[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 210 (Monday, October 31, 2016)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 75494-75622]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-24856]



[[Page 75493]]

Vol. 81

Monday,

No. 210

October 31, 2016

Part II





Department of Education





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





34 CFR Parts 612 and 686





Teacher Preparation Issues; Final Rule

  Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 210 / Monday, October 31, 2016 / 
Rules and Regulations  

[[Page 75494]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Parts 612 and 686

[Docket ID ED-2014-OPE-0057]
RIN 1840-AD07


Teacher Preparation Issues

AGENCY: Office of Postsecondary Education, Department of Education.

ACTION: Final regulations.

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

SUMMARY: The Secretary establishes new regulations to implement 
requirements for the teacher preparation program accountability system 
under title II of the Higher Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA), 
that will result in the collection and dissemination of more meaningful 
data on teacher preparation program quality (title II reporting 
system). The Secretary also amends the regulations governing the 
Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education (TEACH) 
Grant program under title IV of the HEA to condition TEACH Grant 
program funding on teacher preparation program quality and to update, 
clarify, and improve the current regulations and align them with title 
II reporting system data.

DATES: The regulations in 34 CFR part 612 are effective November 30, 
2016. The amendments to part 686 are effective on July 1, 2017, except 
for amendatory instructions 4.A., 4.B., 4.C.iv., 4.C.x. and 4.C.xi., 
amending 34 CFR 686.2(d) and (e), and amendatory instruction 6, 
amending 34 CFR 686.11, which are effective on July 1, 2021.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sophia McArdle, Ph.D., U.S. Department 
of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 6W256, Washington, DC 
20202. Telephone: (202) 453-6318 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

    Section 205 of the HEA requires States and institutions of higher 
education (IHEs) annually to report on various characteristics of their 
teacher preparation programs, including an assessment of program 
performance. These reporting requirements exist in part to ensure that 
members of the public, prospective teachers and employers (districts 
and schools), and the States, IHEs, and programs themselves have 
accurate information on the quality of these teacher preparation 
programs. These requirements also provide an impetus to States and IHEs 
to make improvements where they are needed. Thousands of novice 
teachers enter the profession every year \1\ and their students deserve 
to have well-prepared teachers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ U.S. Department of Education, Digest of Education Statistics 
(2013). Public and private elementary and secondary teachers, 
enrollment, pupil/teacher ratios, and new teacher hires: Selected 
years, fall 1955 through fall 2023 [Data File]. Retrieved from: 
http://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d13/tables/dt13_208.20.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Research from States such as Tennessee, North Carolina, and 
Washington indicates that some teacher preparation programs report 
statistically significant differences in the student learning outcomes 
of their graduates.\2\ Statutory reporting requirements on teacher 
preparation program quality for States and IHEs are broad. The 
Department's existing title II reporting system framework has not, 
however, ensured sufficient quality feedback to various stakeholders on 
program performance. A U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) 
report found that some States are not assessing whether teacher 
preparation programs are low-performing, as required by law, and so 
prospective teachers may have difficulty identifying low-performing 
teacher preparation programs, possibly resulting in teachers who are 
