[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 26 (Monday, February 9, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7224-7251]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02570]



[[Page 7223]]

Vol. 80

Monday,

No. 26

February 9, 2015

Part IV





Department of Education





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





34 CFR Ch. II





Final Requirements--School Improvement Grants--Title I of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2015 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 7224]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Chapter II

[Docket ID ED-2014-OESE-0079; CFDA Number: 84.377A]
RIN 1810-AB22


Final Requirements--School Improvement Grants--Title I of the 
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965

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

ACTION: Final requirements.

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

SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education 
adopts final requirements for the School Improvement Grants (SIG) 
program, authorized under section 1003(g) of title I of the Elementary 
and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). These final 
requirements make changes to the current SIG program requirements and 
implement language in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, that 
allows local educational agencies (LEAs) to implement additional 
interventions, provides flexibility for rural LEAs, and extends the 
grant period from three to five years. Additionally, the final 
requirements make changes that reflect lessons learned from four years 
of SIG implementation.

DATES: These requirements are effective March 11, 2015.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Ross, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3C116, Washington, DC 20202. 
Telephone: (202) 260-8961 or by email: [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: 

Executive Summary

    Purpose of This Regulatory Action: These final requirements 
implement language in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, to 
allow LEAs to implement evidence-based, whole-school reform strategies 
and State-determined school improvement intervention models, to provide 
flexibility for rural LEAs implementing a SIG intervention, and to 
extend the allowable grant period from three to five years. 
Additionally, the final requirements make changes that reflect lessons 
learned from four years of SIG implementation. This regulatory action 
is authorized by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, and 20 
U.S.C. 6303(g).
    Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action: As 
discussed in more depth in the notice of proposed requirements (NPR) 
published in the Federal Register on September 8, 2014 (79 FR 53254), 
the Department makes the following revisions to the current SIG 
requirements to implement language in the Consolidated Appropriations 
Act, 2014: Allowing five-year SIG awards; adding State-determined 
school improvement intervention models; adding evidence-based, whole-
school reform models; and allowing rural LEAs to modify one SIG 
intervention model element.
    The Department also revises the current SIG requirements to 
strengthen program implementation based on lessons learned and input 
from stakeholders by: Adding an intervention model that focuses on 
improving educational outcomes in preschool and early grades; adding an 
LEA requirement to demonstrate the appropriateness of the chosen 
intervention model and to take into consideration family and community 
input in the selection of the model; adding an LEA requirement to 
continuously engage families and the community throughout 
implementation; adding an LEA requirement to monitor and support 
intervention implementation; adding an LEA requirement to regularly 
review external providers' performance and hold external providers 
accountable; eliminating the ``rule of nine''; and revising reporting 
requirements.
    The Department also made revisions to clarify the current SIG 
requirements: Modifying the teacher and principal evaluation and 
support system requirements under the transformation model; clarifying 
the rigorous review process under the restart model; clarifying renewal 
criteria; defining ``greatest need'' to include priority and focus 
schools for SEAs with approved ESEA flexibility requests; clarifying 
the timeline under which previously implemented interventions (in whole 
or in part) may continue as part of a SIG intervention; and clarifying 
requirements related to the posting of LEAs' SIG applications.
    Additionally, the Department has removed references to fiscal year 
2009 and fiscal year 2010 funds and the differentiated accountability 
pilot because those references are no longer necessary.
    Finally, and as described in more detail in the Analysis of 
Comments and Changes section of this notice, the Department has made 
three additional changes to the proposed requirements in these final 
requirements in response to comments. First, the Department has 
clarified the name of the evidence-based, whole-school reform model. 
Second, the Department has clarified that an SEA may take into account, 
in awarding SIG funds, the extent to which an LEA demonstrates that it 
will implement one or more evidence-based strategies as part of the 
intervention model. Third, the Department has modified the definition 
of ``whole-school reform model developer'' to eliminate the provision 
that allowed an entity or individual to serve as a whole-school reform 
model developer if it had a high-quality plan for implementation and to 
require a developer to have a record of success implementing a whole-
school reform model in a low-performing school and to be selected 
through a rigorous review process that includes a determination that 
the entity or individual is likely to produce strong results for the 
school.
    Finally, and as described in more detail in the Analysis of 
Comments and Changes section of this notice, the Department has made 
two other changes to the proposed requirements based on the 
Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, which 
Congress enacted after the publication of the NPR. First, the 
Department has aligned the requirement for evidence of effectiveness in 
the evidence-based, whole-school reform model with the definition of 
``moderate level of evidence'' in the Education Department General 
Administrative Regulations, specifically by requiring that evidence of 
effectiveness include at least one study, rather than two studies, that 
meets the What Works Clearinghouse evidence standards. Second, the 
Department has modified the State-determined model to require that an 
SEA's proposed model meet the definition of ``whole-school reform 
model.''
    Costs and Benefits: The Department believes that the benefits of 
this regulatory action outweigh any associated costs to SEAs and LEAs, 
which would be financed with grant funds. The benefits of this action 
will be more effective State and local actions, using Federal funds, to 
turn around their lowest-performing schools and achieve significant 
improvement in educational outcomes for the students attending those 
schools. Please refer to the Regulatory Impact Analysis in this 
document for a more detailed discussion of costs and benefits.

[[Page 7225]]

    Consistent with Executive Order 12866, the Secretary has determined 
that this action is economically significant and, thus, is subject to 
review by the Office of Management and Budget under the order.
    Purpose of Program: In conjunction with title I funds for school 
improvement reserved under section 1003(a) of the ESEA, SIG funds under 
section 1003(g) of the ESEA are used to improve student achievement in 
title I schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or 
restructuring so as to enable those schools to make adequate yearly 
progress (AYP) and exit improvement status.

    Program Authority:  20 U.S.C. 6303(g); Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub. L. 113-76).

    We published a notice of proposed requirements for this program in 
the Federal Register on September 8, 2014 (79 FR 53254). That notice 
contained background information and our reasons for the revisions to 
the existing SIG requirements.
    There are differences between the proposed requirements and these 
final requirements as discussed in the Analysis of Comments and Changes 
section elsewhere in this notice.
    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPR, 235 
parties submitted comments on the proposed requirements.
    Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, or 
suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the 
applicable statutory authority. In addition we do not address general 
comments that raised concerns not directly related to the proposed 
requirements.
    Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and 
of any changes in the requirements since publication of the notice of 
proposed requirements follows.

Allowing Five-Year Grant Awards

    Comment: Many commenters supported the proposal to allow an SEA to 
make a SIG award to an LEA for up to five years, including the 
Department's proposal to permit an LEA to use one year for planning and 
other pre-implementation activities. Many of these commenters stated 
that they believed a planning year would provide LEAs with needed 
additional time and resources to prepare for school turnaround efforts 
and would lead to increased sustainability of reforms among schools 
receiving SIG funds. One commenter recommended allowing an LEA to use 
SIG funds for two years of planning and pre-implementation activities, 
rather than one year.
    Discussion: We appreciate the strong support for the proposal to 
allow grant awards of up to five years, consistent with the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, and agree with the commenters 
that planning is imperative to successful implementation of turnaround 
strategies. We believe one year of funding is sufficient for planning 
purposes under the SIG program, which is intended not to serve as a 
long-term funding stream but, rather, to provide a short-term infusion 
of funds for comprehensive and rapid school turnaround. We note, 
however, that an LEA may also use SIG funds for the planning or other 
pre-implementation activities it undertakes between the time it 
receives a SIG award and the beginning of the first grant year.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters requested that we allow an LEA to use SIG 
funds during the planning period for activities that involve assessing 
and addressing issues with the schools that feed students into an 
eligible school.
    Discussion: Under section 1003(g) of the ESEA and section I.A.1 of 
these final requirements, an LEA may use SIG funds only in a SIG-
eligible school. It may not use SIG funds to serve a school not 
receiving a SIG grant that feeds students into a SIG eligible school. 
Of course, if a school that feeds students into a SIG-eligible school 
is itself eligible for SIG funds, an LEA may separately seek SIG funds 
to support interventions in that school.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: A number of commenters recommended that the Department 
require LEAs to undertake needs analyses during a planning year. One 
such commenter suggested that if an LEA chooses to use the first year 
of its SIG award for planning, that LEA should require all SIG schools 
to conduct both comprehensive diagnostic needs and capacity assessments 
to serve as the basis for targeting student supports. Another commenter 
recommended that the Department require LEAs to provide evidence that 
they conducted an asset analysis prior to implementation, in order to 
identify the skills, people, and organizations in the community that 
can contribute resources and expertise in the design of the selected 
intervention. Another commenter suggested including, as part of the 
needs analysis, an analysis of the health needs of the community. 
Another commenter recommended requiring an SEA, either before or during 
the planning year, to assess the school's and LEA's performance and 
capacity to implement a SIG model in order to determine whether the LEA 
is able to make changes to support implementation. That commenter asked 
the Department to provide specific tools or criteria to support an 
SEA's assessment of district readiness. Finally, one commenter 
recommended strengthening the monitoring of both LEAs and of schools, 
including an assessment of LEA capacity during a planning year or pre-
implementation period to ensure that the LEA is making the changes 
needed to support full and effective implementation of the selected 
model.
    Discussion: We agree that an LEA should identify the needs of the 
individual schools it proposes to serve with SIG funds. Under section 
I.A.4(a)(1), each LEA applying to implement a SIG model in a school 
must use a needs analysis to ensure that the intervention to be 
implemented in the school will meet the specific needs of the school, 
which may include needs for academic and non-academic support. We do 
not believe it is necessary to require additional needs analyses, 
capacity assessments, or corresponding monitoring because the needs 
assessment requirement in section I.A.4(a)(1) is sufficient to ensure 
that each LEA reviews the particular needs in its schools.
    Although the needs analysis required under section I.A.4(a)(1) must 
be conducted as part of the application process and prior to receipt of 
SIG funds, an LEA may use the SIG funds it receives to conduct 
additional needs assessment activities, including, for example, more 
comprehensive diagnostic analyses, capacity and asset assessments, and 
assessments of students' health needs, so long as those activities are 
a part of the LEA's approved SIG application, are related to the 
implementation of the SIG model, and are reasonable and necessary. 
Additionally, an SEA may use its section 1003(a) funds or the SIG funds 
it reserves for administration, evaluation, and technical assistance 
expenses to support the costs of needs analyses by its LEAs with SIG 
schools. Because not all LEAs will benefit from each of these 
activities, we decline to require them.
    We also agree that an SEA should continue to monitor and work with 
its LEAs and schools to ensure they possess the capacity to implement a 
SIG model prior to awarding funds, including by providing specific 
tools that an LEA can use in assessing and building capacity. To that 
end, we note that, under section I.A.4(b), an SEA must consider the 
LEA's capacity to implement the chosen

[[Page 7226]]

intervention and may only fund an LEA that it determines can implement 
fully and effectively the chosen intervention.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters requested that the Department clarify the 
deadline by which an LEA implementing the turnaround or transformation 
model must replace the principal if the LEA receives funds for a 
planning year.
    Discussion: Under section I.A.4(a)(3), an LEA implementing the 
turnaround or transformation model in a school must replace the 
principal prior to the start of the first year of full implementation 
of the chosen SIG model. Accordingly, an LEA receiving a SIG award that 
includes a year of planning must replace the principal prior to the 
start of the first year of full implementation (i.e., prior to the 
start of the second grant year). That said, we strongly encourage an 
LEA implementing the turnaround or transformation model to replace the 
school's principal as early as possible (consistent with applicable 
State and local laws and requirements) so that the incoming principal 
can prepare to lead the full and effective implementation of the model 
in the school.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter asked if an LEA may use the planning year to 
identify the model it will implement in a school.
    Discussion: An LEA must identify the SIG model it intends to 
implement in a school in its application to the SEA. The planning year 
is intended to provide the LEA with time and resources to prepare to 
fully implement that specific model.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters recommended that the Department 
clarify, in light of the authority for SEAs to make SIG awards for up 
to five years, the maximum amount of SIG funds an LEA may receive per 
year per school; and several commenters requested that the Department 
clarify whether the annual per-school cap of $2 million allows an LEA 
to receive up to $10 million for a school implementing a model over 
five years. One commenter also recommended that the Department specify 
the maximum amount of funds that an LEA may use for both a year of 
planning and pre-implementation activities and for a year of activities 
to sustain reforms following full implementation.
    Discussion: Section II.B.8 permits an LEA to receive up to $2 
million per year per each school implementing an intervention model. 
Accordingly, an LEA may receive up to $10 million total for such a 
school over five years.
    We do not believe it is worthwhile to place a limit on the amount 
of SIG funds an LEA may use for a year of planning and pre-
implementation activities or for a year of activities to sustain 
reforms following full implementation, and would expect that in either 
case the amount needed by an LEA is significantly less than the $2 
million per year that it is eligible to receive. We remind SEAs and 
LEAs that an LEA may receive funds only for activities that are a part 
of the LEA's approved SIG application, are related to the 
implementation of the SIG model, and are reasonable and necessary.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter asked whether the Department will require 
SEAs to frontload SIG awards to LEAs or whether SEAs could provide the 
first year of funding from fiscal year 2014 SIG funds and make annual 
continuation awards thereafter.
    Discussion: The Department does not require an SEA to frontload SIG 
awards.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: A few commenters suggested that the Department allow SEAs 
to provide more than five years of SIG funding to an LEA for a school. 
Another commenter suggested allowing two one-year renewal periods in 
addition to the five-year award permitted under the proposed 
requirements. Another commenter recommended that, for purposes of 
sustainability, an SEA should be permitted to renew an LEA's SIG award 
for each school for up to four additional one-year periods after at 
least three years of full intervention implementation. This commenter 
also recommended reducing the level of funding for each subsequent, 
additional one-year period, in order to support sustainability.
    Discussion: Through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, 
Congress allows SEAs to make SIG awards to LEAs for up to five years 
per school, notwithstanding section 1003(g)(5)(C) of the ESEA, which 
allows LEAs to receive two years of SIG funds, in addition to the 
currently allowable three years, for a school if the school is meeting 
improvement goals. Therefore, the Department cannot allow an SEA to 
make SIG awards beyond a five-year period, which includes any renewal 
years. Moreover, the goal of the SIG program is to support rigorous 
interventions aimed at turning around our Nation's persistently lowest-
achieving schools, such that these schools will be able to sustain the 
reforms beyond five years without SIG funding, and not to provide 
continuous support.
    Changes: None.

Adding State-Determined School Improvement Intervention Models

    Comment: Numerous commenters expressed support for the addition of 
a State-determined intervention model and for the alignment between the 
requirements of the State-determined model and the ESEA flexibility 
turnaround principles. A number of commenters suggested general 
modifications to the State-determined model requirement. These 
suggestions included: Allowing State-determined models that are already 
approved under ESEA flexibility; allowing State-determined models to 
address school performance in schools that are a part of the same 
feeder pattern; allowing an SEA without ESEA flexibility to implement a 
State-determined model based on the turnaround principles; allowing 
LEAs to propose State-determined models to their SEA; allowing an SEA 
to submit a State-determined model that includes a menu of strategies 
from which LEAs may select, in partnership with the SEA, based on need; 
requiring a State-determined model to be based on substantial evidence; 
allowing an SEA to add requirements to the State-determined model; and 
requiring alignment between the proposed State-determined model and the 
statewide systems of differentiated recognition, accountability, and 
support that SEAs are implementing under ESEA flexibility. Numerous 
commenters also recommended that the Department add specific 
requirements to the turnaround principles required under the State-
determined model, including a requirement: To focus on physical 
fitness, health education, and nutrition; to conduct a school and 
community assets and needs assessment to identify students' social, 
emotional, and health needs; if principal replacement is necessary, to 
appoint a new principal based on a track record of success with similar 
schools and an ability to demonstrate the necessary leadership 
competencies; and that school safety and discipline interventions 
included in State-determined models be evidence-based.
    We also received several comments asking for changes to the 
turnaround principles and to the requirement that a State-determined 
model include increased learning time (ILT). Several commenters 
suggested it is too restrictive to require ILT in all State-determined 
models and requested that the ILT requirement be eliminated or modified 
to be less restrictive.
    Several commenters expressed concern that the requirements for the

[[Page 7227]]

