[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 185 (Friday, September 23, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59036-59050]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24407]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Subtitle B, Chapter II
[Docket ID ED-2011-OS-0010]
RIN 1894-AA03
State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program
AGENCY: Department of Education.
ACTION: Interim final requirement; request for comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: On November 12, 2009, the Secretary of Education (Secretary)
published in the Federal Register a notice of final requirements,
definitions, and approval criteria for the State Fiscal Stabilization
Fund (SFSF) program (November 2009 Notice). In that notice, the
Secretary established September 30, 2011 as the deadline by which
States had to collect and publicly report data and other information on
various SFSF indicators and descriptors. Since publication of the
November 2009 notice, States have faced many challenges and competing
priorities in trying to meet the requirements of some of the SFSF
indicators by the September 30, 2011 deadline. As a result, a number of
States will be unable to comply fully with the SFSF requirements by the
September 30, 2011 deadline. Accordingly, in this interim final
requirement, the Secretary extends that deadline to January 31, 2012.
DATES: This interim final requirement is effective September 23, 2011.
We must
[[Page 59037]]
receive your comments on or before October 24, 2011.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not
accept comments by fax or by e-mail. To ensure that we do not receive
duplicate copies, please submit your comments only one time. In
addition, please include the Docket ID and the term ``State Fiscal
Stabilization Fund--Interim Final Requirement'' at the top of your
comments.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to http://www.regulations.gov to submit your comments electronically. Information
on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency
documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on
the site under ``How To Use This Site.''
Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery. If you
mail or deliver your comments about the interim final requirement,
address them to Office of the Deputy Secretary (Attention: State Fiscal
Stabilization Fund Interim Final Requirement), U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 7E214, Washington, DC 20202-
6200.
Privacy Note: The Department's policy for comments
received from members of the public (including comments submitted by
mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery) is to make these
submissions available for public viewing in their entirety on the
Federal eRulemaking Portal at http://www.regulations.gov. Therefore,
commenters should be careful to include in their comments only
information that they wish to make publicly available on the Internet.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: James Butler, State Fiscal
Stabilization Fund Program, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland
Ave., SW., room 7E214, Washington, DC 20202-0008. Telephone: (202) 260-
9737 or by e-mail: [email protected].
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding
this interim final requirement to assist us in complying with the
specific requirements of Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order
13563 and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that
might result from this interim final requirement.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about this regulatory action by accessing Regulations.gov. You
may also inspect the public comments in person in room 7E214, 400
Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m.
and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week
except Federal holidays.
Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request, we will provide an appropriate
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the
public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Background
Section 14005(d) of Division A of the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) requires a State receiving funds under
the SFSF program to provide assurances in four key areas of education
reform:
(1) Achieving equity in teacher distribution, (2) improving
collection and use of data, (3) standards and assessments, and (4)
supporting struggling schools. In the November 2009 Notice (74 FR
58436), we established specific data and information requirements
(assurance indicators and descriptors) that a State must meet with
respect to the statutory assurances. We also established specific
requirements for the plans that a State had to submit as part of its
application for the second phase of funding under the SFSF program,
describing the steps it would take to collect and report the required
data and other information. In addition, we established September 30,
2011 as the deadline by which States must meet the requirements of
these indicators and descriptors.
States are facing many challenges and competing priorities in
trying to meet the requirements of some of the SFSF indicators by the
September 30, 2011 deadline. For example, during the Department's
ongoing program monitoring, States are expressing concerns about their
ability to fully develop and implement a statewide longitudinal data
system (SLDS) under Indicator (b)(1) by this deadline. Specifically,
during its spring 2011 review of each State's Amended Application for
Funding Under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program, the
Department found that many States still have not fully incorporated the
following elements into their SLDS: (1) Student-level transcript
information, including data on courses completed and grades earned
(Element 9); (2) information regarding the extent to which students
transition successfully from secondary school to postsecondary
education, including whether students enroll in remedial coursework
(Element 11); and (3) other information determined necessary to address
alignment and adequate preparation for success in postsecondary
education (Element 12). A number of States also are raising concerns
about the challenges in collecting and publicly reporting student
enrollment data for Indicator (c)(11). In its recent review of the SFSF
amended applications, the Department found that 43 States indicated
that they did not have the capacity to collect and publicly report
those data. Further, most States reported in their amended SFSF
application that they do not yet have the capacity to collect and
publicly report the course completion data required under Indicator
(c)(12). Therefore, the Department is extending to January 31, 2012 the
deadline by which a State must comply with the requirements under any
of the SFSF indicators and descriptors. The extension of the deadline
to January 31, 2012 is automatic, and a State does not have to submit a
request to receive this extension.
In a notice of proposed revisions to certain data collection and
reporting requirements, and proposed priority published elsewhere in
this issue of the Federal Register, the Department is proposing to
further extend, to December 31, 2012, the deadline by which a State
must comply with the requirements of Indicators (b)(1), (c)(11), and
(c)(12) because the requirements under these indicators are
particularly challenging. To receive an extension to December 31, 2012
for these specific indicators, the Department is proposing that the
State submit a request that includes the information proposed in notice
of proposed revisions to certain data collection and reporting
requirements, and proposed priority.
Waiver of Rulemaking and Delayed Effective Date
Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553), the
Department is generally required to publish a notice of proposed
rulemaking and provide the public with an opportunity to comment on
proposed regulations prior to establishing a final rule. However, we
are waiving the notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the
APA. Section
[[Page 59038]]
553(b) of the APA provides that an agency is not required to conduct
notice-and-comment rulemaking when the agency for good cause finds that
notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest. Although these requirements are
subject to the APA's notice-and-comment requirements, the Secretary has
determined that it would be impracticable and contrary to the public
interest to conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking.
As discussed under the heading ``Background,'' States are facing
many challenges and competing priorities in trying to meet some of the
SFSF collection and public reporting requirements by the September 30,
2011 deadline. As a result, the Department has concluded that it is
appropriate to extend the deadline for the SFSF indicators and
descriptors to January 31, 2012. It is impracticable and contrary to
the public interest to extend the September 30, 2011 deadline through
notice-and-comment rulemaking given the limited amount of time
remaining before this deadline. This interim final requirement will
provide those States desiring additional time to meet the requirements
with an extension of the deadline. Absent the interim final
requirement, a number of States will be unable to comply fully with the
SFSF requirements. The Department believes that giving the States
additional time to meet these requirements will not compromise their
purpose, which is to provide transparency on the extent to which a
State is implementing reform actions for which it has provided
assurances.
Although the Department is adopting this extension on an interim
final basis, the Department requests public comments on the extension.
After consideration of public comments, the Secretary will publish a
notice of final requirement concerning the deadline for compliance with
the SFSF indicators and descriptors.
The APA also requires that a substantive rule be published at least
30 days before its effective date, unless the rule grants or recognizes
an exemption or relieves a restriction. (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1)). Because
we are granting States an extension of the September 30, 2011 deadline,
the 30-day delayed effective date is not required. Accordingly, this
interim final requirement is effective on the day it is published.
Interim Final Requirement
For the reasons discussed previously, the Secretary amends the
requirements established in the November 2009 Notice by extending the
deadline by which a State must collect and publicly report data and
other information on the SFSF indicators and descriptors from September
30, 2011 to January 31, 2012.
Executive Order 12866
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether
this regulatory action is significant and, therefore, subject to the
requirements of the Executive order and review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely to result
in a rule that may (1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100
million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy,
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local or Tribal governments or communities in a
material way (also referred to as an economically significant rule);
(2) create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action
taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary
impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the
rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal
or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's
priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive Order.
