[Federal Register Volume 67, Number 44 (Wednesday, March 6, 2002)]
[Notices]
[Pages 10166-10177]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 02-5345]



[[Page 10166]]

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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION


Office of Elementary and Secondary Education; Consolidated State 
Applications Under Section 9302 of the Elementary and Secondary 
Education Act

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Notice of proposed requirements and request for comment.

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

SUMMARY: We propose requirements for optional State consolidated 
applications submitted under section 9302 of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as reauthorized by the No Child 
Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law 107-110 (NCLB). Submitting a 
consolidated application will allow a State to obtain funds under many 
Federal programs through a single application, rather than through 
separate applications for each program. To receive fiscal year (FY) 
2002 program funds on a timely basis, a State educational agency's 
(SEA's) application would need to be received no later than May 28, 
2002.

DATES: Please send your comments on or before April 5, 2002.

ADDRESSES: Please address your comments to Marcia Kingman, Office of 
Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, using 
one of the following methods:
    1. Internet. We encourage you to send your comments through the 
Internet to the following address: [email protected]. You should 
use the term ``ESEA Consolidated Plan'' in the subject line of your 
electronic message.
    2. Fax Machine. You also may submit your comments by fax at (202) 
205-5870.
    3. Surface Mail. You may submit your comments via surface mail 
addressed to: Marcia Kingman, Office of Elementary and Secondary 
Education, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW. room 
3E213, Washington, DC 20202-6400.
    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: Marcia Kingman, Office of Elementary 
and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland 
Avenue, SW. room 3E213, Washington, DC 20202-6400. Telephone: (202) 
260-2199.
    Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an 
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer 
diskette) on request to the contact person for information identified 
in the preceding paragraph.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Pub. 
L. 107-110, NCLB) became law on January 8, 2002, with the President 
George W. Bush's signature of H.R. 1. The Act substantially revises the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) in a manner 
designed to provide all of America's school children with the 
opportunity and means to achieve academic success. It embodies the four 
key principles of the President's education reform plan: (1) 
Accountability for results, (2) expanded State and local flexibility 
and reduced ``red tape,'' (3) expanded choices for parents, and (4) 
focusing resources on proven educational methods, particularly in 
reading instruction.
    These principles are designed to produce fundamental reforms in 
classrooms throughout America. The new Act will provide officials and 
educators at the school, school district, and State levels substantial 
flexibility to plan and implement school programs that will help close 
the achievement gap between disadvantaged and minority students and 
their peers. At the same time, the reauthorized Act will hold school 
officials accountable--to parents, students, and the public--for 
achieving results. These and other major changes to the ESEA redefine 
the Federal role in K-12 education to better focus on improving the 
academic performance of all students.
    The full text of this law may be found on the Internet at: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/esea/index.html.

I. Purpose of Consolidated State Applications

    Before they can implement their ESEA education programs, States 
need to apply for and receive Federal program funds. Each ESEA program 
statute contains detailed requirements for the content of the plan or 
application under which States can apply for program funding. In 
enacting the ESEA, Congress crafted these individual program plan or 
application requirements to reflect a need for the Department to review 
critical programmatic information before awarding ESEA funds. However, 
recognizing the burden on States of preparing so many individual ESEA 
plans or applications, and wanting to encourage States to integrate 
individual programs with State and local funds into comprehensive 
educational improvement and reform initiatives, Congress retained in 
sections 9301 and 9302 provisions that permit each SEA, in consultation 
with the Governor, to apply for ESEA program funds on the basis of a 
``consolidated State plan or a consolidated State application.''
    Under this approach, a State educational agency (SEA) may submit a 
consolidated plan or application that responds to an alternative set of 
procedures and criteria the Department has established. By statute, a 
consolidated application is to include ``only descriptions, 
information, assurances, * * * and other materials that are absolutely 
necessary for the consideration of the consolidated State plan or 
consolidated State application.'' The consolidated application 
authority thus can result in a major reduction in State administrative 
burden while helping States to meld the various Federal programs into a 
more coherent strategy for improving education in the State.
    In addition, section 9305 of the ESEA extends similar flexibility 
to local educational agencies (LEAs), continuing the authority for LEAs 
to receive program funding through submission of consolidated local 
plans or applications instead of having to submit a separate 
application for each individual program. It also clarifies that SEAs 
may not require LEAs to submit individual program plans or applications 
if the LEAs wish to submit a consolidated plan or application.
    Consistent with the principles embodied in NCLB, consolidated 
applications are thus a tool that can promote State and local 
flexibility in exchange for greater State and local accountability for 
increased student achievement. These applications can be a vehicle for 
linking State plans to performance and, specifically, to data States 
will include in the performance reports submitted under section 9303 of 
the ESEA. The Department's current proposal outlined below, unlike 
previous practice, would require States to provide information and data 
in their consolidated applications that would be the baseline for State 
reporting in their annual performance reports. Moreover, while the 
Department would identify major goals against which States would create 
program strategies and report performance data, States would have 
flexibility to develop targets for measuring progress that fits 
individual State contexts. In all cases, the applications and report 
would focus on a single objective--student achievement.

[[Page 10167]]

II. The Department's Proposal for the Content of the Consolidated 
State Application

    The No Child Left Behind Act recognizes that all children can 
achieve to the same high standards and must be provided the education 
they need to reach those standards. Successful student academic 
performance depends upon the opportunity to attend schools that--
     Provide instruction to all students that, based on the 
findings of solid research, will lead to gains in achievement for all 
students;
     Have highly qualified teachers and principals;
     Provide a learning environment that is safe and drug free, 
and conducive to learning; and
     Are accountable to the public for results.
    The proposed requirements for the consolidated application and 
report are guided by these principles.
    The Department proposes that consolidated State applications 
integrate these principles in two ways. First, in our framework for 
ESEA accountability we propose that States adopt (1) six overall 
``performance goals'' that cut across the ESEA programs, (2) core 
indicators for measuring progress toward these goals, and (3) State 
performance targets that define when satisfactory progress occurs. 
Second, we propose that States provide certain minimum information that 
will confirm their conformance with key requirements of the ESEA 
programs they choose to include in their consolidated applications.

III. The Framework for ESEA Accountability.

A. ``ESEA Performance Goals''

    The ESEA performance goals reflect overall statements of 
expectations arising from the purposes of the ESEA programs. We have 
identified in appendix A six ESEA performance goals that the Department 
proposes that each SEA submitting a consolidated application would have 
to adopt. These are:
    1. All students will reach high standards, at a minimum attaining 
proficiency or better in reading and mathematics by 2013-2014.
    2. By 2013-2014, all students will be proficient in reading by the 
end of the third grade.
    3. All limited English proficient students will become proficient 
in English.
    4. By 2005-2006, all students will be taught by highly qualified 
teachers.
    5. All students will be educated in learning environments that are 
safe, drug free, and conducive to learning.
    6. All students will graduate from high school.
    These ESEA performance goals, like the basic purposes of the ESEA 
programs themselves, fall into three areas: (a) Those that address 
levels of proficiency that all students would meet; (b) those that 
address the special needs of certain populations of students, such as 
students who are limited English proficient, who are the special focus 
of particular ESEA programs and (c) those that address such factors as 
qualified teachers and safety that are critical to a school's success 
in enabling student achievement to flourish.

B. ``ESEA Performance Indicators''

    States would use performance indicators to measure their progress 
in meeting the ESEA performance goals. Along with requiring States to 
adopt the six key ESEA performance goals identified above, the 
Department would require each SEA that submits a consolidated 
application to adopt, at minimum, the Department's core set of 
indicators for these six performance goals. For example, as explained 
in appendix A, relative to the second ESEA performance goal, ``By 2013-
2014, all students will be proficient in reading by the end of the 
third grade,'' the Department would require all States to use the 
following indicator:

    Example: 2.1  Performance indicator: The percentage of students 
in third grade reading at grade level or above. State adoption of 
the common core indicators listed in appendix A is critical to the 
Department's ability to meet its responsibility under NCLB to ensure 
that all States are accountable for implementing the ESEA programs 
in ways that contribute significantly to the achievement of all 
students. As with the ESEA performance goals, States would be free 
to add their own performance indicators to the core set of 
indicators that the Department is proposing.