State-determined model are too numerous and too rigid, and may cause 
undue burden to SEAs, LEAs, and schools, particularly SEAs that are 
currently pursuing turnaround strategies with emphases different from 
those required under the State-determined model.
    Discussion: We appreciate the comments on the State-determined 
model but do not address the comments specifically, as we are revising 
the model consistent with applicable legal requirements. Since the 
publication of the NPR, Congress enacted the Consolidated and Further 
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015. In the explanatory statement 
accompanying the Act, which functions as a conference report under 
section 4 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations 
Act, 2015, the House Committee on Appropriations states that the 
language in the NPR implementing the State-determined model did not 
meet congressional intent, which was to provide flexibility from the 
existing SIG requirements to allow LEAs to implement alternative 
strategies. The explanatory statement further states that the 
Department must ensure that the final requirements strictly adhere to 
the language in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014. Accordingly, 
we are modifying the State-determined model requirements to allow an 
SEA to submit to the Secretary for consideration one State-determined 
model that meets the definition of a ``whole-school reform model'' in 
section I.A.3 of the final requirements and that includes, at the SEA's 
discretion, any other elements or strategies that the SEA determines 
will help improve student achievement, consistent with the explanatory 
statement accompanying the Consolidated and Further Continuing 
Appropriations Act, 2015. We note that the requirement that a State-
determined model meet the definition of a ``whole-school reform model'' 
and include, at the SEA's discretion, any other element or strategy 
that an SEA determines will help improve student achievement is also 
consistent with language in the report that accompanied the fiscal year 
2014 appropriations bill for the Department (Senate Report 113-71), in 
which the Senate Appropriations Committee stated that it expects that 
any approach taken with SIG funds will address schoolwide factors, 
including, for example, curriculum and instruction, social and 
emotional support services for students, and training and support for 
teachers and school leaders. We further note that an SEA that 
demonstrates that its proposed State-determined model meets the 
requirements of the evidence-based, whole-school reform model in 
section I.A.2(e) will not be required to make any additional 
demonstration for approval.
    Changes: We have modified the requirements in section II.B.1(b) to 
permit an SEA to submit to the Secretary for approval a State-
determined model that meets the definition of ``whole-school reform 
model'' in section I.A.3 of the final requirements and that includes, 
at the SEA's discretion, any other elements or strategies that the SEA 
determines will help improve student achievement.
    Comment: A few commenters asked that the Department clarify whether 
an SEA could elect to make the State-determined model available to only 
specific schools in the State. We received a few other comments asking 
the same question about other models under the SIG program. Several 
other commenters requested flexibility to allow SEAs to give priority 
to selected SIG intervention models, rather than making all SIG models 
available to SIG applicants.
    Discussion: As noted in question I-4 of the March 1, 2012, SIG 
Guidance, available at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/sigguidance03012012.doc, an SEA may not require an LEA to implement a 
particular SIG model in one or more schools. Each LEA has the 
discretion to determine which model to implement for each school it 
elects to serve with SIG funds. The only exception to this is if, 
consistent with State law, the SEA takes over the LEA or school. 
Nothing in the requirements changes this rule. However, SEAs are not 
required to submit a State-determined model for approval by the 
Secretary. Under section I.A.2(g), if an SEA does not submit such a 
model for approval by the Secretary, an LEA in that State cannot use a 
State-determined model.
    We also note that, as described in question I-9 of the March 1, 
2012, SIG Guidance, available at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/sigguidance03012012.doc, an SEA may give priority to an LEA for SIG 
funding based on a variety of factors including, for example, the 
intervention an LEA is implementing in its SIG schools.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters encouraged the Department to consider two 
specific frameworks in reviewing State-determined models: Multi-tiered 
Systems of Support and A Framework for Safe and Successful Schools.
    Discussion: In order to encourage an SEA to submit for 
consideration a State-determined model that best addresses the needs of 
that SEA without imposing additional requirements beyond those in 
section II.B.1(b), we decline to include in the requirements a specific 
framework that we will use in reviewing State-determined models.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested clarification as to whether an 
eligible online school would be able to meet the requirements of the 
State-determined model.
    Discussion: An eligible online school would be able to meet the 
requirements of the State-determined model provided the LEA 
implementing the model in an eligible school can demonstrate that the 
school has met the requirements of the approved State-determined model.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters recommended revising section II.B.1(b) 
to permit SEAs to implement more than one State-determined model, 
citing concerns that limiting each SEA to one State-determined model 
may not sufficiently account for the complexity of school turnaround 
and for the diversity of LEAs and schools within a State. Several 
commenters also suggested that limiting SEAs to one State-determined 
intervention model may not faithfully reflect congressional intent.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' concern that given the 
diversity of LEAs and schools within a State, an SEA may wish to make 
more than one State-determined model available to its LEAs and schools. 
We also appreciate the commenters' interest in ensuring that we are 
correctly interpreting congressional intent. Nevertheless, our reading 
of the pertinent language included in the Consolidated Appropriations 
Act, 2014, and 20 U.S.C. 6303(g), ``[t]hat funds available for school 
improvement grants may be used by a local educational agency to 
implement an alternative State-determined school improvement strategy . 
. .'' (emphasis added), directs us to authorize each State to implement 
one State-determined model.
    Changes: None.

Adding Evidence-Based, Whole-School Reform Strategies

    Comment: Two commenters suggested that the Department clarify that 
an LEA may implement an evidence-based, whole-school reform model 
independently of the other SIG intervention models. The commenters 
intimated that this clarification is needed because the Department 
referred in the NPR to this type of SIG intervention as a strategy but 
referred to

[[Page 7228]]

the other types of interventions as models.
    Discussion: Consistent with the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 
2014, an LEA may use SIG funds to implement an evidence-based, whole-
school reform model in partnership with a whole-school reform model 
developer and is not required to implement such a model within or 
together with another SIG intervention model. We are making technical 
changes to provide the suggested clarification.
    Changes: As needed throughout the final requirements, we have 
replaced references to ``whole-school reform strategy'' with ``whole-
school reform model'' and references to ``strategy developer'' with 
``whole-school reform model developer.''
    Comment: A number of commenters expressed support for the inclusion 
in the SIG program of evidence-based, whole-school reform models; 
however, several of the commenters recommended that the Department 
lower or eliminate the evidence requirements for these models, 
asserting that the requirements are more stringent than intended by 
Congress or would result in too few whole-school reform models 
available to LEAs. Some of these commenters recommended that the 
Department allow LEAs to implement whole-school reform models supported 
by only a single study that meets What Works Clearinghouse evidence 
standards with or without reservations (i.e., a qualifying experimental 
or quasi-experimental study) and found a statistically significant 
favorable impact on a student academic achievement or attainment 
outcome, instead of at least two such studies. Some commenters also 
recommended that we allow or require SEAs to prioritize funding for 
whole-school reform models supported by more than one such study over 
those with only a single study. In a similar vein, other commenters 
recommended that the Department allow an exception to the evidence 
requirements for a whole-school reform model that is supported by a 
single study that found extraordinarily large impacts of the model on 
academic achievement or attainment, for which a second study is 
underway that would potentially meet the requirements, or that is 
otherwise promising.
    Discussion: Since the publication of the NPR, Congress enacted the 
Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, which 
modifies the language in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, by 
requiring that the evidence-based, whole-school reform model be based 
on evidence of effectiveness that includes at least one study instead 
of two studies. Based on this change, we are modifying the final 
requirements to align the requirement for evidence of effectiveness 
required under the evidence-based, whole-school reform model with the 
definition of ``moderate level of evidence'' in 34 CFR 77.1.\1\ We note 
that, as described in question I-9 of the March 1, 2012, SIG Guidance, 
available at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/sigguidance03012012.doc, 
an SEA may create priorities within its application process to, for 
example, prioritize applications for whole-school reform models that 
are supported by more than one study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ The Department previously invited strategy developers and 
other entities to submit prospective strategies and research studies 
of the effectiveness of those strategies for review against the 
requirements for the evidence-based, whole-school reform strategy in 
the NPR. Based on the revisions to the evidence requirements 
described in this paragraph, we are re-opening the submission and 
review process. Accordingly, we invite model developers and other 
entities to submit prospective models and research studies of the 
effectiveness of those models for review against the revised 
evidence requirements in section I.A.2(e)(1) and the requirements of 
the definition of ``whole-school reform model'' in section I.A.3. If 
a model developer or other entity previously submitted a strategy 
based on the requirements set forth in the NPR, we will consider 
that strategy against the revised requirements. The previously 
submitted strategy should not be resubmitted.
    We intend to identify, from among the models submitted for 
review, those that meet the requirements in advance of the 
competition for fiscal year 2014 SIG funds. An LEA seeking to use 
SIG funds to implement, in partnership with a model developer, an 
evidence-based, whole-school reform model would be permitted to 
choose from among the models so identified by the Department.
    We will provide information regarding the submission and review 
of prospective models on our Web site at www.ed.gov/programs/sif/npr-wholeschlreform.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes: We have modified the requirements for evidence of 
effectiveness for the evidence-based, whole-school reform model under 
section I.A.2(e)(1) to require that evidence of effectiveness include 
at least one study, rather than two studies, that meets the What Works 
Clearinghouse evidence standards and by requiring that if the study 
meets the What Works Clearinghouse evidence standards with 
reservations, it include a large sample and a multi-site sample as 
defined in 34 CFR 77.1.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department allow, as 
evidence-based, whole-school reform models, combinations of discrete 
practices or interventions that individually meet the evidence 
requirements for these models (and that together would potentially meet 
requirements in the definition of ``whole-school reform model'') but do 
not have evidence of effectiveness when implemented together.
    Discussion: We believe that, in allowing an LEA to implement, in 
partnership with a model developer, a whole-school reform model that is 
based on at least a moderate level of evidence that the model will have 
a statistically significant effect on student outcomes, Congress 
intended to require evidence of effectiveness for a model as 
implemented as a whole, not for the individual practices or 
interventions that may comprise a model as implemented separately. 
Accordingly, we do not believe it is appropriate to consider such 
``bundles'' of evidence-based practices or interventions as evidence-
based, whole-school reform models. We note, however, that an LEA is not 
prohibited from implementing one or more evidence-based practices or 
interventions under another SIG intervention model, and in fact, we 
encourage SEAs to prioritize LEAs that do so when making SIG awards.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that, to ensure whole-school 
reform models are supported by evidence that conforms to current 
research standards, the Department specify that the evidence for these 
models must be consistent with the principles of scientific research as 
defined in the Strengthening Education through Research Act (H.R. 
4366), a bill to reauthorize the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, 
currently under consideration by Congress.
    Discussion: The evidence requirements for the whole-school reform 
model in these final requirements incorporate evidence standards used 
by the Department's What Works Clearinghouse to assess the quality of 
research on policies and practices across the educational spectrum. We 
believe that these existing standards are sufficient to ensure that the 
evidence supporting whole-school reform models under SIG is rigorous 
and reflects current standards of practice in educational research. We 
note that the standards recommended by the commenter are found in 
pending legislation and there is no guarantee that Congress will adopt 
them.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Two commenters expressed concerns that requirements in the 
definition of ``whole-school reform model'' are unnecessarily 
restrictive. Specifically, the commenters opposed, or recommended 
changes to, the requirement that a whole-school reform model be 
designed to be implemented for all students in a school, on the grounds 
that it would exclude models

[[Page 7229]]

designed to be implemented for students only in a single grade or 
subset of grades. One of these commenters also questioned the 
requirement that a whole-school reform model be designed to address, at 
a minimum and in a comprehensive and coordinated manner: School 
leadership; teaching and learning in at least one full academic content 
area (including professional learning for educators); student non-
academic support; and family and community engagement. This commenter 
argued that the evidence of effectiveness of a reform model should be 
sufficient to warrant implementation of the model in a SIG school, 
regardless of the model's content. The commenter also asserted that the 
definition of ``whole-school reform model'' is not supported by the 
language in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, which allows 
LEAs to use SIG funds to implement evidence-based, whole-school reform 
models.
    Conversely, several commenters expressed concerns that the 
requirements for whole-school reform models are not sufficiently 
specific or stringent. One of these commenters recommended that the 
Department consider incorporating required elements of other SIG models 
into the definition of ``whole-school reform model,'' which the 
commenter asserted would result in increased rigor. Another commenter 
suggested that the Department require whole-school reform models to 
include student health and wellness programs, while another commenter 
recommended specifying that the models include professional learning 
for instructional support staff in addition to teachers. Lastly, one 
commenter suggested that an SEA would have difficulty in monitoring an 
LEA implementing a whole-school reform model, due to a perceived lack 
of specific requirements for this model.
    Discussion: As stated in Senate Report 113-71 accompanying the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, the Senate Appropriations 
Committee expects that any approach taken with SIG funds will address 
schoolwide factors, including, for example, curriculum and instruction, 
social and emotional support services for students, and training and 
support for teachers and school leaders. We believe that the 
requirements in the definition of ``whole-school reform model,'' 
including the requirement that a model be designed to be implemented 
for all students in a school (i.e., in a schoolwide manner), are 
consistent with congressional intent as described in the Senate 
Committee report. In addition, we believe these requirements capture, 
at an appropriate level of specificity, the aspects of school operation 
that are most likely to affect student achievement and attainment. 
Accordingly, we do not believe it is necessary to incorporate into the 
definition of ``whole-school reform model'' specific required elements 
of other SIG models or other specific elements recommended by the 
commenters. Finally, we note that an SEA may require its LEAs to 
describe in their applications--which the SEA should generally use as a 
basis for LEA monitoring--the specific contents of selected whole-
school reform models, if the SEA deems it necessary for monitoring 
purposes.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department clarify, in 
the definition of ``whole-school reform model developer,'' what 
constitutes a demonstrated record of success in implementing the model. 
The commenter also opposed allowing the definition to be met by a 
developer with a high-quality plan to implement the model together with 
the LEA, absent a demonstrated record of success implementing the 
model. This commenter claimed that such a definition would allow any 
entity or individual to qualify as a developer, regardless of 
experience.
    Discussion: We agree that the proposed definition of ``whole-school 
reform model developer'' was overly broad in that it permitted an 
entity or individual to qualify as a developer, regardless of 
experience. Accordingly, we are eliminating the option to meet the 
definition through a high-quality plan to implement a model.
    We decline, however, to specify what constitutes a ``record of 
success'' because we believe the current requirement strikes the 
appropriate balance between requiring a demonstration of some 
improvement while allowing the SEA the discretion to assess the 
sufficiency of the individual's or entity's record. To ensure that the 
SEA uses a rigorous process to make this determination, however, we are 
clarifying in paragraph (b)(2) of the definition that the SEA must use 
a rigorous review process to select the individual or entity and that 
the process must include a determination that the individual or entity 
is likely to produce strong results for the school. To prevent the 
definition from becoming too restrictive, however, we are eliminating 
the requirement that the whole-school reform model developer have a 
record of success implementing the model that the LEA seeks to 
implement in a school and replacing it with a requirement that the 
developer have a record of success in implementing any whole-school 
reform model.
    Changes: We have removed paragraph (b)(2) of the definition of 
``whole-school reform model developer'' and adding language to final 
paragraph (b) of the definition to clarify the process by which an SEA 
must determine that a whole-school reform model developer has a 
demonstrated record of success. We also have changed the proposed 
requirement that the individual or entity have a record of success in 
implementing the chosen strategy to allow the individual or entity to 
demonstrate a record of success in implementing any whole-school reform 
model.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department require an 
LEA to conduct a review of the whole-school reform model developer with 
whom it proposes to partner to ensure that the developer meets the 
requirements in the definition of ``whole-school reform model 
developer.''
    Discussion: Section II.A.2(c) requires an LEA to provide evidence 
of its strong commitment to implement an evidence-based, whole-school 
reform model through, among other things, a demonstration that it has 
partnered with a whole-school reform model developer as defined in 
section I.A(3). Additionally, section I.A.4 requires an SEA to consider 
the extent to which an LEA has provided such a demonstration in making 
an award. We believe these requirements are sufficient to ensure that 
an LEA's partner meets the definition of a ``whole-school reform model 
developer.''
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department add 
requirements to ensure that developers build effective relationships 
with the schools and communities they serve, including by building the 
capacity of school staff to implement the model's reforms.
    Discussion: The definition of ``whole-school reform model'' 
includes requirements that the model be designed to address teaching 
and learning in at least one full academic content area (including 
professional learning for educators) and to address family and 
community engagement. We believe these requirements are adequate to 
ensure that an evidence-based, whole-school reform model implemented by 
an LEA in partnership with a developer can meaningfully involve, and be 
responsive to the needs of, the school's educators and the broader 
community and to ensure that

[[Page 7230]]

staff have the capacity to implement the model.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that, by allowing evidence-based, 
whole-school reform models, the Department intends to direct SIG funds 
toward established whole-school reform model developers. Another 
commenter suggested that the Department add requirements to ensure that 
whole-school reform model developers are not unduly compensated for 
services provided.
    Discussion: An LEA seeking SIG funds may choose from among several 
intervention models and is not required to select and implement an 
evidence-based, whole-school reform model in partnership with a whole-
school reform model developer. Moreover, as with any LEA receiving SIG 
funds, and consistent with question I-30 of the March 1, 2012, SIG 
Guidance, available at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/sigguidance03012012.doc, an LEA implementing an evidence-based, whole-
school reform model in partnership with a developer may use funds to 
cover only costs that are reasonable and necessary for implementation 
of the selected model.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed support for the requirement for an 
SEA to evaluate, when considering the strength of an LEA's commitment, 
the extent to which the LEA demonstrates in its application that the 
evidence for its selected whole-school reform model includes a sample 
population or setting similar to the population or setting of the 
school to be served. However, this commenter expressed concern that the 
requirement might prevent certain LEAs from implementing an evidence-
based, whole-school reform model. Specifically, the commenter suggested 
that a rural LEA would be prevented from implementing a whole-school 
reform model if the evidence for the model did not include a rural 
setting. Another commenter likewise expressed support for the 
requirement, but cautioned that the demonstrations required of LEAs 
might be unduly burdensome and, therefore, deter LEAs from selecting an 
evidence-based, whole-school reform model.
    Discussion: We believe that the commenters' concerns are 
unwarranted. Insofar as whole-school reform models are designed to be 
implemented in low-performing schools, we expect that an LEA should 
generally be able to demonstrate successfully a similarity between the 
SIG school it proposes to serve, including a SIG school in a rural LEA, 
and the schools in the samples of the research supporting the evidence-
based, whole-school reform model. Of course, an LEA should be careful 
to ensure that a prospective whole-school reform model is appropriate 
for a school in light of its characteristics. It would likely be 
inappropriate, for instance, to implement a secondary school whole-
school reform model in an elementary school, or a whole-school reform 
model for schools with high concentrations of English learners in a 
school with few such students.
    In addition, we believe that any additional burden associated with 
the demonstration required would be outweighed by the benefits of 
implementing reforms that have been shown through rigorous research to 
be effective in improving student achievement and attainment.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that we permit an LEA seeking to 
implement an evidence-based, whole-school reform model to use SIG funds 
to partner with a community-based organization to implement out-of-
school programming that complements and reinforces the selected whole-
school reform model.
    Discussion: An LEA implementing an evidence-based, whole-school 
reform model in partnership with a whole-school reform model developer 
is not prohibited under the requirements from using SIG funds also to 
partner with another organization to provide out-of-school programming, 
provided the LEA has received sufficient funds to do so.
    Changes: None.

