. As required by section 205(c)(1) of the statute, each 
State receiving a grant under either the State Program or the Teacher 
Recruitment Program would have to provide, from non-Federal sources, an 
amount equal to 50 percent of the amount of the grant to carry out the 
activities supported by the grant. Section 611.52(a) would clarify that 
the 50 percent match would need to be made annually during the project 
period, with respect to each grant a State receives. In addition, 
Sec. 611.52(b) repeats the requirement in section 205(c)(2) of the 
statute that each partnership receiving a grant under the Partnership 
Program or the Teacher Recruitment Program be required to provide, from 
non-Federal sources, an amount equal to 25 percent of the grant for the 
first year of the program, 35 percent of the grant for the second year 
of the program, and 50 percent of the grant for the third through fifth 
year of the program.
    We interpret these requirements, that grantees provide each year a 
specified percentage ``of the grant'' from non-federal sources, to mean 
a specified percentage of the amount of the federal funds the 
Department annually awards. Therefore, for example, a partnership that 
is awarded $1 million per year in federal funds would need to provide 
the project $250,000 from non-federal funds for the first year of 
project activities. The required match from non-Federal sources 
required by this section could be made in cash or in kind.

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 regulations would address the National Education 
Goal that the Nation's teaching force will

[[Page 6941]]

have the content knowledge and teaching skills needed to instruct all 
American students for the next century.

Clarity of the Regulations

    Executive Order 12866 and the President's Memorandum of June 1, 
1998 on ``Plain Language in Government Writing'' require each agency to 
write regulations that are easy to understand.
    The Secretary invites comments on how to make these proposed 
regulations easier to understand, including answers to questions such 
as the following:
     Are the requirements in the proposed regulations clearly 
stated?
     Do the proposed regulations contain technical terms or 
other wording that interferes with their clarity?
     Does the format of the proposed regulations (grouping and 
order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce 
their clarity?
     Would the proposed regulations be easier to understand if 
we divided them into more (but shorter) sections? (A ``section'' is 
preceded by the symbol ``Sec. '' and a numbered heading; for example, 
Sec. 611.21 What are the selection criteria for pre-applications?)
     Could the description of the proposed regulations in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble be more helpful in 
making the proposed regulations easier to understand? If so, how?
     What else could we do to make the proposed regulations 
easier to understand?
    Send any comments that concern how the Department could make these 
proposed regulations easier to understand to the person listed in the 
ADDRESSES section of the preamble.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    The Secretary certifies that these proposed regulations would not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Entities that would be affected by these regulations are IHEs 
and LEAs. The information burden on each of these groups consists only 
of the time and resources needed to submit grant applications. Hence, 
the regulations would not have a significant impact on any entity 
because they would not impose excessive regulatory burden or require 
unnecessary Federal supervision.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Proposed Secs. 611.2-611.25 contain 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 these sections to the Office of Management and Budget (OMB) 
for its review.

Collection of Information

    Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant Programs.
    Applicants for funds under the State Grants program, the 
Partnership Program for Improving Teacher Effectiveness, and the 
Teacher Recruitment Grants Program would need to submit program 
applications and, for the Partnership Program and Teacher Recruitment 
Program, pre-applications that respond to the selection criteria 
announced in this notice. Applicants also would need to include a 
detailed workplan with their applications.
State Program
    We collect information once for applicants for State Program grant 
awards. We estimate annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for this 
collection of information to average 200 hours for each application for 
20 State 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. 
Thus, we estimate the total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden 
for this collection on those preparing application under the State 
Program to be 4,000 hours.
Partnership and Teacher Recruitment Programs
    For both the Partnership Program and Teacher Recruitment Program, 
all applicants must submit a pre-application; those with the highest 
quality pre-applications would then be invited to submit full 
applications. We estimate annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for 
this collection of information to average 54 hours for each of the 150 
respondents expected to submit pre-applications under the Partnership 
Program, and 54 hours for each of the 150 respondents expected to 
submit pre-applications under the Teacher Recruitment Program. These 
estimates include the time for reviewing instructions, searching 
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and 
completing and reviewing the collection of information. Thus, we 
estimate the total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden related to 
the preparation of pre-applications to be 8,100 hours for each of the 
two programs, or a total of 16,200 hours.
    We estimate that of those applicants who submitted pre-applications 
for Partnership Program and Teacher Recruitment Program grant awards, 
25 under each program will be invited to submit full program 
applications. We estimate annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for 
this collection of information to average 200 hours for each of the 
applications, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching 
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and 
completing and reviewing the collection of information. Thus, we 
estimate the total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for this 
collection on those preparing application under the Partnership Program 
to be 5,000 hours, and under the Teacher Recruitment Program also to be 
5,000 hours.
Summary
    Finally, as discussed in the preceding discussion, we estimate that 
the total annual reporting and recordkeeping burden for this collection 
as it relates to all three Teacher Quality Enhancement Grant Programs 
to be 30,200 hours. This estimate includes the time for reviewing 
instructions, searching existing data sources, gathering and 
maintaining the data needed, and completing and reviewing the 
collection of information.
    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 collections of 
information contained in these proposed regulations between 30 and 60