C. ``Performance Targets''

    Performance targets define the progress a State expects to make at 
specified points in time with respect to each indicator. For example, 
for indicator 2.1, ``the percentage of students in third grade reading 
at grade level,'' a State might adopt as a target: the percentage of 
students in third grade reading at grade level will increase from ``x'' 
percent in 2001-2002 to ``y'' percent in 2002-2003.
    Under our proposal, while each State would have to adopt the core 
set of ESEA performance goals and performance indicators that the 
Department had established, the State would define and adopt its own 
performance targets. (See appendix A for the ESEA goals and indicators 
that the Department would require States submitting consolidated 
applications to adopt, and some examples of performance targets that 
States might choose to use.)
    Finally, the accountability system relies upon collection of data 
that explain how well States are succeeding in meeting their 
performance targets. States would describe in their consolidated 
applications their timelines and benchmarks for securing these data, as 
well as their data sources. States also would provide their ``baseline 
data.'' For example, a State that adopted the performance target 
described in the preceding paragraph would identify the percentage of 
students in third grade reading at grade level at the end of the 2001-
2002 school year (i.e., the ``x'' percent).
    In their annual performance reports, States would provide updated 
data on their progress in meeting their performance targets, as well as 
other data the Department needs to assess both State progress in 
improving student achievement and the contributions of the Federal 
programs to that effort.
    Where applicable, States may include html references, electronic 
files, or other existing documentation to comply with the requirements 
listed in the application.

IV. Other Requirements for the Consolidated Application

    In addition to the framework for ESEA accountability, the 
consolidated application also would include:
    A. A description of key strategies States would use to implement 
the ESEA programs in order to accomplish the purposes of those programs 
(appendix B);
    B. Key programmatic and fiscal information that the Department has 
determined it needs before it awards FY 2002 funds in order to ensure 
the integrity of programs States include in their consolidated 
applications (appendix C). This information is a small part of what the 
individual ESEA program statutes would have States otherwise provide in 
individual program plans or applications; and
    C. Assurances of the State's adherence to all requirements of the 
programs included in the application (appendix D). In the final 
application package for the consolidated application, and, on its 
website, the Department plans to include a list of particular 
requirements of individual programs that, while covered by these 
general assurances, the

[[Page 10168]]

Department believes warrant special State attention.

V. Documentation of Compliance With All Program Requirements

    States will be held accountable by policymakers, parents, and 
students, as well as the Department, for how they plan for and use 
Federal funds. As part of Federal accountability, we would continue to 
require States to maintain documentation of their compliance with all 
program requirements--both those the ESEA expresses as (1) descriptive 
content or specific assurances to be included in individual program 
plans or applications, and (2) those that otherwise govern program 
planning, public input, implementation, or evaluation. To the extent 
consistent with State ``open records'' statutes, these documents 
evidencing adherence to ESEA requirements would be available to 
parents, policymakers, and other members of the public.

VI. Consolidation of Federal Funds

    Title VI of the ESEA contains a number of important flexibility 
provisions that permit States and LEAs to treat funds received under 
some programs as if received under others. Moreover, sections 9201-9203 
continue to permit the SEAs and LEAs to consolidate administrative 
funds under specified programs. However, beyond the flexibility that 
these provisions offer, the Department's approval of a consolidated 
State application neither authorizes a State or LEA to combine or 
commingle program funds nor eliminates State or LEA responsibilities to 
keep separate records on the use of each program's funds.

VII. Data Management Reform

    During 2002 and beyond, the Department will work with LEAs and SEAs 
to establish data standards for performance indicators and other 
information collected from States and districts. The Department will 
also confer with LEA and SEA officials, the research community, 
information technology vendors, and other interested parties on ways in 
which States, LEAs, and schools can collect and electronically record 
useful baseline and follow-up data through an internet-based format. 
The new format should accommodate the measurement of success relative 
to the various indicators that the Department and States have adopted. 
Future application and reporting guidelines, therefore, will stress 
electronic reporting and provide States with additional options in 
fulfilling federal information requests.

VIII. Other Considerations

    NCLB makes significant changes to the ESEA that are designed to 
give school officials, educators, and parents the tools they need to 
ensure that all students can achieve. However, in several instances 
this Act also builds upon school reform strategies that were previously 
begun under other Federal and State initiatives. In this regard, 
provided that the content of a State's consolidated application is 
consistent with Department requirements, the States would be able to 
draw upon information and data that it developed under the ESEA as 
previously authorized.
    In addition, to gauge the success of the Nation in implementing 
NCLB, it is important that, where possible, States report their 
assessment data using common formats and measures. Hence, the 
Department intends to work with States on the development of these 
consistent formats and measures.

IX. Proposed Process for Submitting a Consolidated State 
Application

    Information States would submit by May 2002 is proposed in the 
following discussion. Given the January enactment of the NCLB, States 
will have a limited period of time to prepare full consolidated 
applications before they will need to submit them for Departmental 
review prior to the awarding of ESEA funds in early July of 2002. In 
some cases, this period of time will be shortened further as a result 
of State procedural requirements, including those for securing 
approvals by State boards or other reviewing officials of applications 
for Federal funding before SEAs submit them to the Department.
    On the other hand, the ESEA goals and performance indicators the 
Department proposes to establish are very basic to the ESEA programs, 
and many States already collect data on performance targets for these 
kinds of indicators. Moreover, if in the absence of consolidated 
applications SEAs were to submit to the Department the individual plans 
or applications that the ESEA program statutes otherwise require, they 
would by law be required to provide the Department this spring not only 
the limited amount of program information identified in appendix C, but 
also much more.
    In balancing these factors, we propose that each SEA that chooses 
to submit a consolidated application submit to the Department by May of 
this year at least the following:
    A. A statement that it (a) has adopted the minimum core ESEA goals 
and performance indicators that the Department will establish, and (b) 
agrees to adopt (for inclusion in the following year's consolidated 
application) its own performance targets for these indicators;
    B. A description of the key activities and initiatives the State 
will carry out with ESEA State-level, administrative and activity 
funds, including activities to help achieve their performance targets: 
i.e., information about the State's standards, assessments and 
accountability system (of which for certain items we propose that 
States submit timelines in May 2002 and other information and evidence 
at a later date as specified), subgranting processes, technical 
assistance, monitoring, professional development, and coordination 
activities (appendix B); and
    C. The individual ESEA program descriptions that the Department 
determines are needed in order to ensure program integrity (appendix 
C), and the required statutory assurances (appendix D).
    States that already have adopted performance targets that link to 
these performance indicators (including indicator 1.3, which 
incorporates the NCLB definition of annual yearly progress under 
section 1111(b)(3)), would be encouraged to submit them with their 
applications, along with any baseline data they already use (and an 
identification of the data sources).
    If SEAs do not submit their ESEA performance targets and associated 
baseline data in the consolidated applications provided to the 
Department in May 2002, SEAs would have to submit them to the 
Department no later than May 2003 in order that the Department can 
review and approve this information in time to make timely awards of FY 
2003 ESEA program funds. (SEAs would submit any information for which 
either the ESEA or the Department establishes a later submission date 
in accordance with that other schedule.)

X. Programs That May Be Included in a Consolidated Application

    Section 9101(13) of the ESEA, which defines the term ``covered 
program,'' and section 9302, which governs consolidated State plans and 
applications, permit an SEA to seek funding under any of the programs 
authorized by the following titles and parts through a consolidated 
State application:
    Title I, Part A: Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local 
Educational Agencies.

[[Page 10169]]

    Title I, Part B, Subpart 3: Even Start Family Literacy.
    Title I, Part C: Education of Migrant Children.
    Title I, Part D: Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children 
and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk.
    Title I, Part F: Comprehensive School Reform.
    Title II, Part A: Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting 
Fund.
    Title II, Part D: Enhancing Education Through Technology.
    Title III, Part A: English Language Acquisition, Language 
Enhancement, and Academic Achievement.
    Title IV, Part A, Subpart 1: Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 
Communities.
    Title IV, Part A, Subpart 2: Community Service Grants.
    Title IV, Part B: 21st Century Community Learning Centers.
    Title V, Part A: Innovative Programs.
    Title VI, Part B, Subpart 2: Rural and Low-Income Schools.
Other Programs the Secretary May Designate
    The Secretary has decided to designate both the formula and 
discretionary components of the programs supporting development of 
State assessments, authorized in sections 6111 and 6112 of Title VI, as 
programs that SEAs may include in their consolidated applications. 
(Section 6111 provides formula grants to States for development of 
State assessments and related activities. Section 6112 provides 
competitive grants to States for development of ``enhanced assessment 
instruments.'' SEAs that choose to apply for the competitive grant 
program (see appendix E) would submit their applications by September 
15, 2002.)
    The competitive Enhanced Assessment Instruments program, authorized 
in section 6112 of the ESEA, is not the only competitive program that 
section 9302 might permit an SEA to include in a consolidated 
application. On the other hand, applications for competitive grant 
programs present special challenges for consolidated applications; in 
particular, they must be reviewed against competitive selection 
criteria and are typically processed over a longer timeframe than is 
needed for formula grant programs. Given the close relationship of the 
competitive Enhanced Assessment Instruments program to the development 
of a State system of accountability for student achievement that is at 
the heart of Title I, Part A program, the Secretary has decided, to 
permit States, notwithstanding these factors, to apply for this one 
competitive program through the consolidated application. The 
Department's proposed selection criteria and other requirements to 
govern the initial competition under this program are contained in 
appendix E. Given the difficulties of using consolidated applications 
as the vehicle with which SEAs would apply for competitive grant 
programs, the Secretary does not propose to invite States to include 
other competitive programs in them.
    As stated in the ``Invitation to Comment'' section of this notice, 
the public is invited to suggest other grant programs that the 
Secretary should designate for inclusion in a consolidated State 
application and to describe how that application can best accommodate 
these other programs.