Rural LEAs' Modification of One SIG Intervention Model Element

    Comment: Many commenters supported the proposal to permit an LEA 
that is eligible for services under subpart 1 or 2 of part B of title 
VI of the ESEA (rural LEA) to modify one element of the turnaround or 
transformation model and the proposal to collect data on the number of 
rural LEAs that implement SIG models with modified elements. Several 
commenters recommended extending the proposed flexibility for rural 
LEAs to the early learning model, in addition to the turnaround and 
transformation models. These commenters stated that for the same 
reasons that schools in rural LEAs need flexibility in implementing the 
transformation and turnaround models, these schools need flexibility in 
implementing the early learning model.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for the rural 
flexibility, which is consistent with language in the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2014. We believe that this rural flexibility should 
apply to the existing turnaround and transformation models to ensure 
that a rural LEA is able to implement successfully existing SIG models, 
despite potential capacity issues and other challenges. Through the 
rural flexibility, we recognize that a rural LEA may not be in a 
position to implement each element of the turnaround or transformation 
model because, for example, it lacks a pool of high-quality school 
leaders from which it can choose a principal replacement. The rural 
flexibility provides a rural LEA with an alternate method to meet the 
leadership requirements of the turnaround and transformation models.
    In designing the new models, we built in sufficient flexibility 
such that the rural flexibility is not necessary to make these models 
available to rural LEAs. The new models offer a broader array of 
intervention strategies among which a rural LEA may select the one that 
best fits the unique context and needs of its schools, based in part on 
the district's capacity to implement the model. The addition of these 
new models, along with the rural flexibility provided in the turnaround 
and transformation models, should offer enough options such that a 
rural LEA is able to select and successfully implement an appropriate 
SIG model.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department allow a 
rural LEA to modify more than one SIG intervention model element.
    Discussion: The requirements allowing a rural LEA to modify just 
one element of a model are consistent with the language in the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, which states that a rural LEA 
may modify ``not more than one'' element of a SIG intervention model.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter expressed concern that a non-rural LEA may 
perceive the element that a rural LEA chooses to modify as less 
essential to the intervention model as a whole. Another commenter 
recommended that an LEA only be permitted to modify an element based on 
the LEA's specific needs and context, rather than any element that the 
LEA fears is too difficult or controversial to implement.
    Discussion: We appreciate that allowing rural LEAs to modify an 
element of the turnaround or transformation model could create the 
perception that those elements are not necessary to successfully turn 
around a school. We believe, however, that rural LEAs face unique 
challenges and that increased flexibility will help those

[[Page 7231]]

LEAs successfully turn around low-achieving schools. By requiring rural 
LEAs to demonstrate that they will meet the intent and purpose of the 
original element, we believe that they will maintain the integrity of 
the turnaround and transformation models.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended providing flexibility for rural 
schools in non-rural LEAs.
    Discussion: The proposed requirement permitting a rural LEA to 
modify one SIG intervention model element is consistent with the 
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, which requires that this 
flexibility apply to an LEA that is eligible under subpart 1 or 2 of 
part B of title VI of the ESEA.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested that the Department help build 
State and local capacity for supporting sustained rural school 
improvement.
    Discussion: We understand that some rural areas face unique 
challenges in turning around low-achieving schools, but we believe that 
the significant amount of funding available to implement the SIG 
models, as well as the new flexibility extended to rural LEAs, will 
help these LEAs and schools to overcome the resource limitations and 
capacity issues that have hindered successful rural school reform. We 
intend to continue to provide technical assistance to rural LEAs and 
schools on successful SIG implementation.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested that the Department provide a 
rationale for requiring SEAs to report on the number of schools 
implementing models with a modified element. Another commenter asked 
that the Department require SEAs to make publicly available on the 
SEA's Web site information about schools in rural LEAs implementing SIG 
models with modified elements.
    Discussion: Under section III.A(3) of the requirements, an SEA must 
report data on the number of rural schools implementing models with a 
modified element. We believe that these reporting requirements are 
necessary to ensure that the public and the Department have sufficient 
information to understand how the rural flexibility is being applied, 
and that they do not impose an unjustified or significant burden on 
SEAs.
    An SEA is required to post on its Web site, within 30 days of 
awarding SIG funds, all approved LEA applications. Because a rural LEA 
requesting to modify an element of a SIG model must demonstrate in its 
application how it will meet the intent and purpose of the original 
element, information about rural LEAs and any modifications to the 
models they are implementing will be available as part of the LEA's 
application on the SEA's Web site.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested that the Department provide 
additional examples of elements that a rural LEA may request to modify, 
beyond replacing the principal.
    Discussion: We intend to issue guidance to assist SEAs and LEAs in 
implementing the rural flexibility. We encourage each rural LEA to take 
into account local context and need in making the decision regarding 
which element, if any, to modify.
    Changes: None.

Adding Early Learning Model

    Comment: Several commenters supported the addition of the early 
learning model. One commenter believed that research in this area is 
undeniable and that the challenge in implementing high-quality 
preschool programs has been a lack of funding, which the early learning 
model can address for LEAs that choose this model. Other commenters 
noted that research shows the achievement gap begins before 
kindergarten and that investments in high-quality early learning 
programs help children from low-income families prepare for success in 
kindergarten. Another commenter particularly applauded the emphasis on 
all domains of development, not just academic, in the early learning 
model.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support. We believe the 
early learning model can lead to both short- and long-term positive 
outcomes for all children in a SIG school implementing this model, 
including, but not limited to, improved academic achievement, social 
development, lower rates of grade retention and placement in special 
education, and improved graduation rates. Educational improvement 
strategies that focus on preschool and the early grades can address the 
persistent and large achievement gaps by race and income that are 
evident upon kindergarten entry, often well entrenched by third grade, 
and that negatively affect both individual student outcomes in later 
grades and overall school performance.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Many of the commenters offering support for the addition 
of the early learning model submitted substantially identical requests 
to add a new requirement to section I.A.2(f) of the proposed 
requirements that would require an LEA implementing the proposed early 
learning model to provide a high-quality, evidence-based literacy 
intervention (that has at least two pieces of evidence of 
effectiveness) for students who, after one year in school, are 
identified as being at risk of literacy failure (using a reliable and 
valid screener).
    Discussion: We believe that there are a number of important 
activities that would be appropriate to address in an early learning 
model. We agree that early literacy interventions, particularly those 
that are evidence-based, can be an effective component of a broader 
strategy to turn around low-performing schools along with strategies 
that address social and emotional development, early math and science, 
and other domains of early development. Nothing in the proposed 
requirements would prevent an LEA from implementing such an 
intervention under any of the models. However, to permit LEAs 
flexibility to select those interventions that best address their local 
needs, we decline to require LEAs to implement an evidence-based 
literacy intervention under this model.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter asked for clarification about how the 
preschool requirements proposed for the early learning model are 
similar to or different from current guidelines for title I schools.
    Discussion: The Department's non-regulatory guidance, Serving 
Preschool Children Through Title I Part A of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as Amended,\2\ is primarily focused on 
helping SEAs and LEAs understand how they may use ESEA title I, part A 
funds to support preschool programs consistent with all applicable 
statutory and regulatory requirements. Like all non-regulatory 
guidance, it does not impose any additional requirements on SEAs or 
LEAs beyond those of existing law and regulations. For example, the 
title I preschool non-regulatory guidance describes how title I funds 
may be used to support preschool programs and services for eligible 
children in the context of title I schoolwide programs, targeted 
assistance programs, and districtwide preschool programs. It also 
clarifies such issues as which children are eligible to participate in 
title I-funded preschool programs, the qualifications of teachers and 
paraprofessionals working in such programs, requirements for parental 
involvement in title I preschool programs, and the applicability of 
supplement-not-supplant provisions. In other words, the

[[Page 7232]]

title I preschool non-regulatory guidance mainly addresses compliance 
with applicable requirements of title I, part A of the ESEA, rather 
than the implementation of high-quality preschool programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Available at: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/preschoolguidance2012.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The requirements of the new early learning model in the SIG program 
relating to high-quality preschool programs are based closely on the 
related requirements in the Department's Preschool Development Grants 
program, which defines ``high-quality preschool program'' to include 
elements that research suggests are most effective in promoting school 
readiness and improving long-term educational and life outcomes, 
especially for children from low-income families. More information on 
the Preschool Development Grants program may be found at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/preschooldevelopmentgrants/index.html.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters suggested that the Department add 
requirements within the early learning model to ensure adequate family 
and community engagement. One commenter suggested the Department 
require that professional development for all staff under this model 
include high-impact strategies for family engagement. Another commenter 
encouraged the Department to add a requirement in the early learning 
intervention model that the grantee design and implement initiatives 
and strategies that build the capacity of school staff and families to 
engage in effective partnerships that support student achievement and 
healthy development. A few commenters requested that the definition of 
a ``high-quality preschool program'' be modified to include continuous 
and meaningful family and community engagement and proposed definitions 
for this term.
    Discussion: The Department agrees that family and community 
engagement, both on an ongoing basis and in selection of the 
appropriate SIG model, is an essential component to ensure successful 
turnaround of the lowest performing schools. As such, under sections 
I.A.4(a)(1) and I.A.4(a)(8), an SEA must consider the extent to which 
an LEA has demonstrated that it engaged families and the community in 
the selection of the SIG model and how the LEA will meaningfully engage 
families and the community on a continuous basis throughout 
implementation. These requirements apply across all models, including 
the early learning model. While we agree that family and community 
engagement may be one valuable area of professional development, we 
decline to add a specific requirement for professional development or 
capacity building regarding family and community engagement so that 
LEAs may determine which types of professional development and capacity 
building activities to offer based on the particular needs of their 
schools and communities.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters requested that the Department clarify 
that a high-quality, community-based provider may provide preschool 
services as part of the early learning model, either at the SIG school 
or through an existing high-quality child care or Head Start program 
within the LEA or nearby community. Many of these commenters argued 
that clarifying this aspect of implementation of the early learning 
model would help align SIG with other Department programs, such as the 
Preschool Development Grants and title I programs, through which the 
Department has encouraged mixed-delivery models for preschool services. 
Some commenters noted that allowing a community-based provider to 
provide preschool services as part of an early learning model is 
consistent with many LEAs' provision of preschool services, including 
services that are supported with title I funds, and that existing 
providers may be better equipped to rapidly expand capacity and serve 
additional children, particularly because of their working knowledge of 
the community. One commenter hypothesized that explicitly allowing LEAs 
to partner with those existing programs to provide preschool services 
could help make the early learning model more attractive to LEAs.
    A couple of commenters recommended that if a SIG elementary school 
contracts with a child care or Head Start program to deliver preschool 
services, it should be required to describe how it will work to 
coordinate with the school on appropriate and effective transitions to 
build continuity of high-quality early learning. One commenter 
specifically suggested that libraries be listed as an eligible entity 
and allowable partner under the proposed early learning model. One 
commenter requested that the Department add a new element to the early 
learning model, requiring partnerships with external providers, such as 
community-based organizations and community-based media outlets, in 
order to increase the quality of the early learning program and its 
connections to the larger community.
    Discussion: As part of its implementation of the early learning 
model, an LEA may contract with a community-based provider to provide 
high-quality preschool programs for students enrolled in an elementary 
school implementing the model. This is consistent with the SIG program 
in general, which allows the use of external providers and other 
community-based organizations under any of the SIG models. Any SIG 
school working with a community-based provider should ensure 
coordination across all grades in the elementary school, including 
preschool, to ensure continuity of high-quality early learning and 
appropriateness of transitions. The Department will provide additional 
guidance to help LEAs and schools work with community-based providers 
to provide high-quality preschool programs as part of the comprehensive 
early learning model. LEAs may choose to use an external provider in 
implementing their early learning models, or enter into a partnership 
with various entities, such as school libraries. However, the 
Department's intent is to provide sufficient flexibility for LEAs, so 
that they may take into account the local context and needs of the 
community to the greatest extent possible and, therefore, the 
Department declines to revise the proposed requirements based on these 
comments.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested that we require curricula in the 
early learning model that employ high-quality multiplatform digital 
content and services.
    Discussion: The Department is prohibited from mandating State, LEA, 
or school curriculum under 20 U.S.C. 7907. We therefore decline to make 
the commenter's suggested change.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: A few commenters asked if a preschool must be physically 
located in the eligible elementary school and whether the preschool 
could be a feeder preschool for several schools, including the SIG-
eligible school.
    Discussion: A preschool is not required to be physically located in 
the eligible elementary school. However, students must be enrolled in 
the SIG school that is implementing the early learning model to receive 
preschool services funded through the SIG program.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that we require an LEA to describe 
in its SIG application how the impact of high-quality early learning 
experiences will be sustained over time.
    Discussion: Under section I.A.4(a)(12), an SEA must evaluate the 
extent to which an LEA demonstrates in its application for a SIG award 
that it

[[Page 7233]]

will sustain the reforms after the funding period ends. We believe this 
existing requirement is responsive to the commenter's suggestion.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters noted concerns about relying on early 
learning as the sole focus of a school's turnaround strategy. One 
commenter recommended adopting the early learning model as a turnaround 
strategy only in conjunction with at least one other strategy. Another 
commenter recommended that the Department require LEAs to demonstrate 
how an early learning model will complement and be linked to a school's 
other reform strategies, particularly efforts to ensure that children 
read at grade level by the third grade. One commenter noted that it is 
unclear which requirements in the model apply across the whole school 
as opposed to just the early grades being added to the school. 
Specifically, the commenter thought it was unclear if the requirement 
to implement staff retention strategies, such as the provision of 
financial incentives and increased opportunities for promotion and 
career growth, applied to all grades or only the early grades. This 
commenter was concerned that the SEA may not be able to allocate enough 
funds to an LEA to implement the many requirements with fidelity in all 
grades while adding new early learning services to the school.
    Discussion: We recognize that early learning is only one strategy 
to turn around the persistently lowest-performing schools. As such, the 
early learning model includes requirements similar to those of the 
current transformation model to ensure all students across all grades 
in the elementary school are receiving services. For example, the model 
requires an LEA to implement rigorous, transparent, and equitable 
evaluation and support systems for teachers and principals; implement 
such strategies as financial incentives, increased opportunities for 
promotion and career growth, and more flexible work conditions; and use 
data to identify and implement an instructional program that is 
research-based, developmentally appropriate, and vertically aligned 
from one grade to the next. In this way, the early learning model is 
analogous to the other SIG models in that it is a comprehensive whole-
school reform model. The early learning model requirements in section 
I.A.2(f)(1)(C) and sections I.A.2(f)(2)-(9) apply across the whole 
school, and we encourage each LEA implementing the early learning model 
to coordinate services across all grades in the school. An LEA may 
receive up to $2 million per year per school implementing the early 
learning model, which we believe is sufficient to implement the early 
learning model requirements with fidelity.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Many commenters encouraged the Department to include 
evidence-based home visiting services, either directly or through 
partnerships and contracts, as either an allowable or required activity 
under the early learning model. Commenters contended that well-designed 
home visiting systems improve child and family outcomes and increase 
parents' ability to support their children's development and success. A 
few of those commenters noted that adding this requirement would align 
SIG with other Department efforts and that some LEAs already use title 
I funds to provide home visiting services prior to school entry. 
Another commenter suggested that evidence-based home visiting should be 
an allowable activity under the definition of ILT and that this 
activity would be less costly than other activities required under ILT.
    Discussion: We agree that evidence-based home visiting services can 
be a valuable component of any school turnaround model. As such, home 
visiting is an allowable activity under all of the SIG models, although 
it does not meet the definition of ILT. To ensure continued flexibility 
regarding allowable uses of funds under the SIG program, we decline to 
reduce State and local discretion by adding a requirement that an LEA 
implementing the early learning model must provide home visiting 
services.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters opposed the requirement to replace the 
principal in the early learning model. Some of these commenters urged 
the Department to require applicants using the early learning model to 
provide support and professional development for principals as well as 
teachers, and base firing decisions only on fair and objective 
evaluations of the principal after the principal has been allowed time 
to implement the model. One commenter noted that an LEA's needs 
analysis may reveal that the root cause for low student achievement is 
a lack of access to early learning and, as such, replacing the 
principal may not be necessary. This commenter also noted that, as 
currently written, the transformation model allows for the expansion of 
the school program to offer full-day kindergarten or pre-kindergarten 
to a school without many of the restrictions detailed in the newly 
proposed early learning model. One commenter also suggested that the 
Department clarify that the principal replacement requirement in 
section I.A.2(f)(2) refers to the leader of the SIG-eligible school, 
not to the leader of the preschool.
    Discussion: We understand that replacing a school principal is one 
of the most challenging aspects of the early learning model; however, 
we also know that many of our lowest-achieving schools have failed to 
improve without leadership changes. We continue to believe that 
dramatic and wholesale changes in leadership are an appropriate 
intervention for creating an entirely new and improved school culture. 
We acknowledge that it can be difficult to identify, train, and retain 
qualified school leaders for the lowest-performing schools, but other 
Federal programs, including the Turnaround School Leaders program 
funded with SIG national activities funds, are helping to create 
incentives and supports to attract, train, and reward effective 
principals and improve strategies for recruitment, retention, and 
professional development. Additionally, flexibility within section 
I.B.1 of the requirements permits an LEA to retain a school principal 
who has held the position for two years or less prior to the 
implementation of the SIG model. We recognize that an LEA may expand 
the school day to offer full-day kindergarten or pre-kindergarten in a 
school implementing one of the other SIG models. The addition of the 
early learning model, however, provides another option for LEAs to 
consider in determining which interventions are necessary to turn 
around low-performing schools. To clarify, any of the requirements of 
the early learning model, including the requirement to replace the 
principal, apply to the elementary school implementing the model, not 
to the leader of the preschool if the preschool is provided through a 
community-based provider with which the school contracts.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed requirements 
for the early learning model are too prescriptive and establish 
requirements that are not feasible for LEAs to implement, particularly 
those LEAs that do not currently offer full-day kindergarten or 
preschool programs. One commenter suggested removing requirements not 
directly related to high-quality early learning to reduce the 
challenges of implementation. Another commenter recommended that the 
Department allow SEAs to make subgrants for early learning to LEAs that 
do not necessarily

