[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 36 (Friday, February 22, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 8442-8444]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-4257]



[[Page 8441]]

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

Part VI





Department of Education





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



Local Flexibility Demonstration Program; Notice

  Federal Register / Vol. 67, No. 36 / Friday, February 22, 2002 / 
Notices  

[[Page 8442]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Local Flexibility Demonstration Program

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of 
Education.

ACTION: Notice of proposed application requirements, selection 
criteria, and application process.

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

SUMMARY: The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as 
amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Pub. L. 107-110), 
authorizes the Secretary of Education to enter into local flexibility 
demonstration agreements (``Local-Flex'' agreements) with up to eighty 
local educational agencies (LEAs), giving them the flexibility to 
consolidate certain Federal education funds and to use those funds for 
any educational purpose permitted under the ESEA in order to meet the 
State's definition of adequate yearly progress (AYP) and specific, 
measurable goals for improving student achievement and narrowing 
achievement gaps. (ESEA Sections 6151 through 6156)
    The Secretary will select participating LEAs on a competitive basis 
using a peer review process. The Secretary may enter into Local-Flex 
agreements with no more than three LEAs in each State, and the selected 
LEAs must be in States that have not received State flexibility 
(``State-Flex'') authority under Section 6141 of the ESEA. Each 
agreement will be for a period of five years, but that time period may 
be shortened or extended depending on an LEA's performance under the 
agreement.
    In this notice, the Secretary proposes the information that an LEA 
would be required to submit to meet the Local-Flex application 
requirements, the criteria that the Department would use to select 
participating LEAs, and the process that the Department would follow in 
conducting the Local-Flex competitions.

DATES: We must receive your comments and recommendations on the 
application requirements, selection criteria, and application process 
proposed in this notice on or before March 25, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Address all comments about the application requirements, 
selection criteria, and application process proposed in this notice to 
Mr. Charles Lovett, Office of School Support and Technology Programs, 
U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3E241, 
Washington, DC 20202. If you prefer to send your comments by facsimile 
transmission, use the following number: (202) 205-5870. If you prefer 
to send your comments through the Internet, use the following address: 
[email protected].
    If you want to comment on the information collection requirements, 
you must send your comments to the Department representative named in 
this section.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Charles Lovett, Group Leader. 
Telephone: (202) 401-0039 or via Internet: [email protected].
    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 notice in an alternative 
format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on 
request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Invitation to Comment

    The Secretary is interested in receiving comments on the 
application requirements, selection criteria, and application process 
proposed in this notice. The Secretary is also interested in receiving 
comments on the length of time that applicants should be given to 
submit their proposals once the notice inviting applications is 
published in the Federal Register.

General

    To be eligible for Local-Flex, an LEA must submit to the Department 
a proposed Local-Flex agreement that contains, among other things, a 
plan on how the LEA would consolidate and use funds received by formula 
under the following ESEA provisions: Subpart 2 of part A of Title II 
(Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting); subpart 1 of part D of 
Title II (Enhancing Education Through Technology); subpart 1 of part A 
of Title IV (Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities); and subpart 1 
of part A of Title V (Innovative Programs). An LEA does not receive 
additional Federal funding for participating in Local-Flex. Rather, it 
receives greater flexibility in spending funds that it receives under 
the referenced provisions.
    The LEA must demonstrate that its proposed agreement offers 
substantial promise of assisting the LEA in meeting the State's 
definition of AYP and the LEA's specific, measurable goals. An LEA must 
also demonstrate that it would meet the general purposes of the 
programs included in the consolidation. Furthermore, participation in 
Local-Flex does not relieve an LEA of its responsibility to provide 
equitable services for private school students and teachers under the 
affected programs.