not fully prepared to educate children.\3\ In addition, struggling 
teacher preparation programs may not receive the technical assistance 
they need and, like the teaching candidates themselves, school 
districts, and other stakeholders, will not be able to make informed 
decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See Report Card on the Effectiveness of Teacher Training 
Programs, Tennessee 2014201420142014 Report Card. (n.d.). Retrieved 
from: www.tn.gov/thec/article/report-card; Goldhaber, D., & Liddle, 
S. (2013). The Gateway to the Profession: Assessing Teacher 
Preparation Programs Based on Student Achievement. Economics of 
Education Review, 34, 29-44.
    \3\ See U.S. Government Accountability Office (GAO) (2015). 
Teacher Preparation Programs: Education Should Ensure States 
Identify Low-Performing Programs and Improve Information-Sharing. 
GAO-15-598. Washington, DC. Retrieved from: http://gao.gov/products/GAO-15-598. (Hereafter referred to as ``GAO.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, section 205 of the HEA requires States to report on the 
criteria they use to assess whether teacher preparation programs are 
low-performing or at-risk of being low-performing, but it is difficult 
to identify programs in need of remediation or closure because few of 
the reporting requirements ask for information indicative of program 
quality. The GAO report noted that half the States said current title 
II reporting system data were ``slightly useful,'' ``neither useful nor 
not useful,'' or ``not useful''; over half the teacher preparation 
programs surveyed said the data were not useful in assessing their 
programs; and none of the surveyed school district staff said they used 
the data.\4\ The Secretary is committed to ensuring that the measures 
by which States judge the quality of teacher preparation programs 
reflect the true quality of the programs and provide information that 
facilitates program improvement and, by extension, improvement in 
student achievement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ GAO at 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final regulations address shortcomings in the current system by 
defining the indicators of quality that a State must use to assess the 
performance of its teacher preparation programs, including more 
meaningful indicators of program inputs and program outcomes, such as 
the ability of the program's graduates to produce gains in student 
learning \5\ (understanding that not all students will learn at the 
same rate). The final regulations build on current State data systems 
and linkages and create a much-needed feedback loop to facilitate 
program improvement and provide valuable information to prospective 
teachers, potential employers, and the general public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Rivkin, S. G., Hanushek, E. A., & Kain, J. F. (2005). 
Teachers, schools, and academic achievement. Econometrica, 73(2), 
417-458. http://doi.org/10.1111/j.1468-0262.2005.00584.x.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The final regulations also link assessments of program performance 
under HEA title II to eligibility for the Federal TEACH Grant program. 
The TEACH Grant program, authorized by section 420M of the HEA, 
provides grants to eligible IHEs, which, in turn, use the funds to 
provide grants of up to $4,000 annually to eligible teacher preparation 
candidates who agree to serve as full-time teachers in high-need fields 
at low-income schools for not less than four academic years within 
eight years after completing their courses of study. If a TEACH Grant 
recipient fails to complete his or her service obligation, the grant is 
converted into a Federal Direct Unsubsidized Stafford Loan that must be 
repaid with interest.
    Pursuant to section 420L(1)(A) of the HEA, one of the eligibility 
requirements for an institution to participate in the TEACH Grant 
program is that it must provide high-quality teacher preparation. 
However, of the 38 programs identified by States as ``low-performing'' 
or ``at-risk,'' 22 programs were offered by IHEs participating in the 
TEACH Grant program. The final

