[Federal Register Volume 78, Number 29 (Tuesday, February 12, 2013)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 9815-9823]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2013-03210]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Subtitle A

[Docket ID ED-2012-OII-0013]
RIN 1855-AA08


Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection 
Criteria--Supporting Effective Educator Development [CFDA Number: 
84.367D.]

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

ACTION: Final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria.

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

SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement 
announces priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria 
under the Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED) program. The 
Assistant Deputy Secretary may use one or more of these priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for competitions 
fiscal year (FY) 2013 and later years. We take this action to help 
national not-for-profit organizations build evidence on how best to 
recruit, train, and support effective teachers and school leaders; 
recruit and prepare effective science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics teachers; and invest in efforts that increase student 
achievement by improving teacher and principal effectiveness.

DATES: These priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria are effective March 14, 2013.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Wilson, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 4W125, Washington, DC 20202. 
Telephone: (202) 453-6709 or by email: [email protected].
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf or a text 
telephone, call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-877-
8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: 
    Purpose of Program: The SEED program provides funding for grants to 
national not-for-profit organizations for projects that support teacher 
or principal training or professional enhancement activities and are 
supported by at least moderate evidence of effectiveness (as defined in 
this notice).
    Program Authority: Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2012 
(Pub. L. 112-74, Title III, Division F).
    We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria (NPP) for this program in the 
Federal Register on September 4, 2012 (77 FR 53819). That notice 
contained background information and our reasons for proposing the 
particular priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria.
    These final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria contain some changes from the NPP. We fully explain these 
changes in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section in this notice.
    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPP, 18 
parties submitted comments on the proposed priorities, requirements, 
definitions, and selection criteria.
    Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and 
any changes in the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection 
criteria since publication of the NPP follows.

Eligibility

    Comment: Several commenters requested that the Department alter the 
eligibility criteria to allow more types of entities to apply for a 
SEED program grant. One commenter recommended that we allow 
applications from large local educational agencies (LEAs) or LEAs with 
large numbers of students in poverty. Three commenters recommended that 
we allow applications from local, State, or regional not-for-profit 
organizations.
    Discussion: We agree that other entities, including LEAs and local, 
State, and regional not-for-profit organizations, have expertise in 
preparing and supporting teachers and principals. However, the 
legislation that governs the SEED program allows for awards only to 
national not-for-profit organizations. Consequently, while eligible 
national not-for-profit applicants may partner with LEAs and local, 
State, and regional not-for-profit organizations to carry out their 
projects, the Department does not have the authority to award a SEED 
program grant to other types of entities.
    Change: None.

Priorities

    Comment: One commenter supported our focus on high-need students 
but also requested that we add a priority on recruiting, developing, 
and retaining educators from underrepresented backgrounds to increase 
teacher success.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter on the importance of 
recruiting and developing educators from diverse backgrounds who 
reflect the backgrounds of their students. We have made this commitment 
explicit in option (b) of priority 4, Promoting Science, Technology, 
Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM) Education, which requires 
applicants to demonstrate how they will increase the number of 
individuals from groups traditionally underrepresented in STEM. We also 
believe that priorities 1, 2, 3, and 5 provide applicants with the 
flexibility to identify strategies, including those that focus on 
recruiting and supporting teachers and principals from underrepresented 
backgrounds, to improve teacher and principal effectiveness for the 
targeted students and schools. For these reasons, we decline to add 
another priority specifically focused on recruiting, developing, and 
retaining teachers and principals from underrepresented groups.
    Change: None.

    Comment: Several commenters recommended that the Department 
identify certain priorities as absolute or competitive.
    Discussion: The Department generally does not designate priorities 
as absolute or competitive as part of a notice of final priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria in order to maintain 
maximum flexibility in how we use the priorities in future 
competitions. For each future competition, we will designate priorities 
as absolute or competitive in the notice inviting applications.
    Change: None.

    Comment: One commenter recommended that we specifically cite 
assessment literacy--that is, the understanding and use of assessment 
data--as a required competency for teachers and principals in the 
priorities and as one of the measures in the definitions of ``highly 
effective teacher'' and ``highly effective principal.'' Additionally, 
the commenter recommended that we require applicants to evaluate 
assessment literacy predominantly based on performance, including 
classroom observations and artifact reviews, and that we require 
applicants to use a minimum of three years of data in measuring student 
growth as an indicator of teacher effectiveness.
    Discussion: While we agree that it is important for teachers and 
principals to understand and use data and assessment