I. Proposed Application Requirements

    In order that the Secretary can select Local-Flex participants in 
accordance with section 6151 of the ESEA, the Secretary proposes that 
Local-Flex applicants be required to submit the following information, 
together with other information addressing the statutory application 
requirements in sections 6151(b) and (c) and the proposed selection 
criteria:
    (a) Baseline academic data. Each LEA seeking to enter into a Local-
Flex agreement with the Secretary would provide, as part of its 
proposed agreement, student achievement data for the most recent 
available school year, as well as descriptions of achievement trends. 
To the extent possible, data would be provided for both mathematics and 
reading or language arts, and the results would be disaggregated by 
each major racial and ethnic group, by English proficiency status, by 
disability status, and by status as economically disadvantaged. (These 
are the categories, among others, by which results had to be 
disaggregated under section 1111(b)(3) of the predecessor ESEA, as well 
as the categories by which data will be disaggregated for determining 
adequate yearly progress under section 1111(b)(2) of the reauthorized 
ESEA.)
    In addition to submitting baseline achievement data that are 
disaggregated, to the extent possible, by the categories noted above, 
LEAs could also submit baseline achievement data that are further 
disaggregated by gender and by migrant status, or baseline data on 
other academic indicators, such as grade-to-grade retention rates, 
student dropout rates, and percentages of students completing gifted 
and talented, advanced placement, and college preparatory courses. To 
the extent possible, the baseline data on other academic indicators 
would also be disaggregated.
    (b) Specific, measurable education goals. Each applicant would 
submit a five-year Local-Flex plan that contains specific, measurable 
educational goals, with annual objectives, that the LEA would seek to 
achieve by consolidating and using funds in accordance with the terms 
of its proposed agreement. The goals would relate to raising student 
achievement and narrowing achievement gaps relative to the baseline 
achievement data and other baseline data that are submitted.

[[Page 8443]]

    At the time an LEA submits its initial proposed Local-Flex 
agreement, the goals in its proposal would not have to relate to the 
State's definition of AYP under section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA because 
those definitions are just being developed. However, as soon as its 
State definition of AYP is submitted to and approved by the Secretary, 
each LEA that has entered into a Local-Flex agreement would revise its 
goals, as necessary, based on that definition.


    Note: State definitions of AYP under section 1111(b)(2) of the 
ESEA must be developed and implemented by the end of the 2002-2003 
school year.


    (c) Strategies for meeting the goals. Each applicant would propose 
a five-year plan that contains specific strategies for reaching its 
stated goals. In particular, the plan would describe how the applicant 
would consolidate and use funds received under subpart 2 of part A of 
Title II (Teacher and Principal Training and Recruitment); subpart 1 of 
part D of Title II (Enhancing Education Through Technology); subpart 1 
of part A of Title IV (Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities); and 
subpart 1 of part A of Title V (Innovative Programs).
    Once a Local-Flex LEA's State definition of AYP has been 
established and the LEA has modified its goals, as necessary, to 
reflect that definition, the LEA would be required to modify, as 
appropriate, the strategies that it would implement to reach its 
revised educational goals.