[[Page 6942]]

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 proposed regulations.
    Requests for copies of the proposed application packages for any or 
all of the Teacher Quality Programs may be accessed from http://edicsweb.ed.gov, or should be addressed to Vivian Reese, Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW, Room 5624, Regional Office Building 
3, Washington, D.C. 20202-4651. Requests may also be electronically 
mailed to the Internet address [email protected] or faxed to 
202-708-9346.

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.

Assessment of Educational Impact

    The Secretary particularly requests comments on whether these 
proposed regulations would require transmission of information that any 
other agency or authority of the United States gathers or makes 
available.

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 these sites. 
If you have questions about using the PDF, call the U.S. Government 
Printing Office (GPO) at 1-888-293-6448, 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.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html.


    Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1021 et seq. and 1024(e)

(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.336: Teacher 
Quality Enhancement Grants Program)

List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 611

    Colleges and universities, Elementary and secondary education, 
Grant programs--education.

    Dated: February 1, 2000.
A. Lee Fritschler,
Assistant Secretary For Postsecondary Education.
    For the reasons stated in the preamble, the Secretary proposes to 
amend part 611 of Chapter VI of title 34 of the Code of Federal 
Regulations as follows:

PART 611--[AMENDED]

    1. The authority citation for part 611 continues to read as 
follows:

    Authority:  20 U.S.C. 1021 et seq., unless otherwise noted.

    2. Sections 611.2 and 611.3 are added to Subpart A to read as 
follows:


Sec. 611.2   What must be included in a Partnership or Teacher 
Recruitment Program pre-application?

    (a) In addition to a description of the proposed multiyear project, 
timeline, and budget information required by 34 CFR 75.112 and 75.117 
and other applicable law, an applicant for a grant under this part must 
submit with its application a proposed multiyear workplan. At a 
minimum, this workplan must identify, for each year at the project--
    (1) The project's overall objectives;
    (2) Activities that the applicant proposes to implement to promote 
each project objective;
    (3) Benchmarks and timelines for conducting project activities and 
achieving the project's objectives;
    (4) Who will conduct and coordinate these activities; and
    (5) Measurable program outcomes that are tied to each program 
objective, and the evidence by which success in achieving these 
objectives will be measured;
    (b)(1) In any application for a grant under the Partnership 
Program, or under the Teacher Recruitment Program that is submitted on 
behalf of a partnership, the workplan must identify which partner will 
be responsible for which activities.
    (2) In any application for a grant under the Teacher Recruitment 
Program that is submitted on behalf of a State, the workplan must 
identify which entity in the State will be responsible for which 
activities.
    (c) An applicant that submits a pre-application for a Partnership 
Program grant under Sec. 611.3(b) (3) must also submit any budgetary 
information that the Secretary may require in the program application 
package.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1021 et seq.)


Sec. 611.3  What procedures does the Secretary use to award a grant?