XI. Public Participation Requirements

    Section 9304(a)(7) of the ESEA provides for public comment on the 
State application by requiring, as one of the SEA's general assurances, 
that ``before the [consolidated application] was submitted to the 
Secretary, the State afforded a reasonable opportunity for public 
comment on the application and considered such comment.'' We believe 
that the procedures under which SEAs would secure adequate public 
participation are to be determined under State law.

XII. Consolidated Local Plans or Applications

    Section 9305(a) of the ESEA authorizes LEAs to receive funding from 
the SEA under more than one ``covered program'' through consolidated 
local plans or applications. Section 9305(c) and (d) requires the SEA, 
in consultation with the Governor, to collaborate with LEAs in 
establishing procedures for submission of these plans or applications, 
and to require ``only descriptions, information, assurances, and other 
material that are absolutely necessary for the consideration of the 
[LEA] plan or application.''
    These provisions closely mirror provisions in section 9302 of the 
ESEA that govern the content and procedures for consolidated State 
applications. Consistent with the statutory language, we believe that 
SEAs have wide discretion in fashioning (in consultation with the 
Governor and LEAs) procedures and content for these plans or 
applications that make sense in terms of the student achievement and 
other goals imbedded in the ESEA. We stress that LEAs submitting 
consolidated local plans or applications must still implement all of 
the requirements--including record-keeping requirements--of the 
statutes whose programs those plans or applications include.

XIII. Voluntary Submission of Consolidated State Applications

    Development of a consolidated State application is voluntary. It is 
the SEA's decision whether to submit a consolidated application, which 
of the eligible programs to include in it if one is submitted, and 
whether to add, in later submissions, programs that are not included in 
the consolidated application submitted this May for purposes of receipt 
of FY 2002 funds. (Should an SEA choose to submit an individual 
application under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities 
program, the program statute (Title IV, Part A, Subpart 1) permits SEAs 
to submit an ``interim'' application in FY 2002, and a comprehensive 
application by FY 2003. Proposed rules for this interim program 
application are included in appendix F.) Moreover, an SEA that submits 
a consolidated application for FY 2002 funds that does not contain all 
of the information requested could later decide not to submit that 
outstanding information and instead submit individual program plans or 
applications that the ESEA, as amended by NCLB, requires.

XIV. Response to the January 4, 2002 Notice of the Department's 
Preliminary Plans for the Consolidated State Application

    On January 4, 2002, we published a notice in the Federal Register 
(67 FR 571) that described our working model for the content and 
procedures to govern the consolidated State application, and requested 
early public comment. This notice included our initial thoughts about 
the kind of ESEA accountability system the consolidated State 
application (and annual performance report) might encompass, and 
proposed that States submit their consolidated State applications 
through a series of phased submissions.
    In response to this notice, the Department received 27 written 
comments, including 17 from State officials across the Nation. While 
offering suggestions in a number of areas to improve the overall 
effectiveness of both the consolidated application and the overall 
accountability system, these comments generally were very supportive of 
the Department's proposal.
    In this regard, many commenters made recommendations for how the 
content of performance goals, indicators, and State-defined targets 
that

[[Page 10170]]

SEAs would address in their consolidated applications might fit with 
their own State accountability systems. Others commented on the 
proposal to permit SEAs to submit their consolidated applications in 
phases. These individuals generally agreed that a phase-in process 
would be needed, urged that the Department have all data submitted no 
later than the beginning of the 2003-04 school year, and recommended 
that after submitting their initial applications this spring, SEAs 
submit follow-up information on a schedule that reflects their States' 
own needs and unique circumstances. Still other commenters raised 
questions about specific ESEA programs, questions the Department will 
address in individual program guidance. We considered all of these 
suggestions and questions in formulating the details of this current 
proposal.

Invitation To Comment

    The Secretary invites comments from all interested members of the 
public on this proposal for the content and procedures to govern 
consolidated State applications. In view of the late enactment of the 
NCLB and the time needed subsequently to prepare this notice, the 
Department will need to publish a notice of final requirements as 
quickly as possible in order to ensure that it can make formula grant 
awards to States in the beginning of July. For this reason, while we 
will carefully consider all comments received during the 30-day comment 
period, we request those wishing to comment to send their comments to 
the individual identified in the ADDRESSES section of this notice by 
March 25 if possible.
    As we observed in our January 4 initial proposal, consolidated 
State applications can provide the Department with important 
information on how the State intends ESEA programs included in the 
application to promote increased achievement of all students. However, 
the principal importance of applications (and reports) is the 
opportunity they provide SEAs to communicate to the public, 
policymakers, and others in each State the basis on which the State 
officials responsible for implementing the new law propose to hold 
themselves accountable for ensuring that no child is left behind.
    In both of these contexts, we are interested in receiving public 
comment and reaction to all aspects of this proposal. However, in 
formulating your comments we ask that you pay particular attention to 
the following questions:
    A. The proposed ESEA system of accountability. Do the ESEA 
performance goals and performance indicators, which the Department 
would have all States adopt as a minimum core for a sound 
accountability system (see appendix A), reflect a reasonable mix of 
those critical elements on which student achievement and the purposes 
of ESEA programs rest? Would the data reporting requirements included 
in this package be compatible with States' own efforts to collect, 
analyze, and report data on educational outcomes and the effectiveness 
of education programs? How can the Department assist States in creating 
systems to manage data associated with ESEA performance indicators? 
What baseline data do States already have to measure their success in 
meeting these performance targets? When in calendar year 2003 could 
States reasonably provide baseline data to the Department?
    B. Timeline for submitting data for appendix B or C. Aside from 
information that appendix B or C would permit States to submit on 
another schedule--
    Does appendix B or C solicit any program descriptions or fiscal 
information that States could not provide by May of this year? In 
responding to this question, please remember that absent submission of 
a consolidated application, the ESEA would require States, as a 
condition of receiving their fiscal year 2002 ESEA funding, to submit 
individual program plans or applications that meet each of the 
requirements of the applicable ESEA program statute.
    Except for requirements of Title I, Part A that do not become 
effective until later, is it feasible to have all required 
information--including baseline data for performance targets and 
information about standards, assessments, and accountability systems 
required by Title I--submitted to the Department by May 2003? If not, 
why not? If this is not feasible, what flexibility might the Department 
consider providing to States that can demonstrate a need for a bit more 
time to adopt performance targets relative to the required indicators 
proposed in appendix A, and at the same time hold States accountable 
for providing baseline data?
    C. Individual program information. Do any aspects of the 
programmatic or fiscal information that the Department would have 
States submit in their consolidated applications seem either 
unnecessary or ill-defined? Which ones?
    D. Possible designation of other programs. Section 9302(a)(2) of 
the ESEA authorizes the Secretary to designate other programs for 
inclusion in a consolidated State application. Are there other programs 
that the Secretary should designate?
    E. Other questions. Are there criteria and procedures for 
consolidated State applications that, consistent with the requirements 
of sections 9301 and 9302 of the ESEA, would better promote 
accountability for increased academic achievement of all students and 
other objectives of the No Child Left Behind Act? What are they? How 
should they be reflected in the procedures and content for consolidated 
State applications that the Department establishes? Alternatively, is 
the Department's proposal reasonable and clearly presented? Which 
aspects need to be modified or revised?
    All comments submitted in response to this notice will be available 
for public inspection, during and after the comment period, in room 
3W300, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202-6400.