[[Page 9816]]

results to improve teaching, we believe this goal is reflected in the 
priorities and selection criteria. For priorities 1, 2, 3, 4, and 5, 
applicants are required to describe how they will measure the effect of 
their proposed project activities on their participants and the 
students they serve. Further, the selection criteria require applicants 
to describe how their proposed projects are expected to advance and 
develop teacher and school leadership theory and practice such that 
they increase teacher and student success. Applicants must also 
describe how they propose to evaluate their project outcomes. We 
believe that assessment literacy is implicit in these priorities and 
selection criteria. Just as we allow maximum flexibility for applicants 
to design their projects by not prescribing specific strategies or 
curricula for the proposed teacher and principal preparation, 
professional development, and advanced credentialing projects, we do 
not think it appropriate to add or prescribe assessment literacy as a 
requirement.
    Also, under this program, an eligible applicant is not precluded 
from using supplemental performance measures such as observations and 
artifact reviews to distinguish highly effective teachers, provided 
that teacher effectiveness is evaluated, in significant part, based on 
student growth (as defined in this notice).
    Regarding the recommendation that an applicant use a minimum of 
three years of data to measure student growth as an indicator of 
teacher effectiveness, the program does not specify a time period for 
collecting data on student growth. However, applicants must describe 
how their proposed objective performance measures are clearly related 
to the outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and 
qualitative data within the grant performance period.

    Change: None.
    Comment: Several commenters suggested that we provide applicants 
flexibility in determining how they track the effect that their 
participating educators have on student growth. Additionally, they 
requested that we clarify whether applicants are required to create new 
teacher evaluation systems to track their participants' effectiveness. 
One commenter also asked the Department to clarify who would determine 
whether the evaluation systems are fair.
    Discussion: While several of the priorities require that applicants 
track their participants' effectiveness based in part on student 
growth, none of them requires applicants to create new evaluation 
systems. Applicants may choose which evaluation system to use, so long 
as it meets the requirements discussed in the relevant priority. 
Additionally, applicants must describe how the system they propose to 
use meets the requirements of the priority, including how the system is 
fair.
    Change: None.

    Comment: One commenter suggested using indicators other than 
student growth to determine teacher effectiveness so that student test 
scores are not the primary determinant of teacher effectiveness. 
Additionally, the commenter requested that we require that teachers be 
involved in deciding which indicators are used in the teacher 
evaluation systems utilized by applicants.
    Discussion: The Department agrees that the effectiveness of 
teachers and principals cannot be evaluated by test scores alone. 
Priorities 2, 3, 4, and 5 specifically state that, while based in 
significant part on student growth, effectiveness must be determined 
``through a rigorous, transparent, and fair evaluation in which 
performance is differentiated using multiple measures of 
effectiveness.'' The definition of ``student growth'' in this notice 
also states that an applicant may include other measures that are 
rigorous and comparable across classrooms. Moreover, to meet the 
requirement that their teacher and principal evaluations are fair and 
transparent, applicants must demonstrate how key stakeholders such as 
teachers and principals were included in the evaluation development. 
Therefore, we decline to make these recommended changes.
    Change: None.

    Comment: One commenter recommended that we consider the approaches 
of other high-performing countries that emphasize teacher recruitment, 
training, and support.
    Discussion: The Department believes that the priorities proposed in 
the NPP align with the best practices in teacher recruitment and 
development. Additionally, applicants may propose strategies that are 
used in other countries so long as they demonstrate that those 
strategies will have a positive effect on their target populations.
    Change: None.

Priority 1

    Comment: One commenter suggested that we expand priority 1 to 
include other types of school leaders, such as charter school 
executives.
    Discussion: The legislation governing the SEED program allows 
funding only for projects focused on recruiting, training, and 
supporting effective teachers and principals. The Department does not 
have the authority to expand the priority to include other school 
leaders. However, participating educators may include public charter 
school leaders who serve in principal roles.
    Change: None.

    Comment: One commenter recommended that we separate priority 1 into 
two priorities, one that focuses on the needs of teachers and one that 
focuses on the needs of principals.
    Discussion: The Department recognizes that the preparation and 
development needs of principals are distinct from the needs of 
teachers. However, we believe the priority as written clearly permits 
applicants to focus their activities on teachers, principals, or both. 
Also, we believe that separate priorities for teachers and principals 
may inadvertently discourage prospective applicants from proposing 
projects that include both teachers and principals. Therefore, we 
decline to make this change.
    Change: None.

Priority 2

    Comment: One commenter requested that the Department clarify 
whether applicants must work exclusively with schools with high 
concentrations of high-need students or if they may pair master 
teachers from schools with lower concentrations of high-need students 
with teachers from schools with high concentrations of such students.
    Discussion: The intent of the priority is to improve student 
achievement by increasing the number of highly effective teachers in 
schools with high concentrations of high-need students. While 
applicants must demonstrate that the primary focus of their proposed 
activities is on improving student achievement and teacher 
effectiveness in schools with high concentrations of high-need 
students, there is no requirement that all teachers involved in a 
project be from such schools.
    Change: None.