It has been determined that this regulatory action is significant
under section 3(f)(4) of the Executive order.
Summary of Costs and Benefits
Under Executive Order 12866, we have assessed the potential costs
and benefits of the regulatory action to extend the current deadline by
which a State must meet the requirements of the SFSF indicators and
descriptors and have determined that the interim final requirement will
not impose additional costs to grantees or the Federal government.
Additionally, the Department has determined that this requirement does
not unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
The Department is reinstating to December 15, 2011, the information
collection under OMB Control Number 1810-0695 requiring States to
collect and publicly report data and other information annually. The
Department has analyzed the costs of complying with these requirements.
Some of the costs will be minimal and others more significant. As an
example of a requirement that results in minimal burden and cost,
States are currently required to report annually, through EDFacts (the
Department's centralized data collection and warehousing system), for
the State as a whole and for each LEA, the number and percentage of
core academic courses taught, in the highest-poverty and lowest-poverty
schools, by teachers who are highly qualified. Indicator (a)(1)
requires that they confirm the data they have reported, which should
not be a time-consuming responsibility. As a second example, the
requirement to confirm the approval status of the State's assessment
system under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA, as determined by the
Department, should also require minimal effort.
Other requirements impose significant new costs. We strongly
believe that the benefits to the public of these requirements outweigh
the State and local implementation costs. Specifically, the major
benefit of these requirements, taken in their totality, is better and
more publicly available information on the status of activities related
to the reform areas identified in the authorizing statute for the SFSF
program. As described in detail later in this section, research
indicates or suggests that progress on each of the reforms will
contribute to improved student outcomes. The provision of better
information (on teacher qualifications, teacher and principal
evaluation systems, State student longitudinal data systems, State
standards and assessment systems, student success in high-school and
postsecondary education, efforts to turn around persistently lowest-
achieving schools, and charter school reforms) to policymakers,
educators, parents, and other stakeholders will assist in their efforts
to further the reforms. In addition, State reporting of these data will
help the Department determine the impact of the unprecedented level of
funding made available by the ARRA. Further, the data and plans that
States submit will inform Federal education policy, including the
upcoming reauthorization of the ESEA.
The following is a detailed analysis of the estimated costs of
implementing the specific final requirements, followed by a discussion
of the anticipated benefits. The costs of implementing specific
paperwork-related requirements are also shown in the tables in the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 section of this notice.
Distribution of Highly Qualified Teachers
Section 14005(d)(2) of the ARRA requires a State receiving funds
under the SFSF program to assure, in the SFSF
[[Page 59039]]
program application, that it will address inequities in the
distribution of highly qualified teachers. In response to this
requirement, the Department is requiring States to confirm, for the
State and for each LEA in the State, the number and percentage of core
academic courses taught, in the highest-poverty and lowest-poverty
schools, by teachers who are highly qualified. Because States will have
previously submitted this information to the Department through the
EDFacts system, we anticipate that the costs of complying with this
requirement would be minimal. A State likely would need only to ensure
that it had correctly aggregated and reported data received from its
LEAs. The Department expects that each State would require one hour of
staff time to complete this effort, at a cost of $30 per hour. For the
50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, the total
estimated level of effort would be 52 hours at a cost of $1,560. In
addition, the final requirements provide for States to indicate whether
the State's Teacher Equity Plan (a part of the State's Highly Qualified
Teacher Plan) has been updated to fully reflect the steps the State is
currently taking to ensure that students from low-income families and
minority students are not taught at higher rates than other students by
inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers. The Department
expects that this will require an hour of effort, for a total estimated
burden of 52 hours at a cost of $1,560.
Teacher and Principal Evaluation Systems
Section 14005(d)(2) also requires States to take actions to improve
teacher effectiveness. To accomplish that goal, States must first have
a means of assessing teacher success. A limited number of States have
implemented statewide teacher and principal evaluation systems, while
in the other States the responsibility for evaluating teachers and
principals rests with the LEAs or schools. Little is known about the
design of these systems across the Nation, but the collection and
reporting of additional information would create a resource that
additional States and LEAs can draw on in building their own systems.
The Department, therefore, is requiring States to collect and publicly
report information about these evaluation systems.
Specifically, the Department is requiring that States describe, for
each LEA in the State, the systems used to evaluate the performance of
teachers and principals. Further, the Department requires States to
indicate, for each LEA in the State, whether the systems used to
evaluate the performance of teachers and principals include student
achievement outcomes or student growth data as an evaluation criterion.
The level of effort required to respond to these requirements would
likely vary depending on the types of teacher and principal evaluation
systems in place in a given State or LEA. The Department believes that,
if a system is in place at the State level, the response burden would
be low, because the State will have the required information readily
available. According to the National Council on Teacher Quality, 12
States require LEAs to use a State-developed instrument to evaluate
teachers or to develop an equivalent instrument that must be approved
by the State.\1\ For these 12 States, the Department estimates that a
total of 72 hours (6 hours per State) would be required to respond to
these requirements, for a total cost, at $30 per hour, of $2,160. The
2,487 LEAs located in these States would not be involved in the
response to these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ State Teacher Policy Yearbook: 2009, page 170. http://www.nctq.org/stpy09/reports/stpy_national.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In the 40 States that do not have statewide teacher and principal
evaluation systems in place, the level of effort required would likely
be significantly higher. Approximately half of these States have either
already reported this information once or have completed more than half
of the effort involved with reporting. The Department believes that
these States would require significantly less effort than States that
have completed less than half of the work involved with meeting these
requirements. The Department estimates that each State that has
completed more than half of the work associated with these requirements
would need 120 hours to meet the requirements, and each State that has
completed less than half of the work would require 360 hours to meet
the requirements. Thus, the Department estimates that, on average, 240
hours would be required at the State level to develop and administer a
survey of LEAs (including designing the survey instrument,
disseminating it, providing training or other technical assistance to
LEAs on completing the survey, collecting the data and other
information, checking accuracy, and public reporting), which would
amount to a total of 9,600 hours and a total estimated State cost of
$288,000 (assuming, again, a cost per hour of $30). The 12,737 LEAs
located in these States would bear the cost of collecting and reporting
the data to their States.
For the purpose of the burden estimates in this section, the
Department estimates that 75 percent of these LEAs (9,553) have
centralized teacher and principal evaluation systems in place. For
those LEAs, we estimate that 3 hours would be required to respond to
these requirements. For the estimated 3,184 LEAs that do not have a
centralized evaluation system in place, we estimate that 2 hours would
be required because we expect that these systems are less complex than
centralized systems. The Department, thus, estimates that LEAs would
need to spend a total of 35,027 hours to respond to these proposed
requirements at a total cost of $875,675, assuming a cost per hour of
$25.
The Department is also requiring States to provide, for each LEA in
the State whose teachers and principals receive performance ratings or
levels through an evaluation system, the number and percentage of
teachers and principals rated at each performance rating or level, as
well as a description of how each LEA uses results from those systems
in decisions regarding teacher and principal development, compensation,
promotion, retention, and removal. Finally, the Department is requiring
States to indicate, for each LEA in the State whose teachers receive
performance ratings or levels through an evaluation system, whether the
number and percentage of teachers rated at each performance rating or
level are publicly reported for each school in the LEA. The Department
expects that many LEAs that make this information publicly available
will choose to do so on their pre-existing Web site; if any LEAs
currently do not have Web sites, they may create a Web site or may
publicly report this information in another easily accessible format.