    The Secretary uses the selection procedures in 34 CFR 75.200 
through 75.222 except that--
    (a)(1) For the State Grants Program, the Secretary evaluates 
applications for new grants on the basis of the selection criteria and 
competitive preference contained in Secs. 611.11 through 611.13.
    (2) For the Partnership Grants Program, the Secretary--
    (i) Uses a two-stage application process to determine which 
applications to fund;
    (ii) Uses the selection criteria in Secs. 611.21 through 611.22 to 
evaluate the pre-applications submitted for new grants, and to 
determine those applicants to invite to submit full program 
applications; and
    (iii) For those applicants invited to submit full applications, 
uses the selection criteria and competitive preference in Secs. 611.23 
through 611.25 to evaluate the full program applications.
    (3) For the Teacher Recruitment Grants Program, the Secretary--
    (i) Uses a two-stage application process to determine which 
applications to fund;
    (ii) Uses the selection criteria in Secs. 611.31 to evaluate the 
pre-applications submitted for new grants, and to determine those 
applicants to invite to submit full program applications; and
    (iii) For those applicants invited to submit full applications, 
uses the selection criteria in Secs. 611.32 to evaluate the full 
program applications; and
    (b) In the event that two or more applicants are ranked equally for 
the last available award under any program, the Secretary selects the 
applicant whose activities will focus (or have most impact) on LEAs and 
schools located in one (or more) of the Nation's Empowerment Zones and 
Enterprise Communities.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1021 et seq.)

    3. Subpart B, consisting of Secs. 611.11 through 611.13, is added, 
reading as follows:

[[Page 6943]]

Subpart B--State Grants Program


Sec. 611.11  What are the program's general selection criteria?

    In evaluating the quality of applications, the Secretary uses the 
following selection criteria.
    (a) Quality of project design. (1) The Secretary considers the 
quality of the project design.
    (2) In determining the quality of the project design, the Secretary 
considers the extent to which--
    (i) The project design will result in systemic change in the way 
that all new teachers are prepared, and includes partners from all 
levels of the education system;
    (ii) The Governor and other relevant execution and legislative 
branch officials, the K-16 education system or systems, and the 
business community are directly involved in and committed to supporting 
the proposed activities;
    (iii) Project goals and performance objectives are clear, 
measurable outcomes are specified, and a feasible plan is presented for 
meeting them;
    (iv) The project is likely to initiate or enhance and supplement 
systemic State reforms in one or more of the following areas; teacher 
recruitment, preparation, licensing, and certification;
    (v) The applicant will ensure that a diversity of perspectives are 
incorporated into operation of the project, including those of parents, 
teachers, employers, academic and professional groups, and other 
appropriate entities; and
    (vi) The project design in based on up-to-date knowledge from 
research and effective practice.
    (b) Significance. (1) The Secretary considers the significane of 
the project.
    (2) In determining the significance of the project, the Secretary 
considers the extent to which--
    (i) The project involves the development or demonstration of 
promising new strategies or exceptional approaches in the way new 
teachers are recruited, prepared, certified, or licensed;
    (ii) Project outcomes lead directly to improvements in teaching 
quality and student achievement as measured against rigorous academic 
standards;
    (iii) The State is committed to institutionalize the project after 
federal funding ends; and
    (iv) Project strategies, methods, and accomplishments are 
replicable, thereby permitting other States to benefit from them.
    (c) Quality of resources. (i) The Secretary considers the quality 
of the project's resources.
    (2) In determining the quality of the project design, the Secretary 
considers the extent to which--
    (i) Support available to the project, including personnel, 
equipment, supplies, and other resources, is sufficient to ensure a 
successful project;
    (ii) Budgeted costs that are reasonable and justified in relation 
to the design, outcomes, and potential significance of the project; and
    (iii) The applicant's matching share of the budgeted costs 
demonstrates a significant commitment to successful completion of the 
project and to project continuation after federal funding ends.
    (d) Quality of management plan and workplan. (1) The Secretary 
considers the quality of the project's management plan and workplan.
    (2) In determining the quality of the management plan and workplan, 
the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the management plan and workplan are 
designed to achieve goals and objectives of the project, and include 
clearly defined activities, responsibilities, timelines, milestones, 
and measurable outcomes for accomplishing project tasks.
    (ii) The adequacy of procedures to ensure feedback and continuous 
improvements in the operation of the project.
    (iii) The qualifications, including training and experience, of key 
personnel charged with implementing the project successfully.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1021 et seq.)


Sec. 611.12  What additional selection criteria are used for an 
application proposing teacher recruitment activities?