    Comment: One commenter suggested that, to increase student literacy 
skills, we broaden this priority to allow for professional development 
efforts to improve the writing instruction skills of all teachers, not 
just teachers of English language arts.
    Discussion: The Department agrees that, to improve student literacy 
and writing skills, it is important for all teachers to know how to 
teach writing in their subject areas. We are revising the priority to 
support projects that provide professional development

[[Page 9817]]

focused on writing for teachers of all subject areas.
    Change: We have removed the requirement that the professional 
development must be targeted only to teachers of English language arts. 
The revised priority allows applicants to propose projects that provide 
professional development for all teachers to develop and enhance their 
teaching of writing to improve student literacy and writing skills.

Priority 3

    Comment: One commenter supported the inclusion of a priority 
focused on advanced credentialing for teachers and principals. The 
commenter suggested that we clarify that the priority does not require 
all teachers seeking an advanced certification also to take on a career 
ladder position.
    Discussion: The Department agrees that requiring all teachers who 
receive an advanced credential to take career ladder positions would be 
too limiting to applicants. We did not intend to limit potential 
candidates to those who have career ladder positions available to them. 
Rather, we intended to indicate that those teachers who complete an 
advanced credential program should be qualified to take on available 
career ladder positions.
    Change: We clarified the language of the priority to indicate that 
completion of an advanced credential program may, but is not required 
to, lead to a career ladder position.

    Comment: One commenter recommended that we add to the priority a 
requirement that applicants submit a rigorous, standards-based 
framework for identifying teacher leaders and that such a framework be 
built upon the applicant's record of recognizing and developing 
accomplished teachers.
    Discussion: We believe the priority already addresses the concerns 
raised by the commenter. For example, the priority requires an 
applicant to propose a rigorous, competitive selection process for 
determining which teachers or principals participate in the applicant's 
proposed project. Additionally, the priority requires applicants to 
focus their proposed projects on encouraging and supporting teachers or 
principals who seek a standards-based advanced certificate or 
credential and who would serve as models, mentors, or coaches to other 
teachers or principals. Further, applicants are not precluded from 
including in their proposals a history of, and a project framework 
based on, their previous experience of developing teachers. Thus, we 
decline to make this change.
    Change: None.

Priority 4

    Comment: One commenter supported the use of a priority focused on 
the STEM subject areas but suggested that we change the priority to 
specifically allow applicants to provide professional development to 
teachers so that they can become content-area coaches.
    Discussion: We believe that there are a number of professional 
development approaches that could accomplish the program goal of 
increasing the number of highly effective teachers or principals and 
that this goal would not be served by highlighting one particular 
approach over others. The priority does not prohibit an applicant from 
proposing activities designed to develop teachers to be content-area 
coaches, so long as the applicant indicates how the activities would 
increase the number of highly effective teachers for the targeted 
schools and districts.
    Change: None.

    Comment: One commenter requested that we define STEM subjects under 
this priority and that the definition specifically include computer 
science.
    Discussion: We decline to limit STEM subjects under this priority, 
in order to give applicants the flexibility to address the subjects of 
greatest interest and demand in their districts and schools. Applicants 
are not precluded from targeting or including computer science as a 
subject on which to focus to meet this priority.
    Change: None.

Priority 5

    Comment: None.
    Discussion: Because the term ``core'' has been defined and used in 
other contexts to describe academic subjects for Department programs, 
to avoid confusion we decided not to use that term in the priority.
    Change: We removed all references to ``core'' when describing 
academic subjects in the title and content of the priority.

    Comment: One commenter requested that we add computer science to 
the list of possible academic subjects covered under this priority.
    Discussion: As stated previously, computer science could be 
specifically addressed through priority 4. We decline to add computer 
science to the list of academic subjects in this priority to avoid 
duplicating subject areas that are included in other priorities. 
Moreover, applicants addressing this priority are not precluded from 
including computer science within the context of their proposed 
academic subjects.
    Change: None.

Priority 6

    Comment: One commenter recommended that we eliminate this priority 
because it does not focus on educational outcomes.
    Discussion: We agree that the main intent of the SEED program is to 
improve student outcomes. However, another important focus is finding 
more efficient ways of achieving the same educational outcomes.
    Change: None.

Definitions

    Comment: One commenter suggested that we broaden the definition of 
``national not-for-profit'' to include local and regional entities 
whose activities align with national education priorities and who will 
disseminate their projects' findings nationally.
    Discussion: While we know there are a number of high-performing 
regional and local not-for-profit entities that align their activities 
with national education priorities, the intent of this program is to 
support entities that have demonstrated their capacity to effectively 
respond to education priorities on a national scale. The commenter's 
suggested change would include those entities that target their 
activities to a more limited geographic area and therefore may lack the 
capacity to scale up a project to a national level. We note that these 
regionally and locally based entities may serve as partners to, or 
recipients of services proposed by, national not-for-profit entities 
that apply for a grant under this program. However, the legislation 
that governs the SEED program allows for awards only to national not-
for-profit organizations.
    Change: None.