We were unable to find nationally representative information on
whether LEAs will have information on their teacher and principal
evaluation systems readily available in a centralized database. The New
Teacher Project (NTP),\2\ which analyzed the teacher evaluation systems
of a sample of 12 LEAs, found that of those 12 LEAs, only 4 tracked
teacher evaluation results electronically. Although the NTP report
examined only a small number of LEAs, which were not nationally
representative, and the report was published in 2009, we base our cost
estimates on this finding, as it is the only source of information
available. Thus, we assume that 33 percent of LEAs will have
information on the
[[Page 59040]]
teacher and principal evaluation results in a central database.\3\
Applying this percentage to the estimated 12,040 LEAs that have in
place a centralized system to evaluate teacher and principal
performance (which includes the 2,487 LEAs in States with statewide
systems, as well as the estimated 9,553 LEAs in other States that have
their own local systems), the Department estimates that 3,973 LEAs
would need to spend 3 hours each to respond to these requirements for a
total burden of 11,919 hours and $297,975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ See http://widgeteffect.org/downloads/TheWidgetEffect.pdf.
\3\ It is important to note that this study includes in its
sample only medium-size and large LEAs and, therefore, that the
actual percentage of LEAs with teacher and principal evaluation
results in a central database may be lower than 33 percent. We also
believe, however, that small LEAs with fewer teachers and principals
would require less effort than a medium-size or large LEA to comply
with these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We estimate that each of the other 8,067 LEAs will require
significantly more time to respond. According to the Digest of
Education Statistics, there are approximately 3.2 million teachers and
90,470 principals in public elementary and secondary
schools.4 5 Based on this figure, we estimate that an
average LEA employs 210 teachers and 6 principals. Applying this number
of teachers and principals to the estimated 8,067 LEAs nationwide that
do not have this information electronically in a central system, we
estimate that these LEAs will need to enter data for 1,694,070 teachers
and 48,402 principals into their existing personnel systems. We
estimate that LEAs could enter information for 6 individuals per hour,
thus we estimate that these LEAs would have a combined burden of
290,412 hours at a cost of $7,260,300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_004.asp?referrer=list. The most recent data available is from 2008.
\5\ See http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_089.asp?referrer=list . The most recent data available is for the
2007-08 school year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
We further estimate that all 15,224 LEAs would each require 1 hour
to describe how they use results from teacher and principal evaluation
systems in decisions regarding teacher and principal development,
compensation, promotion, retention, and removal.
The Department, therefore, estimates the total LEA burden for these
requirements to be 317,555 hours across the Nation at an estimated
total cost of $7,938,875 (assuming a cost per hour of $25).
States would then need to collect these data, most likely by
including these items in the survey instrument that they will develop
to respond to the other requirements in this section, and will then
need to aggregate and publicly report the data on their Web site.
Considering progress that States have made to date, we estimate that
these activities will require 4 hours of effort per State, for a total
burden of 208 hours at a cost of $6,240.
For more detailed estimates of costs for these requirements, please
see the tables in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 section of this
notice.
State Data Systems
Section 14005(d)(3) requires States to assure that they will
establish a longitudinal data system that includes the elements
described in section 6401(e)(2)(D) of the America COMPETES Act. To
track State progress in this reform area, the Department requires each
State to indicate which of the 12 elements are included in the State's
statewide longitudinal data system. The costs of reporting this
information should be minimal. Moreover, most States are already
reporting information on ten of the 12 elements to the Data Quality
Campaign, a national effort to encourage State policymakers to use
high-quality education data to improve student achievement, and to the
Department as part of reporting for this program to date. The
Department expects that States will be able to readily provide
information on whether the two remaining elements are included in their
data systems and that it should take little time for the States that
have not been reporting to the Data Quality Campaign to provide
information on their data systems. We, therefore, estimate that States
would need only 2 hours to respond to this requirement, for a total
level of effort of 104 hours at an estimated cost of $3,120.
The Department is also requiring that States report whether the
State provides student growth data on their current students and the
students they taught in the previous year to, at a minimum, teachers of
reading/language arts and mathematics in grades in which the State
administers assessments in those subjects in a manner that is timely
and informs instructional programs. The Department believes that making
such information available would help improve the quality of
instruction and the quality of teacher evaluation and compensation
systems. Under the State Plan section, we discuss the costs of
developing systems for the provision of student growth data in all
States. We are also requiring States to indicate whether the State
provides teachers of reading/language arts and mathematics in grades in
which the State administers assessments in those subjects with reports
of individual teacher impact on student achievement on those
assessments. The costs of merely publicly reporting on whether a State
currently provides this information to teachers should be minimal. We
estimate that each State would spend one hour to publicly report this
information, for a total level of effort of 52 hours at a cost of
$1,560.
State Assessments
In response to the requirement in section 14005(d)(4)(A) of the
ARRA that States enhance the quality of their student assessments, the
Department requires that the States confirm certain existing data and
other information and submit some new information about their
assessment systems. Specifically, the Department requires each State to
confirm the approval status, as determined by the Department, of the
State's assessment system (with respect to reading/language arts,
mathematics, and science assessments). In addition, States will confirm
that their annual State Report Card (issued pursuant to the
requirements of section 1111(h) of the ESEA) contains the most recent
available State reading and mathematics NAEP results. The Department
estimates that each State would require two hours to respond to these
requirements, for a total cost of $3,120.
Section 14005(d)(4)(B) requires States to assure that they will
administer valid and reliable assessments for children with
disabilities and limited English proficient students. To measure State
progress on this assurance, the Department requires States to: confirm
whether the State has developed and implemented valid and reliable
alternate assessments for students with disabilities that have been
approved by the Department; confirm whether the State's alternative
assessments for students with disabilities, if approved by the
Department, are based on grade-level, modified, or alternate academic
achievement standards; indicate whether the State has completed, within
the last two years, an analysis of the appropriateness and
effectiveness of the accommodations it provides students with
disabilities to ensure their meaningful participation in State
assessments; indicate whether the State has completed, within the last
two years, an analysis of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the
accommodations it provides limited English proficient students to
ensure their meaningful participation in State assessments; and confirm
whether the State provides native language versions of State
assessments for limited English proficient students. To respond to
these
[[Page 59041]]
five indicators, the Department estimates that the 50 States, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico would each require five hours,
for a total cost of $7,800.
In addition, the Department requires that States confirm the number
and percentage of students with disabilities and limited English
proficient students who are included in State reading/language arts and
mathematics assessments. The Department expects that each State would,
on average, require one hour of staff time to complete this effort, at
a cost of $30 per hour. The burden estimated for this requirement is
minimal because the States will have already submitted this information
to the Department through the EDFacts system. For the 50 States, the
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, the total estimated level of
effort would be 52 hours at a cost of $1,560.
High School and Postsecondary Success
Section 14005(d)(4)(C) of the ARRA requires States to assure that
they take steps to improve their State academic content standards and
student academic achievement standards consistent with section
6401(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the COMPETES Act, which calls for States to
identify and make any necessary changes to their secondary school
graduation requirements, academic content standards, academic
achievement standards, and the assessments students take preceding
graduation from secondary school in order to align those requirements,
standards, and assessments with the knowledge and skills necessary for
success in academic credit-bearing coursework in postsecondary
education, in the 21st century workforce, and in the Armed Forces
without the need for remediation. Several of the indicators and
descriptors with which a State must comply are aligned with this
provision of the America COMPETES Act.
