[Federal Register Volume 70, Number 126 (Friday, July 1, 2005)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 38017-38022]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 05-13077]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Part 230

RIN 1855-AA04


Innovation for Teacher Quality

AGENCY: Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.

ACTION: Final regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Secretary issues regulations prescribing criteria to be 
used in selecting eligible members of the Armed Forces to participate 
in the Troops-to-Teachers program and receive financial assistance. 
These regulations implement section 2303(c) of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (Act). The regulations also 
define the terms ``high-need local educational agency'' (high-need LEA) 
and ``public charter school'' in which a participant must agree to be 
employed under section 2304(a)(1)(B) of the Act. In addition, the 
regulations define the term ``children from families with income below 
the poverty line'' which is used in the definition of high-need LEA.

DATES: These regulations are effective September 15, 2005.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thelma Leenhouts, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 4W302, FOB6, Washington, DC 
20202-6140. Telephone: (202) 260-0223 or via Internet: 
[email protected].
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may 
call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
    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 listed FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: These regulations implement section 2303(c) 
of Title II, Part C, Subpart 1, Chapter A of the Act, as amended by the 
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) (Pub. L. 107-110), enacted 
January 8, 2002. Subpart 1, Transitions to Teaching, of Chapter A 
authorizes the Troops-to-Teachers program. This program provides 
assistance, including stipends of up to $5,000, to eligible members of 
the Armed Forces so that they can obtain certification or licensing as 
elementary school teachers, secondary school teachers, or vocational/
technical teachers and become highly qualified teachers. In addition, 
the program helps participants find employment in high-need LEAs or 
public charter schools.
    With respect to participation agreements under section 
2304(a)(1)(B) of the Act signed on or after September 15, 2005, only 
full-time employment in a ``high-need LEA'' or ``public charter 
school'' as defined in 34 CFR 230.2 will satisfy the Act's service 
requirement. Participation agreements signed prior to September 15, 
2005 are not subject to the new definitions.
    On January 14, 2005 the Secretary published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) for this program in the Federal Register (70 FR 
2582). The NPRM proposed regulations implementing section 2303(c)(1) of 
the Act, which directs the Secretary to prescribe criteria to be used 
to select eligible members of the Armed Forces to participate in the 
program. The NPRM also proposed regulations to resolve an ambiguity in 
the Act regarding the definitions of a ``high-need local educational 
agency'' and ``public charter school.''

Analysis of Comments and Changes

    In response to the Secretary's invitation in the NPRM, 
approximately 100 parties submitted comments on the proposed 
regulations. An analysis of the comments and of the changes in the 
regulations since publication of the NPRM follows.
    We discuss substantive issues under the sections of the regulations 
to which they pertain. Generally, we do not address technical and other 
minor changes--and suggested changes the law does not authorize the 
Secretary to make.

Section 230.1

    Comment: One commenter stated that Sec.  230.1, which is simply a 
brief general description of the Troops-to-Teachers program, does not 
provide an accurate context for the proposed regulations that follow it 
because, according to the commenter, that section inaccurately stated 
that bonuses may be paid to teachers agreeing to serve in ``high-
poverty schools'' when in fact the Act specifies teachers in a ``high-
need school''. According to this comment, the Department's alleged 
failure to recognize the distinction between low income and high 
poverty established an inaccurate context for all of the proposed 
regulations that followed the brief program description.
    Discussion: The legal standard for schools in which service will 
satisfy the service requirement for bonuses is set forth unambiguously 
in section 2304(d)(3) of the Act. ``High-need school,'' which is 
defined by the Act, is a distinct term unrelated to the term high-need 
LEA, which is not defined in the Act. In the proposed regulations, 
``high-poverty schools'' was used as a shorthand description of one 
technical provision of the Act in the general description of the 
Troops-to-Teachers program in Sec.  230.1. By its nature, such a brief 
description is not intended to substitute for the Act, address every 
aspect of the Act, or provide a detailed discussion of each of the 
Act's technical provisions. However, the Secretary has concluded that 
the regulation can be improved by adhering closely to the statutory 
language on bonuses, and the regulation has been changed accordingly.
    Change: Section 230.1 has been amended to specify in the last 
sentence that, in lieu of a stipend, the Defense Activity for Non-
Traditional Education Support (DANTES) may pay a bonus of $10,000 to a 
participant who agrees to teach in a high-need school.