    Comment: One commenter requested that the Department clarify what 
an affiliate is for the purpose of the definition of a ``national not-
for-profit.''
    Discussion: We chose not to define ``affiliate'' because of the 
many and varying types of affiliations. Instead we are allowing 
flexibility for applicants to describe the specific roles of their 
affiliates in providing the applicants' services in the States in which 
those affiliates are located.
    Change: None.

    Comment: One commenter asked us to clarify whether the mastery of 
1.5 grade levels in an academic year is a minimum threshold of student 
growth that teachers and principals must reach to be considered a 
highly effective teacher or highly effective principal.
    Discussion: The reference to 1.5 grade levels in an academic year 
in the

[[Page 9818]]

definition of ``highly effective teacher'' is an example of student 
growth; the definition does not specify the measure of student growth 
that eligible applicants must use. Further, the definition does not 
require that an applicant use the same measure of growth for all 
teachers. However, we urge applicants to ensure that any rate used 
enables the applicant to distinguish teachers who are highly effective 
from those who are not.
    Change: None.

    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department broaden the 
definition of ``highly effective teacher'' because grade levels are not 
clear in certain subject areas.
    Discussion: The Department declines to broaden this definition 
because we believe it is important that all teachers are held to the 
same high standard. We note, as discussed in the response to the 
previous comment, that student mastery of 1.5 grade levels in an 
academic year is an example of, and not a requirement for, meeting the 
definition of ``highly effective teacher'' and that the same student 
growth rates are not required for all teachers. Moreover, the 
definition of ``highly effective teacher'' allows for additional 
measures, including those based on observation-based assessments of 
teacher performance or evidence of leadership roles resulting in 
increased effectiveness of other teachers in the school or LEA. Also, 
the definitions of ``student achievement'' and ``student growth'' allow 
for other measures of achievement, as long as they are rigorous and 
comparable across schools.
    Change: None.

    Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department alter the 
definition of ``moderate evidence of effectiveness'' to include 
interventions that have not been reviewed by the What Works 
Clearinghouse (WWC), that demonstrate impact on a mediating variable 
that can be linked to student growth, or that can demonstrate impact 
through other methodological approaches such as a quasi-experimental 
design. Another commenter requested that we clarify whether the studies 
cited by applicants to demonstrate that their projects are supported by 
moderate evidence of effectiveness need to have been accepted by the 
WWC.
    Discussion: Interventions are not required to have been part of a 
previously published WWC evidence review to meet the definition of 
``moderate evidence of effectiveness.'' Rather, the interventions have 
to show a positive impact on a relevant outcome. A relevant outcome may 
be an outcome other than a student outcome, as long as it is the 
ultimate outcome of the intervention and is consistent with the goals 
of the SEED program. The applicant must demonstrate that an outcome 
other than a student outcome meets the definition of ``relevant 
outcome.'' Lastly, quasi-experimental designs are already included in 
the definition of ``moderate evidence of effectiveness'' if they meet 
WWC evidence standards with reservations and meet all other components 
of the definition of ``moderate evidence of effectiveness.''
    Change: None.

Selection Criteria

    Comment: One commenter indicated that it was not clear whether the 
selection criteria would be applied based on the number of participants 
served by the project.
    Discussion: There is no minimum number of teachers or principals 
who must be served by a project. The intent is for applicants to 
provide a context and explanation for the number of proposed 
participants to be served by their projects. Reviewers will evaluate 
each application based on the explanation and documentation provided by 
the applicant against the selection criteria.
    Change: None.

    Comment: One commenter supported our decision to include 
sustainability as one of the selection criteria. This commenter also 
recommended that we add to the sustainability criterion a requirement 
that the applicant support the project's participants after the grant 
period.
    Discussion: We agree that supporting teachers or principals beyond 
their initial preparation or professional development is an important 
aspect of improving the teacher and principal workforce. We believe 
that the sustainability criterion sufficiently encourages applicants to 
support their project participants beyond the grant period.
    Change: None.

    Final Priorities:

Priority 1: Teacher or Principal Recruitment, Selection, and 
Preparation.