First, the Department requires each State to publicly report, for
the State and each LEA and high school in the State and, at each of
these levels, by student subgroup,\6\ the number and percentage of
students who graduate from high school as determined using the four-
year adjusted cohort graduation rate. State efforts to comply with the
Department's October 29, 2008 regulation requiring the use of a four-
year adjusted cohort graduation rate in the determination of adequate
yearly progress under Title I of the ESEA are now underway (see 34 CFR
200.19(b)(1)(i)). Some additional effort would be required to collect
and report these data for all schools as the current regulations apply
only to Title I schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ The student subgroups include: economically disadvantaged
students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, students
with limited English proficiency, and students with disabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Based on the Data Quality Campaign's 2010 survey of the 50 States
and the District of Columbia, which found that all States have the
capacity to calculate the National Governors Association longitudinal
graduation rate,\7\ the Department believes that most States are well-
situated to collect and publicly report these data. In fulfillment of
the requirement, the Department estimates that States would need to
distribute to non-Title I LEAs the survey instrument they are using to
collect this information from Title I LEAs and to input the data from
these surveys. The Department believes the 25 States that have already
met this requirement once and the 20 more that have reported completing
more than half of the effort involved would require less effort than
States that have completed less than half of the work involved with
meeting this requirement. The Department estimates that each State that
has completed more than half of the work associated with these
requirements would need 2 hours to meet the requirements, and each
State that has completed less than half of the work would require 8
hours to meet the requirements. Thus, the Department estimates that
this would require an estimated average of approximately 3 hours per
State. The new LEA burden to respond to this indicator would be limited
to the approximately 1,053 LEAs that do not receive Title I funds.\8\
The Department estimates that these LEAs would spend an average of 40
hours to respond to this indicator for a total LEA effort of 42,120
hours. The total estimated cost for LEAs is, therefore, $1,053,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/stateanalysis/executive_summary/.
\8\ According to data States submitted to the Department, there
are a total of 15,224 LEAs across the Nation, 14,171 of which
receive Title I, Part A funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
In addition, the Department is requiring States to publicly report,
for the State, for each LEA in the State, for each high school in the
State and, at each of these levels, by student subgroup, the number and
percentage of students who graduate from high school consistent with 34
CFR 200.19(b)(1)(i) who enroll in an IHE within 16 months of receiving
a regular high school diploma and, of those students who enroll in a
public IHE within the State, the number and percentage who complete at
least one year's worth of college credit (applicable to a degree)
within two years of enrollment in the IHE. The requirements would
entail considerable coordination among high schools, LEAs, SEAs, and
IHEs. The Department expects that SEAs would have to develop a system
to make this data collection and sharing possible, which they could at
least partially achieve by establishing a longitudinal data system that
includes the elements described in section 6401(e)(2)(D) of the
COMPETES Act. As discussed earlier, section 14005(d)(3) of the ARRA
requires States to assure, in their SFSF application, that they will
establish such a data system.
With respect to the requirement on publicly reporting postsecondary
enrollment, the Department expects that LEAs will need to enter, into
their State's statewide longitudinal data system, data on each high
school graduate's plans after high school, including the IHE where the
student intends to enroll, if applicable. Based on data from the Digest
of Education Statistics, the Department estimates that approximately
2,820,000 students who graduated from public high schools enrolled in
IHEs as first-time freshmen in fall 2007.\9\ Holding that number
constant, the Department estimates that LEAs will be able to enter data
for these students at a pace of 20 students per hour which will result
in a total level of LEA effort of 141,000 hours at a cost of
$3,525,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\9\ According to the Digest of Education Statistics, 2008,
approximately 3 million first-time freshmen enrolled in IHEs in fall
2007. See http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_199.asp. Also according to the Digest, in fall 2005, 859,800
students were enrolled in private secondary schools. At that time,
enrollment in public secondary schools was 14,908,126. Extrapolating
from those data, the Department estimates that 94 percent of all
first-time postsecondary students graduated from public schools. See
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/dt08_058.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The State will then likely need to request that each IHE in the
State confirm a student's enrollment, using the statewide longitudinal
data system to obtain data on students who intended to enroll within
the State. Based on data from the 2008 Integrated Postsecondary
Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 2009,\10\ the Department
estimates that 2,284,200 first-time freshmen (81 percent of the
estimated number of all first-time freshmen who graduate from public
high schools) enroll in degree-granting IHEs in their home State. The
Department estimates that IHEs will be able to confirm enrollment for
20 students per hour, for a total of 114,210 hours of IHE effort at a
total cost of
[[Page 59042]]
$2,855,250 (assuming a cost of $25 per hour).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\10\ http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_223.asp.
\11\ Note that a table in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
section of this notice provides the burden estimates by IHE, but
that this narrative provides national estimates using the total
number of students included in the data requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
States will also likely need to request that IHEs outside the State
confirm the enrollment of students who indicated that they would enroll
in those institutions. Again, based on data from the 2008 IPEDS, Spring
2009, the Department estimates that 535,800 students who graduate from
public high schools each year enroll in IHEs in States outside their
home State. The Department estimates that it will take States 30
minutes per student to complete this process, including contacting out-
of-State IHEs, obtaining the necessary information from them, and
including data on those students in their public reports. This element
of the requirement, therefore, will result in a national total of
267,900 hours of State effort at a total cost of $8,037,000. As with
students who enroll in IHEs in their home State, the Department
estimates that IHEs will be able to confirm enrollment for 20 students
per hour, for a total of 26,790 hours of IHE effort at a total cost of
$669,750.
Finally, to meet the requirement that they publicly report the
number of students who enroll in IHEs, States will need to aggregate
the data received from all IHEs and will then need to run analyses and
publicly report the data for the State, for each LEA, for each high
school and, at each of these levels, by student subgroup. The
Department estimates that each State will need 40 hours to conduct
these analyses and publicly report these data, for a total State burden
of 2,080 hours at a cost of $62,400.
The requirement that States publicly report the number of students
enrolling in a public, in-State IHE who complete at least one year's
worth of college credit applicable toward a degree within two years of
enrollment at the IHE will also entail a collaborative process between
SEAs and IHEs. Again, based on data from the Digest of Education
Statistics, the Department estimates that 1,691,678 first-time freshmen
enroll in public, degree-granting IHEs in their home State.\12\
Further, the Department estimates that, once a State has established a
system for the collection and reporting of these data, IHEs will be
able to enter data for 20 students an hour; thus, the total estimated
level of effort to respond to this requirement will be approximately
84,584 hours of IHE effort at an estimated cost of $2,114,600, assuming
a cost of $25 per hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\12\ According to the Digest of Education Statistics, 2009,
2,240,414 first-time freshmen enrolled in public, degree-granting
IHEs in fall 2008, which represented 74 percent of all first-time
freshmen. See http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_199.asp. Also in fall 2008, 2,109,931 freshmen who graduated from
high school within the last 12 months attended degree-granting IHEs
in their home State, which represented 81 percent of all freshmen.
See http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_223.asp. 1.
An estimate of the number of first-time freshmen enrolled in public,
degree-granting IHEs in their home State can be derived two ways.
Applying the percentage of first-time freshmen attending public
degree-granting IHEs to the number of first-time freshmen attending
an IHE in their home State yields an estimate of 1,508,484, and
applying the percentage of first-time freshmen attending an IHE in
their home State to the number of first-time freshmen attending
public degree-granting IHEs yields an estimate of 2,169,077. For the
purposes of this estimate, the Department chooses the midpoint of
these figures, which is 1,838,780. Applying the estimate (described
earlier) that 94 percent of all first-time postsecondary students
graduated from public schools, the Department estimates that
1,691,678 public high school graduates enroll in public degree-
granting IHEs in their home State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Finally, as with the previous indicator, States will need to
aggregate the data received from all IHEs and will then need to run
analyses and publicly report the data for the State, LEA, and school
levels and at each of these levels, by student subgroup. The Department
estimates that each State will need 40 hours to conduct these analyses
and publicly report these data, for a total State burden of 2,080 hours
at a cost of $62,400.