Section 230.2

    Comments: Virtually every commenter opposed the proposed definition 
of high-need LEA in Sec.  230.2. Many commenters asserted that the 
proposed definition would seriously injure the Troops-to-Teachers 
program, the schools and students it serves, and service members who 
have sacrificed greatly to serve their country. Several commenters 
stated that the effect of the proposed definition would be to remove 
strong teacher candidates from the classrooms that need them most. 
Commenters presented examples of instances where they believed that the 
most needy schools would be

[[Page 38018]]

disqualified under the proposal. For example, one commenter asserted 
that the Texas LEAs serving Fort Hood would not be high-need LEAs under 
the proposed definition, but have been commended for making that 
military installation one of the few locations where service personnel 
can obtain the full range of special educational services for their 
families.
    One commenter urged the Secretary to establish the policy that 
three years of service as a full-time classroom teacher in any public 
or charter school classroom satisfies the service commitment under the 
Act.
    Many commenters asserted that the number of eligible LEAs in their 
State would be severely and inappropriately restricted under the 
proposed definition. For example, according to one commenter, whereas 
80 percent of Colorado's LEAs are currently classified as high-need 
LEAs, under the proposal the number would shrink to six (1.6 percent). 
According to another commenter, there would be a 67 percent reduction 
in the number of high-need LEAs in North Carolina. Numerous other 
commenters presented similar statistics for their States.
    According to a comment filed by a representative of DANTES, which 
administers the program under a memorandum of agreement with the 
Department, on a national basis about 39 percent of LEAs would qualify 
under the proposed definition (compared with 70 percent under the 
standard DANTES currently uses).
    One commenter stated that, unlike other educational career 
transition programs, the Troops-to-Teachers program has as its primary 
emphasis assistance to retiring members of the military. In addition, 
according to this comment, the Congress has historically recognized 
that this program's participants are located throughout the world in 
locations that do not permit them to anticipate with any certainty 
where they will be seeking employment as teachers at the conclusion of 
their military careers. The comment urges the Secretary to recognize 
this unique aspect of the program in defining high-need LEAs in which 
participants can satisfy their service obligation.
    Several commenters asserted that the proposed definition conflicts 
with the basic purpose of the Troops-to-Teachers program, which they 
asserted is to facilitate the employment of former service members in 
LEAs that receive grants under Part A of Title I of the Act. One 
commenter stated that ``high-need LEA'' should be defined in terms of 
low-income students in the same manner as Part A of Title I, rather 
than using the criteria in the proposed definition. Numerous commenters 
argued that the current definition of high-need LEA, which is based on 
free and reduced price lunch (FRPL) eligibility, is consistent with 
section 2302(b)(2)(a)(i) of the Act, which states that the program is 
authorized to facilitate the employment of service members in LEAs or 
public charter schools receiving grants under part A of Title I as the 
result of having concentrations of children from low-income families. 
According to these comments, the phrase ``concentrations of children 
from low-income families'' has been operationally defined by DANTES to 
mean LEAs with 20 percent or more of their students eligible for a free 
or reduced price lunch.
    Several commenters questioned the use of census poverty data for 
determining whether an LEA has enough children from families with 
incomes below the poverty line to be considered a high-need LEA, 
because of concerns about the reliability of those data. Another 