    The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement 
establishes a priority that funds projects that will create or expand 
practices and strategies that increase the number of highly effective 
teachers (as defined in this notice) or highly effective principals (as 
defined in this notice) by recruiting, selecting, and preparing 
talented individuals to work in schools with high concentrations of 
high-need students (as defined in this notice). Projects must include 
activities that focus on creating or expanding high-performing teacher 
preparation programs, principal preparation programs, or both. 
Activities may include but are not limited to expanding clinical 
experiences, redesigning and implementing program coursework to align 
with State standards and district requirements for P-12 teachers, 
providing induction and other support for program participants in their 
classrooms and schools, and developing strategies for tracking the 
effect program graduates have on the achievement of their students or 
the performance of their schools.
    In addition, an applicant must propose a plan demonstrating a 
rigorous, competitive selection process to determine which aspiring 
teachers or principals participate in the applicant's proposed 
activities.

Priority 2: Professional Development for Teachers to Improve their 
Writing Instruction.

    The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement 
establishes a priority that funds projects designed to improve student 
literacy and writing skills by creating or expanding practices and 
strategies that increase the number of highly effective teachers (as 
defined in this notice) by improving their knowledge, understanding, 
and teaching of writing in the context of their subject areas. Projects 
will focus on improving writing instruction to increase student 
achievement (as defined in this notice) by providing high-quality 
professional development to teachers in schools with high 
concentrations of high-need students (as defined in this notice).
    Applicants are required to (i) describe the need, in the districts 
proposed to be served, for teacher professional development to improve 
student literacy and writing skills and (ii) demonstrate alignment of 
their proposed projects with State standards.
    In addition, applicants must describe how they plan to measure the 
impact the professional development has on the effectiveness of 
teachers served by their projects. Applicants must determine teacher 
effectiveness through a rigorous, transparent, and fair evaluation in 
which performance is differentiated using multiple measures of 
effectiveness and based in significant part on student growth (as 
defined in this notice).

[[Page 9819]]

Priority 3: Advanced Certification and Advanced Credentialing.

    The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement 
establishes a priority that funds projects that will create or expand 
practices and strategies based on advanced certification or advanced 
credentialing that increase the number of highly effective teachers (as 
defined in this notice), highly effective principals (as defined in 
this notice), or both, who work in schools with high concentrations of 
high-need students (as defined in this notice).
    Applicants are required to focus their proposed projects on 
encouraging and supporting teachers, principals, or both, who seek a 
nationally recognized, standards-based advanced certificate or advanced 
credential through high-quality professional enhancement projects 
designed to improve teaching and learning for teachers who may take on 
career ladder positions (as defined in this notice), principals, or 
both who would serve as models, mentors, and coaches for other 
teachers, principals, or both working in schools with high 
concentrations of high-need students (as defined in this notice).
    In addition, the effectiveness of teachers or principals who 
receive advanced certification or credentialing must be determined 
through a rigorous, transparent, and fair evaluation in which 
performance is differentiated using multiple measures of effectiveness 
and based in significant part on student growth (as defined in this 
notice).
    Finally, an applicant must propose a plan demonstrating a rigorous, 
competitive selection process to determine which teachers or principals 
participate in the applicant's proposed activities.

Priority 4: Promoting Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics 
(STEM) Education.

    The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement 
establishes a priority that funds projects that address one or both of 
the following priority areas:
    (a) Increasing the opportunities for high-quality preparation of, 
or professional development for, teachers of STEM subjects.
    (b) Increasing the number of individuals from groups traditionally 
underrepresented in STEM, including minorities, individuals with 
disabilities, and women, who are teachers of STEM subjects and have 
increased opportunities for high-quality preparation or professional 
development.
    In addition, applicants must describe how they plan to measure the 
impact the proposed project activities have on teacher effectiveness. 
Applicants must determine teacher effectiveness through a rigorous, 
transparent, and fair evaluation in which performance is differentiated 
using multiple measures of effectiveness and based in significant part 
on student growth (as defined in this notice).

Priority 5: Professional Development for Teachers of Academic Subjects.

    The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement 
establishes a priority that funds projects that will create or expand 
practices and strategies that increase the number of highly effective 
teachers (as defined in this notice) by providing professional 
development opportunities to teachers, including special education 
teachers, in schools with high concentrations of high-need students (as 
defined in this notice). Projects must focus on increasing student 
achievement (as defined in this notice) in academic subjects by 
providing high-quality professional development to teachers. The 
academic subjects that may be addressed through professional 
development under this priority include foreign languages, civics and 
government, economics, arts, history, physical education, geography, 
environmental education, and financial literacy.
    Applicants are required to describe the need of the proposed 
districts to be served for teacher professional development in the 
selected high-need academic subjects and to demonstrate alignment of 
the proposed projects with State standards.
    In addition, applicants must describe how they plan to measure the 
impact the professional development has on teacher effectiveness. 
Applicants must determine teacher effectiveness through a rigorous, 
transparent, and fair evaluation in which performance is differentiated 
using multiple measures of effectiveness and based in significant part 
on student growth (as defined in this notice).

Priority 6: Improving Efficiency (Cost-Effectiveness).