II. Proposed Selection Criteria

    The Secretary proposes to use the following criteria to select the 
LEAs with which he will enter into Local-Flex agreements:
    (a) Identification of the Need for the Local-Flex Agreement. The 
Secretary considers the LEA's description and analysis of its need for 
a Local-Flex agreement. In determining the quality of the description 
and analysis, the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the LEA's baseline achievement data and 
data on other academic indicators are objective, valid, and reliable, 
and provide disaggregated results.
    (ii) The extent to which the proposal identifies achievement gaps 
among different groups of students.
    (iii) The extent to which the Local-Flex agreement will focus on 
serving or otherwise addressing the needs of students most at risk of 
educational failure.
    (iv) The extent to which the additional flexibility provided under 
the Local-Flex agreement would enable the LEA to meet more effectively 
the State's definition of adequate yearly progress and specific, 
measurable goals for improving student achievement and narrowing 
achievement gaps.
    (b) Quality of the Educational Goals. The Secretary considers the 
quality of the goals that the LEA sets in its proposed Local-Flex 
agreement. In determining the quality of the LEA's goals, the Secretary 
considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the goals in the proposed Local-Flex 
agreement are clearly specified and measurable.
    (ii) The significance of the improvement in student achievement and 
in narrowing achievement gaps proposed in the agreement.
    (iii) The extent to which the goals relate to the needs identified 
in the LEA's baseline achievement data and data on other academic 
indicators.
    (iv) The extent to which the goals support the intent and purposes 
of the Local-Flex program.
    (c) Quality of the Local-Flex Plan. The Secretary considers the 
quality of the LEA's Local-Flex plan. In determining the quality of the 
Local-Flex plan, the Secretary considers the following factors:
    (i) The extent to which the LEA will use funds consolidated under 
the Local-Flex agreement to address the needs identified in the 
baseline achievement data in order to assist the LEA in achieving its 
educational goals.
    (ii) The extent to which the LEA's Local-Flex plan constitutes a 
coherent, sustained approach for reaching the LEA's goals, and to which 
the timelines for implementing strategies in the plan are reasonable.
    (iii) The extent to which the LEA will use achievement data and 
data on other academic indicators to manage the proposed activities and 
to monitor progress toward reaching its goals on an ongoing basis.
    (d) Adequacy of the Resources. The Secretary considers the adequacy 
of the resources for the proposed Local-Flex agreement. In considering 
the adequacy of the resources, the Secretary considers the following 
factors:
    (i) The extent to which the funds that the LEA proposes to 
consolidate under the Local-Flex agreement are adequate to support the 
strategies in its Local-Flex plan.
    (ii) The extent to which the funds that the LEA proposes to 
consolidate under the Local-Flex agreement will be integrated with 
other resources to meet the goals of the proposed agreement.
    (iii) The extent to which costs that the LEA will incur under the 
Local-Flex agreement are reasonable in relationship to the goals that 
will be achieved under the agreement.

III. Proposed Application Process

    The Secretary wishes to provide as many LEAs as possible with an 
opportunity to apply for Local-Flex. He recognizes that some LEAs may 
be ready to submit a proposed Local-Flex agreement in the near future, 
while others may need additional time to plan sufficiently for a Local-
Flex competition. In order to accommodate both groups of LEAs, the 
Secretary proposes to conduct two separate Local-Flex competitions.
    The Department plans to publish a notice inviting applications for 
the first competition later this spring and to select the initial group 
of Local-Flex LEAs shortly thereafter. The Secretary would reserve a 
number of Local-Flex slots for a subsequent Local-Flex competition that 
would be conducted in the fall. That competition would involve new 
Local-Flex applicants as well as unsuccessful applicants from the first 
competition that may wish to apply again.
    The Secretary plans to conduct the initial Local-Flex competition 
before the State-Flex competition because he believes that it will take 
States longer to develop State-Flex proposals than it will for LEAs to 
develop proposed Local-Flex agreements. SEAs seeking State-Flex 
authority must not only submit a plan that describes how they would 
consolidate and use certain Federal funds in order to make adequate 
yearly progress and advance the educational priorities of the State and 
affected LEAs, but must also include in their State-Flex applications 
proposed performance agreements that they would enter into with between 
four and ten LEAs (at least half of which must be ``high-poverty 
LEAs''). It will likely be more difficult and time-consuming for an SEA 
to develop a State-Flex proposal in coordination with a number of LEAs 
than it will be for an individual LEA to develop a Local-Flex proposal.
    To accommodate the needs of SEAs that are at various stages of 
meeting the State-Flex requirements, the Secretary intends to conduct 
two separate State-Flex competitions. The Secretary plans to publish a 
notice inviting applications for the initial State-Flex competition in 
late summer (after the first Local-Flex competition), and he intends to 
select three to four SEAs for State-Flex in that competition. A 
subsequent State-Flex competition for the remaining State-Flex slots 
(up to the maximum of seven allowed under the legislation) would be 
conducted later in the year.