commenter suggested that FRPL data available from the Food and 
Nutrition Service in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) may be a 
more accurate measure of poverty and should be used for determining 
whether an LEA has enough children from low-income families to be 
considered a high-need school district.
    Under the proposed regulation, the term ``high-need local 
educational agency'' would have meant an LEA: (1) That serves not fewer 
than 10,000 children from families with incomes below the poverty line; 
(2) for which not less than 20 percent of the children served by the 
agency are from families below the poverty line; or (3) for which not 
less than 15 nor more than 19 percent of the children served by the 
agency are from families below the poverty line and that assigns all 
teachers funded by the Troops-to-Teachers Program to high-need schools.
    Several commenters suggested alternative definitions of high-need 
LEA. Several suggested that the definition of high-need LEA be changed 
to be identical to the statutory definition for high-need school in 
section 2304(d)(3) of the Act. Under section 2304(d) of the Act, a 
Troops-to-Teachers program participant must agree to teach in a high-
need school in a high-need LEA in order to qualify for a bonus in lieu 
of a stipend. Another commenter suggested that the proposed definition 
be changed slightly so that the first tier of the definition applies to 
an LEA with 7,500 rather than 10,000 children from families with 
incomes below the poverty line and that the range for qualification for 
the third tier of LEAs be amended to between 10 and 19 percent rather 
than between 15 and 19 percent while retaining the proviso that all 
Troops-to-Teachers program participants in that tier of LEAs be 
assigned to high-need schools.
    Finally, one commenter questioned whether the intent of the 
proposed definition is to reduce the cost of the program by reducing 
the number of participants who can gain employment in a high-need LEA.
    Discussion: The suggestion that the Secretary establish the policy 
that service in any LEA or public charter school will meet the service 
obligation under the Act is contrary to the evident intent of the Act. 
While the Act failed to define the terms ``high-need LEA'' and ``public 
charter school,'' the Act does make a distinction between them and 
other LEAs, and this distinction must be given effect. The Act's 
requirement in section 2304(a)(1)(B) that participants agree to serve 
in those entities rather than in LEAs generally (if they are to receive 
financial assistance) makes it clear that not every LEA can provide 
employment that will satisfy the Act. Therefore, the Secretary rejects 
this suggestion.
    As noted in the NPRM, the proposed definition was not motivated by 
a desire to realize cost savings for the program. To the contrary, the 
Administration, through its budget policy, has been very supportive of 
Troops-to-Teachers. The definition was intended to balance the need to 
provide program participants with reasonable opportunities to satisfy 
their teaching commitments under the program with the need to target 
recruitment assistance to LEAs with the greatest need for that 
assistance.
    The Secretary acknowledges that the nature of military service 
introduces uncertainty for program participants, particularly for those 
stationed overseas upon enrollment in the program. These participants 
may be unable to anticipate where they ultimately will be seeking 
employment as teachers. The Secretary notes that the Troops-to-Teachers 
program has its historical antecedents under prior statutes that placed 
primary emphasis on the placement of retiring service members and 
comparatively little emphasis on ensuring that resources were targeted 
to high-need LEAs. Not surprisingly, these statutes did not require 
service in a ``high-need LEA.'' In contrast, the Act now requires such 
service, signifying that, unlike under prior law, some greater degree 
of targeting of resources is required. Moreover, the Act as a whole, of 
which the Troops-to-Teachers statute is a part, evidences Congressional 
intent to target