    The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement 
establishes a priority that funds projects that will identify 
strategies for providing cost-effective, high-quality services at the 
State, regional, or local level by making better use of available 
resources. Such projects may include innovative and sustainable uses of 
technology, modification of school schedules and teacher compensation 
systems, use of open educational resources (as defined in this notice), 
or other strategies.

Priority 7: Supporting Practices and Strategies for Which There Is 
Strong Evidence of Effectiveness.

    The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement 
establishes a priority that funds projects that are supported by strong 
evidence of effectiveness (as defined in this notice).
Types of Priorities
    When inviting applications for a competition using one or more 
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute, 
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal 
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
    Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, we consider only 
applications that meet the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(3)).
    Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference 
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1) 
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the 
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) 
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of 
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR 
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
    Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are 
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority. 
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority a 
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Final Requirements
    The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement 
establishes the following requirements for the SEED program. We may 
apply these requirements in any year in which this program is in 
effect.
    Eligible applicants: To be eligible for a SEED program grant, an 
entity must be a national not-for-profit organization (as defined in 
this notice). Each applicant must provide in its application 
documentation that it is a national not-for-profit organization (as 
defined in this notice).
    Evidence of effectiveness: To be eligible for funding, an applicant 
must demonstrate that its proposed project is supported by at least 
moderate evidence of effectiveness (as defined in this notice).
    Each applicant must provide in its application documentation that 
its proposed project is supported by at least moderate evidence of 
effectiveness. An

[[Page 9820]]

applicant that responds to the Supporting Practices and Strategies for 
Which There Is Strong Evidence of Effectiveness priority also must 
provide documentation that its proposed project is supported by strong 
evidence of effectiveness (as defined in this notice). An applicant 
must ensure that all evidence is available to the Department from 
publically available sources and provide links or references to, or 
copies of, the evidence in the application. If the Department 
determines that an applicant has provided insufficient evidence that 
its proposed project meets the definition of ``moderate evidence of 
effectiveness'' or ``strong evidence of effectiveness,'' the applicant 
will not have an opportunity to provide additional evidence to support 
its application.
    Evaluations: An applicant receiving funds under this program must 
comply with the requirements of any evaluation of the program conducted 
by the Department. In addition, an applicant receiving funds under this 
program must make broadly available through formal (e.g., peer-reviewed 
journals) or informal (e.g., newsletters) mechanisms, in print or 
electronically, the results of any evaluations it conducts of its 
funded activities.
Final Definitions
    The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement 
establishes the following definitions for the SEED program. We may 
apply one or more of these definitions in any year in which this 
program is in effect.
    Career ladder positions means school-based instructional leadership 
positions designed to improve instructional practice, which teachers 
may voluntarily accept, such as positions described as master teacher, 
mentor teacher, demonstration or model teacher, or instructional coach, 
and for which teachers are selected based on criteria that are 
predictive of the ability to lead other teachers.
    High-need students means students at risk of educational failure, 
such as students who are living in poverty, who are English learners, 
who are far below grade level or who are not on track to becoming 
college- or career-ready by graduation, who have left school or college 
before receiving, respectively, a regular high school diploma or a 
college degree or certificate, who are at risk of not graduating with a 
diploma on time, who are homeless, who are in foster care, who are 
pregnant or parenting teenagers, who have been incarcerated, who are 
new immigrants, who are migrant, or who have disabilities.
    Highly effective principal means a principal whose students, 
overall and for each subgroup as described in section 
1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as 
amended (ESEA) (i.e., economically disadvantaged students, students 
from major racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and 
students with limited English proficiency), achieve high rates (e.g., 
one and one-half grade levels in an academic year) of student growth. 
Eligible applicants may include multiple measures, provided that 
principal effectiveness is evaluated, in significant part, based on 
student growth. Supplemental measures may include, for example, high 
school graduation rates; college enrollment rates; evidence of 
providing supportive teaching and learning conditions, support for 
ensuring effective instruction across subject areas for a well-rounded 
education, strong instructional leadership, and positive family and 
community engagement; or evidence of attracting, developing, and 
retaining high numbers of effective teachers.
    Highly effective teacher means a teacher whose students achieve 
high rates (e.g., one and one-half grade levels in an academic year) of 
student growth. Eligible applicants may include multiple measures, 
provided that teacher effectiveness is evaluated, in significant part, 
based on student growth. Supplemental measures may include, for 
example, multiple observation-based assessments of teacher performance 
or evidence of leadership roles (which may include mentoring or leading 
professional development learning communities) that increase 
effectiveness of other teachers in the school or local educational 
agency (LEA).
    Large sample means a sample of 350 or more students (or other 
single analysis units) who were randomly assigned to a treatment or 
control group, or 50 or more groups (such as classrooms or schools) 
that contain 10 or more students (or other single analysis units) and 
that were randomly assigned to a treatment or control group.
    Moderate evidence of effectiveness means one of the following 
conditions is met:
    (a) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the 
process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that: Meets the 
What Works Clearinghouse (WWC) Evidence Standards without reservations; 
\1\ found a statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant 
outcome (as defined in this notice) (with no statistically significant 
unfavorable impacts on that outcome for relevant populations in the 
study or in other studies of the intervention reviewed by and reported 
on by the WWC); and includes a sample that overlaps with the 
populations or settings proposed to receive the process, product, 
strategy, or practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, 
September 2011), which can currently be found at the following link: 
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the 
process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that: Meets the 
WWC Evidence Standards with reservations; \2\ found a statistically 
significant favorable impact on a relevant outcome (as defined in this 
notice) (with no statistically significant unfavorable impacts on that 
outcome for relevant populations in the study or in other studies of 
the intervention reviewed by and reported on by the WWC); includes a 
sample that overlaps with the populations or settings proposed to 
receive the process, product, strategy, or practice; and includes a 
large sample (as defined in this notice) and a multi-site sample (as 
defined in this notice). (Note: Multiple studies can cumulatively meet 
the large and multi-site sample requirements as long as each study 
meets the other requirements in this paragraph.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, 
September 2011), which can currently be found at the following link: 
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Multi-site sample means more than one site, where site can be 
defined as an LEA, locality, or State.
    National level describes the level of scope or effectiveness of a 
process, product, strategy, or practice that is able to be effective in 
a wide variety of communities, including rural and urban areas, as well 
as with different groups (e.g., economically disadvantaged, racial and 
ethnic groups, migrant populations, individuals with disabilities, 
English learners, and individuals of each gender).
    National not-for-profit organization means an entity that meets the 
definition of ``nonprofit'' under 34 CFR 77.1(c) and is of national 
scope, meaning that the entity provides services in multiple States to 
a significant number or percentage of recipients and is supported by 
staff or affiliates in multiple States.
    Open educational resources means teaching, learning, and research 
resources that reside in the public domain or have been released under 
an intellectual property license that