[[Page 8444]]

    The Secretary would coordinate the State-Flex competitions with the 
Local-Flex competitions. Under the legislation, the Secretary may enter 
into Local-Flex agreements only with LEAs in States that do not have 
State-Flex authority. So as not to preclude an SEA from applying for 
State-Flex if an LEA in the State has already entered into a Local-Flex 
agreement with the Secretary, the Secretary would allow such an SEA to 
seek State-Flex authority if it proposes to incorporate into its State-
Flex proposal any Local-Flex agreements granted to LEAs in the State.
    If an SEA notifies the Secretary, by May 8, 2002, that it will be 
applying for State-Flex, an LEA in that State is precluded by statute 
from applying for Local-Flex until a final determination is made 
concerning the SEA's State-Flex application, should one subsequently be 
submitted. The May 8, 2002 date is not the deadline for submission of a 
State-Flex application. Rather it is the final date, established in the 
legislation, by which an SEA may preclude LEAs in the State from 
applying for Local-Flex by notifying the Department that it intends to 
apply for State-Flex.
    An SEA that chooses not to notify the Department prior to May 8, 
2002 that it will be applying for State-Flex may nonetheless seek 
State-Flex authority once the State-Flex competition is conducted. LEAs 
in that State, however, would have an opportunity to seek Local-Flex 
before that SEA seeks State-Flex. As noted previously, an SEA would not 
be precluded from applying for State-Flex so long as it agrees to 
incorporate into its State-Flex proposal any Local-Flex agreements 
already entered into between the Secretary and LEAs in the State. The 
Department will announce more details on the State-Flex competitions in 
a future notice in the Federal Register.
    All comments submitted in response to this notice will be available 
for public inspection, during and after the comment period, in room 
3E241, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 
8:30 am and 4:00 pm, Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week, 
except Federal holidays.

Executive Order 12866

    This notice has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order 
12866. Under the terms of the order, we have assessed the potential 
costs and benefits of this regulatory action.
    The potential costs associated with the notice are those associated 
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as 
necessary for administering this program effectively and efficiently.
    In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative 
and qualitative--of this notice, we have determined that the benefits 
justify the costs.
    We have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly 
interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of 
their governmental functions.
    Summary of Potential Costs and Benefits: It is not anticipated that 
the application requirements proposed in this notice will impose any 
significant costs on applicants. Since these regulations provide a 
basis for the Secretary to negotiate local flexibility demonstration 
agreements with up to 80 LEAs, giving the LEAs the flexibility to 
consolidate certain Federal education funds, the regulations would not 
impose any unfunded mandates on States or LEAs. The benefits of the 
program are described in the SUMMARY section of this notice.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    The Secretary certifies that the requirements in this notice would 
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. The small entities affected by these regulations would be 
small LEAs. Since the Secretary is only authorized to enter into 
agreements with up to 80 LEAs, the requirements proposed in this notice 
will not affect a significant number of LEAs. In addition, these 
requirements are minimal and are necessary to ensure effective program 
management.

Federalism

    Executive Order 13132 requires us to ensure meaningful and timely 
input by State and local elected officials in the development of 
regulatory policies that have federalism implications. ``Federalism 
implications'' means substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government. Although we do not believe these proposed regulations would 
have federalism implications as defined in Executive Order 13132, we 
encourage State and local elected officials to review them and to 
provide comments.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    This document contains proposed data requirements. The feedback 
received on these data requirements will eventually result in a new 
information collection and will be under the review of the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) until OMB approves the data requirements at 
the time of the final notice.
    If you want to comment on the proposed information collection 
requirements, please send your comments to Mr. Charles Lovett, Office 
of School Support and Technology Programs, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3E241, Washington, DC 20202. 
Electronic Access to this Document: You may view this document, as well 
as other Department of Education documents published in the Federal 
Register in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF) on the 
Internet at the following site: www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister.
    To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available 
free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. 
Government Printing Office (GPO), toll-free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in 
the Washington DC, area at (202) 512-1530.


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


    Program Authority: Sections 6151 through 6156 of the ESEA, as 
amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Pub. L. 107-110).

    Dated: February 19, 2002.
Susan B. Neuman,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary, Education.
[FR Doc. 02-4257 Filed 2-21-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P