[[Page 38019]]

resources to LEAs in need. Specifically, by more precisely directing 
funds, under programs like Title I grants to LEAs, Teacher Quality 
State grants, and Educational Technology State grants to LEAs with high 
concentrations of child poverty, Congress not only made NCLB a vehicle 
for holding LEAs accountable for teaching all children to high 
standards, but also targeted funding through the Act to those LEAs with 
the greater need for assistance in achieving that objective. The 
amendments made to the Troops-to-Teachers program by NCLB were 
consistent with that more general thrust of the Act.
    While the Secretary is not free to ignore the imperative that 
resources be targeted, with the benefit of the public comments in 
response to the NPRM, the Secretary has concluded that some adjustment 
of the definition of ``high-need LEA'' is necessary to balance the 
objectives of placing retiring service members in the teaching 
profession and serving needy LEAs. In this final regulation, the 
Secretary amends the third tier of the definition of ``high-need LEA,'' 
as suggested by a commenter, so that that it applies to LEAs with 10 
percent or more but less than 20 percent of their children from 
families below the poverty line. The provision that all Troops-to-
Teachers program participants in the third tier must be assigned to 
high-need schools is unchanged.
    The same commenter's other suggestion, that the threshold for the 
first tier of the definition, LEAs serving 10,000 or more students from 
families below the poverty line, be expanded to apply to LEAs with 
7,500 or more such students has not been adopted. In considering this 
second suggestion, the Secretary found that once the change in 
percentage in the third tier is made, this additional change in the 
first tier would not significantly increase the number of LEAs that 
would be considered high-need.
    The Secretary rejects the suggestion by several commenters that 
``high-need LEA'' be defined identically to the statutory definition 
for ``high-need school'' in section 2304(d)(3) of the Act because that 
suggestion is not consistent with the Act. The Act makes a distinction 
between high-need LEAs and high-need schools that the suggestion would 
negate. Any participant who receives any financial support, whether 
stipend or bonus, must agree to teach in a high-need LEA or public 
charter school. There is yet a further threshold for those who wish to 
receive a bonus in lieu of a stipend. Those participants must also 
agree to teach in a high-need school within a high-need LEA or in a 
public charter school. Eliminating the distinction between a high-need 
LEA and a high-need school would eliminate currently eligible LEAs from 
the program since not all of those LEAs have high-need schools. 
Moreover, if all participants were assigned to high-need schools, they 
would all be eligible for bonuses; the statutory provisions for stipend 
would become superfluous.
    As revised, the definition of high-need LEA has been expanded and 
should provide an adequate universe of LEAs in which participants can 
satisfy their teaching obligations. Approximately 22 percent of the 
LEAs in the country serve communities in which 20 percent or more of 
school-aged children are from families with incomes below the poverty 
line. An additional approximately 36 percent of LEAs in the country 
serve communities in which 10 percent or more but less than 20 percent 
of school-aged children are from families with incomes below the 
poverty line. Participants who teach in this class of LEAs can satisfy 
their obligations if they teach in high-need schools.
    With potentially 58 percent of the LEAs in the country eligible as 
high-need LEAs, the Secretary rejects the contentions that the effect 
of the definition is to remove strong teacher candidates from the 
classrooms that need them most or that the most needy schools will be 
disqualified under the final regulation. If anything, the definition 
errs on the side of being over-inclusive rather than under-inclusive. 
Potentially, most of the LEAs in the country, serving approximately 65 
percent of the Nation's K-12 population, are eligible under the revised 
definition.
    As noted previously, with regard to the contention that the more 
narrow proposed definition excluded the most needy LEAs, one commenter 
alleged that the schools surrounding Fort Hood would be eliminated from 
eligibility under the proposed rule. However, according to data 
obtained from DANTES, even under the more narrow proposed definition, a 
number of LEAs within a 25-mile radius of Fort Hood would be considered 
high-need LEAs. Under the more expansive revised definition, most of 
those LEAs could potentially be high-need LEAs.
    Similarly, the comments--that the proposed definition would have 
drastically reduced the number of eligible LEAs in particular States--
have been largely addressed by the expansion of the definition of high-
need LEA. As a result, the Secretary believes that in each State there 
should be a sufficient number of high-need LEAs with a geographical 
distribution adequate to provide an appropriate range of options to 
program participants while remaining faithful to the intent of the Act 
to target resources. For example, Colorado and North Carolina were two 
of the States in which commenters asserted that there would be a 
drastic reduction in eligible LEAs under the more narrow proposed rule; 
there will potentially be 121 of 180 Colorado LEAs eligible and 110 of 
120 North Carolina LEAs eligible under the final regulation.
    The Secretary disagrees with the commenters who opposed the use of 
Census Bureau data in the application of the definition of ``high-need 
LEA.'' U.S Census Bureau's development of model-based census estimates 
for LEA poverty rates grew out of the 1994 reauthorization of the Act. 
In the 1994 amendments to the Act, Congress mandated that the 
Department use census data that are updated every two years to 
calculate Title I LEA allocations. The NCLB amendments to Act in 2002 
reaffirmed the policy to use updated census data developed through the 
Census Bureau's model to determine Title I allocations and further 
required that LEA poverty estimates be updated every year rather than 
every two years. The decision made by Congress to continue using 
updated LEA census estimates was based on an evaluation by the National 
Academy of Sciences (NAS) of the methodology used by the Census Bureau 
in developing these model-based estimates. In its 1999 ``Interim Report 
3: Evaluation of 1995 County and School District Estimates for Title I 
allocations,'' NAS concluded `` * * * that the Census Bureau's * * * 
[updated] estimates are generally as good as--and, in some instances, 
better than--estimates that are currently being used.'' Thus, NAS 
``recommends to the Secretaries of Education and Commerce that the 
Census Bureau's * * * school district estimates of poor school-age 
children be used to make direct Title I allocations to school districts 
for the 1999-2000 school year.'' After consulting with NAS and the 
Census Bureau, the Department of Education and the Department of 
Commerce jointly decided to follow NAS' recommendation and allocate 
fiscal year 1999 Title I funds to LEAs using updated Census Bureau 
school district estimates. The Department has continued to rely on 
updated LEA Census model-based estimates because it strongly believes 
that these estimates, while not perfect, represent the best data 
available on the number and location of children from low-income