Supporting Struggling Schools
A key goal of the ARRA is to ensure that States and LEAs provide
targeted, intensive support and effective interventions to turn around
the persistently lowest-achieving schools in the State. Section
14005(d)(5) requires States to ensure compliance with the Title I
requirements in this area. To track State progress, the Department is
requiring States to provide, for each LEA in the State and aggregated
at the State level, the number and percentage of schools in
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that have made
progress on State assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics
in the last year, and, for the State, in the ``all students'' category
and for each student subgroup (as under section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the
ESEA), and, of the Title I schools in improvement, corrective action,
or restructuring, the number and identity of the persistently lowest-
achieving schools as defined by the State. The State is also required
to provide the definition that it uses to identify its ``persistently
lowest-achieving schools.'' States are also required to publicly report
the number and identity of their Title I schools in improvement,
corrective action, or restructuring that are identified as persistently
lowest-achieving and, of those schools, the number and identity of
schools that have been turned around, restarted, closed, or transformed
in the last year.
The Department believes that States will already have available the
data needed to report on the indicators related to the total number and
percentage of schools in improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring that have made progress on State assessments, although
they might need to run new analyses of the data. However, the
Department expects that States will have to collect new data on the
schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring (in general
and in the persistently lowest-achieving schools) that have been turned
around, restarted, closed, or transformed. (In addition, the State will
need to define the term ``persistently lowest-achieving schools.'') We
estimate that this data collection will entail two hours of effort in
each of the 4,729 LEAs (the number of LEAs that, according to data
reported to EDFacts, had at least one school in improvement, corrective
action, or restructuring in the 2010-11 school year). As a result, the
Department estimates that the total LEA burden for this requirement
will be 9,458 hours at a cost of $236,450. States will then need to
aggregate these data, in addition to the effort they will spend
responding to the other indicators that relate to struggling schools.
Approximately 40 States have either already submitted this information
once or have completed more than 50 percent of the effort to meet the
requirement. As a result, the Department estimates that these States
will require less effort than the other 12 to meet this reporting
requirement. The Department estimates that, on average, each State will
require 14 hours of effort to respond to these requirements, for a
total cost of $21,840.
In addition, the Department is requiring States to provide, for the
State, the number and identity of the secondary schools that are
eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds, that are identified as
persistently lowest-achieving schools, and, of these schools, the
number and identity of schools that have been turned around, restarted,
closed, or transformed in the last year. The Department expects that
some, but not all, States have the data required to determine the
identity of secondary schools that are eligible for, but do not
receive, Title I funds, but that they may have to run new analyses of
the data to
[[Page 59043]]
determine which of these schools have been turned around, restarted,
closed, or transformed in the last year. Other States may have to
include an item in the LEA survey that they will be distributing to
respond to several of these requirements. Based on State efforts to
report on these two indicators to date, the Department estimates that
each State will require an average of 8 hours of effort to respond to
these two requirements, for a total cost of $12,480. We further
estimate that the 4,729 affected LEAs will need a total of 4 hours to
respond to these two survey items.
Charter Schools
The Department believes that the creation and maintenance of high-
quality charter schools is a key strategy for promoting successful
models of school reform. To determine the level of State effort in this
area, the Department is requiring States to provide, at the State level
and, if applicable, for each LEA in the State, the number of charter
schools that are currently permitted to operate under State law and the
number that are currently operating. We expect that this information
will be readily available and that States will need only a total of one
hour to respond to these two requirements.
In addition, the Department will require States to provide, for the
State and for each LEA in the State that operates charter schools, the
number and percentage (including numerator and denominator) of charter
schools that have made progress on State assessments in reading/
language arts and mathematics in the last year. Finally, the Department
is requiring States to provide, for the State and for each LEA in the
State that operates charter schools, the number and identity of charter
schools that have closed (including schools that were not reauthorized
to operate) within each of the last five years and to indicate, for
each such school, whether the closure was for financial, enrollment,
academic, or other reasons. The Department believes that SEAs will
likely also have this information readily available (although some may
need to obtain additional information from their LEAs) and will need
eight hours to publicly report it. The Department assumes that the
effort to respond to these requirements will be limited to the 42
States (including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) that allow
charter schools. The Department thus estimates that the State effort
required to respond to these indicators will total 336 hours at a cost
of $10,080.
Total Estimated Costs
The Department estimates that the total burden of responding to
these requirements will be 287,424 hours and $8,622,720 for SEAs,
564,076 hours and $14,101,900 for LEAs, and 225,584 hours and
$5,639,600 for IHEs, for a total burden of 1,077,084 hours at a cost of
$28,364,220.
Benefits
The principal benefits of the requirements are those resulting from
the reporting and public availability of information on each State's
progress in the four reform areas described in the ARRA. The Department
believes that the information gathered and reported as a result of
these requirements will improve public accountability for performance,
help States, LEAs, and schools learn from one another and make
improvements in what they are doing, and inform the ESEA
reauthorization process.
A second major benefit is that better public information on State
and local progress in the four reform areas will likely spur more rapid
progress on those reforms, because States and LEAs that appear to be
lagging in one or more areas may see a need to redouble their efforts.
The Department believes that more rapid progress on the essential
educational reforms will have major benefits nationally, and that these
reforms have the potential to drive dramatic improvements in student
outcomes.
For example, statewide longitudinal data systems are essential
tools in advancing education reform. With these systems in place,
States can use this data to evaluate the effectiveness of specific
interventions, schools, principals, and teachers by tracking individual
student achievement, high school graduation, and postsecondary
enrollment and credit. They can, for example, track the academic
achievement of individual students over time, even if those students
change schools within the State during the course of their education.
By analyzing this information, decision-makers can determine if a
student's ``achievement trajectory'' will result in his or her being
college- or career-ready and can better target services based on the
student's academic needs.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\13\ For example, see http://dataqualitycampaign.org/files/publications-dqc_academic_growth-100908.pdf and http://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/files/Meetings-DQC_Quarterly_Issue_Brief_092506.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department also believes that States' implementation of these
requirements will lead to more widespread development and
implementation of better teacher and principal evaluation systems. In
particular, the availability of accurate, complete, and valid
achievement data is essential to implementing better systems of teacher
and principal evaluation. Value-added models, for example, can provide
an objective estimate of the impact of teachers on student learning and
achievement.\14\ Further, they can be used by schools, LEAs, or States
to reward excellence in teaching or school leadership, as a component
of performance-based compensation systems, or to identify schools in
need of improvement or teachers who may require additional training or
professional development.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\14\ See: Braun, Henry I. Using Student Progress To Evaluate
Teachers: A Primer on Value-Added Models. Educational Testing
Service, Policy Information Center, 2005; Marsh, Julie A.; Pane,
John F.; Hamilton, Laura S. Making Sense of Data-Driven Decision
Making in Education: Evidence from Recent RAND Research. Santa
Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2006; and Sanders, William L. ``Value-
Added Assessment from Student Achievement Data: Opportunities and
Hurdles.'' Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, Vol. 14,
No. 4, p. 329-339, 2000.