[[Page 7234]]

meet all the criteria in the requirements, so long as the SEA can 
demonstrate that the LEAs will meet the State's own requirements for 
high-quality preschool programs or meet other recognized standards of 
quality, to allow LEAs to phase in early learning interventions. Other 
commenters suggested that the model should allow for phase in of new 
slots for preschool students due to the challenges in, and disruption 
that can be caused by, implementing many reforms at the same time.
    Discussion: We believe that all of the components of the early 
learning model, including the requirements relating to expanding high-
quality preschool programs and addressing the needs of all students in 
the elementary school, are necessary to help ensure successful school 
turnaround and are feasible to implement. As with all of the SIG 
models, full implementation of all of the elements of the model must 
begin on the first day of the school year when the LEA begins full 
implementation. We note, however, that under section II.A.3 of the 
requirements, LEAs have up to one full school year for planning and 
pre-implementation activities, during which they could begin phasing in 
various components of the early learning model. We believe that this 
one-year period is sufficient for an LEA to prepare to implement in a 
high-quality manner an early learning model in a school at the start of 
the next school year. We also note that an LEA may choose one of the 
other SIG models to implement if it does not have the capacity to fully 
implement the early learning model.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Many commenters were pleased that full-day kindergarten 
was included in the proposed early learning model. Several commenters 
proposed that the Department further define ``full-day'' kindergarten 
to align with the definition in the Department's Preschool Development 
Grants. One commenter noted that there is no standard definition of 
``full-day kindergarten'' and requested that the Department adopt a 
definition to help ensure programs are comparable for evaluation and 
funding purposes and that students are receiving equitable 
opportunities. Another commenter recommended that we incorporate into 
the SIG requirements several additional definitions from the 
Department's Preschool Development Grant program, including the 
definitions of ``Early Learning Development Standards'' and ``Essential 
Domains of School Readiness.'' Another commenter recommended adding 
language to require kindergarten and early grades to meet the 
requirements under the definition of ``high-quality preschool,'' 
including the requirements that schools assign teachers with 
certifications and endorsements in early childhood education to the 
early grades. This commenter also suggested that teachers in the early 
grades should have credentials and professional development that 
recognize the specialized knowledge and skills needed to work with 
preschool through third-grade students.
    Discussion: Unlike the Preschool Development Grants program, the 
early learning model under the SIG program is a comprehensive approach 
to whole-school turnaround. For that reason, the requirements reflect a 
balance between the Department's interest in encouraging the 
implementation of a rigorous early learning intervention, as well as 
coordinated services for all students in the school, and our interest 
in allowing LEAs the flexibility to tailor their activities to fit 
local needs and context. For that reason, we decline to adopt the 
definition of ``full-day'' kindergarten or other definitions in the 
Preschool Development Grants program or to otherwise expand the 
requirements as suggested. We also decline to expand the requirements 
of a high-quality preschool program to apply to kindergarten or the 
early grades because the requirements in section I.A.2(f)(1)(C) and 
sections I.A.2(f)(2)-(9) are sufficient to ensure that all students in 
the school, regardless of grade, will benefit from the model.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Some commenters expressed support for the proposed 
requirement within the early learning model to provide joint planning 
time for educators across grades. One commenter encouraged the 
Department to require that the joint planning time include 
collaboration and professional development to ensure that educators 
serving in SIG schools have the capacity to serve children across the 
range of developmental domains. One commenter noted that it is unclear 
whether teachers in all grades in the elementary school are required to 
engage in joint planning and recommended requiring cross-grade planning 
for teachers teaching kindergarten through third grade.
    Discussion: We agree that joint planning across grades is an 
essential component of any school turnaround strategy, and that this 
component is particularly important in models that include the 
provision of high-quality preschool. We confirm that, to ensure 
continuity across grades, cross-grade planning across all grades is 
required under section I.A.2(f)(1)(C). Accordingly, we decline to limit 
this requirement to apply only to teachers of students in kindergarten 
to third grade. We also note that professional development, which we 
expect often includes collaboration, is required under section 
I.A.2(f)(8) and must be designed to ensure that staff have the capacity 
to implement successfully the school reform strategies.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter encouraged the Department to study the 
potential impact of investing in early learning, particularly because 
most current turnaround metrics focus on third grade and beyond. This 
commenter also suggested that the current SIG metrics provide a 
disincentive for LEAs to choose the early learning implementation model 
as assessment results in grades three and up are used as the primary 
determinant of a turnaround model's success. The commenter suggested 
shifting the focus from standardized test scores to measures of 
professional practice, which could be used in combination with child 
outcome metrics. The commenter recommended that the SIG requirements 
explicitly authorize SEAs to adopt metrics of this kind for at least 
their elementary schools.
    Discussion: We agree that it is important to evaluate the impact of 
school turnaround efforts, which is why the Department will require 
SEAs and schools to collect and report data on the implementation of 
their chosen model, including the early learning model. Standardized 
test scores are not the primary metric that schools and SEAs must 
report. Rather, they are one of a number of measures that will be used 
to assess whether an LEA's implementation of the chosen SIG model in a 
school is effective. Other measures include the absenteeism rate and 
number of discipline incidents. Although we do not require SEAs to 
report professional practice data, they are required to report on the 
distribution of teachers by performance level based on the LEA's 
teacher evaluation system, which generally includes measures of 
professional practice. We encourage SEAs, LEAs, and schools to collect 
additional data, such as professional practice data, which can help 
provide a more holistic picture of whether a SIG model has been 
effectively implemented.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter stated that it is unclear from the proposed 
requirements whether the early learning model would apply to any LEA 
that receives SIG funding to implement any

[[Page 7235]]

SIG model in an elementary school, or if it constitutes a new model for 
which an LEA may apply for SIG funds based on the early learning needs 
of its elementary schools.
    Discussion: To clarify, the early learning model is a new model 
under the SIG requirements. An LEA implementing another model is not 
required to meet the requirements of the early learning model. 
Likewise, although current grantees may add early learning strategies, 
such as high-quality preschool programs or full-day kindergarten, they 
are not required to do so.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the services of school social 
workers, school psychologists, and other school-employed support 
personnel should meet the requirements for on-site accessible 
comprehensive services.
    Discussion: Nothing in the requirements would preclude a school 
from fulfilling the requirements for on-site accessible comprehensive 
services by using support staff employed by the school to provide such 
services.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter contended that building a preschool program 
in a persistently low-performing school does not address the overall 
academic weaknesses that were responsible for the school's 
identification by the State and recommended removing the early learning 
model and the definition of ``high-quality preschool.'' The commenter 
argued that the early learning strategy incorrectly places an emphasis 
on a new cohort of young children, rather than focusing on the current 
students whose underperformance is the statutory target of the SIG 
program.
    Discussion: Consistent evidence demonstrates that participation in 
high-quality early learning programs can lead to both short- and long-
term positive outcomes for all students.\3\ We believe that, if a 
school focuses on improving or adding a high-quality preschool program, 
the positive effects will continue well into students' educational 
future, thus improving the overall academic weaknesses that were 
responsible for the school's identification by the State. By focusing 
on improving educational opportunities for students in the early years, 
schools can break the cycle of poor academic achievement before it even 
begins, which will then give these students a better chance at success 
throughout their academic careers. Further, although the early learning 
model's primary focus is on early learners, the model also requires 
interventions designed to address the needs of all students at the 
school. Moreover, we note that under all of the SIG models, new 
students enroll in the school after the school has been identified as 
eligible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See ``Investing in our Future: The Evidence Base on 
Preschool Education'' (available at http://fcd-us.org/sites/default/files/Evidence%20Base%20on%20Preschool%20Education%20FINAL.pdf). 
Society for Research in Child Development and the Foundation for 
Child Development, October 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested that the Department require LEAs 
to provide early screenings for learning issues and delays in early 
literacy and math skill development, and provide appropriate 
interventions based on screening outcomes.
    Discussion: We agree that providing early screenings to identify 
students with disabilities is a meaningful activity, and is an 
allowable use of SIG funds under any of the SIG models. However, to 
ensure schools have the flexibility to tailor their interventions to 
local needs, we decline to require this activity under the early 
learning model.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department require that 
the early learning model be coordinated and integrated fully with any 
existing State preschool program.
    Discussion: While we strongly believe that any efforts undertaken 
with SIG funding should closely align with turnaround work across the 
State and that there may be positive results from coordinating with a 
State's preschool program, we decline to require that the early 
learning model be coordinated and fully integrated with the State 
preschool program. Given the disparity in State requirements regarding 
high-quality preschool programs, such a requirement may be unduly 
burdensome and too difficult to ensure consistency in implementation.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department encourage 
approaches and partnerships that utilize technology for personalized 
learning by explicitly supporting the use of digital learning in the 
early learning model. The commenter believed this could be especially 
beneficial to schools in rural areas, which, the commenter suggested, 
should receive priority for SIG funding.
    Discussion: We agree that technology can be used to enhance 
personalized learning, particularly in rural areas, and digital 
learning is a permitted activity under the early learning model. 
However, we decline to specifically require digital learning. There are 
many valuable strategies that schools should consider in implementing a 
comprehensive school turnaround strategy and, therefore, we designed 
the models to identify general performance objectives while also 
maximizing an LEA's discretion to choose the strategies that meet both 
these general objectives and the school's particular needs. We also 
note that, as described in question I-9 of the March 1, 2012, SIG 
Guidance, available at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/sigguidance03012012.doc, an SEA may give priority to an LEA for SIG 
funding based on a variety of factors including, for example, the rural 
status of the school or LEA.
    Changes: None.
    Modifying the Teacher and Principal Evaluation and Support System 
Requirements Under the Transformation Model.
    Comment: A number of commenters expressed support for the proposed 
requirement in section I.A.2(d)(1)(A)(ii) revising the transformation 
model requirement for teacher and principal evaluation and support 
systems, with some noting that they supported the alignment between the 
proposed requirements for these systems and the requirements under ESEA 
flexibility. Other commenters supported the proposed requirement that 
teacher and principal evaluation and support systems use multiple 
measures. One commenter, however, recommended revising the requirement 
related to the use of data on student growth to allow, but not require, 
the use of multiple measures for the evaluation of teachers of tested 
grades and subjects (but to continue to require the use of data on 
student growth based on State assessments for teachers of tested grades 
and subjects) and to allow, but not require, alternate measures of 
student growth for the evaluation of teachers of non-tested grades and 
subjects. Another commenter recommended that the results of 
standardized tests should comprise only a small percentage of a 
teacher's evaluation. One commenter noted that the link between 
children's test scores and teacher and principal evaluations is not 
appropriate, especially for teachers of early grades.
    Discussion: We appreciate the comments supporting the alignment of 
the requirements for educator evaluation systems under the 
transformation model with the requirements for these systems under ESEA 
flexibility. We agree that this change will reduce the burden on LEAs 
in SEAs with approved ESEA flexibility requests because they will not 
have to implement separate evaluation systems. However, to ensure that 
such systems are both fair to educators and contribute

[[Page 7236]]

to improved instruction for all students, we believe it is essential to 
maintain the proposed requirements for the use of multiple measures, 
including student growth for teachers of non-tested grades and 
subjects. We also believe that student growth based on State 
assessments should be a significant factor in evaluations of teachers 
of all tested grades and subjects because State assessments offer 
objective measures that are consistent across LEAs; while the 
Department has been flexible about defining what constitutes a 
``significant factor,'' requiring student growth data to comprise only 
a small percentage of evaluations would not be consistent with this 
longstanding position.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended extending the requirement for 
teacher and principal evaluation and support systems to the turnaround 
model and requiring that the systems be used for decisions about 
financial incentives. The commenter also recommended that the 
Department revise the transformation model requirements to state 
specifically that the use of educator evaluation and support systems in 
decisions about retaining staff and selecting new staff is permissible. 
Finally, the commenter recommended requiring an LEA implementing the 
early learning model in a school to use the evaluation and support 
system to select new staff and prevent ineffective staff from 
transferring to the school.
    Discussion: We agree that it would be beneficial for all schools to 
implement teacher and principal evaluation and support systems that 
meet the requirements in section I.A.2(d)(1)(A)(ii) and to use the 
results of those systems in making personnel decisions generally, 
including in making decisions regarding the payment of financial 
incentives. We also note that implementing such an evaluation and 
support system is allowable under any SIG model, including the 
turnaround model. However, such systems generally are not designed to 
support the rigorous requirement for staffing changes under the 
turnaround model, which calls for screening and rehiring no more than 
50 percent of existing staff and hiring new staff. This is why the 
turnaround model instead requires the use of locally adopted 
competencies for this purpose. However, an LEA implementing the 
turnaround model in a school may use the results of a teacher and 
principal evaluation and support system in making personnel decisions, 
including hiring decisions, in addition to locally adopted 
competencies.
    We also note that an LEA implementing the transformation model 
already must use the results of the evaluations for personnel 
decisions, in accordance with section I.A.2(d)(1)(A)(ii)(6), and that 
an LEA implementing the early learning model already must use the 
results of the evaluations for personnel decisions, in accordance with 
section I.A.2(f)(3).
    Changes: None.

Eliminating the ``Rule of Nine''

    Comment: Four commenters supported eliminating the ``rule of 
nine,'' while one commenter disagreed with the elimination of this 
rule, based on the original premise that it promoted the selection of 
the most rigorous SIG interventions (i.e., turnaround and restart), 
which the commenter believed are more likely to result in improved 
student performance.
    Discussion: We appreciate the support for the elimination of the 
``rule of nine,'' and note that, as stated in the NPR, it had limited 
impact. In addition, we believe that a rule limiting the specific 
interventions that an LEA may implement is inconsistent with the intent 
of Congress as demonstrated by the increased flexibility in the 
selection and implementation of SIG-funded intervention models provided 
in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014.
    Changes: None.

Adding LEA Requirement To Demonstrate Appropriateness of Chosen 
Intervention Model and Take Into Consideration Family and Community 
Input

    Comment: Many commenters supported proposed section I.A.4(a)(1), 
requiring an LEA to demonstrate the appropriateness of the chosen 
intervention model and to take into consideration family and community 
input in model selection. One commenter suggested that the Department 
require an LEA to demonstrate that it sought ``broad-based'' input from 
families and the community. Other commenters recommended requiring an 
LEA to engage and solicit input from all relevant stakeholders.
    However, one commenter opposed requiring an LEA to demonstrate in 
its application how it will meaningfully engage families and the 
community in the implementation of its chosen intervention, warning 
that the need to provide evidence of parent investment up front could 
prevent successful alternative operators (which we interpret to mean 
external providers) from working with SIG schools.
    Discussion: We appreciate the support for the requirements to 
demonstrate the appropriateness of the chosen intervention model and to 
take into consideration family and community input in the selection of 
the SIG model. However, we decline to set forth specific criteria that 
an LEA must meet to demonstrate family and community engagement, 
because the precise nature of such engagement may vary widely across 
different types of communities. However, we intend to provide guidance 
encouraging SEAs, in their review of the evidence of family and 
community engagement in an LEA's SIG application, to examine whether 
the LEA sought input from all relevant stakeholders, including, for 
example, those representing English learners and students with 
disabilities.
    We do not agree that requiring a demonstration of parental 
involvement will prevent high-quality external providers from working 
with an LEA in SIG schools. In fact, we believe that the requirement 
that an LEA engage families and the community early in the process of 
planning its SIG intervention will result in increased transparency and 
accountability related to the selection of, and subsequent 
implementation by, external providers, which will help with 
implementing the model successfully.
    Changes: None.

Adding LEA Requirement to Continuously Engage Families and the 
Community Throughout Implementation

    Comment: Many commenters supported proposed section I.A.4(a)(8), 
requiring an LEA to demonstrate in its SIG application how the LEA will 
meaningfully engage families and the community in the implementation of 
its selected intervention. Several commenters recommended that the 
Department provide additional technical assistance and guidance on what 
constitutes meaningful family and community engagement. One commenter 
requested that we require that schools enter into joint use agreements 
with the community, for example with regard to sharing space. Another 
commenter recommended that the Department clarify that the purpose of 
engaging families and the community is to improve student achievement 
and healthy development. The commenter also recommended adding language 
throughout the requirements to emphasize that family and community 
engagement would be an element of each of the intervention models. One 
commenter recommended expanding the family and community engagement 
requirements to promote the role of

[[Page 7237]]

community partners and intermediary organizations in school 
turnarounds, stating that such entities can provide expertise and 
capacity-building support essential to turning around low-performing 
schools.
    Discussion: We agree that it is important that an LEA engage in 
meaningful family and community engagement, reach appropriate 
stakeholders, and ensure that the input the LEA receives is relevant 
and useful throughout the period of SIG implementation. We believe, 
however, that section I.A.4(a)(8) of the requirements, along with 
guidance that the Department will provide on this issue, will be 
sufficient to help ensure that an LEA engages in an ongoing and 
meaningful way with families and the community throughout the 
implementation of each SIG-funded intervention model. We also note that 
both the current and proposed requirements, including the requirements 
for each of the intervention models, provide ample flexibility for SIG 
grantees to partner with the broadest possible range of entities to 
obtain the support needed for successful implementation of their 
selected intervention models permitting, for example, specific 
interventions focused on improving student performance and encouraging 
healthy development of students. For these reasons, we decline to make 
the changes recommended by the commenters.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended requiring an SEA to report on 
how a SIG grantee obtains and uses family input during the 
implementation of its intervention model.
    Discussion: We believe that adding new reporting requirements 
related to family and community engagement would be unnecessarily 
burdensome because the data on family and community engagement lacks 
uniformity. We also believe that such an addition would be unnecessary 
because the new application requirements in section I.A.4(a)(1) related 
to family and community engagement are sufficient to ensure that LEAs 
meaningfully seek and incorporate this input into the selection and 
implementation of SIG-funded intervention models.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested clarification regarding whether 
the family and community engagement requirement in section 
I.A.2(d)(3)(A)(ii) under the transformation model differs from the 
family and community engagement requirement in section I.A.4(a)(8), 
which applies to all models.
    Discussion: The provisions are the same. We elected to retain the 
separate requirement in the transformation model out of concern that 
removing it could leave the impression that the Department is no longer 
requiring family and community engagement under the transformation 
model.
    Changes: None.