[[Page 75495]]

regulations limit TEACH Grant eligibility to only those programs that 
States have identified as ``effective'' or higher in their assessments 
of program performance under HEA title II.

Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action

    The final regulations--
     Establish necessary definitions and requirements for IHEs 
and States related to the quality of teacher preparation programs, and 
require States to develop measures for assessing teacher preparation 
performance.
     Establish indicators that States must use to report on 
teacher preparation program performance, to help ensure that the 
quality of teacher preparation programs is judged on reliable and valid 
indicators of program performance.
     Establish the areas States must consider in identifying 
teacher preparation programs that are low-performing and at-risk of 
being low-performing, the actions States must take with respect to 
those programs, and the consequences for a low-performing program that 
loses State approval or financial support. The final regulations also 
establish the conditions under which a program that loses State 
approval or financial support may regain its eligibility for title IV, 
HEA funding.
     Establish a link between the State's classification of a 
teacher preparation program's performance under the title II reporting 
system and that program's identification as ``high-quality'' for TEACH 
Grant eligibility purposes.
     Establish provisions that allow TEACH Grant recipients to 
satisfy the requirements of their agreement to serve by teaching in a 
high-need field that was designated as high-need at the time the grant 
was received.
     Establish conditions that allow TEACH Grant recipients to 
have their service obligations discharged if they are totally and 
permanently disabled. The final regulations also establish conditions 
under which a student who had a prior service obligation discharged due 
to total and permanent disability may receive a new TEACH Grant.