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. These proposed requirements provide a 
basis for the Secretary to award funds from a number of different 
federal programs under a single application. Therefore, the 
requirements would not impose any unfounded mandates on States. The 
benefits of the program are described in the SUMMARY section of this 
application.

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 entities affected by these requirements would be SEAs. In

[[Page 10171]]

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 
requirements 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

    The Department is currently drafting a consolidated State 
application package that would contain the data collection requirements 
proposed in this document. The feedback received on these proposed data 
collection requirements will be considered when we develop the final 
notice and the final application package. At that time, we will request 
Office of Management and Budget approval of the final application 
package on an emergency basis.
    We invite your comments on the proposed collection requirements. In 
view of the late enactment of the NCLB and the time needed subsequently 
to prepare this notice, the Department will need to publish a notice of 
final requirements as quickly as possible in order to ensure that it 
can make formula grant awards to States in the beginning of July. For 
this reason, while we will carefully consider all comments received 
during the 30-day comment period, we request those wishing to comment 
to send their comments to the individual identified in the ADDRESSES 
section of this notice.

Intergovernmental Review

    These programs are 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.

Electronic Access to This Document

    You may view 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 the following site: 
http://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 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: Section 9302 of the ESEA, as amended by the 
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Pub. L. 107-110).

Susan B. Neuman,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
Marina Tse,
Acting Director for English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, 
and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students.

Appendix A: ESEA Performance Goals, Performance Indicators, and State 
Performance Targets

    State and local accountability for the academic achievement of 
all students is central to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The 
system of accountability on which the consolidated State application 
rests, a system intended to help the public understand how well the 
State is meeting its student achievement goals for all students, is 
built around several key elements:
    1. ESEA ``Performance goals'' that the Department has 
established. These goals reflect the basic purposes of the ESEA and 
the programs included in the consolidated application.
    2. ESEA ``Performance indicators'' that the Department has 
established for each ESEA performance goal. States would use these 
indicators to measure their progress in meeting the ESEA performance 
goals.
    3. ``Performance targets'' that each State would establish. The 
performance targets define the progress a State expects to make at 
specified points in time with respect to each indicator. For 
example, for the indicator ``the percentage of students in third 
grade reading at grade level,'' the performance target might be: 
``the percentage of students in third grade reading at grade level 
will increase from ``x'' percent in 2001-2002 to ``y'' percent in 
2002-2003.''
    We identify the following six ESEA performance goals that are 
central to the purposes of the ESEA programs, and performance 
indicators for each of these performance goals. Each State must 
adopt this set of six performance goals and corresponding 
performance indicators. However, a State may include additional 
performance goals and indicators in its application if it desires to 
do so.
    Performance goal 1: All students will reach high standards, at a 
minimum attaining proficiency or better in reading and mathematics 
by 2013-2014.
    1.1  Performance indicator: The percentage of students in Title 
I schools, in the aggregate and for each subgroup, who are at or 
above the proficient level in reading on the State's assessment. 
(Note: Subgroups are those defined in Section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v))
    1.1.1  Example of a State performance target: State assessments 
will show that the percentage of students in Title I schools, in the 
aggregate and in each subgroup, who are at or above the proficient 
level in reading will increase consistent with the annual measurable 
objectives determined by the computations for ``adequate yearly 
progress'; these annual measurable objectives are ``x'' for 2002-03, 
``y'' for 2003-04, etc.
    1.2  Performance indicator: The percentage of students in Title 
I schools, in the aggregate and in each subgroup, who are at or 
above the proficient level in mathematics on the State's assessment.
    1.3  Performance indicator: The percentage of Title I schools 
that make adequate yearly progress in reading and mathematics.
    1.3.1  Example of a State performance target: The percentage of 
schools that make adequate yearly progress will increase from the 
baseline established in 2001-2002 by ``x'' percent each subsequent 
year.
    1.4  Performance indicator: The percentage of migrant students 
who are enrolled in schools in need of improvement.
    1.5  Performance indicator: The percentage of students that meet 
or exceed State standards for student literacy in technology.
    Performance goal 2: By 2013-2014, all students will be 
proficient in reading by the end of the third grade.
    2.1  Performance indicator: The percentage of students in third 
grade reading at grade level or above.
    Performance goal 3: All limited English proficient students will 
become proficient in English.
    3.1  Performance indicator: The percentage of children 
identified as limited English proficient who have attained English 
proficiency by the end of the school year.
    Performance goal 4: By 2005-2006, all students will be taught by 
highly qualified teachers.
    4.1  Performance indicator: The percentage of classes being 
taught by ``highly qualified'' teachers (as the term is defined in 
section 9101(23) of the ESEA), in the aggregate and in ``high-
poverty'' schools (as the term is defined in section 
1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) of the ESEA).
    4.1.1.  Example of a State performance target: The percentage of 
classes being taught by highly qualified teachers, in the aggregate 
and in high-poverty schools, will increase from the baseline of 
``x'' percent in 2001-2002 to ``y'' percent in 2002-2003, ``z'' 
percent in 2003-2004, etc.

[[Page 10172]]

    4.2  Performance indicator: The percentage of teachers receiving 
high-quality professional development (See definition of 
``professional development'' in section 9101 (34)).
    4.3  Performance indicator: The percentage of teachers qualified 
to use technology for instruction.
    Performance goal 5: All students will be educated in learning 
environments that are safe, drug free, and conducive to learning.
    5.1  Performance indicator: The percentage of students who 
carried a weapon (for example, a gun, knife, or club) on school 
property (in the 30 days prior to the survey).
    5.2  Performance indicator: The percentage of students who 
engaged in a physical fight on school property (in the 12 months 
preceding the survey).
    5.3  Performance indicator: The percentage of students offered, 
sold, or given an illegal drug on school property (in the 12 months 
preceding the survey).
    5.4  Performance indicator: The number of persistently dangerous 
schools, as defined by the State.
    5.5  Performance indicator: The number of schools in which all 
students are able to work from a networked computer.
    Performance Goal 6: All students will graduate from high school.
    6.1  Performance indicator: The percentage of students who 
complete high school, disaggregated by poverty, limited English 
proficient and migrant status, and major ethnic and racial group 
membership.
    6.2  Performance indicator: The number of students who drop out 
of school after entering grades 7 through 12, disaggregated by the 
poverty, limited English proficient and migrant status, and major 
ethnic and racial group membership.

    Note:  During 2002 and beyond, the Department will work with 
LEAs and SEAs to establish data standards for performance indicators 
and other information collected from States and districts. The 
Department will also confer with LEA and SEA officials, the research 
community, information technology vendors, and other interested 
parties on ways in which States, LEAs, and schools can collect and 
electronically record useful baseline and follow-up data through an 
internet-based format. The new format should accommodate the 
measurement of success relative to the various indicators that the 
Department and States have adopted. Future application and reporting 
guidelines, therefore, will stress electronic reporting and provide 
States with additional options in fulfilling federal information 
requests.

Appendix B: State Activities To Implement ESEA Programs

    States will conduct a number of activities to ensure effective 
implementation of the ESEA programs included in their consolidated 
applications. Many of the activities may serve multiple programs. 
For example, a State may develop a comprehensive approach to 
monitoring and technical assistance that would be used for several 
(or all) programs. In responding to the items in this section, SEAs 
would indicate the ESEA programs that will benefit from the 
activities it describes. Where applicable, States may include html 
references, electronic files, or other existing documentation to 
comply with the requirements listed in the application.
    1. Describe the State's system of standards, assessments, and 
accountability and provide evidence that it meets the requirements 
of the ESEA. In doing so--
    a. Provide evidence that the State has adopted challenging 
content standards in mathematics and reading/language arts in 
accordance with Title I, Part A of the ESEA, where not previously 
submitted. If the State has modified its currently approved content 
standards in mathematics, reading, or language arts, submit evidence 
that the modified standards meet the requirements of section 
1111(b)(1). (Note: A number of items request that States provide 
``evidence.'' The Department will issue guidance on what kind of 
evidence it will expect to see.)
    b. Provide evidence that the State has adopted challenging 
academic content standards in science that meet the requirements of 
section 1111(b)(1) or, if these standards have yet to be adopted, 
submit a timeline for their development and submit evidence when it 
is available, but no later than May 2005.
    c. Provide a detailed timeline for the development and 
implementation, in consultation with LEAs, of assessments that meet 
the requirements of section 1111(b)(3) in the required subjects and 
grade levels. When assessments are in place, provide evidence that 
they meet those requirements. Provide this evidence as early as it 
is available, but no later than indicated in the following schedule.