\15\ Center for Educator Compensation Reform: http://cecr.ed.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The Department believes that the requirements will have additional
benefits to the extent that they provide States with incentives to
address inequities in the distribution of effective teachers, improve
the quality of State assessments, and undergo intensive efforts to
improve struggling schools. Numerous studies document the substantial
impact of improved teaching on educational outcomes and the need to
take action to turn around the lowest-performing schools, including
high schools (and their feeder middle schools) that enroll a
disproportionate number of the students who fail to complete a high
school education and receive a regular high school diploma. The
Department believes that more widespread adoption of these reforms
would have a significant, positive impact on student achievement.
Although these benefits are not easily quantified, the Department
believes they will exceed the projected costs.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, the Department conducts a preclearance consultation program to
provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to
comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(A)).
[[Page 59044]]
This helps ensure that: The public understands the Department's
collection instructions; respondents can provide the requested data in
the desired format; reporting burden (time and financial resources) is
minimized; collection instruments are clearly understood; and the
Department can properly assess the impact of collection requirements on
respondents.
This Interim Final Requirement contains an information collection
requirement previously approved under OMB control number 1810-0695.
Under the PRA the Department has submitted a copy of this section to
OMB for its review.
A Federal agency cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of
information unless OMB approves the collection under the PRA and the
corresponding information collection instrument displays a currently
valid OMB control number. Notwithstanding any other provision of law,
no person is required to comply with, or is subject to penalty for
failure to comply with, a collection of information if the collection
instrument does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
In the final requirement we will display the control number
assigned by OMB to any information collection requirement in this IFR
and adopted in the final requirement.
In the SFSF Phase 2 application, the Department established
indicators and descriptors that required States to collect and publicly
report data and other information annually. The Office of Management
and Budget approved that information collection under an emergency
review (OMB Control Number 1810-0695). The Department's authority under
that information collection has expired. Therefore, the Department is
reinstating to December 15, 2011 the information collection under OMB
Control Number 1810-0695.
A description of the specific information collection requirements
is provided in the following tables along with estimates of the annual
recordkeeping burden for these requirements. Included in an estimate is
the time for collecting and tracking data, maintaining records,
calculations, and reporting. The first table presents the estimated
indicators burden for SEAs, the second table presents the estimated
indicators burden for LEAs, and the third table presents the estimated
indicators burden for IHEs.
State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Indicators and Descriptors
I. Assurance Indicators and Descriptors Burden Hours/Cost for SEAS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total cost
Citation Description Number of Average hours Total hours (total hours x
respondents per response* $30.00)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indicator (a)(1).......................... Confirm, for the State, the number and 52 1 52 $1,560
percentage (including numerator and
denominator) of core academic courses
taught, in the highest-poverty and lowest-
poverty schools, by teachers who are highly
qualified consistent with section 9101(23)
of the Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA).
Indicator (a)(2).......................... Confirm whether the State's Teacher Equity 52 1 52 1,560
Plan (as part of the State's Highly
Qualified Teacher Plan) fully reflects the
steps the State is currently taking to
ensure that students from low-income
families and minority students are not
taught at higher rates than other students
by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-
field teachers (as required in section
1111(b)(8)(C) of the ESEA).
Descriptor (a)(1)......................... Describe, for each local educational agency 52 118 6,158 184,740
(LEA) in the State, the systems used to
evaluate the performance of teachers and
the use of results from those systems in
decisions regarding teacher development,
compensation, promotion, retention, and
removal.
Indicator (a)(3).......................... Indicate, for each LEA in the State, whether 52 4 208 6,240
the systems used to evaluate the
performance of teachers include student
achievement outcomes or student growth data
as an evaluation criterion.
Indicator (a)(4).......................... Provide, for each LEA in the State whose 52 2 104 3,120
teachers receive performance ratings or
levels through an evaluation system, the
number and percentage (including numerator
and denominator) of teachers rated at each
performance rating or level.
Indicator (a)(5).......................... Indicate, for each LEA in the State whose 52 1 52 1,560
teachers receive performance ratings or
levels through an evaluation system,
whether the number and percentage
(including numerator and denominator) of
teachers rated at each performance rating
or level are publicly reported for each
school in the LEA.
Descriptor (a)(2)......................... Describe, for each LEA in the State, the 52 118 6,158 184,740
systems used to evaluate the performance of
principals and the use of results from
those systems in decisions regarding
principal development, compensation,
promotion, retention, and removal.
[[Page 59045]]
Indicator (a)(6).......................... Indicate, for each LEA in the State, whether 52 4 208 6,240
the systems used to evaluate the
performance of principals include student
achievement outcomes or student growth data
as an evaluation criterion.
Indicator (a)(7).......................... Provide, for each LEA in the State whose 52 1 52 1,560
principals receive performance ratings or
levels through an evaluation system, the
number and percentage (including numerator
and denominator) of principals rated at
each performance rating or level.
Indicator (b)(1).......................... Indicate which of the 12 elements described 52 2 104 3,120
in section 6401(e)(2)(D) of the America
COMPETES Act are included in the State's
statewide longitudinal data system.
Indicator (b)(2).......................... Indicate whether the State provides student 52 .5 26 780
growth data on their current students and
the students they taught in the previous
year to, at a minimum, teachers of reading/
language arts and mathematics in grades in
which the State administers assessments in
those subjects, in a manner that is timely
and informs instructional programs.
Indicator (b)(3).......................... Indicate whether the State provides teachers 52 .5 26 780
of reading/language arts and mathematics in
grades in which the State administers
assessments in those subjects with reports
of individual teacher impact on student
achievement on those assessments.
Indicator (c)(1).......................... Confirm the approval status, as determined 52 1 52 1,560
by the Department, of the State's
assessment system under section 1111(b)(3)
of the ESEA with respect to reading/
language arts, mathematics, and science
assessments.
Indicator (c)(2).......................... Confirm whether the State has developed and 52 1 52 1,560
implemented valid and reliable alternate
assessments for students with disabilities
that are approved by the Department.
Indicator (c)(3).......................... Confirm whether the State's alternate 52 1 52 1,560
assessments for students with disabilities,
if approved by the Department, are based on
grade-level, modified, or alternate
academic achievement standards.
Indicator (c)(4).......................... Indicate whether the State has completed, 52 1 52 1,560
within the last two years, an analysis of
the appropriateness and effectiveness of
the accommodations it provides students
with disabilities to ensure their
meaningful participation in State
assessments.
Indicator (c)(5).......................... Confirm the number and percentage (including 52 .5 26 780
numerator and denominator) of students with
disabilities who are included in State
reading/language arts and mathematics
assessments.
Indicator (c)(6).......................... Indicate whether the State has completed, 52 1 52 1,560
within the last two years, an analysis of
the appropriateness and effectiveness of
the accommodations it provides limited
English proficient students to ensure their
meaningful participation in State
assessments.
Indicator (c)(7).......................... Confirm whether the State provides native 52 1 52 1,560
language versions of State assessments for
limited English proficient students that
are approved by the Department.
Indicator (c)(8).......................... Confirm the number and percentage (including 52 .5 26 780
numerator and denominator) of limited
English proficient students who are
included in State reading/language arts and
mathematics assessments.
Indicator (c)(9).......................... Confirm that the State's annual State Report 52 1 52 1,560
Card (under section 1111(h)(1) of the ESEA)
contains the most recent available State
reading and mathematics National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP) results as
required by 34 CFR 200.11(c).