[[Page 9821]]

permits their free use or repurposing by others.
    Relevant outcome means the student outcome or outcomes (or the 
ultimate outcome if not related to students) that the proposed project 
is designed to improve, consistent with the specific goals of a 
program.
    Strong evidence of effectiveness means that one of the following 
conditions is met:
    (a) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the 
process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that: Meets the 
WWC Evidence Standards without reservations; \3\ found a statistically 
significant favorable impact on a relevant outcome (as defined in this 
notice) (with no statistically significant unfavorable impacts on that 
outcome for relevant populations in the study or in other studies of 
the intervention reviewed by and reported on by the WWC); includes a 
sample that overlaps with the populations and settings proposed to 
receive the process, product, strategy, or practice; and includes a 
large sample (as defined in this notice) and a multi-site sample (as 
defined in this notice). (Note: multiple studies can cumulatively meet 
the large and multi-site sample requirements as long as each study 
meets the other requirements in this paragraph.)
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See WWC Procedures and Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, 
September 2011), which can currently be found at the following link: 
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (b) There are at least two studies of the effectiveness of the 
process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed, each of which: 
Meets the WWC Evidence Standards with reservations; \4\ found a 
statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant outcome (as 
defined in this notice) (with no statistically significant unfavorable 
impacts on that outcome for relevant populations in the studies or in 
other studies of the intervention reviewed by and reported on by the 
WWC); includes a sample that overlaps with the populations and settings 
proposed to receive the process, product, strategy, or practice; and 
includes a large sample (as defined in this notice) and a multi-site 
sample (as defined in this notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards 
Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), which can currently be found 
at the following link: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Student achievement means--
    (a) For tested grades and subjects: (1) A student's score on the 
State's assessments under the ESEA; and, as appropriate, (2) other 
measures of student learning, such as those described in paragraph (b) 
of this definition, provided they are rigorous and comparable across 
schools.
    (b) For non-tested grades and subjects: Alternative measures of 
student learning and performance, such as student scores on pre-tests 
and end-of-course tests; student performance on English language 
proficiency assessments; and other measures of student achievement that 
are rigorous and comparable across schools.
    Student growth means the change in student achievement (as defined 
in this notice) for an individual student between two or more points in 
time. An applicant may also include other measures that are rigorous 
and comparable across classrooms.
Final Selection Criteria:
    The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement 
establishes the following selection criteria for evaluating an 
application under the SEED program. We may apply one or more of these 
criteria, as well as other criteria or factors established in 34 CFR 
75.210, in any year in which this program is in effect. In the notice 
inviting applications or the application package, or both, we will 
announce the maximum possible points assigned to each criterion.
    (a) Significance. The Secretary considers the significance of the 
proposed project. In determining the significance of the proposed 
project, the Secretary considers:
    (1) The significance of the proposed project on a national level 
(as defined in this notice).
    (2) The potential contribution of the proposed project to the 
development and advancement of teacher and school leadership theory, 
knowledge, and practices.
    (3) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely 
to be attained by the proposed project, especially improvements in 
teaching and student achievement.
    (b) Quality of the Project Design and Services. The Secretary 
considers the quality of the design and services of the proposed 
project. In determining the quality of the design and services of the 
proposed project, the Secretary considers:
    (1) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be 
achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified, aligned, and 
measurable.
    (2) The extent to which the proposed project is part of a 
comprehensive effort to improve teaching and learning and support 
rigorous academic standards for students.
    (3) The extent to which the training or professional development 
services to be provided by the proposed project will be of sufficient 
quality, intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practice 
among the recipients of those services.
    (c) Quality of the Management Plan and Personnel. The Secretary 
considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project 
and of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project. In 
determining the quality of the management plan and the project 
personnel, the Secretary considers:
    (1) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience, 
of the project director, key project personnel, and project consultants 
or subcontractors.
    (2) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives 
of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly 
defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing 
project tasks.
    (3) The extent to which the time commitments of the project 
director and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate 
to meet the objectives of the proposed project.
    (4) The extent to which the proposed management plan includes 
sufficient and reasonable resources to effectively carry out the 
proposed project, including the project evaluation.
    (d) Sustainability. The Secretary considers the adequacy of 
resources to continue the proposed project after the grant period ends. 
In determining the adequacy of resources and the potential for utility 
of the proposed project's activities and products by other 
organizations, the Secretary considers:
    (1) The extent to which the proposed project is designed to build 
capacity and yield results that will extend beyond the period of 
Federal financial assistance.
    (2) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to yield 
findings and products (such as information, materials, processes, or 
techniques) that may be used by other agencies and organizations.
    (3) The extent to which the applicant will disseminate information 
about results and outcomes of the proposed project in ways that will 
enable others, including the public, to use the information or 
strategies.
    (e) Quality of the Project Evaluation. The Secretary considers the 
quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project. In 
determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers one 
or more of the following factors:
    (1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough, 
feasible, and