    In reviewing applications that propose to undertake teacher 
recruitment activities, the Secretary also considers the following 
selection criteria:
    (a) In addition to the elements contained in Sec. 611.11(a) 
(``Quality of project design''), the Secretary considers the extent to 
which the project addresses--
    (1) Systemic changes in the ways that new teachers are to be 
recruited, supported and prepared; and
    (2) Systemic efforts to recruit, support, and prepare prospective 
teachers from disadvantaged and other underrepresented backgrounds.
    (b) In addition to the elements contained in Sec. 611.11(b), 
(``Significance''), the Secretary considers the applicant's commitment 
to continue recruitment activities, scholarship assistance, and 
preparation and support of additional cohorts of new teachers after 
funding under this part ends.
    (c) In addition to the elements contained in Sec. 611.11(c) 
(``Quality of resources''), the Secretary considers the impact of the 
project on high-need LEAs and high-need schools based upon--
    (1) The amount of scholarship assistance the project will provide 
students from federal and non-federal funds;
    (2) The number of students who will receive scholarships; and
    (3) How those students receiving scholarships will benefit from 
high-quality teacher preparation and an effective support system during 
their first three years of teaching.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1021 et seq.)


Sec. 611.13  What competitive preference does the Secretary provide?

    The Secretary provides a competitive preference on the basis of how 
well the State's proposed activities in any one or more of the 
following statutory priorities are likely to yield successful and 
sustained results:
    (a) Initiatives to reform State teacher licensure and certification 
requirements so that current and future teachers possess strong 
teaching skills and academic content knowledge in the subject areas 
they will be certified or licensed to teach.
    (b) Innovative reforms to hold higher education institutions with 
teacher preparation programs accountable for preparing teachers who are 
highly competent in the academic content areas and have strong teaching 
skills.
    (c) Innovative efforts to reduce the shortage (including the high 
turnover) of highly competent teachers in high-poverty urban and rural 
areas.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1021 et seq.)

    4. Subpart C, consisting of Secs. 611.21 through 611.25, is added, 
reading as follows:

Subpart C--Partnership Grants Program


Sec. 611.21  What are the program's selection criteria for pre-
applications?

    In evaluating the quality of pre-applications, the Secretary uses 
the following selection criteria.
    (a) Project goals and objectives. (1) The Secretary considers the 
goals and objectives of the project design.
    (2) In determining the quality of the project goals and objectives, 
the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The partnership's vision for producing significant and 
sustainable improvements in teacher education.

[[Page 6944]]

    (ii) The needs the partnership will address.
    (iii) How the partnership and its activities would be sustained 
once federal support ends.
    (b) Partnering commitment. (1) The Secretary considers the 
partnering commitment embodied in the project.
    (2) In determining the quality of the partnering commitment, the 
Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) Evidence of how well the partnership would be able to 
accomplish objectives working together that its individual members 
could not accomplish working separately.
    (ii) The significance of the roles given to each principal partner 
in implementing project activities.
    (c) Quality and comprehensiveness of key project components. (1) 
The Secretary considers the quality and comprehensiveness of key 
project components in the process of preparing new teachers.
    (2) In determining the quality and comprehensiveness of key project 
components in the process of preparing new teachers, the Secretary 
considers the extent to which--
    (i) Specific activities are designed and would be implemented to 
ensure that students preparing to be teachers are adequately prepared, 
including activities designed to ensure that they have adequate content 
knowledge, are able to use technology effectively to promote 
instruction, and participate in extensive, supervised clinical 
experiences;
    (ii) Specific activities are designed and would be implemented to 
ensure adequate support for those who have completed the teacher 
preparation program during their first years as teachers; and
    (iii) The project design reflects best research and practice.
    (d) Specific project outcomes. (1) The Secretary considers the 
specific outcomes the project would produce in the preparation of new 
teachers.
    (2) In determining the specific outcomes the project would produce 
in the preparation of new teachers, the Secretary considers the 
following factors:
    (i) The extent to which important aspects of the partnership's 
existing teacher preparation system would change.
    (ii) The quality of the performance measures to be used to 
demonstrate success.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1021 et seq.)


Sec. 611.22  What additional selection criteria are used for a pre-
application that proposes teacher recruitment activities?

    In reviewing pre-applications that propose to undertake teacher 
recruitment activities, the Secretary also considers the following 
selection criteria:
    (a) In addition to the elements contained in Sec. 611.21(a) 
(``Project goals and objectives''), the Secretary considers the extent 
to which--
    (1) The partnership's vision responds to LEA needs for a diverse 
and high quality teaching force, and will lead to reduced teacher 
shortages in these high need LEAs; and
    (2) The partnership will sustain its work after federal funding has 
ended by recruiting, providing scholarship assistance, training and 
supporting additional cohorts of new teachers.
    (b) In addition to the elements contained in Sec. 611.21(c) 
(``Quality and comprehensiveness of key project components''), the 
Secretary considers the extent to which the project will--
    (1) Significantly improve recruitment of new students, including 
those from disadvantaged and other underrepresented backgrounds; and
    (2) Provide scholarship assistance and adequate training to 
preservice students, as well as induction support for those who become 
teachers after graduating from the teacher preparation program.
    (c) In addition to the elements contained in Sec. 611.21(d) 
(``Specific project outcomes"), the Secretary considers the extent to 
which the project addresses the number of new teachers to be produced 
and their ability to teach effectively in high-need schools.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1021 et seq.)