Adding LEA Requirement To Monitor and Support Intervention and 
Implementation

    Comment: Several commenters supported proposed section I.A.4(a)(7), 
requiring an LEA to demonstrate how it will provide effective oversight 
and support for implementation of interventions in its schools. Some of 
these commenters requested guidance regarding the definition of 
``monitoring'' in order to clarify what is required of LEAs, and one 
commenter questioned whether the requirement would be different for a 
charter LEA versus a traditional LEA. However, one commenter cautioned 
the Department not to specify how the monitoring and support should be 
conducted, stating that the approach will necessarily differ based on 
the context and capabilities of the LEA.
    Discussion: We believe the proposed requirements, which would apply 
to regular and charter LEAs alike, sufficiently address an LEA's 
monitoring obligations in part because, as noted by the commenter, the 
monitoring approach will differ based on the context and capabilities 
of the LEA. However, we will work with SEAs to provide guidance and 
technical assistance to LEAs related to quality monitoring and the 
types of information SEAs and LEAs should consider in determining 
whether or not the LEA has adopted or should adopt a new governance 
structure.
    Changes: None.

Adding LEA Requirements to Regularly Review External Providers' 
Performance and Hold External Providers Accountable

    Comment: Several commenters supported proposed section I.A.4(a)(4), 
requiring an LEA to regularly review external providers' performance 
and hold external providers accountable. One commenter also recommended 
requiring evidence that the LEA will recruit, screen, select, and 
execute contracts with any providers by the start of the school year. 
Similarly, another commenter recommended that the Department encourage 
LEAs to develop performance metrics with all providers at the onset of 
the partnership. One commenter, while supportive of the requirements, 
expressed concern about the capacity of smaller LEAs to engage in 
appropriate oversight and to identify appropriate providers. 
Additionally, one commenter requested more guidance for schools and 
LEAs on this issue.
    Discussion: We appreciate the support for requiring LEAs to hold 
external providers accountable for their performance.
    We recognize that an LEA may not have identified the external 
provider it will use at the time it applies for a SIG award; 
consequently, under section I.A.4(a)(4), the LEA must demonstrate that 
it will recruit, screen, and select external providers to ensure their 
quality and regularly review and hold the external providers 
accountable. We believe this requirement is sufficient to ensure that 
an LEA uses external providers effectively. We also believe that most 
LEAs will use the pre-implementation or planning period to recruit and 
select external providers and develop the performance metrics against 
which the external provider will be evaluated. Moreover, under section 
I.A.4(a)(3), any external provider that will be used to implement the 
chosen SIG model must be in place on the first day of the first school 
year of full implementation.
    We acknowledge that smaller LEAs may face capacity challenges and 
caution LEAs to assess their ability to hold external providers 
accountable before committing to use them. We believe, however that the 
significant amount of SIG funding available to implement the 
intervention models will help these LEAs overcome any such limitations.
    We have previously issued guidance on external providers, available 
at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/sigfaq-finalversion.doc. We intend 
to issue additional guidance to assist SEAs and LEAs in carrying out 
the requirements pertaining to external providers.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested clarification about which vendors 
the Department is referencing.
    Discussion: We understand this comment to ask to which external 
providers the requirements apply. All external providers that an LEA 
uses to help implement any aspect of a SIG model, regardless of the 
model being implemented, are subject to section I.A.4(a)(4).
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter opposed proposed section I.A.4(a)(4) 
regarding external providers out of apparent concern that it would 
change eligibility and could permit the award of SIG funds to entities 
other than school

[[Page 7238]]

districts. This commenter stated that funds should flow from States to 
school districts.
    Discussion: The commenter misunderstood the proposed requirement, 
as only LEAs with schools that meet the definition under I.A.1 are 
eligible for an award of SIG funds.
    Changes: None.

Clarifying the Rigorous Review Process Under the Restart Model

    Comment: Many commenters expressed support for the clarification of 
the rigorous review process in the restart model. One of these 
commenters asked that we require an LEA applying to implement the 
restart model to seek community input prior to choosing a charter 
operator. Another commenter recommended that we restrict selection of 
charter management organizations (CMOs) or education management 
organization (EMOs) further by prohibiting an LEA from contracting with 
a CMO or EMO with a track record of operating schools that do not 
improve student achievement or with significant compliance issues in 
the areas of civil rights, financial management, and student safety.
    Discussion: We agree that an LEA implementing the restart model 
should seek family and community input prior to implementing the model. 
In fact, under section I.A.4(a)(1) of the requirements, an SEA must 
evaluate the extent to which an LEA demonstrates in its application for 
a SIG award that it took into consideration family and community input 
in selecting the intervention for each school. We believe this 
provision creates sufficient safeguards to ensure that the community is 
involved in the selection of an appropriate intervention in a school. 
Additionally, section I.A.2(b)(1) requires an LEA to consider the 
extent to which any schools currently operated or managed by the 
selected charter school operator, CMO, or EMO have produced strong 
results over the prior three years, which creates sufficient safeguards 
to ensure that the LEA takes appropriate steps to choose a high-quality 
CMO or EMO.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter asked the Department to clarify whether, 
under the rigorous review process, an LEA with eligible schools that is 
in corrective action could meet the new rigorous review requirements 
and serve as a CMO under the restart model.
    Discussion: If an LEA can demonstrate that it has produced strong 
results over the past three years, despite being designated for 
corrective action, it may meet the requirements of the rigorous review 
process and serve as a CMO under the restart model. Such a 
demonstration may be possible, for example, for an LEA that has 
regularly raised student proficiency rates but still falls short of the 
100 percent proficiency requirement under current law in a State that 
is not approved for ESEA flexibility.
    Changes: None.

Defining ``Greatest Need'' To Include Priority Schools and Focus 
Schools for SEAs With Approved ESEA Flexibility Requests

    Comment: Four commenters supported aligning the definition of 
``greatest need'' with ESEA flexibility. One commenter recommended that 
the Department permit SEAs to limit SIG eligibility to priority schools 
only, in order to ensure that limited SIG funding is used in a State's 
lowest-achieving schools.
    Discussion: We appreciate the support for aligning the eligibility 
provisions of the SIG requirements with ESEA flexibility for those SEAs 
with approved ESEA flexibility requests. As described in question I-9 
of the March 1, 2012, SIG Guidance, available at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/sigguidance03012012.doc, an SEA may create priorities 
within its application process to, for example, ensure an even 
distribution of urban and rural schools, incentivize evidence-based 
strategies, and encourage applications from LEAs without prior 
compliance issues.
    With regard to the comment that we should permit an SEA to provide 
SIG funds to priority schools only, we note that under section II.B.7, 
an SEA must, in making funding decisions, give priority to LEAs with 
priority schools, and that under section II.A.7 an LEA must apply to 
serve all of its priority schools before it may apply to serve one or 
more focus schools. Accordingly, a focus school may be served under SIG 
only if the LEA in which it is located is already serving all of its 
priority schools (or the LEA has no priority schools) and the SEA has 
already funded all LEAs with priority schools that submit approvable 
SIG applications.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter requested clarification as to whether a 
priority school implementing a SIG intervention model may exit priority 
status while receiving SIG funds. Another commenter asked whether 
receipt of a SIG award releases the school from the State's priority 
school requirements and allows it to instead implement a SIG model.
    Discussion: In general, a school receiving a SIG grant would be 
deemed to be meeting the priority school requirements of ESEA 
flexibility and would not have to begin or continue separate 
implementation of a priority school intervention under the State's 
approved ESEA flexibility request, unless the SEA has imposed 
additional requirements. A priority school that has begun implementing 
either a priority intervention or a SIG intervention may exit priority 
status but must continue to implement the intervention fully and 
effectively for the required three years, consistent with section 
II.A.4 of the requirements.
    Changes: None.

Revising Reporting Requirements

    Comment: Several commenters supported the proposal to replace the 
truancy data reporting requirement with a requirement to report data on 
``chronic absenteeism.'' One commenter recommended that the Department 
hold LEAs and schools implementing SIG models accountable for 
addressing chronic absenteeism, such as by requiring LEAs to use the 
data to trigger action when students reach a certain threshold of 
absences.
    Discussion: We appreciate the support for the change from truancy 
data to data on chronic absenteeism. We note that an LEA implementing a 
SIG model in a school may choose to use chronic absenteeism data to 
trigger specific interventions; for example, analyzing attendance data 
and using the results of the analysis to target interventions would be 
consistent with the expectation that each LEA implementing a SIG model 
in a school take steps to improve attendance rates at that school. We 
decline, however, to add this requirement to any of the models because 
we believe that each model offers a comprehensive approach to school 
turnaround, including through non-academic supports, and that therefore 
a separate requirement regarding attendance is not necessary.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: Many commenters recommended changing the chronic 
absenteeism measure from a certain number of days to a percentage of 
days enrolled, specifically from 15 days to 10 percent of days 
enrolled.
    Discussion: We recognize that when absenteeism is being used for 
early intervention purposes, many authorities recommend that it is best 
measured as a percentage, comparing the days missed to the days of 
school already held. However, we have also determined that many LEAs 
can collect and report data on the number of days

[[Page 7239]]

missed by each individual student more accurately than they can 
calculate percentages due to the nature of the data collection, and 
thus decline to change the proposed measure at this time. Nonetheless, 
the Department is continuing outreach and analysis to determine the 
most reliable, valid, and least burdensome chronic absenteeism metric 
and may modify the current measure in the future if it determines 
another measure, such as a percentage based measure, is more 
appropriate.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department require LEAs 
to report school-level data by subgroup on the following metrics: (1) 
Graduation and dropout rates; (2) advanced course work participation 
rates; (3) college enrollment rates; (4) discipline incidents; and (5) 
chronic absenteeism rates. This commenter also recommended adding a 
metric for college persistence rates, as well as the number and 
percentage of students participating in advanced course work. Lastly, 
the commenter recommended that the metric for the distribution of 
teachers by performance level on an LEA's teacher evaluation system 
also include the distribution of teachers (1) in their first or second 
year of teaching; (2) for whom there is insufficient data to receive a 
rating within the LEA's teacher evaluation system; and (3) teaching 
outside of their certification area.
    Discussion: We agree that disaggregated reporting of key 
participation, attainment, and outcome measures, along with information 
on the distribution of effective teachers, is a useful and important 
method for identifying disparities in educational opportunities and 
outcomes. However, we decline to require LEAs to report on the measures 
recommended by the commenter due to a combination of (1) concerns over 
the validity and reliability of reporting data on small populations, 
such as subgroups within a school or even a district; (2) the 
availability of data on postsecondary outcomes; and (3) a longstanding 
emphasis on minimizing data collection and reporting burdens on 
schools, LEAs, and SEAs.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department use the 
Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) as the data source for discipline 
incidents rather than EDFacts. The commenter stated that using the CRDC 
data would reveal disparities in discipline rates among students of 
color and students with disabilities compared to their peers and 
provide more actionable data for schools in their school improvement 
efforts.
    Discussion: We recognize the value of the detailed data collected 
and reported via the CRDC, including discipline data. However, because 
the CRDC is collected biannually, using CRDC data instead of EDFacts 
data would support less frequent analysis and use of data by schools 
implementing school improvement models.
    Changes: None.

Requests To Add Additional Models

    Comment: Many commenters submitted substantially similar requests 
to add a new ``community schools'' model to the list of models eligible 
for funding under the SIG program. Commenters generally defined this 
model as the leveraging of community resources to provide culturally 
relevant and rigorous curricula; extended-day instruction; wrap-around 
supports addressing the physical health, mental health, and social and 
emotional needs of students; effective professional development for all 
teachers and staff; positive discipline and social development 
practices; and strong family and community engagement. More than half 
of these commenters also recommended making community schools the only 
turnaround model eligible for SIG funding.
    Discussion: We agree that the community schools concept can be an 
effective strategy for building broad support for comprehensive, 
community-based efforts to turn around low-performing schools. This is 
why, as noted by one commenter, the 2009 SIG requirements included the 
similar ``community-oriented schools'' strategy as a permissible 
element of the transformation model. Another commenter also recognized 
the integration of the community schools strategy into the 
transformation model, observing that the most frequently adopted model 
(the transformation model) is the one that most closely resembles the 
community schools concept. Moreover, we believe that the community 
schools approach is not only fully consistent with the transformation 
model, but also provides a framework for successful implementation of 
other existing SIG models, including the turnaround and restart models, 
as well as the new State-determined model. This is a key reason for the 
new requirement in section I.A.4(a)(8) that SEAs consider the extent to 
which an LEA's application for SIG funds, regardless of the model 
selected, demonstrates how the LEA will meaningfully engage families 
and the community throughout implementation.
    We do not believe, however, that the community schools strategy, by 
itself, would be sufficient to ensure that communities and schools 
undertake the kind of rigorous, transformational changes required to 
break the cycle of failure in our lowest-performing schools and 
maximize the effective use of taxpayer dollars under the SIG program. 
SIG performance data suggest that the schools adopting the most 
rigorous interventions, such as changes in leadership and staffing 
under the turnaround model and new school management under the restart 
model, generate the highest gains in student achievement. For these 
reasons, we decline to make ``community schools'' a new model eligible 
for funding under the SIG program or to make it the sole model eligible 
for new SIG funds.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: One commenter recommended adding a new high school 
intervention model because, in the commenter's words, a high school 
diploma is the gateway to success and the ultimate goal of a K-12 
education. This commenter reasoned that the proposed high school 
intervention model would ensure that high schools implement the 
strategies that are unique to them and necessary to address the 
misalignment between student outcomes and the needs of the twenty-
first-century workforce. The commenter envisioned the high school 
intervention model requiring the alignment of reform between low-
performing high schools and their feeder middle schools. Many of the 
requirements in the commenter's suggested model were similar to those 
in the current and newly proposed SIG models, such as: Job-embedded 
professional development; evaluation and support systems for teachers 
and principals that meet the requirements described in section 
I.A.2(d)(1)(A)(ii); and ILT, among others.
    Discussion: We agree that graduating high school is a key to a 
successful career in the twenty-first century. We believe, however, 
that offering the commenter's proposed model would overlap with 
existing SIG models. In particular, there would be overlap with the 
transformation model, which has many of the same elements as the 
commenter's suggested high school intervention model. If an SEA wanted 
to implement a model based on the commenter's high school intervention 
model, it could do so under the transformation model.
    Changes: None.

[[Page 7240]]

Request To Add New Evidence of ``Strongest Commitment''

    Comment: One commenter recommended revising the evidence of 
strongest commitment requirement in section I.A.4(a) to include a focus 
on school leadership. More specifically, the commenter suggested 
requiring LEAs to describe the steps they will take to review the 
capacity of the school leader, as well as activities designed to build 
capacity, to lead a successful turnaround prior to full implementation 
of the selected intervention model. Another commenter requested 
clarification that the turnaround leader may be someone other than the 
principal.
    Discussion: The requirements regarding school leadership vary among 
the intervention models eligible for funding under the SIG program. The 
turnaround and transformation models require principal replacement in 
recognition of the key role played by principals in leading instruction 
and creating a positive school culture. The restart model relies on 
dramatic changes in school management and leadership by a high-quality 
charter school operator, CMO, or EMO. The new evidence-based model may 
not necessarily involve changes in school leadership. With the limited 
exception of the State-determined model, the emphasis is on identifying 
a new school leader who already has demonstrated capacity to lead a 
school turnaround, and not on building such capacity during the 
planning or pre-implementation phase of a SIG grant. For this reason, 
we decline to make the change to section I.A.4(a) recommended by the 
commenter. We also note that there is nothing in the final requirements 
that prevents someone other than the principal from serving as the 
turnaround leader in a SIG school.
    Changes: None.

Promoting Evidence-Based Strategies

    Comment: One commenter recommended requiring that an SEA give 
priority in making SIG awards to applicants proposing to implement 
strategies proven to be effective. Other commenters recommended that 
the Department require LEAs to demonstrate that their proposed 
strategies are supported by evidence of effectiveness.
    Discussion: We agree that SEAs should take into account the extent 
to which LEA applications for SIG funds include one or more strategies 
supported by evidence of effectiveness. Accordingly, we are revising 
section I.A.4(a) of the final requirements to require SEAs to consider 
such evidence in determining which LEAs have ``the strongest 
commitment'' to the effective use of SIG funds and section II.B to 
allow SEAs to prioritize LEAs that have demonstrated the greatest 
evidence base for their proposed strategies if funding is not 
sufficient to permit awards to all LEAs with approvable applications.
    Changes: We have made three changes in the final requirements to 
address this comment. First, we added in section I.A.4(a)(13) (Evidence 
of strongest commitment) a requirement that the SEA, when considering 
the strength of the LEA's commitment, evaluate the extent to which an 
LEA demonstrates that it will implement, to the extent practicable, one 
or more evidence-based strategies (as defined in this notice). We have 
also added in section II.B.9(b) a requirement that, if an SEA does not 
have sufficient SIG funds to make awards to each LEA with eligible 
schools, the SEA may take into account the extent to which an LEA 
applying for a SIG award demonstrates in its application that it will 
implement one or more evidence-based strategies (as defined in this 
notice). Finally, in section I.A.3 we defined ``evidence-based 
strategy'' to mean a strategy supported by at least ``moderate evidence 
of effectiveness'' as defined in 34 CFR 77.1.

New Specific Improvement Strategies

    Comment: Multiple commenters recommended the use of specific 
improvement strategies as part of the SIG program, including: offering 
a comprehensive summer program to students in the bottom quintile of 
academic performance; promoting the acquisition of 21st century skills; 
partnering with community-based organizations to provide additional 
resources and support, including before- and after-school and summer 
learning programs; aggregating performance data across models to 
support the identification of best practices, as well as the 
calculation of the return on investment for each model; providing 
additional supports to principals; purchasing technology to support a 
blended learning environment; providing job-embedded professional 
development; expanding support for charter schools; allowing magnet 
schools; promoting student health and school climate; strengthening 
current leadership and staff in turnaround schools; district-level 
direction in supporting the implementation of the transformation model; 
expanding the list of partnerships permitted under the transformation 
model to include behavioral and mental health agencies and providers; 
references to high-quality digital content and services and community-
based public media outlets; greater attention to meeting students' 
emotional and behavioral needs; requiring data systems that track a 
broad range of student outcomes; and specific requirements related to a 
comprehensive needs assessment by LEA applicants for SIG funds.
    Discussion: Nearly all of the activities and approaches recommended 
by the commenters are already either required or permitted under one or 
more of the intervention models eligible for funding under the SIG 
program. For example, an LEA could convert a SIG school into a magnet 
school, which may promote college and career readiness as well as more 
diverse and integrated classrooms, while still meeting all other SIG 
model requirements. The Department continues to endeavor to strike the 
right balance between rigor and flexibility in the SIG program, viewing 
each as equally important to the development and implementation of 
successful school turnaround plans. For this reason, we decline to 
reduce State and local discretion by adding specific requirements in 
the areas suggested by the commenters. We intend, however, to issue 
guidance that will assist SEAs and LEAs in better understanding the 
broad spectrum of allowable activities and uses of SIG funds.
    Changes: None.