Costs and Benefits

    The benefits, costs, and transfers related to the regulations are 
discussed in more detail in the Regulatory Impact Analysis (RIA) 
section of this document. Significant benefits of the final regulations 
include improvements to the HEA title II accountability system that 
will enable prospective teachers to make more informed choices about 
their enrollment in a teacher preparation program, and will enable 
employers of prospective teachers to make more informed hiring 
decisions. Further, the final regulations will create incentives for 
States and IHEs to monitor and continuously improve the quality of 
their teacher preparation programs. Most importantly, the final 
regulations will help support elementary and secondary school students 
because the changes will lead to better prepared, higher quality 
teachers in classrooms, including for students in high-need schools and 
communities, who are disproportionately taught by less experienced 
teachers.
    The net budget impact of the final regulations is approximately 
$0.49 million in reduced costs over the TEACH Grant cohorts from 2016 
to 2026. We estimate that the total cost annualized over 10 years of 
the final regulations is between $27.5 million and $27.7 million (see 
the Accounting Statement section of this document).
    On December 3, 2014, the Secretary published a notice of proposed 
rulemaking (NPRM) for these parts in the Federal Register (79 FR 
71820). The final regulations contain changes from the NPRM, which are 
fully explained in the Analysis of Comments and Changes section of this 
document. Some commenters requested clarification regarding how the 
proposed State reporting requirements would affect teacher preparation 
programs provided through distance education and TEACH Grant 
eligibility for students enrolled in teacher preparation programs 
provided through distance education. In response to these comments, on 
April 1, 2016, the Department published a supplemental notice of 
proposed rulemaking (Supplemental NPRM) in the Federal Register (81 FR 
18808) that reopened the public comments period for 30 days solely to 
seek comment on those specific issues. The Department specifically 
requested on public comments on issues related to reporting by States 
on teacher preparation programs provided through distance education, 
and TEACH Grant eligibility requirements for teacher preparation 
programs provided through distance education. The comment period for 
the Supplemental NPRM closed on May 2, 2016.
    Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the December 3, 
2014, NPRM, approximately 4,800 parties submitted comments on the 
proposed regulations. In response to our invitation in the Supplemental 
NPRM, the Department received 58 comments.
    We discuss substantive issues under the sections of the proposed 
regulations to which they pertain. Generally, we do not address 
technical or other minor changes.
    Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and 
of any changes in the regulations since publication of the NPRM and the 
Supplemental NPRM follows.

Part 612--Title II Reporting System

Subpart A--Scope, Purpose, and Definitions

Section 612.1 Scope and Purpose

Statutory Authority

    Comments: A number of commenters raised concerns about whether the 
Department has authority under the HEA to issue these regulations. In 
this regard, several commenters asserted that the Department does not 
have the statutory authority to require States to include student 
learning outcomes, employment outcomes, and survey outcomes among the 
indicators of academic content knowledge and teaching skills that would 
be included in the State's report card under Sec.  612.5. Commenters 
also claimed that the HEA does not authorize the Department to require 
States, in identifying low-performing or at-risk teacher preparation 
programs, to use those indicators of academic content knowledge and 
teaching skills as would be required under Sec.  612.6. These 
commenters argued that section 207 of the HEA provides that levels of 
performance shall be determined solely by the State, and that the 
Department may not provide itself authority to mandate these 
requirements through regulations when the HEA does not do so.
    Commenters argued that only the State may determine whether to 
include student academic achievement data (and by inference our other 
proposed indicators of academic content knowledge and teaching skills) 
in their assessments of teacher preparation program performance. One 
commenter contended that the Department's attempt to ``shoehorn'' 
student achievement data into the academic content knowledge and 
teaching skills of students enrolled in teacher preparation programs 
(section 205(b)(1)(F)) would render meaningless the language of section 
207(a) that gives the State the authority to establish levels of 
performance, and what those levels contain. These commenters argued 
that, as a result, the HEA prohibits the Department from requiring 
States to use any particular indicators. Other commenters argued that 
such State authority also flows from section 205(b)(1)(F) of the HEA, 
which provides

[[Page 75496]]