Sec. 611.23  What are the program's general selection criteria for full 
applications?

    In evaluating the quality of applications, the Secretary uses the 
following selection criteria.
    (a) Quality of project design. (1) The Secretary considers the 
quality of the project design.
    (2) In determining the quality of the project design, the Secretary 
considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent of evidence of institution-wide commitment to high 
quality teacher preparation that includes significant policy and 
practice changes supported by key leaders, and which result in 
permanent changes to ensure that preparing teachers is a central 
mission of the entire university.
    (ii) The extent to which the partnership creates and sustains 
collaborative mechanisms to integrate professional teaching skills, 
including skills in the use of technology in the classroom, with strong 
academic content from the arts and sciences.
    (iii) The extent of well-designed and extensive preservice clinical 
experiences for students, including mentoring and other forms of 
support, implemented through collaboration between the K-12 and higher 
education partners.
    (iv) Whether a well-planned, systematic induction program is 
established for new teachers to increase their chances of being 
successful in high-need schools.
    (v) The strength of linkages within the partnership between higher 
education and high need schools or school districts so that all 
partners have important roles in project design, implementation, 
governance and evaluation.
    (vi) Whether the project design is based on up-to-date knowledge 
from research and effective practice, especially on how students learn.
    (b) Significance of project activities. (1) The Secretary considers 
the significance of project activities.
    (2) In determining the quality of the project design, the Secretary 
considers the following factors:
    (i) How well the project involves promising new strategies or 
exceptional approaches in the way new teachers are recruited, prepared 
and inducted into the teaching profession.
    (ii) The extent to which project outcomes include preparing 
teachers to teach to their State's highest K-12 standards and that are 
likely to result in improved K-12 student achievement.
    (iii) The extent of the partnership's commitment to 
institutionalize the project after federal funding ends.
    (iv) The extent to which the partnership is committed to 
disseminating effective practices to others and is willing to provide 
technical assistance about ways to improve teacher education.
    (v) How well the partnership will integrate its activities with 
other education reform efforts underway in the State or communities 
where the partners are located, and will coordinate its work with 
local, State or federal teacher training, teacher recruitment, or 
professional development programs.
    (c) Quality of resources. (1) The Secretary considers the quality 
of resources of project activities.
    (2) In determining the quality of resources, the Secretary 
considers the extent to which--
    (i) Support available to the project, including personnel, 
equipment, supplies, and other resources, is sufficient to ensure a 
successful project;

[[Page 6945]]

    (ii) Budgeted costs are reasonable and justified in relation to the 
design, outcomes, and potential significance of the project; and
    (iii) The applicant's matching share of the budgeted costs 
demonstrates a significant commitment to successful completion of the 
project and to project continuation after federal funding ends.
    (d) Quality of management plan and workplan. (1) The Secretary 
considers the quality of the management plan and workplan.
    (2) In determining the quality of the management plan, the 
Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the management plan and workplan are 
designed to achieve goals and objectives of the project, and include 
clearly defined activities, responsibilities, timelines, milestones, 
and measurable outcomes for accomplishing project tasks.
    (ii) The extent to which the management plan and workplan reflect 
an effective, inclusive, and responsive governance and decision-making 
structure that will permit all partners to participate in and benefit 
from project activities, and to use evaluation results to ensure 
continuous improvements in the operations of the project.
    (iii) The qualifications, including training and experience, of key 
personnel charged with implementing the project successfully.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1021 et seq.)


Sec. 611.24  What additional selection criteria are used for a full 
application that proposes teacher recruitment activities?