Assessments

Subject: Mathematics.
    Grades: 3-8.
    Implement by: 2005-06.
    Submit evidence by: December 2006.

Subject: Reading/Language Arts.
    Grades: 3-8.
    Implement by: 2005-06.
    Submit evidence by: December 2006.

Subject: Science.
    Grades: Elementary (3-5); Middle (6-9); High School (10-12).
    Implement by: 2007-2008.
    Submit evidence by: December 2008.

    d. Provide a detailed timeline for setting, in consultation with 
LEAs, academic achievement standards in mathematics, reading or 
language arts, and science that meet the requirements of section 
1111(b)(1). When academic achievement standards have been set, 
provide evidence that they have been adopted and meet those 
requirements. Provide such evidence as early as it is available, but 
no later than indicated in the following schedule.

Academic Achievement Standards

Subject: Mathematics.
    Grades: 3-8.
    Implement by: 2005-06.
    Submit evidence by: December 2006.

Subject: Reading/Language Arts.
    Grades: 3-8.
    Implement by: 2005-06.
    Submit evidence by: December 2006.

Subject: Science.
    Grades: Elementary (3-5); Middle (6-9); High School (10-12).
    Implement by: 2007-2008.
    Submit evidence by: December 2008.

    e. Describe how the State defines its adequate yearly progress 
``starting point'' for the percentage of students meeting or 
exceeding the State's proficient level (or provide a timeline for 
defining the starting point and for submitting this information).
    f. Provide the State's definition of adequate yearly progress 
(or provide a timeline for determining the definition and for 
submitting the definition) including--
    i. For the percentage of students meeting or exceeding the 
State's proficient level, provide--
     The starting point percentage;
     The intermediate goals;
     The timeline; and
     Annual objectives.
    ii. Current high school graduation rate and target rate.
    iii. One other academic indicator, applicable to elementary 
schools, and its target.
    iv. Any other (optional) indicators and their targets.
    g. Provide evidence that the State has a single accountability 
system that uses the same criteria, based primarily on assessments 
consistent with section 1111(b), for determining whether a school 
has made adequate yearly progress, regardless of whether the school 
receives Title I, Part A or other Federal funds.
    h. Identify the languages present in the student population to 
be assessed, languages in which the State administers assessments, 
and languages in which the State will need to administer 
assessments.
    i. Provide evidence that, beginning not later than the school 
year 2002-2003, LEAs will provide for an annual assessment of 
English proficiency that meets the requirements of section 
1111(b)(7).
    j. Describe the status of the State's effort to establish 
standards and annual measurable achievement objectives that relate 
to the development and attainment of English proficiency by limited 
English proficient children. These standards and objectives must be 
derived from the domains of speaking, listening, reading, writing, 
and comprehension, and be aligned with the State academic content 
and student academic achievement standards as required by section 
1111(b)(1) of the ESEA. If they are not yet established, describe 
the State's plan and timeline for completing the development of 
these standards and achievement objectives.
    2. Describe key procedures, selection criteria, and priorities 
the State will use to award competitive subgrants (or contracts) to 
the entities and for the activities required by the program statutes 
of applicable programs included in the consolidated application. 
States should include a description of how, for each program, these 
selection criteria and priorities will promote improved academic 
achievement. Applicable included programs are:
     Even Start Family Literacy (Title I, Part B).
     Education of Migrant Children (Title I, Part C).

[[Page 10173]]

     Prevention and Intervention for Children Who Are 
Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk--Local Agency Programs (Title I, 
Part D, Subpart 2).
     Comprehensive School Reform (Title I, Part F).
     Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund--
subgrants to eligible partnerships (Title II, Part A, Subpart 3).
     Enhanced Education Through Technology (Title II, Part 
D).
     Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities--reservation 
for the Governor (Title IV, Part A, section 4112).
     Community Service Grants (Title IV, Part A, section 
4126).
     21st Century Community Learning Centers (Title IV, Part 
B).
    3. Describe how the State will monitor and provide professional 
development and technical assistance to LEAs, schools, and other 
subgrantees to help them implement their programs and meet the 
States' (and those entities' own) performance goals and objectives. 
This should include a description of assistance the SEA will provide 
to LEAs, schools, and other subgrantees in identifying and 
implementing effective instructional programs and practices based on 
scientific research.
    4. Describe the Statewide system of support under section 1117 
to ensure that all schools meet the State's academic content and 
student achievement standards, including how the State will provide 
assistance to low-performing schools.
    5. Describe the activities the State will conduct to--
    a. Help Title I schools make effective use of schoolwide 
programs to improve the achievement of all students;
    b. Ensure that all teachers, particularly those in high-poverty 
areas and those in schools in need of improvement, are highly 
qualified. This description should include the help States will 
provide to LEAs and schools to--
    (i) Conduct effective professional development activities;
    (ii) Recruit and hire highly qualified teachers, including those 
licensed or certified through alternative routes; and
    (iii) Retain highly qualified teachers.
     Help LEAs with a high need for technology, high 
percentages or numbers of children in poverty, and low-performing 
schools to form partnerships with other LEAs, institutions of higher 
education (IHEs), libraries, and other private and public profit and 
non-profit entities with technology expertise to improve the use of 
technology in instruction.
     Promote parental and community participation in 
schools.
     Secure the baseline and follow-up data discussed in the 
``Framework for ESEA Accountability'' section of the foregoing 
Supplementary Information.
    6. Briefly describe how State officials and staff will 
coordinate the various ESEA-funded programs and State-level 
activities the State administers, and how the State will coordinate 
with other organizations, such as businesses, IHEs, nonprofit 
organizations and other State agencies, and with other Federal 
programs (including those authorized by Individuals with 
Disabilities Education Act, the Perkins Vocational and Technical 
Education Act, the Head Start Act, the Adult Education and Family 
Literacy Act, and the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act).
    7. Describe the strategies the State will use to determine, on a 
regular basis, whether LEAs, schools, and other subgrantees are 
making satisfactory progress in meeting State and local goals and 
desired program outcomes. In doing so, the SEA should also describe 
how it will use data it gathers from subgrantees on how well they 
are meeting State performance targets, and the actions the State 
will take to determine or revise interventions for any LEAs, 
schools, and other subgrantees that are not making substantial 
progress.

Appendix C: Key Programmatic and Fiscal Information

    The Department has an overall responsibility for ensuring the 
programmatic and fiscal integrity of the ESEA programs. To met this 
responsibility, the Department proposes that before it would award 
FY 2002 program funds on the basis of a consolidated application, it 
would need to review and approve information on how the State would 
comply with a few key requirements of the individual ESEA programs 
included in the application. In particular, the Department would 
need the SEA to respond to the following:

I. Key Program Requirements

1. Title I, Part B, Subpart 3--Even Start Family Literacy

    a. Describe how the SEA will use its indicators of program 
quality to monitor, evaluate, and improve its projects, and to 
decide whether to continue operating them.
    b. Describe what constitutes sufficient program progress when 
the SEA makes continuation awards.
    c. Explain how the State's Even Start projects will provide 
assistance to low-income families participating in the program to 
help children in those families to achieve to the applicable State 
content and student achievement standards.

2. Title I, Part C--Education of Migrant Children

    a. Describe the process the State will use to develop, 
implement, and document a comprehensive needs assessment that 
identifies the special educational and related needs of migrant 
children.
    b. Describe the State's priorities for the use of migrant 
education program funds in order to meet the State's performance 
targets for indicators 1.1, 1.2, and 2.1 as appendix A (as well as 
1.4, 6.1, and 6.2 that expressly include migrant students), and how 
they relate to the State's assessment of needs for services.
    c. Describe how the State will determine the amount of any 
subgrants the State will award to local operating agencies, taking 
into account the numbers and needs of migratory children, the 
statutory priority for service in section 1304(d), and the 
availability of funds from other Federal, State, and local programs.
    d. Describe how the State will promote continuity of education 
and the interstate and intrastate coordination of services for 
migratory children.
    e. Describe the State's plan to evaluate the effectiveness of 
its migrant education program and projects.

3. Title I, Part D--Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, 
Delinquent, or At-Risk

    a. Describe the program goals, performance indicators, 
performance objectives, and data sources that the State has 
established for its use in assessing the effectiveness of the 
program in improving the academic and vocational and technical 
skills of students participating in the program.
    b. Describe how the SEA is assisting projects funded under the 
program in facilitating the transition of children and youth from 
correctional facilities to locally operated programs.