[[Page 38020]]

families in LEAs across the country. The Department is currently using 
2002 Census estimates to allocate more than $12.7 billion in fiscal 
year (FY) 2005 Title I, Part A funds to LEAs and will use updated 2003 
Census estimates to allocate funds made available in the FY 2006 
appropriation.
    While there are other LEA-level data, such as FRPL, that measure 
poverty, the Secretary believes that the Census estimates provide a 
better measure of the extent of poverty nationally for several reasons. 
First, the family income threshold needed to qualify for the FRPL 
program is 185 percent of the poverty level used by the Census Bureau. 
Hence, many more children qualify for the FRPL program than are 
considered poor under the census definition, which makes FRPL 
eligibility too expansive a measure of poverty.
    Second, FRPL data tend to under-count children in middle and high 
schools, because children in the upper grades tend to participate in 
the school lunch program in significantly lower numbers. Therefore, the 
number of poor children in high school districts are typically not 
accurately represented by FRPL counts.
    Third, FRPL data are self-reported data. The number of children 
included in the FRPL count depends on how many families apply for the 
program. The extent to which school districts and schools reach out and 
recruit families to apply for the program will affect the number. 
Because of this factor, the USDA, which administers the school meals 
programs, has raised concerns about the accuracy of these data. Several 
data sources, including the eligibility verifications performed by 
school districts, indicate that a significant number of ineligible 
children appear to have been certified for free and reduced meals and, 
therefore, that these data may not be an adequate measure for poverty 
for other program uses. USDA believes that the authority for school 
officials to use counts of children eligible for free and reduced-price 
meals in determining Title I within-district allocations may provide an 
incentive for those officials to inflate those counts.
    Finally, because FRPL are self-reported data, the relationship 
between census poverty and FRPL is not consistent across geographic 
areas. Nationally, for example, the number of children eligible for the 
FRPL in school year 2000-01 among the States ranges from 1.5 to 41 
times the number of children who meet the census criteria for poverty.
    In conclusion, under the revised and expanded final definition, 
potentially 58 percent of the LEAs in the country will be considered 
high-need LEAs. While this percentage of LEAs is not as extensive as 
the percentage currently considered ``high-need LEAs'' (approximately 
70 percent) under the FRPL standard, it is considerably more than would 
have qualified under the NPRM (potentially 38 percent). Consequently, 
the Secretary does not believe that by realigning the definition of 
high-need LEA with the current statute and thereby providing a 
reasonable range of choice under this expanded final definition, 
serious candidates will be dissuaded from a career change to teaching 
or that the Troops-to-Teachers program will be negatively affected by 
this final regulation.
    Change: The third tier of the definition of ``high-need local 
educational agency'' has been expanded so as to apply to an LEA in 
which 10 percent or more but less than 20 percent of the children 
served by the agency are from families with incomes below the poverty 
line and that assigns all teachers receiving financial assistance 
through the Troops-to-Teachers program to high-need schools. In all 
other respects, the definition of ``high-need LEA'' is unchanged; 
however, a new definition of the term ``children from families with 
incomes below the poverty line'' has been added to Sec.  230.2 as the 
result of interdepartmental review to clarify what data the Secretary 
uses in applying the ``high-need'' LEA definition. That new definition 
is based on the data used by the Department in allocating funds under 
Title I, Part A of the Act. Thus, the term ``children from families 
with incomes below the poverty line'' means the updated Department of 
Commerce data on the number of children ages 5 through 17 from families 
with incomes below the poverty line used to allocate funds under Title 
I, Part A of the Act.