[[Page 9822]]

appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the proposed 
project.
    (2) The extent to which the evaluation includes the use of 
objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended 
outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative 
data.
    (3) The extent to which the evaluation will provide performance 
feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving 
intended outcomes.
    (4) The extent to which the proposed project plan includes 
sufficient resources to carry out the project evaluation effectively.

    Note:  We encourage applicants to review the following technical 
assistance resources on evaluation: (1) WWC Procedures and Standards 
Handbook: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/references/idocviewer/doc.aspx?docid=19&tocid=1; and (2) IES/NCEE Technical Methods 
papers: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/tech_methods/.

    This notice does not preclude us from proposing additional 
priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria, subject 
to meeting applicable rulemaking requirements.

    Note:  This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use one or more of these priorities, 
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, we invite 
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

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 subject to review by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866 defines a ``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.
    This final regulatory action is not a significant regulatory action 
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
    We have also reviewed this final regulatory action under Executive 
Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles, 
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in 
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order 
13563 requires that an agency--
    (1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination 
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits 
and costs are difficult to quantify);
    (2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society, 
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into 
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of 
cumulative regulations;
    (3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select 
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential 
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other 
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
    (4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather 
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must 
adopt; and
    (5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct 
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or 
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide 
information that enables the public to make choices.
    Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best 
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future 
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of 
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these 
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs 
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated 
behavioral changes.''
    We are issuing these final priorities, requirements, definitions, 
and selection criteria only on a reasoned determination that their 
benefits justify their costs. In choosing among alternative regulatory 
approaches, we selected those approaches that maximize net benefits. 
Based on the analysis that follows, the Department believes that this 
regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order 
13563.
    We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly 
interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of 
their governmental functions.
    In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has 
assessed the potential costs and benefits, both quantitative and 
qualitative, of this regulatory action. The potential costs are those 
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as 
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.

Summary of Costs and Benefits

    The costs of carrying out activities would be paid for with program 
funds and with matching funds (if any) provided by private-sector 
partners. Thus, the costs of implementation would not be a burden for 
any eligible applicants, including small entities.
    Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive 
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the 
objectives of the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental 
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies 
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination 
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
    This document provides early notification of our specific plans and 
actions for this program.
    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: 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: 
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search 
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published 
by the Department.


[[Page 9823]]


    Dated: February 7, 2013.
James H. Shelton, III,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement.
[FR Doc. 2013-03210 Filed 2-11-13; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P