4. Title I, Part F--Comprehensive School Reform

    a. Describe the process the State educational agency will use to 
ensure that programs funded include and integrate all eleven 
required components of a comprehensive school reform program.
    b. Describe the percentage of schools that participate in the 
Comprehensive School Reform program (CSR) meeting or exceeding the 
proficient level of performance on State assessments in reading and 
mathematics.

5. Title II, Part A--Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting 
Fund

    a. If not fully addressed in the State's response to the 
information on performance goals, indicators, and targets in 
Appendix A, describe the remainder of the State's annual measurable 
objectives under section 1119(a)(2).
    b. Describe how the SEA will hold LEAs accountable both for (1) 
meeting the annual measurable objectives described in section 
1119(a)(2) of the ESEA, and (2) ensuring that the professional 
development the LEAs offer their teachers and other instructional 
staff is consistent with the definition of ``professional 
development'' in section 9101(34).

6. Title II, Part D--Enhanced Education Through Technology

    a. Provide a brief summary of the SEA's long-term strategies for 
improving student academic achievement, including technology 
literacy, through the effective use of technology in the classroom, 
and the capacity of teachers to integrate technology effectively 
into curricula and instruction.
    b. Describe key activities that the SEA will conduct or sponsor 
with the funds it retains at the State level. These may include such 
activities as provision of distance learning in rigorous academic 
courses or curricula; the establishment or support of public-private 
initiatives for the acquisition of technology by high-need LEAs; and 
the development of performance measurement systems to determine the 
effectiveness of educational technology programs.
    c. Provide a brief description of how--
    i. The SEA will ensure that students and teachers, particularly 
those in the schools of high-need LEAs, have increased access to 
technology, and

[[Page 10174]]

    ii. The SEA will coordinate the application and award process 
for State discretionary grant and formula grant funds under this 
program.

7. Title III, Part A--English Language Acquisition and Language 
Enhancement

    a. Describe how the SEA will ensure that subgrantees use program 
funds only to carry out activities that reflect scientifically based 
research on the education of limited English proficient children 
while allowing those grantees flexibility (to the extent permitted 
under State law) to select and implement such activities in a manner 
that they determine best reflects local needs and circumstances.
    b. Describe how the SEA will hold subgrantees accountable for 
meeting all annual measurable achievement objectives for limited 
English proficient children, and making adequate yearly progress for 
limited English proficient children.

8. Title IV, Part A--Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities

    a. Describe the key strategies in the State's comprehensive plan 
for the use of funds by the SEA and the Governor of the State to 
provide safe, orderly, and drug-free schools and communities through 
programs and activities that--
    i. Complement and support activities of LEAs under section 
4115(b) of the ESEA;
    ii. Comply with the principles of effectiveness under section 
4115(a); and
    iii. Otherwise are in accordance with the purpose of Title IV, 
Part A.

    Note: The reauthorized provisions of the Safe and Drug-Free 
Schools and Communities (SDFSC) Program clearly emphasize well-
coordinated SEA and Governors Program activities. The statute 
requires that significant parts of the program application be 
developed for each State's program, not for the SEA and Governors 
Programs individually. For this reason, each State must submit a 
single application for SDFSC SEA and Governors Program funds. States 
may choose to apply for SDFSC funding through this consolidated 
application or through a program-specific application.

9. Title VI, Part B, Subpart 2--Rural and Low-Income School Program

    a. Describe how the State elects to make awards under the Rural 
and Low-Income School Program:
    i. By formula proportionate to the numbers of students in 
eligible districts;
    ii. Competitively (please explain any priorities for the 
competition); or
    iii. By a State-designed formula that results in equal or 
greater assistance being awarded to school districts that serve 
higher concentrations of poor students.

    Note: If a State elects this option, the formula must be 
submitted for ED approval. States that elect this option may submit 
their State-designed formulas for approval as part of this 
submission.

II. Key Fiscal Information

1. Consolidated Administrated Funds

    a. Does the SEA plan to consolidate State-level administrative 
funds?
    If yes, please provide information and analysis concerning 
Federal and other funding that demonstrates that Federal funds 
constitute less than half of the funds used to support the SEA.
    If yes, are there any programs whose funds are available for 
administration that the SEA will not consolidate?
    b. Please describe your plans for any additional uses of funds

2. Transferability

    Does the State plan to transfer non-administrative State-level 
ESEA funds under the provisions of the State and Local 
Transferability Act (sections 6121 to 6123 of the ESEA)? If so, 
please list the funds and the amounts and percentages to be 
transferred, the program from which funds are to be transferred, and 
the program into which funds are to be transferred.

    Note: If the State elects to notify ED of the transfer in this 
document, the plan described in response to provisions of appendix B 
should be that in effect after the transfer. If the State does not 
plan to transfer funds at this time, it may do so at a later date. 
To do so, the State must (1) establish an effective date for the 
transfer, (2) notify the Department (at least 30 days before the 
effective date of the transfer) of its intention to transfer funds, 
and (3) submit the resulting changes to the plan as discussed in 
this appendix C by 30 days after the effective date of the transfer.

3. Program Specific Fiscal Information

a. Title I, Part A--Improving Basic Programs Operated By LEAs

    i. Identify the amount of the reservation in section 1003(a) for 
school improvement that the State will use for State-level 
activities and describe those activities.
    ii. For the 95 percent of the reservation in section 1003(a) 
that must be made available to LEAs, describe how the SEA will 
allocate funds to assist LEAs in complying with the school 
improvement, corrective action, and restructuring requirements of 
section 1116 and identify any SEA requirements for use of those 
funds.
    iii. Identify what part, if any, of State administrative funds 
the SEA will use for assessment development under section 1004 of 
the ESEA, and describe how those funds will be used.
    iv. Describe the State's procedures for distributing funds for 
schools to use for supplemental services under section 1116(e)(7), 
and identify the amount of funds those schools will receive.
    v. Describe how the State will use funds awarded under section 
6113(b)(1) for the development and implementation of State 
assessments in accordance with section 6111(b)(1).

b. Title I, Part B--Even Start Family Literacy

    Identify the amount of the reservation under subsection 1233(a) 
that the State will use for each category of State-level activities 
listed in that section, and describe how the SEA will carry out 
those activities.

c. Title I, Part C--Education of Migratory Children

    Identify the amount of funds that the SEA will retain from its 
Migrant Education Program (MEP) allocation, under section 200.41 of 
the Title I regulations (34 CFR 200.41), to carry out administrative 
and program functions that are unique to the MEP, and describe how 
the SEA will use those funds.

d. Title I, Part D--Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, 
or At-Risk

    Describe how the funds reserved under section 1418 will be used 
for transition services for students leaving institutions for 
schools served by LEAs, or postsecondary institutions or vocational 
and technical training programs.

e. Title II, Part A--Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting 
Fund.

    i. Identify the amount of the State's total allocation for Title 
II, Part A funds that would be reserved for administration and 
planning (administration) costs under section 2113(d) and the amount 
of those funds that would be provided to the SEA and State agency 
for higher education (SAHE), respectively. The total amount that a 
State may reserve for administration may not exceed 1 percent of the 
State's total allocation under Part A of Title II.

    Note: While the statute authorizes an SEA and SAHE to reserve 
program funds for administrative expenses, it does not prescribe how 
those funds are to be apportioned between the SEA and SAHE. The 
Department is proposing that the two entities determine together how 
much of the State's total administrative set-aside each entity would 
receive. The Department also proposes that it would not award any of 
the Title II, Part A funds available to the State for administration 
unless the Department receives information that identifies (1) the 
total amount that the State would reserve for administrative costs; 
(2) the amount that would be made available to the SEA and the SAHE, 
respectively, for administration; and (3) an assurance that named 
senior officers of the SEA and the SAHE have agreed to the 
apportionment of State administrative funds.
    The Department will provide further guidance on within-State 
allocations of Title II, Part funds reserved for administration in 
the Title II, Part A nonregulatory guidance it is developing for the 
program.

    ii. Describe how the SEA will use funds reserved for State 
activities described in section 2113(c) of the ESEA to meet the 
teacher professional development and paraprofessional requirements 
in section 1119.

f. Title III, Part A--English Language Acquisition and Language 
Enhancement

    In order that the Department may make FY 2002 State program 
allocations, provide the most recent data available on--
    i. A total amount not to exceed 5 percent of the State's 
allotment may be reserved by the State under section 3111(b)(2) to 
carry out one or more of the following categories

[[Page 10175]]

of State-level activities: professional development; planning, 
evaluation, administration, and interagency coordination; technical 
assistance; and providing recognition to subgrantees that have 
exceeded their annual measurable achievement objectives. Specify the 
percentage of the State's allotment that the State will reserve and 
the percentage of the reserved funds that the State will use for 
each of the categories of activities.
    ii. A total amount not to exceed 15 percent of the State's 
allotment must be reserved by the State under section 3114(d)(1) to 
award subgrants to eligible entities that have experienced a 
significant increase in the percentage or number of immigrant 
children and youth. Specify the percentage of the State's allotment 
that the State will reserve for these subgrants.
    iii. The number of limited English proficient children in the 
State. (See definitions of ``child'' in section 3301(1), and 
``limited English proficient'' in section 9101(25).)
    vi. The most recent data available on the number of immigrant 
children and youth in the State. (See definition of ``immigrant 
children and youth'' in section 3301(6).)