Section 230.3

    Comment: One commenter stated that Sec.  230.3 should be clarified 
to specify that a participant can satisfy his or her three-year 
teaching obligation if he or she teaches in any of the priority 
categories specified in the regulation.
    Discussion: Section 2304 of the Act specifies that service in any 
high-need LEA or public charter school satisfies a service member's 
teaching obligation regardless of the priority given to that service 
member in his or her selection to the program. Which priority is used 
to select a participant for the program is distinct from how a selected 
participant satisfies the teaching obligation one assumes upon 
selection to the program. Service members who teach for three years in 
a high-need LEA or public charter school (and in a high-need school in 
the case of bonus recipients) will satisfy their obligation regardless 
of what priority they were given under Sec.  230.3 in their selection 
for the program.
    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter questioned whether participants will be 
required to have four-year college degrees including teacher-training 
classes and questioned the absence of certification requirements in the 
regulations.
    Discussion: Section 2303(c)(2) of the Act provides generally that 
program participants must have received a baccalaureate or advanced 
degree except in the case of vocational or technical teachers, who may 
qualify on the basis of one year of college and six or more years of 
military experience in a vocational or technical field or otherwise 
meet State certification or licensing requirements to be a vocational 
or technical teacher. Generally, teacher certification and licensing is 
a matter of State law. It would therefore not be appropriate to address 
that subject in these regulations.
    Change: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the Secretary establish a 
policy providing for partial or full repayment where a participant 
makes a good-faith effort to satisfy his or her commitment but is 
unable to obtain appropriate employment.
    Discussion: It is unnecessary to establish the suggested policy 
because the Act already contains, in section 2304(f) of the Act, 
provisions governing the repayment of a stipend or bonus, including 
partial repayment in appropriate cases, where a participant does not 
meet his or her obligation. Section 2304(a)(2) of the Act also 
authorizes the Secretary to waive the three-year service obligation and 
section 2304(f)(4) of the Act excuses repayment in the event of 
permanent total disability.
    Change: None.

Executive Order 12866

    We have reviewed these final regulations 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 final regulations are those 
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined to 
be necessary for administering this program effectively and 
efficiently.
    In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative 
and qualitative--of these final regulations,

[[Page 38021]]

we have determined that the benefits of the regulations 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.
    We summarized the potential costs and benefits of these final 
regulations in the preamble to the NPRM (70 FR 2584). We include 
additional discussion of potential costs and benefits in the section of 
this preamble titled Analysis of Comments and Changes.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    These regulations do not contain any information collection 
requirements.

Intergovernmental Review

    This program is subject to the requirements of Executive Order 
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. The objective of the 
Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a 
strengthened federalism by relying on processes developed by State and 
local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal 
financial assistance.
    In accordance with the order, we intend this document to provide 
early notification of the Department's specific plans and actions for 
this program.

Assessment of Educational Impact

    In the NPRM, we requested comments on whether the proposed 
regulations would require transmission of information that any other 
agency or authority of the United States gathers or makes available.
    Based on the response to the NPRM and on our review, we have 
determined that these final regulations do not require transmission of 
information that any other agency or authority of the United States 
gathers or makes available.

Electronic Access to This Document

    You may 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/news/fedregister.
    To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available 
free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S. 
Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in 
the Washington, DC, area at (202) 512-1530.

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


(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.815)

    The Secretary of Education has delegated authority to the Assistant 
Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement to issue these 
amendments to 34 CFR Chapter II.

List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 230

    Armed forces, Education, Elementary and secondary education, 
Stipends, Teachers, Vocational education.

    Dated: June 28, 2005.
Nina Shokraii Rees,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement.

0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary amends title 
34 of the Code of Federal Regulations by adding part 230 to read as 
follows:

PART 230--Innovation for Teacher Quality

Subpart A--Troops-to-Teachers Program

Sec.
230.1 What is the Troops-to-Teachers program?
230.2 What definitions apply to the Troops-to-Teacher program?
230.3 What criteria does the Secretary use to select eligible 
participants in the Troops-to-Teachers program?