Impact of Regulatory Changes on Existing Grantees

    Comment: One commenter requested that the Department clarify the 
impact of these requirements on existing grantees, including the use of 
new models.
    Discussion: We intend to clarify the impact of these final 
requirements on existing grantees through new non-regulatory guidance. 
In general, we anticipate that most new requirements, including the 
availability of new intervention models, will apply to new SIG awards 
made by States with FY 2014 SIG funds. Such application of the new 
requirements is consistent with the fact that key changes in this 
notice were required in large part by the Consolidated Appropriations 
Act, 2014. One exception to the general rule that the new requirements 
will apply only to new SIG subgrantees would be that current SIG 
subgrantees may under certain circumstances be able to avail themselves 
of continued implementation and sustainability awards under the 
expanded five-year award period authorized by the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2014,

[[Page 7241]]

and implemented through these final requirements.
    Changes: None.

Excessive Regulation

    Comment: Two commenters expressed general concerns about the 
complexity and potential administrative burden of the proposed 
requirements, stating that they would inhibit locally driven innovation 
and that the Department should regulate only where absolutely 
necessary.
    Discussion: The Secretary agrees with the commenters on the 
importance of ensuring that the Department regulate only where 
necessary, in the least burdensome manner possible, and that special 
care be taken to avoid potential barriers to State and local creativity 
and innovation in the use of SIG funds to turn around the Nation's 
lowest-performing schools. The regulatory action was undertaken only in 
response to new legislation in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 
2014, establishing a number of new requirements for the SIG program. 
After careful review of the new requirements, the Department determined 
that new regulations were required to ensure that the requirements 
would be implemented in the least burdensome and most effective manner 
possible, consistent with congressional intent. We also made other 
minor changes to existing SIG regulations aimed at clarifying State and 
local responsibilities in the administration of the SIG program, while 
also eliminating certain provisions determined to be outdated or 
obsolete. In the case of each new requirement, the Department 
considered whether the desired outcome could be achieved through 
regulation or non-regulatory guidance, choosing to add regulatory 
language only where necessary.
    Changes: None.

Requested Changes to Requirements Outside the Scope of the NPR

    Comments: Several commenters asked the Department to change 
existing requirements that we did not propose to change in the NPR.
    Discussion: These commenters requested that the Department make 
changes to SIG program requirements that were not proposed for change 
in the NPR. However, we stated in the NPR that we were requesting 
comments on the proposed revisions rather than all of the SIG program 
requirements. We therefore will not respond to comments on requirements 
that were unchanged by the NPR, as they are outside the scope of this 
rulemaking.
    Changes: None.

Final Requirements

    The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education 
establishes the following requirements for the SIG program. The 
Assistant Secretary may use these requirements for any year in which 
funds are appropriated for SIG authorized under 1003(g) of the ESEA:

I. SEA Priorities in Awarding School Improvement Grants

    A. Defining key terms. To award School Improvement Grants to its 
LEAs, consistent with section 1003(g)(6) of the ESEA, an SEA must 
select those LEAs with the greatest need for such funds, in accordance 
with the requirements in paragraph I.A.1. From among the LEAs in 
greatest need, the SEA must select, in accordance with paragraph I.A.2, 
those LEAs that demonstrate the strongest commitment to ensuring that 
the funds are used to provide adequate resources to enable the lowest-
achieving schools to improve academic achievement. Key terms are 
defined as follows:
    1. Greatest need. An LEA with the greatest need for a School 
Improvement Grant must have one or more schools in at least one of the 
categories described in section I.A.1(a)-(c), except that an LEA with 
the greatest need for a School Improvement Grant in a State with an 
approved ESEA flexibility request must have one or more schools in at 
least one of the categories described in section I.A.1(d)-(e):
    (a) Tier I schools:
    (1) A Tier I school is a title I school in improvement, corrective 
action, or restructuring that is identified by the SEA under paragraph 
(a)(1) of the definition of ``persistently lowest-achieving schools.''
    (2) At its option, an SEA may also identify as a Tier I school an 
elementary school that is eligible for title I, Part A funds that--
    (A)(i) Has not made adequate yearly progress for at least two 
consecutive years; or
    (ii) Is in the State's lowest quintile of performance based on 
proficiency rates on the State's assessments under section 1111(b)(3) 
of the ESEA in reading/language arts and mathematics combined; and
    (B) Is no higher achieving than the highest-achieving school 
identified by the SEA under paragraph (a)(1)(A) of the definition of 
``persistently lowest-achieving schools.''
    (b) Tier II schools:
    (1) A Tier II school is a secondary school that is eligible for, 
but does not receive, title I, Part A funds and is identified by the 
SEA under paragraph (a)(2) of the definition of ``persistently lowest-
achieving schools.''
    (2) At its option, an SEA may also identify as a Tier II school a 
secondary school that is eligible for title I, Part A funds that--
    (A)(i) Has not made adequate yearly progress for at least two 
consecutive years; or
    (ii) Is in the State's lowest quintile of performance based on 
proficiency rates on the State's assessments under section 1111(b)(3) 
of the ESEA in reading/language arts and mathematics combined; and
    (B)(i) Is no higher achieving than the highest-achieving school 
identified by the SEA under paragraph (a)(2)(A) of the definition of 
``persistently lowest-achieving schools''; or
    (ii) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in 
34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent over a number of years.
    (c) Tier III schools:
    (1) A Tier III school is a title I school in improvement, 
corrective action, or restructuring that is not a Tier I or a Tier II 
school.
    (2) At its option, an SEA may also identify as a Tier III school a 
school that is eligible for title I, Part A funds that--
    (A)(i) Has not made adequate yearly progress for at least two 
years; or
    (ii) Is in the State's lowest quintile of performance based on 
proficiency rates on the State's assessments under section 1111(b)(3) 
of the ESEA in reading/language arts and mathematics combined; and
    (B) Does not meet the requirements to be a Tier I or Tier II 
school.
    (3) An SEA may establish additional criteria to use in setting 
priorities among LEA applications for funding and to encourage LEAs to 
differentiate among Tier III schools in their use of School Improvement 
Grants funds.
    (d) Priority schools: A priority school is a school identified as a 
priority school pursuant to an SEA's approved ESEA flexibility request 
and consistent with the ESEA flexibility definition of ``priority 
school.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ A ``priority school'' is defined as a school that, based on 
the most recent data available, has been identified as among the 
lowest-performing schools in the State. The total number of priority 
schools in a State must be at least five percent of the title I 
schools in the State. A priority school is--
    A school among the lowest five percent of title I schools in the 
State based on the achievement of the ``all students'' group in 
terms of proficiency on the statewide assessments that are part of 
the SEA's differentiated recognition, accountability, and support 
system, combined, and has demonstrated a lack of progress on those 
assessments over a number of years in the ``all students'' group;
    A title I-participating or title I-eligible high school with a 
graduation rate less than 60 percent over a number of years; or
    A Tier I or Tier II school under the SIG program that is using 
SIG funds to implement a school intervention model.

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

[[Page 7242]]

    (e) Focus schools: A focus school is a school identified as a focus 
school pursuant to an SEA's approved ESEA flexibility request and 
consistent with the ESEA flexibility definition of ``focus school.'' 
\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ A ``focus school'' is defined as a title I school in the 
State that, based on the most recent data available, is contributing 
to the achievement gap in the State. The total number of focus 
schools in a State must equal at least 10 percent of the title I 
schools in the State. A focus school is--
    A school that has the largest within-school gaps between the 
highest-achieving subgroup or subgroups and the lowest-achieving 
subgroup or subgroups or, at the high school level, has the largest 
within-school gaps in graduation rates; or
    A school that has a subgroup or subgroups with low achievement 
or, at the high school level, low graduation rates.
    An SEA must also identify as a focus school a title I high 
school with a graduation rate less than 60 percent over a number of 
years that is not identified as a priority school.
    These determinations must be based on the achievement and lack 
of progress over a number of years of one or more subgroups of 
students identified under ESEA section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) in terms 
of proficiency on the statewide assessments that are part of the 
SEA's differentiated recognition, accountability, and support 
system, combined, or, at the high school level, graduation rates for 
one or more subgroups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    2. Strongest commitment. An LEA with the strongest commitment is an 
LEA that agrees to implement, and demonstrates the capacity to 
implement fully and effectively, one of the following rigorous 
interventions in each Tier I and Tier II school or, for an SEA with an 
approved ESEA flexibility request, each priority and focus school, that 
the LEA commits to serve:
    (a) Turnaround model:
    (1) A turnaround model is one in which an LEA must implement each 
of the following elements:
    (A) Replace the principal and grant the principal sufficient 
operational flexibility (including in staffing, calendars/time, and 
budgeting) to implement fully each element of the turnaround model.
    (B) Using locally adopted competencies to measure the effectiveness 
of staff who can work within the turnaround environment to meet the 
needs of students--
    (i) Screen all existing staff and rehire no more than 50 percent; 
and
    (ii) Select new staff.
    (C) Implement such strategies as financial incentives, increased 
opportunities for promotion and career growth, and more flexible work 
conditions that are designed to recruit, place, and retain staff with 
the skills necessary to meet the needs of the students in the 
turnaround school.
    (D) Provide staff ongoing, high-quality, job-embedded professional 
development that is aligned with the school's comprehensive 
instructional program and designed with school staff to ensure that 
they are equipped to facilitate effective teaching and learning and 
have the capacity to successfully implement school reform strategies.
    (E) Adopt a new governance structure, which may include, but is not 
limited to, requiring the school to report to a new ``turnaround 
office'' in the LEA or SEA, hire a ``turnaround leader'' who reports 
directly to the Superintendent or Chief Academic Officer, or enter into 
a multi-year contract with the LEA or SEA to obtain added flexibility 
in exchange for greater accountability.
    (F) Use data to identify and implement an instructional program 
that is research-based and vertically aligned from one grade to the 
next as well as aligned with State academic standards.
    (G) Promote the continuous use of student data (such as from 
formative, interim, and summative assessments) to inform and 
differentiate instruction in order to meet the academic needs of 
individual students.
    (H) Establish schedules and implement strategies that provide 
increased learning time (as defined in these requirements).
    (I) Provide appropriate social-emotional and community-oriented 
services and supports for students.
    (2) A turnaround model may also implement other strategies such 
as--
    (A) Any of the required and permissible activities under the 
transformation model; or
    (B) A new school model (e.g., themed, dual language academy).
    (b) Restart model:
    (1) A restart model is one in which an LEA converts a school or 
closes and reopens a school under a charter school operator, a charter 
management organization (CMO), or an education management organization 
(EMO) that has been selected through a rigorous review process. (A CMO 
is a non-profit organization that operates or manages charter schools 
by centralizing or sharing certain functions and resources among 
schools. An EMO is a for-profit or non-profit organization that 
provides ``whole-school operation'' services to an LEA.) The rigorous 
review process must include a determination by the LEA that the 
selected charter school operator, CMO, or EMO is likely to produce 
strong results for the school. In making this determination, the LEA 
must consider the extent to which the schools currently operated or 
managed by the selected charter school operator, CMO, or EMO, if any, 
have produced strong results over the past three years (or over the 
life of the school, if the school has been open for fewer than three 
years), including--
    (A) Significant improvement in academic achievement for all of the 
groups of students described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the ESEA;
    (B) Success in closing achievement gaps, either within schools or 
relative to all public elementary school and secondary school students 
statewide, for all of the groups of students described in section 
1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA;
    (C) High school graduation rates, where applicable, that are above 
the average rates in the State for the groups of students described in 
section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the ESEA; and
    (D) No significant compliance issues, including in the areas of 
civil rights, financial management, and student safety;
    (2) A restart model must enroll, within the grades it serves, any 
former student who wishes to attend the school.
    (c) School closure: School closure occurs when an LEA closes a 
school and enrolls the students who attended that school in other 
schools in the LEA that are higher achieving. These other schools 
should be within reasonable proximity to the closed school and may 
include, but are not limited to, charter schools or new schools for 
which achievement data are not yet available.
    (d) Transformation model: A transformation model is one in which an 
LEA implements each of the following elements:
    (1) Developing and increasing teacher and school leader 
effectiveness.
    (A) Required activities. The LEA must--
    (i) Replace the principal who led the school prior to commencement 
of the transformation model;
    (ii) Implement rigorous, transparent, and equitable evaluation and 
support systems for teachers and principals, designed and developed 
with teacher and principal involvement, that--
    (1) Will be used for continual improvement of instruction;
    (2) Meaningfully differentiate performance using at least three 
performance levels;
    (3) Use multiple valid measures in determining performance levels, 
including as a significant factor data on student growth (as defined in 
these requirements) for all students (including English learners and 
students with disabilities), and other measures of professional 
practice (which may be gathered through multiple formats and sources), 
such as observations based on rigorous teacher performance standards,

[[Page 7243]]

teacher portfolios, and student and parent surveys;
    (4) Evaluate teachers and principals on a regular basis;
    (5) Provide clear, timely, and useful feedback, including feedback 
that identifies needs and guides professional development; and
    (6) Will be used to inform personnel decisions.
    (iii) Use the teacher and principal evaluation and support system 
described in section I.A.2(d)(1)(A)(ii) of these requirements to 
identify and reward school leaders, teachers, and other staff who, in 
implementing this model, have increased student achievement and high 
school graduation rates and identify and remove those who, after ample 
opportunities have been provided for them to improve their professional 
practice, have not done so; and
    (iv) Implement such strategies as financial incentives, increased 
opportunities for promotion and career growth, and more flexible work 
conditions that are designed to recruit, place, and retain staff with 
the skills necessary to meet the needs of students in the school, 
taking into consideration the results from the teacher and principal 
evaluation and support system described in section I.A.2(d)(1)(A)(ii) 
of these requirements, if applicable.
    (B) Permissible activities. An LEA may also implement other 
strategies to develop teachers' and school leaders' effectiveness, such 
as--
    (i) Providing additional compensation to attract and retain staff 
with the skills necessary to meet the needs of the students in a 
transformation school;
    (ii) Instituting a system for measuring changes in instructional 
practices resulting from professional development; or
    (iii) Ensuring that the school is not required to accept a teacher 
without the mutual consent of the teacher and principal, regardless of 
the teacher's seniority.
    (2) Comprehensive instructional reform strategies.
    (A) Required activities. The LEA must--
    (i) Use data to identify and implement an instructional program 
that is research-based and vertically aligned from one grade to the 
next as well as aligned with State academic standards;
    (ii) Promote the continuous use of student data (such as from 
formative, interim, and summative assessments) to inform and 
differentiate instruction in order to meet the academic needs of 
individual students; and
    (iii) Provide staff ongoing, high-quality, job-embedded 
professional development (e.g., regarding subject-specific pedagogy, 
instruction that reflects a deeper understanding of the community 
served by the school, or differentiated instruction) that is aligned 
with the school's comprehensive instructional program and designed with 
school staff to ensure they are equipped to facilitate effective 
teaching and learning and have the capacity to implement successfully 
school reform strategies.
    (B) Permissible activities. An LEA may also implement comprehensive 
instructional reform strategies, such as--
    (i) Conducting periodic reviews to ensure that the instruction is 
implemented with fidelity to the selected curriculum, is having the 
intended impact on student achievement, and is modified if ineffective;
    (ii) Implementing a schoolwide ``response-to-intervention'' model;
    (iii) Providing additional supports and professional development to 
teachers and principals in order to implement effective strategies to 
support students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment 
and to ensure that English learners acquire language skills to master 
academic content;
    (iv) Using and integrating technology-based supports and 
interventions as part of the instructional program; and
    (v) In secondary schools--
    (1) Increasing rigor by offering opportunities for students to 
enroll in advanced coursework (such as Advanced Placement; 
International Baccalaureate; or science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics courses, especially those that incorporate rigorous and 
relevant project-, inquiry-, or design-based contextual learning 
opportunities), early-college high schools, dual enrollment programs, 
or thematic learning academies that prepare students for college and 
careers, including by providing appropriate supports designed to ensure 
that low-achieving students can take advantage of these programs and 
coursework;
    (2) Improving student transition from middle to high school through 
summer transition programs or freshman academies;
    (3) Increasing graduation rates through, for example, credit-
recovery programs, re-engagement strategies, smaller learning 
communities, competency-based instruction and performance-based 
assessments, and acceleration of basic reading and mathematics skills; 
or
    (4) Establishing early-warning systems to identify students who may 
be at risk of failing to achieve to high standards or graduate.
    (3) Increasing learning time and creating community-oriented 
schools.
    (A) Required activities. The LEA must--
    (i) Establish schedules and strategies that provide increased 
learning time (as defined in these requirements); and
    (ii) Provide ongoing mechanisms for family and community 
engagement.
    (B) Permissible activities. An LEA may also implement other 
strategies that extend learning time and create community-oriented 
schools, such as--
    (i) Partnering with parents and parent organizations, faith- and 
community-based organizations, health clinics, other State or local 
agencies, and others to create safe school environments that meet 
students' social, emotional, and health needs;
    (ii) Extending or restructuring the school day so as to add time 
for such strategies as advisory periods that build relationships 
between students, faculty, and other school staff;
    (iii) Implementing approaches to improve school climate and 
discipline, such as implementing a system of positive behavioral 
supports or taking steps to eliminate bullying and student harassment; 
or
    (iv) Expanding the school program to offer full-day kindergarten or 
pre-kindergarten.
    (4) Providing operational flexibility and sustained support.
    (A) Required activities. The LEA must--
    (i) Give the school sufficient operational flexibility (such as 
staffing, calendars/time, and budgeting) to implement fully each 
element of the transformation model to substantially improve student 
achievement outcomes and increase high school graduation rates; and
    (ii) Ensure that the school receives ongoing, intensive technical 
assistance and related support from the LEA, the SEA, or a designated 
external lead partner organization (such as a school turnaround 
organization or an EMO).
    (B) Permissible activities. The LEA may also implement other 
strategies for providing operational flexibility and intensive support, 
such as--
    (i) Allowing the school to be run under a new governance 
arrangement, such as a turnaround division within the LEA or SEA; or
    (ii) Implementing a per-pupil, school-based budget formula that is 
weighted based on student needs.
    (e) Evidence-based, whole-school reform model: An evidence-based, 
whole-school reform model--