    Note: Section 3111 of the ESEA requires that State allocations 
for the Language Acquisition State grants be calculated on the basis 
of the number of limited English proficient children in the State 
compared to the number of such children in all States (80 percent) 
and the number of immigrant children and youth in the State compared 
to the number of such children and youth in all States (20 percent). 
The Department plans to use data from the 2000 Census Bureau to 
calculate State shares of limited English proficient students. 
However, these data on limited English proficient students will not 
be available for all States until September 2002. To ensure that 
States have access to funds as soon as they are available, the 
Department proposes, for FY 2002 only, to provide an initial 
distribution of 50 percent of the funds under the limited English 
proficient portion of the formula based on State-reported data. As 
soon as Census data become available, the Department will 
recalculate and make final State allocations using Census data.

    For the 20 percent of formula funds distributed to States based 
on State shares of immigrant children and youth, the Department 
intends to use State-reported data in allocating these funds. Census 
does not collect data that can be used to calculate State 
allocations for this part of the formula.

g. Title IV, Part A, Subpart 1, Section 4112(a)--Safe and Drug-Free 
Schools and Communities: Reservation of State Funds for the Governor

    i. The Governor may reserve up to 20 percent of the State's 
allocation under this program to award competitive grants or 
contracts. Indicate the percentage of the State's allocation that is 
to be reserved for the Governor's program.
    ii. The Governor may administer these funds directly or 
designate an appropriate State agency to receive the funds and 
administer this allocation. Provide the name of the entity 
designated to receive these funds, contact information for that 
entity (the name of the head of the designated agency, address, 
telephone number) and the ``DUNS'' number that should be used to 
award these funds.

h. Title IV, Part A, Subpart 2, Section 4126--Safe and Drug-Free 
Schools and Communities: Community Service Grants

    The statute provides for grants to States to carry out programs 
under which students expelled or suspended from school are required 
to perform community service. The Department proposes to award funds 
available under this program to State educational agencies, after 
they have consulted with their Governors. SEAs and LEAs in some 
States are already implementing community service activities for 
students, and we believe that awards to SEAs are most likely to 
result in the integration of these program funds into a more 
comprehensive, coordinated strategy. Although the statutory language 
for this program would permit the Department to award grants to a 
Governor, or to another entity designated by the Governor, we 
believe that most students eligible to benefit from this program are 
likely to be served by SEAs or LEAs. We would like to receive 
comments on our tentative plan for awarding grants under this 
program.
     Describe how funds will be used by the designated 
entity(ies) to develop and implement a community service program for 
suspended and expelled students.

i. Title V, Part A--Innovative Programs

    i. In accordance with section 5112(a)(1) of the ESEA, provide 
the SEA's formula for distributing program funds to LEAs. Include 
information on how the SEA will adjust its formula to provide higher 
per-pupil allocations to LEAs that have the greatest numbers or 
percentages of children whose education imposes a higher-than-
average cost per child, such as--
     Children living in areas with concentrations of 
economically disadvantaged families;
     Children from economically disadvantaged families; and
     Children living in sparsely populated areas.
    ii. Identify the amount the State will reserve for State-level 
activities under section 5121, and describe those activities.

Appendix D: Assurances

    1. General and Cross-Cutting Assurances. Section 9304(a) 
requires States to have on file with the Secretary, as part of their 
consolidated application, a single set of assurances, applicable to 
each program included in the consolidated application, that provide 
that--
    a. Each such program will be administered in accordance with all 
applicable statutes, regulations, program plans, and applications;
    b.i. The control of funds provided under each such program and 
title to property acquired with program funds will be in a public 
agency, a nonprofit private agency, institution, or organization, or 
an Indian tribe, if the law authorizing the program provides for 
assistance to those entities; and
    ii. The public agency, nonprofit private agency, institution, or 
organization, or Indian tribe will administer those funds and 
property to the extent required by the authorizing law;
    c. The State will adopt and use proper methods of administering 
each such program, including--
    i. The enforcement of any obligations imposed by law on 
agencies, institutions, organizations, and other recipients 
responsible for carrying out each program;
    ii. The correction of deficiencies in program operations that 
are identified through audits, monitoring, or evaluation; and
    iii. The adoption of written procedures for the receipt and 
resolution of complaints alleging violations of law in the 
administration of the programs;
    d. The State will cooperate in carrying out any evaluation of 
each such program conducted by or for the Secretary or other Federal 
officials;
    e. The State will use such fiscal control and fund accounting 
procedures as will ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting 
for, Federal funds paid to the State under each such program;
    f. The State will--
    i. Make reports to the Secretary as may be necessary to enable 
the Secretary to perform the Secretary's duties under each such 
program; and
    ii. Maintain such records, provide such information to the 
Secretary, and afford such access to the records as the Secretary 
may find necessary to carry out the Secretary's duties; and
     g. Before the plan or application was submitted to the 
Secretary, the State afforded a reasonable opportunity for public 
comment on the plan or application and considered such comment.
    2. ESEA Specific Assurances and Crosscutting Declaration. Each 
SEA that submits a consolidated application also must provide an 
assurance that they will--
    a. Comply with all requirements of the ESEA programs included in 
their consolidated applications, whether or not the program statute 
identifies these requirements as a description or assurance that 
States would have addressed, absent this consolidated application, 
in a program-specific plan or application, and
    b. Maintain records of their compliance with each of those 
requirements.

    Note: For the Safe and Drug-Free Schools programs, the SEA must 
have all appropriate assurances from the Governor on record.

    Through this general assurance and assurance (1) in section 
9304(a), the SEA agrees to comply with all requirements of the ESEA 
and other applicable program statutes. While all requirements are 
important, we have identified a number of those to which we believe 
SEAs should pay particular attention in order to ensure the 
effective use of ESEA program funds in promoting increased student 
achievement. The Department will include in the application package 
for the consolidated application and on its website a list of these 
requirements of individual programs that the SEA, through its 
assurances, is agreeing to meet. At the same

[[Page 10176]]

time we stress that the list of program-specific requirements that 
the SEA is assuring the Department it will meet is not meant to be 
exhaustive and that States are accountable for all program 
requirements.
    3. Cross-Cutting Declaration: Certification of Compliance with 
Unsafe School Choice Option Requirements. The State certifies that 
it has established and implemented a Statewide policy requiring that 
students attending persistently dangerous public elementary or 
secondary schools, as determined by the State (in consultation with 
a representative sample of local educational agencies), or who 
become victims of violent criminal offenses, as determined by State 
law, while in or on the grounds of public elementary and secondary 
schools that the students attend, be allowed to choose to attend a 
different, safe public elementary or secondary school (which may 
include a public charter school) within the local educational 
agency.