that, in the State Report Card (SRC), the State must include a 
description of the method of assessing teacher preparation program 
performance. This includes indicators of the academic content knowledge 
and teaching skills of the students enrolled in such programs.
    Commenters also stated that the Department does not have the 
authority to require that a State's criteria for assessing the 
performance of any teacher preparation program include the indicators 
of academic content knowledge and teaching skills, including, ``in 
significant part,'' student learning outcomes and employment outcomes 
for high-need schools. See proposed Sec. Sec.  612.6(a)(1) and 
612.4(b)(1). Similar concerns were expressed with respect to proposed 
Sec.  612.4(b)(2), which provided that a State could determine that a 
teacher preparation program was effective (or higher) only if the 
program was found to have ``satisfactory or higher'' student learning 
outcomes.
    Discussion: Before we respond to the comments about specific 
regulations and statutory provisions, we think it would be helpful to 
outline the statutory framework under which we are issuing these 
regulations. Section 205(a) of the HEA requires that each IHE that 
provides a teacher preparation program leading to State certification 
or licensure and that enrolls students who receive HEA student 
financial assistance report on a statutorily enumerated series of data 
elements for the programs it provides. Section 205(b) of the HEA 
requires each State that receives funds under the HEA to provide to the 
Secretary and make widely available to the public information on, among 
other things, the quality of traditional and alternative route teacher 
preparation programs that includes not less than the statutorily 
enumerated series of data elements. The State must do so in a uniform 
and comprehensible manner, conforming to definitions and methods 
established by the Secretary. Section 205(c) of the HEA directs the 
Secretary to prescribe regulations to ensure the validity, reliability, 
accuracy, and integrity of the data submitted. Section 206(b) requires 
that IHEs provide assurance to the Secretary that their teacher 
training programs respond to the needs of LEAs, are closely linked with 
the instructional decisions novice teachers confront in the classroom, 
and prepare candidates to work with diverse populations and in urban 
and rural settings, as applicable. Section 207(a) of the HEA provides 
that in order to receive funds under the HEA, a State must conduct an 
assessment to identify low-performing teacher preparation programs in 
the State, and help those programs through provision of technical 
assistance. Section 207(a) further provides that the State's report 
identify programs that the State determines to be low-performing or at 
risk of being low-performing, and that levels of performance are to be 
determined solely by the State.
    The proposed regulations, like the final regulations, reflect the 
fundamental principle and the statutory requirement that the assessment 
of teacher preparation program performance must be conducted by the 
State, with criteria the State establishes and levels of differentiated 
performance that are determined by the State. Section 205(b)(1)(F) of 
the HEA provides that a State must include in its report card a 
description of its criteria for assessing the performance of teacher 
preparation programs within IHEs in the State and that those criteria 
must include indicators of the academic content knowledge and teaching 
skills of students enrolled in such programs. Significantly, section 
205(b)(1) further provides that the State's report card must conform 
with definitions and methods established by the Secretary, and section 
205(c) authorizes the Secretary to prescribe regulations to ensure the 
reliability, validity, integrity, and accuracy of the data submitted in 
the report cards.
    Consistent with those statutory provisions, Sec.  612.5 establishes 
the indicators States must use to comply with the reporting requirement 
in section 205(b)(1)(F), namely by having States include in the report 
card their criteria for program assessment and the indicators of 
academic content knowledge and teaching skills that they must include 
in those criteria. While the term ``teaching skills'' is defined in 
section 200(23) of the HEA, the definition is complex and the statute 
does not indicate what are appropriate indicators of academic content 
knowledge and teaching skills of those who complete teacher preparation 
programs. Thus, in Sec.  612.5, we establish reasonable definitions of 
these basic, but ambiguous statutory phrases in an admittedly complex 
area--how States may reasonably assess the performance of their teacher 
preparation programs--so that the conclusions States reach about the 
performance of individual programs are valid and reliable in compliance 
with the statute. We discuss the reasonableness of the four general 
indicators of academic content knowledge and teaching skills that the 
Secretary has established in Sec.  612.5 later in this preamble under 
the heading What indicators must a State use to report on teacher 
preparation program performance for purposes of the State report card?. 
Ultimately though, section 205(b) clearly permits the Secretary to 
establish definitions for the types of information that must be 
included in the State report cards, and, in doing so, complements the 
Secretary's general authority to define statutory phrases that are 
ambiguous or require clarification.
    The provisions of Sec.  612.5 are also wholly consistent with 
section 207(a) of the HEA. Section 207(a) provides that States 
determine the levels of program performance in their assessments of 
program performance and discusses the criteria a State ``may'' include 
in those levels of performance. However, section 207(a) does not negate 
the basic requirement in section 205(b) that States include indicators 
of academic content knowledge and teaching skills within their program 
assessment criteria or the authority of the Secretary to establish 
definitions for report card elements. Moreover, the regulations do not 
limit a State's authority to establish, use, and report other criteria 
that the State determines are appropriate for generating a valid and 
reliable assessment of teacher preparation program performance. Section 
612.5(b) of the regulations expressly permits States to supplement the 
required indicators with other indicators of a teacher's effect on 
student performance, including other indicators of academic content and 
knowledge and teaching skills, provided that the State uses the same 
indicators for all teacher preparation programs in the State. In 
addition, working with stakeholders, States are free to determine how 
to apply these various criteria and indicators in order to determine, 
assess, and report whether a preparation program is low-performing or 
at-risk of being low-performing.
    We appreciate commenters' concerns regarding the provisions in 
Sec. Sec.  612.4(b)(1) and (b)(2) and 612.6(b)(1) regarding weighting 
and consideration of certain indicators. Based on consideration of the 
public comments and the potential complexity of these requirements, we 
have removed these provisions from the final regulations. While we have 
taken this action, we continue to believe strongly that providing 
significant weight to these indicators when determining a teacher 
preparation program's level of performance is very important. The 
ability of novice teachers to promote positive student academic growth 
should be central to the missions of all teacher preparation programs, 
and having those programs focus on producing well-prepared novice