[[Page 7244]]

    (1) Is supported by evidence of effectiveness, which must include 
at least one study of the model that--
    (A) Meets What Works Clearinghouse evidence standards with or 
without reservations; \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook 
(Version 3.0), which can currently be found at the following link: 
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_resources/wwc_procedures_v3_0_standards_handbook.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    (B) Found a statistically significant favorable impact on a student 
academic achievement or attainment outcome, with no statistically 
significant and overriding 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 What Works 
Clearinghouse; and
    (C) If meeting What Works Clearinghouse evidence standards with 
reservations, includes a large sample and a multi-site sample as 
defined in 34 CFR 77.1 (Note: multiple studies can cumulatively meet 
the large and multi-site sample requirements so long as each study 
meets the other requirements in this section);
    (2) Is a whole-school reform model as defined in these 
requirements; and
    (3) Is implemented by the LEA in partnership with a whole-school 
reform model developer as defined in these requirements.
    (f) Early learning model: An LEA implementing the early learning 
model in an elementary school must--
    (1) Implement each of the following early learning strategies--
    (A) Offer full-day kindergarten;
    (B) Establish or expand a high-quality preschool program (as 
defined in these requirements);
    (2) Provide educators, including preschool teachers, with time for 
joint planning across grades to facilitate effective teaching and 
learning and positive teacher-student interactions;
    (3) Replace the principal who led the school prior to commencement 
of the early learning model;
    (4) Implement rigorous, transparent, and equitable evaluation and 
support systems for teachers and principals, designed and developed 
with teacher and principal involvement, that meet the requirements 
described in section I.A.2(d)(1)(A)(ii);
    (5) Use the teacher and principal evaluation and support system 
described in section I.A.2(d)(1)(A)(ii) of these requirements to 
identify and reward school leaders, teachers, and other staff who, in 
implementing this model, have increased student achievement and 
identify and remove those who, after ample opportunities have been 
provided for them to improve their professional practice, have not done 
so;
    (6) Implement such strategies as financial incentives, increased 
opportunities for promotion and career growth, and more flexible work 
conditions that are designed to recruit, place, and retain staff with 
the skills necessary to meet the needs of students in the school, 
taking into consideration the results from the teacher and principal 
evaluation and support system described in section I.A.2(d)(1)(A)(ii) 
of these requirements, if applicable;
    (7) Use data to identify and implement an instructional program 
that--
    (A) Is research-based, developmentally appropriate, and vertically 
aligned from one grade to the next as well as aligned with State early 
learning and development standards and State academic standards; and
    (B) In the early grades, promotes the full range of academic 
content across domains of development, including math and science, 
language and literacy, socio-emotional skills, self-regulation, and 
executive functions;
    (8) Promote the continuous use of student data (such as from 
formative, interim, and summative assessments) to inform and 
differentiate instruction in order to meet the educational and 
developmental needs of individual students; and
    (9) Provide staff ongoing, high-quality, job-embedded professional 
development such as coaching and mentoring (e.g., regarding subject-
specific pedagogy, instruction that reflects a deeper understanding of 
the community served by the school, or differentiated instruction) that 
is aligned with the school's comprehensive instructional program and 
designed with school staff to ensure they are equipped to facilitate 
effective teaching and learning and have the capacity to implement 
successfully school reform strategies.
    (g) Approved State-determined model: An LEA may implement an 
intervention developed or adopted by its SEA that has been approved by 
the Secretary, consistent with section II.B.1(b).
    3. Definitions.
    Evidence-based strategy means a strategy supported by at least 
moderate evidence of effectiveness as defined in 34 CFR 77.1.
    High-quality preschool program means an early learning program that 
includes structural elements that are evidence-based and nationally 
recognized as important for ensuring program quality, including at a 
minimum--
    (a) High staff qualifications, including a teacher with a 
bachelor's degree in early childhood education or a bachelor's degree 
in any field with a State-approved alternate pathway, which may include 
coursework, clinical practice, and evidence of knowledge of content and 
pedagogy relating to early childhood, and teaching assistants with 
appropriate credentials;
    (b) High-quality professional development for all staff;
    (c) A child-to-instructional staff ratio of no more than 10 to 1;
    (d) A class size of no more than 20 with, at a minimum, one teacher 
with high staff qualifications as outlined in paragraph (a) of this 
definition;
    (e) A full-day program;
    (f) Inclusion of children with disabilities to ensure access to and 
full participation in all opportunities;
    (g) Developmentally appropriate, culturally and linguistically 
responsive instruction and evidence-based curricula, and learning 
environments that are aligned with the State early learning and 
development standards, for at least the year prior to kindergarten 
entry;
    (h) Individualized accommodations and supports so that all children 
can access and participate fully in learning activities;
    (i) Instructional staff salaries that are comparable to the 
salaries of local K-12 instructional staff;
    (j) Program evaluation to ensure continuous improvement;
    (k) On-site or accessible comprehensive services for children and 
community partnerships that promote families' access to services that 
support their children's learning and development; and
    (l) Evidence-based health and safety standards.
    Increased learning time means using a longer school day, week, or 
year schedule to significantly increase the total number of school 
hours to include additional time for--
    (a) Instruction in one or more core academic subjects, including 
English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign 
languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and 
geography;
    (b) Instruction in other subjects and enrichment activities that 
contribute to a well-rounded education, including, for example, 
physical education, service learning, and experiential and work-based 
learning opportunities that are provided by partnering, as appropriate, 
with other organizations; and

[[Page 7245]]

    (c) Teachers to collaborate, plan, and engage in professional 
development within and across grades and subjects.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ Evidence from the field shows that increasing learning time 
in a strategic, high-quality manner is often a key element of 
successful school turnaround. See ``The Case for Improving and 
Expanding Time in School: A Review of Key Research and Practice, 
available at www.timeandlearning.org/files/CaseforMoreTime_1.pdf.'' 
National Center on Time and Learning, April 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Persistently lowest-achieving schools means, as determined by the 
State--
    (a)(1) Any title I school in improvement, corrective action, or 
restructuring that--
    (A) Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of title I schools 
in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring or the lowest-
achieving five title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or 
restructuring in the State, whichever number of schools is greater; or
    (B) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in 
34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent over a number of years; 
and
    (2) Any secondary school that is eligible for, but does not 
receive, title I funds that--
    (A) Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of secondary schools 
or the lowest-achieving five secondary schools in the State that are 
eligible for, but do not receive, title I funds, whichever number of 
schools is greater; or
    (B) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in 
34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent over a number of years.
    (b) To identify the lowest-achieving schools, a State must take 
into account both--
    (1) The academic achievement of the ``all students'' group in a 
school in terms of proficiency on the State's assessments under section 
1111(b)(3) of the ESEA in reading/language arts and mathematics 
combined; and
    (2) The school's lack of progress on those assessments over a 
number of years for the ``all students'' group.
    Student growth means the change in student achievement for an 
individual student between two or more points in time. For the purpose 
of this definition, student achievement means--
    (a) For grades and subjects in which assessments are required under 
section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA, a student's score on such assessments 
and may include other measures of student learning, such as those 
described in paragraph (b) of this definition, provided they are 
rigorous and comparable across schools within an LEA.
    (b) For grades and subjects in which assessments are not required 
under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA, alternative measures of student 
learning and performance, such as student results on pre-tests, end-of-
course tests, and objective performance-based assessments; student 
learning objectives; student performance on English language 
proficiency assessments; and other measures of student achievement that 
are rigorous and comparable across schools within an LEA.
    Whole-school reform model means a model that is designed to--
    (a) Improve student academic achievement or attainment;
    (b) Be implemented for all students in a school; and
    (c) Address, at a minimum and in a comprehensive and coordinated 
manner, each of the following:
    (1) School leadership.
    (2) Teaching and learning in at least one full academic content 
area (including professional learning for educators).
    (3) Student non-academic support.
    (4) Family and community engagement.
    Whole-school reform model developer means an entity or individual 
that--
    (a) Maintains proprietary rights for the model; or
    (b) If no entity or individual maintains proprietary rights for the 
model, has a demonstrated record of success in implementing a whole-
school reform model (as defined in these requirements) and is selected 
through a rigorous review process that includes a determination that 
the entity or individual is likely to produce strong results for the 
school.
    4. Evidence of strongest commitment.
    (a) In determining the strength of an LEA's commitment to ensuring 
that School Improvement Grants funds are used to provide adequate 
resources to enable Tier I, Tier II, priority, and focus schools to 
improve student achievement substantially, an SEA must consider, at a 
minimum, the extent to which the LEA's application demonstrates that 
the LEA has taken, or will take, action to--
    (1) In selecting the intervention for each eligible school--
    (A) Ensure that the selected intervention is designed to meet the 
specific needs of the school, based on a needs analysis that, among 
other things, analyzes the needs identified by families and the 
community; and
    (B) Take into consideration family and community input.
    (2) Design and implement interventions consistent with these 
requirements;
    (3) Use the School Improvement Grants funds to provide adequate 
resources and related support to each school it commits to serve in 
order to implement fully and effectively the selected intervention on 
the first day of the first school year of full implementation;
    (4) Recruit, screen, and select external providers, if applicable, 
to ensure their quality, and regularly review and hold accountable such 
providers for their performance;
    (5) Align other resources with the selected intervention;
    (6) Modify its practices or policies, if necessary, to enable it to 
implement the selected intervention fully and effectively;
    (7) Provide effective oversight and support for implementation of 
the selected intervention for each school it proposes to serve, such as 
by creating an LEA turnaround office;
    (8) Meaningfully engage families and the community in the 
implementation of the selected intervention on an ongoing basis;
    (9) For an LEA eligible for services under subpart 1 or 2 of part B 
of title VI of the ESEA that chooses to modify one element of the 
turnaround or transformation model under section I.B.6 of these 
requirements, meet the intent and purpose of that element;
    (10) For an LEA that applies to implement an evidence-based, whole-
school reform model in one or more eligible schools--
    (A) Implement a model with evidence of effectiveness that includes 
a sample population or setting similar to the population or setting of 
the school to be served; and
    (B) Partner with a whole-school reform model developer, as defined 
in these requirements;
    (11) For an LEA that applies to implement the restart model in one 
or more eligible schools, conduct a rigorous review process, as 
described in section I.A.2(b), of the charter school operator, CMO, or 
EMO that it has selected to operate or manage the school or schools;
    (12) Sustain the reforms after the funding period ends; and
    (13) Implement, to the extent practicable, in accordance with its 
selected SIG intervention model, one or more evidence-based strategies 
(as defined in this notice).
    (b) The SEA must consider the LEA's capacity to implement the 
interventions and may approve the LEA to serve only those Tier I, Tier 
II, priority, and focus schools for which the SEA determines that the 
LEA can implement fully and effectively one of the interventions.
    B. Providing flexibility.

[[Page 7246]]

    1. An SEA may award School Improvement Grants funds to an LEA for a 
Tier I, Tier II, priority, or focus school that has implemented, in 
whole or in part, an intervention that meets the requirements under 
section I.A.2(a), 2(b), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), or 2(g) of these requirements 
during the school year in which the LEA applies for School Improvement 
Grants funds or during the two school years prior to the school year in 
which the LEA applies for School Improvement Grants funds, so that the 
LEA and school can continue or complete the intervention being 
implemented in that school.
    2. An SEA may seek a waiver from the Secretary of the requirements 
in section 1116(b) of the ESEA in order to permit a Tier I or Tier II 
title I participating school implementing an intervention that meets 
the requirements under section I.A.2(a), 2(b), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), or 
2(g) of these requirements in an LEA that receives a School Improvement 
Grant to ``start over'' in the school improvement timeline. Even though 
a school implementing the waiver would no longer be in improvement, 
corrective action, or restructuring, it may receive School Improvement 
Grants funds.
    3. An SEA may seek a waiver from the Secretary to enable a Tier I 
or Tier II title I participating school that is ineligible to operate a 
title I schoolwide program and is operating a title I targeted 
assistance program to operate a schoolwide program in order to 
implement an intervention that meets the requirements under section 
I.A.2(a), 2(b), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), or 2(g) of these requirements.
    4. An SEA may seek a waiver from the Secretary to extend the period 
of availability of School Improvement Grants funds so as to make those 
funds available to the SEA and its LEAs for up to five years.
    5. If an SEA does not seek a waiver under section I.B.2, 3, or 4, 
an LEA may seek a waiver.
    6. An LEA eligible for services under subpart 1 or 2 of part B of 
title VI of the ESEA may modify one element of the turnaround or 
transformation model so long as the modification meets the intent and 
purpose of the original element, in accordance with section I.A.4(a)(9) 
of these requirements.

II. Awarding School Improvement Grants to LEAs

    A. LEA requirements.
    1. An LEA may apply for a School Improvement Grant if it receives 
title I, Part A funds and has one or more schools that qualify under 
the State's definition of a ``Tier I,'' ``Tier II,'' ``Tier III,'' 
``priority,'' or ``focus'' school.
    2. In its application, in addition to other information that the 
SEA may require, the LEA must--
    (a) Identify the schools it commits to serve;
    (b) Identify the intervention it will implement in each Tier I, 
Tier II, priority, and focus school it commits to serve;
    (c) Provide evidence of its strong commitment to use School 
Improvement Grants funds to implement the selected intervention by 
addressing the factors in section I.A.4(a) of these requirements;
    (d) Include a timeline delineating the steps the LEA will take to 
implement the selected intervention in each school identified in the 
LEA's application; and
    (e) Include a budget indicating how it will allocate School 
Improvement Grants funds among the schools it commits to serve that is 
of sufficient size and scope and that:
    (1) For each Tier I, Tier II, priority, and focus school the LEA 
commits to serve, ensures that the LEA can implement one of the 
interventions identified in sections I.A.2(a)-(b) or sections I.A.2(d)-
(g) of these requirements for a minimum of three years and no more than 
five years; and
    (2) For each Tier III school the LEA commits to serve, includes the 
services it will provide the school, particularly if the school meets 
additional criteria established by the SEA, for a minimum of three 
years and no more than five years.
    3. An LEA that intends to use the first year of its School 
Improvement Grants award for planning and other pre-implementation 
activities for an eligible school must include in its application to 
the SEA a description of the activities, the timeline for implementing 
those activities, and a description of how those activities will lead 
to successful implementation of the selected intervention.
    4. The LEA must serve:
    (a) In an SEA with an approved ESEA flexibility request, each 
priority school unless the LEA demonstrates that it lacks sufficient 
capacity to undertake one of the interventions described in section 
I.A.2 of these requirements in each priority school, in which case the 
LEA must indicate the priority schools that it can effectively serve. 
An LEA may not serve with School Improvement Grants funds awarded under 
section 1003(g) of the ESEA a priority or focus school in which it does 
not implement one of the interventions identified in section I.A.2 of 
these requirements.
    (b) In all other SEAs, each Tier I school unless the LEA 
demonstrates that it lacks sufficient capacity (which may be due, in 
part, to serving Tier II schools) to undertake one of the interventions 
described in section I.A.2 of these requirements in each Tier I school, 
in which case the LEA must indicate the Tier I schools that it can 
effectively serve. An LEA may not serve with School Improvement Grants 
funds awarded under section 1003(g) of the ESEA a Tier I or Tier II 
school in which it does not implement one of the interventions 
identified in section I.A.2 of these requirements.
    5. An LEA that commits to serve schools that do not receive title 
I, Part A funds must ensure that each such school it serves receives 
all of the State and local funds it would have received in the absence 
of the School Improvement Grants funds.
    6. An LEA in which one or more Tier I schools are located and that 
does not apply to serve at least one of these schools may not apply for 
a grant to serve only Tier III schools.
    7. An LEA in which one or more priority schools are located and 
that does not apply to serve all of these schools may not apply for a 
grant to serve one or more focus schools.
    8. (a) To monitor each Tier I, Tier II, priority, and focus school 
that receives School Improvement Grants funds, an LEA must--
    (1) Establish annual goals for student achievement on the State's 
assessments in both reading/language arts and mathematics; and
    (2) Measure progress on the leading indicators in section III of 
these requirements.
    (b) The LEA must also meet the requirements with respect to 
adequate yearly progress in section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA, if 
applicable.
    9. An LEA must hold the charter school operator, CMO, EMO, or other 
external provider accountable for meeting these requirements, if 
applicable.
    B. SEA requirements.
    1. (a) To receive a School Improvement Grant, an SEA must submit an 
application to the Department at such time, and containing such 
information, as the Secretary shall reasonably require.
    (b) In its application to the Department, each SEA may submit one 
State-determined intervention model for the Secretary's review and 
approval. To be approved, a State-determined model must be a whole-
school reform model as defined in these requirements and, at the SEA's 
discretion, may also include any other elements or strategies that the 
SEA determines will help improve student achievement.