Appendix E: Enhanced Assessment Instruments Competitive Grant Program 
(Title VI, section 6112)--Program Information and Proposed Selection 
Criteria

    Overview. Proficiency on State assessments required under Title 
I, Part A of the ESEA is the primary indicator in the ESEA of 
student academic achievement and, hence, the primary measure of 
State success in meeting the goals of No Child Left Behind. In view 
of the critical importance of these State assessments, section 6112 
of the ESEA authorizes the Secretary to make competitive grant 
awards to State educational agencies (SEAs) to help them enhance the 
quality of assessment and accountability systems.
    Because of the close relationship between this program and Title 
I, Part A, section 6112 requires States wishing to apply for these 
grants to include their applications in the State plans they prepare 
under Title I, Part A. For this reason, the Secretary has designated 
this program for voluntary inclusion in a State's ESEA consolidated 
application even though it is not a formula grant program. In doing 
so, the Secretary proposes the following procedures and requirements 
to be used under this competition.
    Eligible applicants. By law, all eligible applicants must be 
SEAs or consortia of SEAs. An application from a consortium of SEAs 
must designate one SEA as the fiscal agent.
    Proposed Award Amounts and Timelines. The statute requires that 
any funds appropriated in excess of the required amount for State 
assessment formula allocations (section 6111) be allocated as 
competitive grants. From the amount appropriated, approximately $17 
million is available for the upcoming fiscal year 2002 competition. 
Subject to the minimum size of award provided in section 
6113(b)(2)(A)(ii) (which is based on a State's enrollment of 
students ages 5-17), the Department estimates that it will make 20 
awards ranging from $300,000 to $2,000,000, with an average size of 
$850,000.
    The Department expects to require that all applications be 
submitted on or before September 15, 2002, and to make awards by 
December 1, 2002. Project periods would run until September 30, 
2004.
    Application requirements. Section 6112(a) requires that all 
funded applications demonstrate that States (or consortia of States) 
will--
    1. Collaborate with institutions of higher education, other 
research institutions, or other organizations to improve the 
quality, validity, and reliability of State academic assessments 
beyond the requirements for the assessments described in section 
1111(b)(3) of Title I, Part A;
    2. Measure student academic achievement using multiple measures 
of student academic achievement from multiple sources;
    3. Chart student progress over time; or
    4. Evaluate student academic achievement through the development 
of comprehensive academic assessment instruments, such as 
performance and technology-based academic assessments.
    Proposed competitive preferences. There is a great need for 
enhancing assessment instruments so that they take into 
consideration alternatives for assessing students with disabilities 
and limited English proficient students. In addition, we believe 
that collaborative efforts between and among States and effective 
dissemination of project results will yield procedures that can be 
applied in varied contexts, reinforcing the flexibility of the 
statute while increasing the likelihood that projects will result in 
significant improvement of State assessment systems.
    For these reasons, the Secretary proposes the following 
competitive preferences and would award up to 35 points to an 
applicant based on how well its application meets these preferences. 
These preference points would be in addition to points an applicant 
earns under the selection criteria.
    1. Alternate assessments. (20 points)
    Applications that can be expected to advance practice 
significantly in the area of assessment of students with 
disabilities or limited English proficiency, or both, including 
strategies for test design, administration with accommodations, 
scoring, and reporting.
    2. Collaborative efforts. (10 points)
    Applications that are sponsored by a consortium of States.
    3. Dissemination. (5 points)
    Applications that include an effective plan for dissemination of 
results.
    Proposed selection criteria. The Secretary proposes to use the 
following criteria and weights authorized by sections 75.209-210 of 
the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR):

1. Need for the Project (10 Points)

     The magnitude and severity of the problem to be 
addressed by the proposed project;
     The extent to which the proposed project will provide 
services or otherwise address the needs of students at risk of 
educational failure; and
     The extent to which the proposed project will focus on 
serving or otherwise addressing the needs of disadvantaged 
individuals.

2. Scope (10 Points)

     The extent to which the goals and objectives to be 
achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and 
measurable, and
     The extent to which the goals and objectives are 
sufficiently broad to be likely to result in significant change or 
improvement of one or more State assessment systems.

3. Significance (15 Points)

     The potential contribution of the proposed project to 
increased knowledge or understanding of educational problems, 
issues, or effective strategies;
     The potential contribution of the proposed project to 
the development and advancement of theory, knowledge, and practices 
in the field of study;
     The extent to which the proposed project is likely to 
yield findings that may be used by other appropriate agencies and 
organizations; and
     The extent to which the proposed project involves the 
development or demonstration of promising new strategies that build 
on, or are alternatives to, existing strategies.

4. Quality of Project Design (30 Points)

     The extent to which there is a conceptual framework 
underlying the proposed research or demonstration activities, and 
the quality of that framework;
     The quality of the proposed design and procedures for 
documenting project activities and results;
     The extent to which the design for implementing and 
evaluating the proposed project will result in information to guide 
possible replication of project activities or strategies, including 
information about the effectiveness of the approach or strategies 
employed by the project;
     The extent to which the proposed project is designed to 
build capacity and yield results that will extend beyond the period 
of Federal financial assistance;
     The extent to which the design of the proposed project 
reflects up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice;
     The extent to which the proposed project represents an 
exceptional approach for meeting statutory purposes and 
requirements; and
     The quality of the methodology to be employed by the 
proposed project.

5. Quality of the Management Plan (5 Points)

     The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the 
objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget, 
including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and 
milestones for accomplishing project tasks; and
     The extent to which the time commitments of the project 
director and principal investigator and other key project personnel 
are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed 
project.

6. Quality of Project Personnel (10 Points)

     The extent to which the applicant encourages 
applications for employment from persons who are members of groups 
that have traditionally been underrepresented

[[Page 10177]]

based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability;
     The qualifications, including relevant training and 
experience, of the project director or principal investigator;
     The qualifications, including relevant training and 
experience, of key project personnel; and
     The qualifications, including relevant training and 
experience, of project consultants or subcontractors.
    7. Adequacy of Resources (10 Points)
     The adequacy of support, including facilities, 
equipment, supplies, and other resources from the SEA or the lead 
applicant SEA;
     The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each 
partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of 
the project; and
     The extent to which the budget is adequate to support 
the proposed project.
    8. Quality of Evaluation Plan (10 Points)
     The extent to which the methods of evaluation are 
thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and 
outcomes of the proposed project;
     The extent to which the methods of evaluation are 
appropriate to the context within which the project operates;
     The extent to which the methods of evaluation include 
the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related 
to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce 
quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible; and
     The extent to which the evaluation will provide 
guidance about effective strategies suitable for replication or 
testing in other situations.

Appendix F--Optional Interim Application for FY 2002 Funds Under the 
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants Program (Title 
IV, Part A, Subpart 1)

    The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants 
program authorizes States that desire to submit a program-specific 
application for FY 2002 funds to do so in either of two ways. A 
State may either submit (1) the comprehensive State application 
described in section 4113(a) of the ESEA or (2) an interim 
application that, under section 4113(b), offers the State an 
opportunity to fully develop and submit the comprehensive 
application prior to its receipt of fiscal year 2003 funds under the 
program. Section 4113(b)(1) provides that the content of the interim 
application must be consistent with the requirements of that section 
of the law and contain the information that ``the Secretary may 
specify in regulations.'' So that States may understand their 
various options for applying for Safe and Drug-Free Schools and 
Communities State Grants program, the Department is using the 
vehicle of this notice to propose rules for this interim program 
application for FY 2002 funds.
    The Department proposes that States that desire to use this 
interim application to apply for FY 2002 Safe and Drug-Free Schools 
and Communities State Grants program funds be required to submit the 
following:
     A description of how the SEA will coordinate the 
agency's activities under this subpart with the chief executive 
office's drug and violence prevention programs and with the 
prevention efforts of other State agencies and other programs, as 
appropriate.
    The State's performance measures for drug and violence 
prevention programs and activities to be funded under this subpart, 
which will be focused on student behavior and attitudes, derived 
from the State's needs assessment in section 4113(a)(9), developed 
through consultation between the State and local officials, and 
include levels of performance for each indicator.
    The State must submit performance measures for the following 
indicators, as well as for other indicators that it identifies as 
appropriate based on its analysis of need and its comprehensive plan 
for use of funds:
    Performance indicator 1: The percentage of students who carried 
a weapon (for example, a gun, knife, or club) on school property (in 
the 30 days prior to the survey).
    Performance indicator 2: The percentage of students who engaged 
in a physical fight on school property (in the 12 months preceding 
the survey).
    Performance indicator 3: The percentage of students offered, 
sold, or given an illegal drug on school property (in the 12 months 
preceding the survey).
    Performance indicator 4: The number of persistently dangerous 
schools, as defined by the State.
     A description of how the State educational agency will 
review applications from local educational agencies, including how 
the agency will receive input from parents in such review.
     A description of how the State educational agency will 
monitor the implementation of activities, and provide technical 
assistance for local educational agencies, community-based 
organizations, other public entities, and private organizations.
     A description of how the chief executive officer of the 
State will award funds under section 4112(a) and implement a plan 
for monitoring the performance of, and providing technical 
assistance to grant recipients.

[FR Doc. 02-5345 Filed 3-5-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-U