    In reviewing full applications that propose to undertake teacher 
recruitment activities, the Secretary also considers the following 
selection criteria:
    (a) In addition to the elements contained in Sec. 611.23(a) 
(``Quality of project design''), the Secretary considers the extent to 
which the project reflects--
    (1) A commitment to recruit, support and prepare additional well-
qualified new teachers for high need schools;
    (2) Appropriate academic and student support services; and
    (3) A well-considered strategy for addressing shortages of well-
qualified and well-trained teachers in high-need LEAs, especially 
teachers from disadvantaged and other unrepresented backgrounds.
    (b) In addition to the elements contained in Sec. 611.23(b) 
(``Significance of project activities''), the Secretary considers the 
extent to which the project promotes the recruitment, scholarship 
assistance, preparation, and support of additional cohorts of new 
teachers.
    (c) In addition to the elements contained in Sec. 611.23(c) 
(``Quality of resources''), the Secretary considers the impact of the 
project on high-need LEAs and high-need schools based upon--
    (1) The amount of scholarship assistance the project will provide 
students from federal and non-federal funds;
    (2) The number of students who will receive scholarships; and
    (3) How those students receiving scholarships will benefit from 
high-quality teacher preparation and an effective support system during 
their first three years of teaching.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1021 et seq.)


Sec. 611.25  What competitive preference does the Secretary provide?

    The Secretary provides a competitive preference on the basis of how 
well the project includes a significant role for private business in 
the design and implementation of the project.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1021 et seq.)

    5. Subpart D, consisting of Secs. 611.31 and 611.32, is added, 
reading as follows:

Subpart D--Teacher Recruitment Grants Program


Sec. 611.31  What are the program's selection criteria for pre-
applications?

    In evaluating pre-applications, the Secretary considers the 
following criteria:
    (a) Project goals and objectives. (1) The Secretary considers the 
goals and objectives of the project design.
    (2) In determining the quality of the project goals and objectives, 
the Secretary considers how the partnership or State applicant intends 
to--
    (i) Produce significant and sustainable improvements in teacher 
recruitment, preparation, and support.
    (ii) Reduce teacher shortages in high-need LEAs and schools, and 
improve student achievement in the schools in which teachers who 
participate in its project will teach.
    (b) Partnership commitment. (1) The Secretary considers the 
partnering commitment embodied in the project.
    (2) In determining the quality of the partnering commitment, the 
Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) What the partnership, or State and its partners, can accomplish 
by working together that could not be achieved by working separately.
    (ii) How the project proposed by the partnership or State is driven 
by the needs of LEA partners.
    (c) Quality of key project components. (1) The Secretary considers 
the quality of key project components.
    (2) In determining the quality of key project components, the 
Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the project would make significant and 
lasting systemic changes in how the applicant recruits, trains, and 
supports new teachers, and reflect knowledge gained from research and 
practice.
    (ii) The extent to which the project would be implemented in ways 
that significantly improve recruitment, scholarship assistance to 
preservice students, training, and induction support for new entrants 
into teaching.
    (d) Specific project outcomes. (1) The Secretary considers the 
specific outcomes the project would produce in the recruitment, 
preparation, and placement of new teachers.
    (2) In determining the specific outcomes the project would produce 
in the recruitment, preparation, and placement of new teachers, the 
Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The number of teachers to be produced and the quality of their 
preparation.
    (ii) The partnership's or State's commitment to sustaining the work 
of the project after federal funding has ended by recruiting, providing 
scholarship assistance, training, and supporting additional cohorts of 
new teachers.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1021 et seq.)


Sec. 611.32  What are the program's general section criteria?

    In evaluating the quality of full applications, the Secretary uses 
the following selection criteria.
    (a) Quality of the project design. (1) The Secretary considers the 
quality of the project design for ensuring that activities to recruit 
and prepare new teachers are a central mission of the project.
    (2) In considering the quality of the project design for ensuring 
that activities to recruit and prepare new teachers are a central 
mission of the project, the Secretary considers the extent to which the 
project design--
    (i) Shows evidence of institutional or (in the case of a State 
applicant) State-level commitment both to recruitment of additional new 
teachers, and to high-quality teacher preparation that includes 
significant policy and practice changes supported by key leaders that 
result in permanent changes to current institutional practices;
    (ii) Creates and sustains collaborative mechanisms to integrate 
professional