[[Page 7247]]

    2. (a) An SEA must review and approve, consistent with these 
requirements, an application for a School Improvement Grant that it 
receives from an LEA.
    (b) Before approving an LEA's application, the SEA must ensure that 
the application meets these requirements, particularly with respect 
to--
    (1) Whether the LEA has agreed to implement one of the 
interventions identified in section I.A.2 of these requirements in each 
Tier I and Tier II school or, for an SEA with an approved ESEA 
flexibility request, each priority and focus school included in its 
application;
    (2) The extent to which the LEA's application demonstrates the 
LEA's strong commitment to use School Improvement Grants funds to 
implement the selected intervention by addressing the factors in 
section I.A.4 of these requirements;
    (3) Whether the LEA has the capacity to implement the selected 
intervention fully and effectively in each school identified in its 
application; and
    (4) Whether the LEA has submitted a budget that includes sufficient 
funds to implement the selected intervention fully and effectively in 
each school it identifies in its application.
    3. An SEA may, consistent with State law, take over an LEA or 
specific Tier I, Tier II, priority, or focus schools in order to 
implement the interventions in these requirements.
    4. An SEA may not require an LEA to implement a particular 
intervention in one or more schools unless the SEA has taken over the 
LEA or school.
    5. To the extent that a school implementing a restart model becomes 
a charter school LEA, an SEA must hold the charter school LEA 
accountable, or ensure that the charter school authorizer holds it 
accountable, for complying with these requirements.
    6. An SEA must post on its Web site, within 30 days of awarding 
School Improvement Grants to LEAs and within 30 days of approving any 
amendments to LEA applications, all approved LEA applications 
(including applications to serve Tier I, Tier II, Tier III, priority, 
and focus schools and approved amendments) as well as a summary of 
those grants that includes the following information:
    (a) Name and National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 
identification number of each LEA awarded a grant.
    (b) Amount of each LEA's grant.
    (c) Name and NCES identification number of each school to be 
served.
    (d) Type of intervention to be implemented in each Tier I, Tier II, 
priority, and focus school.
    7. If an SEA does not have sufficient School Improvement Grants 
funds to award, for at least three years, a grant to each LEA that 
submits an approvable application, the SEA must give priority to LEAs 
to serve Tier I or Tier II schools or, for an SEA with an approved ESEA 
flexibility request, the SEA must give priority to LEAs to serve 
priority schools.
    8. An SEA must award a School Improvement Grant to an LEA in an 
amount that is of sufficient size and scope to support the activities 
required under section 1116 of the ESEA and these requirements. The 
LEA's total grant may not be less than $50,000 for each school it 
commits to serve and, for each school in which the LEA commits to fully 
implement an intervention that meets the requirements under section 
I.A.2(a), 2(b), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), or 2(g) of these requirements, may be 
up to $2,000,000 per year.
    9. If an SEA does not have sufficient School Improvement Grants 
funds to allocate to each LEA with a Tier I or Tier II school or, in an 
SEA with an approved ESEA flexibility request, to each LEA with a 
priority or focus school, an amount sufficient to enable the school to 
implement fully and effectively the specified intervention throughout 
the period of availability, including any extension afforded through a 
waiver, the SEA may take into account--
    (a) the distribution of Tier I, Tier II, priority, and focus 
schools among such LEAs in the State to ensure that Tier I and Tier II 
schools or, in an SEA with an approved ESEA flexibility request, 
priority and focus schools throughout the State can be served and
    (b) the extent to which an LEA applying for a SIG award 
demonstrates in its application that it will implement one or more 
evidence-based strategies (as defined in this notice) as part of the 
SIG intervention model it implements in a school.
    10. In identifying Tier I, Tier II, priority, and focus schools in 
a State for purposes of allocating funds appropriated for School 
Improvement Grants under section 1003(g) of the ESEA, an SEA must 
exclude from consideration any school that was previously identified as 
a Tier I, Tier II, priority, or focus school and in which an LEA is 
implementing one of the interventions identified in these requirements 
using funds made available under section 1003(g) of the ESEA.
    11. Before submitting its application for a School Improvement 
Grant to the Department, the SEA must consult with its Committee of 
Practitioners established under section 1903(b) of the ESEA regarding 
the rules and policies contained therein and may consult with other 
stakeholders that have an interest in its application.
    C. Renewal for additional one-year periods.
    1. An SEA must renew the School Improvement Grant for each affected 
LEA for additional one-year periods, subject to sections II.C.4-C.6 of 
these requirements, if the LEA demonstrates that its Tier I, Tier II, 
priority, and focus schools are meeting the annual goals for student 
achievement established by the LEA consistent with section II.A.8 of 
these requirements, and that its Tier III schools are meeting the goals 
established by the LEA and approved by the SEA.
    2. An SEA may renew an LEA's School Improvement Grant with respect 
to a particular school, subject to the requirements in sections II.C.4-
C.6, if the SEA determines that, with respect to that school--
    (a) The school is making progress toward meeting the annual goals 
for student achievement established by the LEA consistent with section 
II.A.8 of these requirements;
    (b) The school is making progress on the leading indicators in 
section III of these requirements;
    (c) The LEA is implementing interventions in the school with 
fidelity to applicable requirements and to the LEA's application; or
    (d) The LEA's Tier III school is making progress toward the goals 
established by the LEA.
    3. If an SEA does not renew an LEA's School Improvement Grant with 
respect to a particular school, the SEA may reallocate those funds to 
other eligible LEAs, consistent with these requirements.
    4. An SEA, prior to renewing the School Improvement Grant of an LEA 
that received funds for a full year of planning and other pre-
implementation activities for a particular school, must review the 
performance of the LEA in that school during the planning year against 
the LEA's approved application and determine that the LEA will be able 
to fully implement its chosen intervention for the school on the first 
day of the following school year.
    5. An SEA may renew an LEA's School Improvement Grant for a 
particular school, after three years of continuous intervention 
implementation in that school, after the SEA has determined that such 
renewal

[[Page 7248]]

is appropriate pursuant to the criteria in sections II.C.1-C.2 of these 
requirements, for up to an additional two years for continued full 
implementation of the intervention or for activities related to 
sustaining reforms in the school. An SEA may not renew an LEA's School 
Improvement Grant if doing so would result in more than five years of 
continuous School Improvement Grants funding with respect to a 
particular school.
    6. Nothing in these requirements diminishes an SEA's authority to 
take appropriate enforcement action with respect to an LEA that is not 
complying with the terms of its grant.
    D. State reservation for administration, evaluation, and technical 
assistance.
    An SEA may reserve from the School Improvement Grants funds it 
receives under section 1003(g) of the ESEA in any given year no more 
than five percent for administration, evaluation, and technical 
assistance expenses. An SEA must describe in its application for a 
School Improvement Grant how the SEA will use these funds.

III. Reporting and Evaluation

    A. Reporting metrics.
    To inform and evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions 
identified in these requirements, the Secretary will collect data on 
the metrics in the following chart. Accordingly, an SEA must report 
only the following new data with respect to School Improvement Grants:
    1. A list of the LEAs, including their NCES identification numbers, 
that received a School Improvement Grant under section 1003(g) of the 
ESEA and the amount of the grant.
    2. For each LEA that received a School Improvement Grant, a list of 
the schools that were served, their NCES identification numbers, and 
the amount of funds or value of services each school received.
    3. For any Tier I, Tier II, priority, or focus school, school-level 
data on the metrics designated on the following chart as ``SIG'' 
(School Improvement Grants):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Achievement        Leading
                    Metric                                  Source                 indicators       indicators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   SCHOOL DATA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which intervention the school used (e.g.,       SIG...........................
 turnaround, restart, evidence-based, whole-
 school reform model).
Number of schools in rural LEAs implementing    SIG...........................
 an intervention model with a modified element
 pursuant to section I.B.6 of these
 requirements.
Which intervention the school in a rural LEA    SIG...........................
 implementing an intervention model with a
 modified element pursuant to section I.B.6 of
 these requirements used.
AYP status....................................  EDFacts.......................         [check]
Which AYP targets the school met and missed...  EDFacts.......................         [check]
School improvement status.....................  EDFacts.......................         [check]
Number of minutes within the school year......  SIG...........................  ...............         [check]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     STUDENT OUTCOME/ACADEMIC PROGRESS DATA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of students at or above each         EDFacts.......................         [check]
 proficiency level on State assessments in
 reading/language arts and mathematics (e.g.,
 Basic, Proficient, Advanced), by grade and by
 student subgroup.
Student participation rate on State             EDFacts.......................  ...............         [check]
 assessments in reading/language arts and in
 mathematics, by student subgroup.
Average scale scores on State assessments in    SIG...........................         [check]
 reading/language arts and in mathematics, by
 grade, for the ``all students'' group, for
 each achievement quartile, and for each
 subgroup.
Percentage of limited English proficient        SIG...........................         [check]
 students who attain English language
 proficiency.
Graduation rate...............................  EDFacts.......................         [check]
Dropout rate..................................  EDFacts.......................  ...............         [check]
Student attendance rate.......................  SIG...........................  ...............         [check]
Number and percentage of students completing    SIG...........................  ...............         [check]
 advanced coursework (e.g., AP/IB), early-      HS only.......................
 college high schools, or dual enrollment
 classes.
College enrollment rates......................  EDFacts.......................         [check]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      STUDENT CONNECTION AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discipline incidents..........................  EDFacts.......................  ...............         [check]
Chronic absenteeism rates.....................  CRDC..........................  ...............         [check]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     TALENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of teachers by performance level   SIG...........................  ...............         [check]
 on LEA's teacher evaluation system.
Teacher attendance rate.......................  SIG...........................  ...............         [check]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. An SEA must report these metrics for the school year prior to 
implementing the intervention, if the data exist, to serve as a 
baseline, and for each year thereafter for which the SEA allocates 
School Improvement Grants funds under section 1003(g) of the ESEA. With 
respect to a school that is closed, the SEA need report only the 
identity of the school and the intervention taken--i.e., school 
closure.
    B. Evaluation.
    An LEA that receives a School Improvement Grant must participate in 
any evaluation of that grant conducted by the Secretary.
    Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in 
which we choose to use this priority and these definitions, we invite 
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.

[[Page 7249]]

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 will have an annual effect on the 
economy of more than $100 million because fiscal year 2014 
appropriations for the program, which the Department will award to SEAs 
in fiscal year 2015, are approximately $506 million. Therefore, this 
final action is ``economically significant'' and subject to review by 
OMB under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. Notwithstanding 
this determination, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits, 
both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action and have 
determined that the benefits justify the costs.
    We have also reviewed this 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 requirements only on a reasoned 
determination that their benefits justify their costs. In choosing 
among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches 
that would 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 will not unduly 
interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of 
their governmental functions.
    In this regulatory impact analysis we discuss the potential costs 
and benefits and the regulatory alternatives we considered.

Summary of Potential Costs and Benefits

    The Department believes that the final requirements will not impose 
significant costs on SEAs and LEAs that receive SIG funds. State and 
local costs of implementing the final requirements (including State 
costs of applying for grants, distributing grant funds to LEAs, 
ensuring compliance with the proposed requirements, and reporting to 
the Department; and LEA costs of applying for subgrants and 
implementing interventions) will be financed through grant funds. We do 
not believe that the final requirements will impose burden that SEAs or 
LEAs will need to meet from other sources.
    This regulatory action will continue to drive SIG funds to LEAs 
that have the lowest-achieving schools in amounts sufficient to turn 
those schools around and significantly increase student achievement. It 
will also continue to require participating LEAs to adopt the most 
effective approaches to turning around low-achieving schools. In short, 
we believe that this action will ensure that limited SIG funds continue 
to be put to their optimum use--that is, that they are targeted to 
where they are most needed and used in the most effective manner 
possible. The benefits, then, will be more effective schools serving 
children from low-income families and a better education for those 
children.

Regulatory Alternatives Considered

    As discussed elsewhere, the Department believes that the final 
requirements are needed to ensure that the SIG program is implemented 
in a manner that, among other things, is consistent with the 
programmatic changes made by Congress in the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2014. One alternative to promulgation of the final 
requirements would be for the Department to allocate fiscal year 2014 
SIG funds without establishing any new requirements governing their 
use. Under such an alternative, States and LEAs would need to implement 
the new provisions in the appropriations language without key 
regulatory support from the Department. For instance, each State would 
be responsible for ensuring, for its LEAs that seek to use SIG funds to 
implement an evidence-based, whole-school reform model in an eligible 
school, that the strategy selected by the LEA constitutes whole-school 
reform and is supported by at least moderate evidence of effectiveness. 
We do not believe that States generally possess the capacity or 
expertise needed to meet this responsibility with the amount of rigor 
expected by Congress.
    Elsewhere in this section under Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we 
identify and explain burdens specifically associated with information 
collection requirements.

Accounting Statement

    As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf), in the 
following table we have prepared an accounting statement showing the 
classification of the expenditures associated with the provisions of 
this regulatory action. This table provides our best estimate of the 
changes in annual monetized transfers as a result of this regulatory 
action.

[[Page 7250]]

Expenditures are classified as transfers from the Federal Government to 
SEAs.

      Accounting Statement Classification of Estimated Expenditures
                              [In millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                 Category                             Transfers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Monetized Transfers............  $506.
From Whom To Whom?........................  From the Federal Government
                                             to SEAs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), we 
have assessed the potential information collections in these proposed 
regulations that would be subject to review by OMB (School Improvement 
Grants OMB Control number 1810-0682). In conducting this analysis, the 
Department examined the extent to which the amended regulations would 
add information collection requirements for public agencies. Based on 
this analysis, the Secretary has concluded that these amendments to the 
School Improvement Grants regulations would not impose additional 
burden associated with information collection requirements.

Changes to the SEA Applications

    Under final requirement section II.B.1(b), each SEA may submit, as 
part of the required application it submits to the Department to 
receive SIG funds, one State-determined intervention model for review 
and approval by the Secretary. These final requirements require an SEA 
to submit a State-determined intervention model as part of its 
application, if a State chooses to implement this model.
    Under the burden estimates currently approved by OMB, 52 SEAs will 
complete, review, and post SEA and LEA applications for a total of 
46,800 annual burden hours at a cost of $30 per hour, totaling an 
annual cost of $1,404,000. These final requirements do not change the 
currently approved annual burden for SEAs.

Revising Reporting Requirements

    The final requirements make a number of clarifications to the 
reporting requirements. First, final requirement section III.A.3 
eliminates the metric for ``Truants'' and replaces it with ``Chronic 
absenteeism rates.'' Second, final requirement III.A clarifies the 
correct source for each of the required metrics and removes references 
to the SFSF previously approved under OMB data collection 1810-0695. 
Finally, final requirements in section III.A.3 require an SEA to 
report, with respect to schools receiving SIG awards, the number of 
schools implementing models with a modified element pursuant to section 
I.B.6 and which models are being implemented in those schools.
    Under the reporting burden estimates, 52 SEAs will report SEA and 
LEA requirements for a total of 3,640 annual burden hours at a cost of 
$30 per hour totaling an annual cost of $109,200. These final 
requirements add burden to the currently approved annual burden for 
SEAs.

Changes to the LEA Application

    The final requirements also add to the existing requirements in 
section I.A.4(a) (Evidence of strongest commitment) information that, 
under section II.A.2(c), the LEA must include in the LEA application 
related to an evidence-based, whole-school reform strategy (for those 
LEAs that propose to implement such a strategy); meaningful family and 
community engagement; LEA oversight and support of SIG implementation; 
review of, and accountability for, external provider performance; 
implementation of an evidence-based strategy or strategies, if 
practicable; the review process for selecting a charter school 
operator, CMO, or EMO; and implementation of evidence-based strategies.
    Under the burden estimates that are currently approved by OMB, 
3,050 LEAs will complete an application for a total of 183,000 annual 
burden hours at a cost of $25 per hour totaling an annual cost of 
$4,575,000. These final requirements do not change the approved annual 
burden for LEAs.

Collection of Information

                                        State Educational Agency Estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          SIG Activity            Number of SEAs  Hours/Activity       Hours         Cost/Hour         Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complete SEA application                      52             100           5,200             $30        $156,000
 (including requests for
 waivers).......................
Review and post LEA applications              52             800          41,600             $30      $1,248,000
Reporting.......................              52              70           3,640             $30        $109,200
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............          50,440             $30      $1,513,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


                                        Local Educational Agency Estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
          SIG Activity            Number of LEAs  Hours/Activity       Hours         Cost/Hour         Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complete LEA application........           3,050              60         183,000             $25      $4,575,000
                                 -------------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total.......................  ..............  ..............         183,000             $25      $4,575,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Waiver of Congressional Review Act

    These regulations have been determined to be major for purposes of 
the Congressional Review Act (CRA) (5 U.S.C. 801, et seq.). Generally, 
under the CRA, a major rule takes effect 60 days after the date on 
which the rule is published in the Federal Register. Section 808(2) of 
the CRA, however, provides that any rule which an agency for good cause 
finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons 
therefor in the rule issued) that notice and public procedure thereon 
are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest, 
shall take effect at such time as the Federal agency promulgating the 
rule determines.
    These final requirements implement language in the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub L. 113-76), that modifies the SIG program 
in substantial ways, described below. The Department must award SIG 
funds to State educational agencies (SEAs) in

[[Page 7251]]

enough time that they can conduct competitions for LEAs to apply for 
the SIG funds and begin implementation by the start of the 2015-2016 
school year. Even on an extremely expedited timeline, it is 
impracticable for the Department to adhere to a 60-day delayed 
effective date for the final requirements and make grant awards to SEAs 
such that there is sufficient time for them to conduct competitions. 
When the 60-day delayed effective date is added to the time the 
Department will need to receive SEA applications (approximately 30 days 
from the date on which these final requirements become effective), 
review the applications (approximately 14 days), and finally approve 
applications (approximately 30 days), the Department will not be able 
to allocate funds authorized under the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 
2014, and section 1003(g) of title I of the ESEA to all qualified 
applicants before June 2015, leaving SEAs almost no time to conduct LEA 
competitions before the start of the school year. Therefore, waiting 
the full 60 days would cause an undue burden to SEAs and LEAs by giving 
them a shorter period of time to plan for and implement the new SIG 
requirements. With approximately $506 million at stake, the delayed 
effective date would be impracticable and contrary to the public 
interest. The Department has therefore determined that, pursuant to 
section 808(2) of the CRA, the 60-day delay in the effective date 
generally required for congressional review is impracticable, contrary 
to the public interest, and waived for good cause.
    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.

Deborah Delisle,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2015-02570 Filed 2-4-15; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P