Subpart B--[Reserved]

    Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 3474, and 6671-6684, unless 
otherwise noted.

Subpart A--Troops-to-Teachers Program


Sec.  230.1  What is the Troops-to-Teacher program?

    Under the Troops-to-Teachers program, the Secretary of Education 
transfers funds to the Department of Defense for the Defense Activity 
for Non-Traditional Education Support (DANTES) to provide assistance, 
including a stipend of up to $5,000, to an eligible member of the Armed 
Forces so that he or she can obtain certification or licensing as an 
elementary school teacher, secondary school teacher, or vocational/
technical teacher and become a highly qualified teacher by 
demonstrating competency in each of the subjects he or she teaches. In 
addition, the program helps the individual find employment in a high-
need local educational agency or public charter school. In lieu of a 
stipend, DANTES may pay a bonus of $10,000 to a participant who agrees 
to teach in a high-need school.

    (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 3474, and 6671-6677)


Sec.  230.2  What definitions apply to the Troops-to-Teacher program?

    As used in this subpart--
    Act means the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as 
amended.
    Children from families with incomes below the poverty line means 
the updated data on the number of children ages 5 through 17 from 
families with incomes below the poverty line provided by the Department 
of Commerce that the Secretary uses to allocate funds in a given year 
to local educational agencies under Title I, Part A of the Act.
    High-Need Local Educational Agency as used in section 2304(a) of 
the Act means a local educational agency--
    (1) That serves not fewer than 10,000 children from families with 
incomes below the poverty line;
    (2) For which not less than 20 percent of the children served by 
the agency are from families with incomes below the poverty line; or
    (3) For which 10 percent or more but less than 20 percent of the 
children served by the agency are from families with incomes below the 
poverty line and that assigns all teachers funded by the Troops-to-
Teachers program to a high-need school as defined in section 2304(d)(3) 
of the Act for the duration of their service commitment under the Act.
    Public Charter School means a charter school as defined in section 
5210(1) of the Act.

    (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 3474, and 6672(c)(1))


Sec.  230.3  What criteria does the Secretary use to select eligible 
participants in the Troops-to-Teacher program?

    (a) The Secretary establishes the following criteria for the 
selection of eligible participants in the Troops-to-Teachers program in 
the following order:
    (1) First priority is given to eligible service members who are not 
employed as an elementary or secondary school teacher at the time that 
they enter into a participation agreement with the Secretary under 
section 2304(a) of the Act, which requires participants to teach in a 
high-need local educational agency or public charter school for at 
least three years, who will be selected in the following order:
    (i) Those who agree to obtain certification to teach science, 
mathematics, or special education and who agree to teach in a ``high-
need

[[Page 38022]]

school'' as defined in section 2304(d)(3) of the Act.
    (ii) Those who agree to obtain certification to teach another 
subject or subjects and who agree to teach in a ``high-need school'' as 
defined in section 2304(d)(3) of the Act.
    (iii) Those who agree to obtain certification to teach science, 
mathematics, or special education or obtain certification to teach at 
the elementary school level.
    (iv) All other eligible applicants.
    (2) After all eligible first-priority participants are selected, 
second priority is given to eligible service members who are employed 
as an elementary or secondary school teacher at the time that they 
enter into a new participation agreement with the Secretary under 
section 2304(a) of the Act, which requires participants to teach in a 
high-need local educational agency or public charter school for at 
least three years, who will be selected in the following order:
    (i) Those who agree to obtain certification to teach science, 
mathematics or special education rather than the subjects they 
currently teach and who agree to teach in a ``high-need school'' as 
defined in section 2304(d)(3) of the Act.
    (ii) Those who agree to obtain certification to teach another 
subject or subjects and who agree to teach in a ``high-need school'' as 
defined in section 2304(d)(3) of the Act.
    (iii) Those who agree to obtain certification to teach science, 
mathematics, or special education rather than the subjects they 
currently teach.
    (iv) All others seeking assistance necessary to be deemed ``highly 
qualified'' by their State within the meaning of section 9101(23) of 
the Act.
    (b) [Reserved].

    (Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 3474, and 6672(c)(1)).
[FR Doc. 05-13077 Filed 6-30-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P