[[Page 6946]]

teaching skills, including skills in the use of technology in the 
classroom, with academic content provided by the school of arts and 
sciences;
    (iii) Includes well-designed academic and student support services 
as well as carefully planned and extensive preservice clinical 
experiences for students, including mentoring and other forms of 
support, that are implemented through collaboration between the K-12 
and higher education partners;
    (iv) Includes establishment of a well-planned, systematic induction 
program for new teachers that increases their chances of being 
successful in high-need schools;
    (v) Includes strong linkages among the partner institutions of 
higher education and high-need schools and school districts (or, in the 
case of a State applicant, between the State and these entities in its 
project), so that all those who would implement the project have 
important roles in project design, implementation, governance, and 
evaluation;
    (vi) Responds to the shortages of well-qualified and well-trained 
teachers in high-need school districts, especially from disadvantaged 
and other underrepresented backgrounds; and
    (vii) Is based on up-to-date knowledge from research and effective 
practice.
    (b) Significance. (1) The Secretary considers the significance of 
the project.
    (2) In determining the significance of the project, the Secretary 
considers the extent to which--
    (i) The project involves promising new strategies or exceptional 
approaches in the way new teachers are recruited, prepared, and 
inducted into the teaching profession;
    (ii) Project outcomes include measurable improvements in teacher 
quality and in the number of well-prepared new teachers, and that are 
likely to result in improved K-12 student achievement;
    (iii) The project will be institutionalized after federal funding 
ends, including recruitment, scholarship assistance, preparation, and 
support of additional cohorts of new teachers;
    (iv) The project will disseminate effective practices to others, 
and to provide technical assistance about ways to improve teacher 
recruitment and preparation; and
    (v) The project will integrate its activities with other education 
reform activities underway in the State or communities in which the 
project is based, and will coordinate its work with local, State, and 
federal teacher recruitment, training, and professional development 
programs.
    (c) Quality of resources. (1) The Secretary considers the quality 
of the project's resources.
    (2) In determining the quality of the project's resources, the 
Secretary considers the extent to which--
    (i) The amount of support available to the project, including 
personnel, equipment, supplies, student scholarship assistance, and 
other resources is sufficient to ensure a successful project.
    (ii) Budgeted costs are reasonable and justified in relation to the 
design, outcomes, and potential significance of the project.
    (iii) The applicant's matching share of budgeted costs demonstrates 
a significant commitment to successful completion of the project, and 
to project continuation after federal funding ends.
    (d) Quality of management plan and workplan. (1) The Secretary 
considers the quality of the project's management plan and workplan.
    (2) In determining the quality of the management plan and workplan, 
the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the management plan and workplan are 
designed to achieve goals and objectives of the project, and include 
clearly defined activities, responsibilities, timelines, milestones, 
and measurable outcomes for accomplishing project tasks.
    (ii) The extent to which the project has an effective, inclusive, 
and responsive governance and decisionmaking structure that will permit 
all partners to participate in and benefit from project activities, and 
to use evaluation results to continuously improve project operations.
    (iii) The qualifications, including training and experience, of key 
personnel charged with implementing the project successfully.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1021 et seq.)

    6. Subpart F is revised to read as follows:

Subpart F--Other Grant Conditions


Sec. 611.61  What is the maximum indirect cost rate that applies to a 
recipient's use of program funds?

    Notwithstanding 34 CFR 75.560 through 75.562 and 34 CFR 80.22, the 
maximum indirect cost rate that any recipient of funds under the 
Teacher Quality Enhancement Grants Program may use to charge indirect 
costs to these funds is the lesser of--
    (a) The rate established by the negotiated indirect cost agreement; 
or
    (b) Eight percent.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1021 et seq.)


Sec. 611.62  What are a grantee's matching requirements?

    (a)(1) Each State receiving a grant under the State Grants Program 
or Teacher Recruitment Grants Program must provide, from non-federal 
sources, an amount equal to 50 percent of the amount of the grant to 
carry out the activities supported by the grant
    (2) The 50 percent match required by paragraph (a)(1) of this 
section must be made annually during the project period, with respect 
to each grant award the State receives.
    (b) Each partnership receiving a grant under the Partnership Grant 
Program or the Teacher Recruitment Grant Program must provide, from 
non-federal sources, an amount equal to--
    (1) 25 percent of the grant award for the first year of the grant;
    (2) 35 percent of the grant award for the second year of the grant; 
and
    (3) 50 percent of the grant award for each succeeding year of the 
grant.
    (c) The match from non-federal sources required by paragraphs (a) 
and (b) of this section may be made in cash or in kind.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1021 et seq.)

[FR Doc. 00-2722 Filed 2-10-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-M