[[Page 75497]]

teachers who work and stay in high-need schools is critical to meeting 
the Nation's needs. Therefore, as they develop their measures and 
weights for assessing and reporting the performance of each teacher 
preparation program in their SRCs, we strongly encourage States, in 
consultation with their stakeholders, to give significant weight to 
these indicators.
    Changes: We have revised Sec. Sec.  612.4(b)(1) and 612.6(a)(1) to 
remove the requirement for States to include student learning outcomes 
and employment outcomes, ``in significant part,'' in their use of 
indicators of academic content knowledge and teaching skills as part of 
their criteria for assessing the performance of each teacher 
preparation program. We also have revised Sec.  612.4(b)(2) to remove 
the requirement that permitted States to determine that a teacher 
preparation program was effective (or higher quality) only if the State 
found the program to have ``satisfactory or higher'' student learning 
outcomes.
    Comments: Several commenters objected to the Department's proposal 
to establish four performance levels for States' assessment of their 
teacher preparation programs. They argued that section 207(a), which 
specifically requires States to report those programs found to be 
either low-performing or at-risk of being low-performing, establishes 
the need for three performance levels (low-performing, at-risk of being 
low-performing, and all other programs) and that the Department lacks 
authority to require reporting on the four performance levels proposed 
in the NPRM, i.e., those programs that are ``low-performing,'' ``at-
risk,'' exceptional,'' and everything else. These commenters stated 
that these provisions of the HEA give to the States the authority to 
determine whether to establish more than three performance levels.
    Discussion: Section 205(b) of the HEA provides that State reports 
``shall include not less than the following,'' and this provision 
authorizes the Secretary to add reporting elements to the State 
reports. It was on this basis that we proposed, in Sec.  612.4(b)(1), 
to supplement the statutorily required elements to require States, when 
making meaningful differentiation in teacher preparation program 
performance, to use at least four performance levels, including 
exceptional. While we encourage States to identify programs that are 
exceptional in order to recognize and celebrate outstanding programs, 
and so that prospective teachers and their employers know of them and 
others may learn from them, in consideration of comments that urged the 
Secretary not to require States to report a fourth performance level 
and other comments that expressed concerns about overall implementation 
costs, we are not adopting this proposal in the final regulations.
    Changes: We have revised Sec.  612.4(b)(1) to remove the 
requirement for States to rate their teacher preparation programs using 
the category ``exceptional.'' We have also removed the definition of 
``exceptional teacher preparation program'' from the Definitions 
section in Sec.  612.2.
    Comments: Several commenters raised concerns about whether the 
provisions of Sec.  612.6 are consistent with section 205(b)(2) of the 
HEA, which prohibits the Secretary from creating a national list or 
ranking of States, institutions, or schools using the scaled scores 
required under section 205. Some of these commenters acknowledged the 
usefulness of a system for public information on teacher preparation. 
However, the commenters argued that, if these regulations are 
implemented, the Federal government would instead be creating a program 
rating system in violation of section 205(b)(2).
    Commenters also stated that by mandating a system for rating 
teacher preparation programs, including the indicators by which teacher 
preparation programs must be rated, what a State must consider in 
identifying low-performing or at-risk teacher preparation programs, and 
the actions a State must take with respect to low-performing programs 
(proposed Sec. Sec.  612.4, 612.5, and 612.6), the Federal government 
is impinging on the authority of States, which authorize, regulate, and 
approve IHEs and their teacher preparation programs.
    Discussion: Although section 207(a) of the HEA expressly requires 
States to include in their SRCs a list of programs that they have 
identified as low-performing or at-risk of being low-performing, the 
regulations do not in any other way require States to specify or create 
a list or ranking of institutions or programs and the Department has no 
intention of requiring States to do so. Nor will the Department be 
creating a national list or ranking of States, institutions, or teacher 
preparation programs. Thus, there is no conflict with section 
205(b)(2).
    As we discussed in response to the prior set of comments, these 
regulations establish definitions for terms provided in title II of the 
HEA in order to help ensure that the State and IHE reporting system 
meet its purpose. In authorizing the Secretary to define statutory 
terms and establish reporting methods needed to properly implement the 
title II reporting system, neither Congress nor the Department is 
abrogating State authority to authorize, regulate, and approve IHEs and 
their teacher preparation programs. Finally, in response to the 
comments that proposed Sec. Sec.  612.4, 612.5, and 612.6 would 
impermissibly impinge on the authority of States in terms of actions 
they must take with respect to low-performing programs, we note that 
the regulations do little more than clarify the sanctions that Congress 
requires in section 207(b) of the HEA. Those sanctions address the 
circumstances in which students enrolled in a low-performing program 
may continue to receive or regain Federal student financial assistance, 
and thus the Federal government has a direct interest in the subject.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter contended that Federal law provides no 
authority to compel LEAs to develop the criteria and implement the 
collection and reporting of student learning outcome data, and that 
there is little that the commenter's State can do to require LEA 
compliance with those reporting requirements.
    Discussion: Section 205(b) of the HEA requires all States receiving 
HEA funds to provide the information the law identifies ``in a uniform 
and comprehensible manner that conforms with the definitions and 
methods established by the Secretary.'' These regulations place 
responsibility for compliance upon the States, not the LEAs.
    Since all LEAs stand to benefit from the success of the new 
reporting system through improved transparency and information about 
the quality of teacher preparation programs from which they may recruit 
and hire new teachers, we assume that all LEAs will want to work with 
their States to find manageable ways to implement the regulations. 
Moreover, without more information from the commenter, we cannot 
address why a particular State would not have the authority to insist 
that an LEA provide the State with the information it needs to meet 
these reporting requirements.
    Changes: None.
Federal-State-Institution Relationship, Generally
    Comments: Many commenters commented generally that the proposed 
regulations are an example of Federal overreach and represent a 
profound and improper shift in the historic relationship among 
institutions, States, school districts, accrediting agencies, and the 
Federal government in the area