[[Page 59046]]
Indicator (c)(10)......................... Provide, for the State, for each LEA in the 52 3 156 4,680
State, for each high school in the State
and, at each of these levels, by student
subgroup (consistent with section
1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA), the
number and percentage (including numerator
and denominator) of students who graduate
from high school using a four-year adjusted
cohort graduation rate as required by 34
CFR 200.19(b)(1)(i).
Indicator (c)(11)......................... Provide, for the State, for each LEA in the 52 5,192 269,980 8,099,400
State, for each high school in the State
and, at each of these levels, by student
subgroup (consistent with section
1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA), of the
students who graduate from high school
consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(i), the
number and percentage (including numerator
and denominator) who enroll in an
institution of Higher education (IHE) (as
defined in section 101(a) of the Higher
Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA))
within 16 months of receiving a regular
high school diploma.
Indicator (c)(12)......................... Provide, for the State, for each LEA in the 52 40 2,080 62,400
State, for each high school in the State
and, at each of these levels, by student
subgroup (consistent with section
1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA), of the
students who graduate from high school
consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(i) who
enroll in a public IHE (as defined in
section 101(a) of the HEA) in the State
within 16 months of receiving a regular
high school diploma, the number and
percentage (including numerator and
denominator) who complete at least one
year's worth of college credit (applicable
to a degree) within two years of enrollment
in the IHE.
Indicator (d)(1).......................... Provide, for the State, the average 52 5 260 7,800
statewide school gain in the ``all
students'' category and the average
statewide school gain for each student
subgroup (as under section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)
of the ESEA) on the State assessments in
reading/language arts and for the State and
for each LEA in the State, the number and
percentage (including numerator and
denominator) of Title I schools in
improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring that have made progress (as
defined in this notice) on State
assessments in reading/language arts in the
last year.
Indicator (d)(2).......................... Provide, for the State, the average 52 5 260 7,800
statewide school gain in the ``all
students'' category and the average
statewide school gain for each student
subgroup (as under section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)
of the ESEA) on State assessments in
mathematics and for the State and for each
LEA in the State, the number and percentage
(including numerator and denominator) of
Title I schools in improvement, corrective
action, or restructuring that have made
progress on State assessments in
mathematics in the last year.
Descriptor (d)(1)......................... Provide the definition of ``persistently 52 1 52 1,560
lowest-achieving schools'' (consistent with
the requirements for defining this term set
forth in this notice) that the State uses
to identify such schools.
Indicator (d)(3).......................... Provide, for the State, the number and 52 2 104 3,120
identity of the schools that are Title I
schools in improvement, corrective action,
or restructuring, that are identified as
persistently lowest-achieving schools.
Indicator (d)(4).......................... Provide, for the State, of the persistently 52 1 52 1,560
lowest-achieving schools that are Title I
schools in improvement, corrective action,
or restructuring, the number and identity
of those schools that have been turned
around, restarted, closed, or transformed
(as defined in this notice) in the last
year.
[[Page 59047]]
Indicator (d)(5).......................... Provide, for the State, the number and 52 4 208 6,240
identity of the schools that are secondary
schools that are eligible for, but do not
receive, Title I funds, that are identified
as persistently lowest-achieving schools.
Indicator (d)(6).......................... Provide, for the State, of the persistently 52 4 208 6,240
lowest-achieving schools that are secondary
schools that are eligible for, but do not
receive, Title I funds, the number and
identity of those schools that have been
turned around, restarted, closed, or
transformed in the last year.
Indicator (d)(7).......................... Provide, for the State and, if applicable, 52 .5 26 780
for each LEA in the State, the number of
charter schools that are currently
permitted to operate under State law.
Indicator (d)(8).......................... Confirm, for the State and for each LEA in 52 .5 26 780
the State that operates charter schools,
the number of charter schools currently
operating.
Indicator (d)(9).......................... Provide, for the State and for each LEA in 42 2 84 2,520
the State that operates charter schools,
the number and percentage of charter
schools that have made progress on State
assessments in reading/language arts in the
last year.
Indicator (d)(10)......................... Provide, for the State and for each LEA in 42 2 84 2,520
the State that operates charter schools,
the number and percentage of charter
schools that have made progress on State
assessments in mathematics in the last year.
Indicator (d)(11)......................... Provide, for the State and for each LEA in 42 2 84 2,520
the State that operates charter schools,
the number and identity of charter schools
that have closed (including schools that
were not reauthorized to operate) within
each of the last five years.
Indicator (d)(12)......................... Indicate, for each charter school that has 42 2 84 2,520
closed (including a school that was not
reauthorized to operate) within each of the
last five years, whether the closure of the
school was for financial, enrollment,
academic, or other reasons.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Figures in this column may reflect rounding.
II. Assurance Indicators and Descriptors Burden Hours/Cost for LEAs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total cost
Citation Description Number of Average hours Total hours (total hours x
respondents per response* $30.00)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Descriptor (a)(1)......................... Describe, for each LEA in the State, the 15,224 1.78 27,114 677,850
systems used to evaluate the performance of
teachers and the use of results from those
systems in decisions regarding teacher
development, compensation, promotion,
retention, and removal.
Indicator (a)(3).......................... Indicate, for each LEA in the State, whether 12,737 .1 850 21,250
the systems used to evaluate the
performance of teachers include student
achievement outcomes or student growth data
as an evaluation criterion.
Indicator (a)(4).......................... Provide, for each LEA in the State whose 12,040 23.7 285,000 7,125,000
teachers receive performance ratings or
levels through an evaluation system, the
number and percentage (including numerator
and denominator) of teachers rated at each
performance rating or level.
Indicator (a)(5).......................... Indicate, for each LEA in the State whose 12,040 .5 5,955 148,875
teachers receive performance ratings or
levels through an evaluation system,
whether the number and percentage
(including numerator and denominator) of
teachers rated at each performance rating
or level are publicly reported for each
school in the LEA.
Descriptor (a)(2)......................... Describe, for each LEA in the State, the 15,224 1.78 27,113 677,825
systems used to evaluate the performance of
principals and the use of results from
those systems in decisions regarding
principal development, compensation,
promotion, retention, and removal.
[[Page 59048]]
Indicator (a)(6).......................... Indicate, for each LEA in the State, whether 12,737 .1 850 21,250
the systems used to evaluate the
performance of principals include student
achievement outcomes or student growth data
as an evaluation criterion.
Indicator (a)(7).......................... Provide, for each LEA in the State whose 12,040 .47 5,700 142,500
principals receive performance ratings or
levels through an evaluation system, the
number and percentage (including numerator
and denominator) of principals rated at
each performance rating or level.
Indicator (c)(10)......................... Provide, for the State, for each LEA in the 1,053 40 42,120 1,053,000
State, for each high school in the State
and, at each of these levels, by student
subgroup (consistent with section
1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA), the
number and percentage (including numerator
and denominator) of students who graduate
from high school using a four-year adjusted
cohort graduation rate as required by 34
CFR 200.19(b)(1)(i).
Indicator (c)(11)......................... Provide, for the State, for each LEA in the 15,224 9.26 141,000 3,525,000
State, for each high school in the State
and, at each of these levels, by student
subgroup (consistent with section
1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA), of the
students who graduate from high school
consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(i), the
number and percentage (including numerator
and denominator) who enroll in an IHE (as
defined in section 101(a) of the HEA)
within 16 months of receiving a regular
high school diploma.
Indicator (d)(4).......................... Provide, for the State, of the persistently 4,729 2 9,458 236,450
lowest-achieving Title I schools in
improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring, the number and identity of
schools that have been turned around,
restarted, closed, or transformed in the
last year.
Indicator (d)(5).......................... Provide, for the State, the number and 4,729 2 9,458 236,450
identity of the secondary schools that are
eligible for, but do not receive, Title I
funds, that are identified as persistently
lowest-achieving schools.
Indicator (d)(6).......................... Provide, for the State, of the persistently 4,729 2 9,458 236,450
lowest-achieving secondary schools that are
eligible for, but do not receive, Title I
funds, the number and identity of schools
that have been turned around, restarted,
closed, or transformed in the last year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
*Figures in this column may reflect rounding.
III. Assurance Indicators and Descriptors Burden Hours/Cost for IHEs
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total cost
Citation Description Number of Average hours Total hours (total hours x
respondents per response* $25.00)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indicator (c)(11)......................... Provide, for the State, for each LEA in the 4,409 31.98 141,000 $3,525,000
State, for each high school in the State
and, at each of these levels, by student
subgroup (consistent with section
1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA), of the
students who graduate from high school
consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(i), the
number and percentage (including numerator
and denominator) who enroll in an IHE (as
defined in section 101(a) of the HEA)
within 16 months of receiving a regular
high school diploma.
[[Page 59049]]
Indicator (c)(12)......................... Provide, for the State, for each LEA in the 1,676 50.47 84,584 2,114,600
State, for each high school in the State
and, at each of these levels, by student
subgroup (consistent with section
1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA), of the
students who graduate from high school
consistent with 34 CFR 200.19(b)(1)(i) who
enroll in a public IHE (as defined in
section 101(a) of the HEA) in the State
within 16 months of receiving a regular
high school diploma, the number and
percentage (including numerator and
denominator) who complete at least one
year's worth of college credit (applicable
to a degree) within two years of enrollment
in the IHE.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* Figures in this column may reflect rounding.
If you want to comment on the information collection requirements,
please send your comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, OMB, Attention: Desk Officer for U.S. Department of Education.
Send these comments by e-mail to [email protected] or by fax to
(202) 395-6974. You may also send a copy of these comments to the
Department contact named in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
We have prepared an Information Collection Request (ICR) for this
collection. In preparing your comments you may want to review the ICR,
which we maintain in the Education Department Information Collection
System (EDICS) at http://edicsweb.ed.gov. Click on Browse Pending
Collections. This proposed collection is identified as proposed
collection 1810-0695.
We consider your comments on this collection of information in--
Deciding whether the collection is necessary for the
proper performance of our functions, including whether the information
will have practical use;
Evaluating the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of
the collection, including the validity of our methodology and
assumptions;
Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the
information we collect; and
Minimizing the burden on those who must respond. This
includes exploring the use of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of
information contained in this interim final requirement between 30 and
60 days after publication of this document in the Federal Register.
Therefore, to ensure that OMB gives your comments full consideration,
it is important that OMB receives your comments on the proposed
collection within 30 days after publication. This does not affect the
deadline for your comments to us on the interim final requirement.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that this regulatory action will not have a
significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities.
The small entities that this regulatory action will affect are small
LEAs receiving funds under this program and small IHEs.
This regulatory action will not have a significant economic impact
on small LEAs because they will be able to meet the costs of compliance
with this regulatory action using the funds provided under this
program.
With respect to small IHEs, the U.S. Small Business Administration
Size Standards define these institutions as ``small entities'' if they
are for-profit or nonprofit institutions with total annual revenue
below $5,000,000 or if they are institutions controlled by small
governmental jurisdictions, which are comprised of cities, counties,
towns, townships, villages, school districts, or special districts,
with a population of less than 50,000. Based on data from the
Department's Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS), up
to 427 small IHEs with revenues of less than $5 million may be affected
by these requirements; only 33 of these IHEs are public. These small
IHEs represent only 13 percent of degree-granting IHEs. In addition,
only 98,032 students (0.5 percent) enrolled in degree-granting IHEs in
fall 2007 attended these small institutions; just 11,830 of these
students are enrolled in small, degree-granting public IHEs. As the
burden for indicators (c)(11) and (c)(12) is driven by the number of
students for whom IHEs would be required to submit data, small IHEs
will require significantly less effort to adhere to these requirements
than will be the case for larger IHEs. Based on IPEDS data, the
Department estimates that 1,873 of these students are first-time
freshmen. As stated earlier in the Summary of Costs and Benefits
section of this notice, the Department estimates that, as required by
indicator (c)(11), IHEs will be able to confirm the enrollment of 20
first-time freshmen per hour. Applying this estimate to the estimated
number of first-time freshmen at small IHEs, the Department estimates
that these IHEs will need to spend 94 hours to respond to this
requirement at a total cost of $2,350 (assuming a cost of $25 per
hour).
The effort involved in reporting the number of students enrolling
in a public IHE in their home State who complete at least one year's
worth of college credit applicable toward a degree within two years as
required by indicator (c)(12) will also apply to small IHEs, but will
be limited to students who enroll in public IHEs in their home State.
As discussed earlier in the Summary of Costs and Benefits section of
this notice, the Department estimates that 81 percent of first-time
freshmen who graduate from public high schools enroll in degree-
granting IHEs in their home State. Applying this percentage to the
estimated number of first-time freshmen enrolled in small public IHEs
(1,873), the Department estimates that small IHEs will be required to
report credit completion data for a total of 1,517 students. For this
requirement, the Department also estimates that IHEs will be able to
report the credit completion status of 20 first-time freshmen per hour.
Again, applying this data entry rate to the estimated number of first-
time freshmen at small public IHEs in their home State, the Department
estimates that these IHEs will need to
[[Page 59050]]
spend 76 hours to respond to this requirement at a total cost of
$1,900. The total cost of these requirements for small IHEs is,
therefore, $4,250; $2,068 of this cost will be borne by small private
IHEs, and $2,182 of the cost will be borne by small public IHEs. Based
on the total number of small IHEs across the Nation, the estimated cost
per small private IHE is approximately $10, and the estimated cost per
small public IHE is $66. The Department has, therefore, determined that
the requirements will not represent a significant burden on small not-
for-profit IHEs. It is also important to note that States may use their
Government Services Fund allocations to help small IHEs meet the costs
of complying with the requirements that affect them, and public IHEs
may use Education Stabilization Fund dollars they receive for that
purpose.
In addition, the Department believes the benefits provided under
this regulatory action will outweigh the burdens on these institutions
of complying with the requirements. One of these benefits will be the
provision of better information on student success in postsecondary
education to policymakers, educators, parents, and other stakeholders.
The Department believes that the information gathered and reported as a
result of these requirements will improve public accountability for
performance; help States, LEAs, and schools learn from one another and
improve their decision-making; and inform Federal policymaking.
A second major benefit is that better public information on State
and local progress in the four reform areas will likely spur more rapid
progress on those reforms, because States and LEAs that appear to be
lagging in one area or another may see a need to redouble their
efforts. The Department believes that more rapid progress on the
essential educational reforms will have major benefits nationally, and
that these reforms have the potential to drive dramatic improvements in
student outcomes. The requirements that apply to IHEs should, in
particular, spur more rapid implementation of pre-K-16 State
longitudinal data systems.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document: 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 via the Federal Digital System
at: http://www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document,
as well as all other documents of this Department published in the
Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To
use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at
the site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at: http://www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
Program Authority: American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009, Division A, Title XIV--State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, Pub.
L. 111-5; 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3 and 3474.
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Numbers: 84.394
(Education Stabilization Fund) and 84.397 (Government Services
Fund).
Dated: September 19, 2011.
Arne Duncan,
Secretary of Education.
[FR Doc. 2011-24407 Filed 9-22-11; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P