[[Page 75498]]

of teacher preparation and certification. For example, one commenter 
stated that the proposal threatens the American tradition of Federal 
non-interference with academic judgments, and makes the Department the 
national arbiter of what teacher preparation programs should teach, who 
they should teach, and how they should teach. Commenters also contended 
that the proposed regulations impermissibly interfere with local and 
State control and governance by circumventing States' rights delegated 
to local school districts and the citizens of those districts to 
control the characteristics of quality educators and to determine 
program approval.
    Discussion: The need for teacher preparation programs to produce 
teachers who can adequately and effectively teach to the needs of the 
Nation's elementary and secondary school students is national in scope 
and self-evident. Congress enacted the HEA title II reporting system as 
an important tool to address this need. Our final regulations are 
intended to give the public confidence that, as Congress anticipated 
when it enacted sections 205(b) and 207 of the HEA, States have 
reasonably determined whether teacher preparation programs are, or are 
not, meeting the States' expectations for their performance. While the 
regulations provide for use of certain minimum indicators and 
procedures for determining and reporting program performance, they 
provide States with a substantial amount of discretion in how to 
measure these indicators, what additional indicators a State may choose 
to add, and how to weight and combine these indicators and criteria 
into an overall assessment of a teacher preparation program's 
performance. Thus, the final regulations are consistent with the 
traditional importance of State decision-making in the area of 
evaluating educational performance. The public, however, must have 
confidence that the procedures and criteria that each State uses to 
assess program performance and to report programs as low-performing or 
at-risk are reasonable and transparent. Consistent with the statutory 
requirement that States report annually to the Secretary and to the 
public ``in a uniform and comprehensible manner that conforms to the 
definitions and methods established by the Secretary,'' the regulations 
aim to help ensure that each State report meets this basic test.
    We disagree with comments that allege that the regulations reflect 
overreach by the Federal government into the province of States 
regarding the approval of teacher preparation programs and the academic 
domain of institutions that conduct these programs. The regulations do 
not constrain the academic judgments of particular institutions, what 
those institutions should teach in their specific programs, which 
students should attend those programs, or how those programs should be 
conducted. Nor do they dictate which teacher preparation programs 
States should approve or should not approve. Rather, by clarifying 
limited areas in which sections 205 and 207 of the HEA are unclear, the 
regulations implement the statutory mandate that, consistent with 
definitions and reporting methods the Secretary establishes, States 
assess the quality of the teacher preparation programs in their State, 
identify those that are low-performing or at-risk of being low-
performing, and work to improve the performance of those programs.
    With the changes we are making in these final regulations, the 
system for determining whether a program is low-performing or at-risk 
of being low-performing is unarguably a State-determined system. 
Specifically, as noted above, in assessing and reporting program 
performance, each State is free to (1) adopt and report other measures 
of program performance it believes are appropriate, (2) use discretion 
in how to measure student learning outcomes, employment outcomes, 
survey outcomes, and minimum program characteristics, and (3) determine 
for itself how these indicators of academic content knowledge and 
teaching skills and other criteria a State may choose to use will 
produce a valid and reliable overall assessment of each program's 
performance. Thus, the assessment system that each State will use is 
developed by the State, and does not compromise the ability of the 
State and its stakeholders to determine what is and is not a low-
performing or at-risk teacher preparation program.
    Changes: None.
Constitutional Issues
    Comments: One commenter stated that the proposed regulations 
amounted to a coercive activity that violates the U.S. Constitution's 
Spending Clause (i.e., Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 of the U.S. 
Constitution). The commenter argued that sections 205 and 207 of the 
HEA are grounded in the Spending Clause and Spending Clause 
jurisprudence, including cases such as Arlington C. Sch. Dist. Bd. of 
Educ. v. Murphy, 548 U.S. 291 (2006), which provides that States are 
not bound by requirements of which they have no clear notice. In 
particular, the commenter asserted that, in examining the text of the 
statute in order to decide whether to accept Federal financial 
assistance, a State would not have clear notice that it would be 
required to commit substantial amounts of funds to develop the 
infrastructure required to include student learning outcome data in its 
SRC or include student learning outcomes in its evaluation of teacher 
preparation programs. Some commenters stated that the proposed 
regulations violate the Tenth Amendment to the U.S. Constitution.
    Discussion: Congress' authority to enact the provisions in title II 
of the HEA governing the State reporting system flows from its 
authority to ``. . . provide for general Welfare of the United 
States.'' Article I, Section 8, Clause 1 (commonly referred to as 
Congress' ``spending authority''). Under that authority, Congress 
authorized the Secretary to implement the provisions of sections 205 
through 207. Thus, the regulations do not conflict with Congress' 
authority under the Spending Clause. With respect to cases such as 
Arlington C. Sch. Dist. Bd. of Educ. v. Murphy, States have full notice 
of their responsibilities under the reporting system through the 
rulemaking process the Department has conducted under the 
Administrative Procedure Act and the General Education Provisions Act 
to develop these regulations.
    We also do not perceive a legitimate Tenth Amendment issue. The 
Tenth Amendment provides in pertinent part that powers not delegated to 
the Federal government by the Constitution are reserved to the States. 
Congress used its spending authority to require institutions that 
enroll students who receive Federal student financial assistance in 
teacher preparation programs, and States that receive HEA funds, to 
submit information as required by the Secretary in their institutional 
report cards (IRCs) and SRCs. Thus, the Secretary's authority to define 
the ambiguous statutory term ``indicators of academic content knowledge 
and teaching skills'' to include the measures the regulations 
establish, coupled with the authority States have under section 
205(b)(1)(F) of the HEA to establish other criteria with which they 
assess program performance, resolves any claim that the assessment of 
program performance is a matter left to the States under the Tenth 
Amendment.
    Changes: None.
Unfunded Mandates
    Comments: Some commenters stated that the proposed regulations 
would amount to an unfunded mandate, in that they would require States, 
institutions

[[Page 75499]]

with teacher preparation programs, and public schools to bear 
significant implementation costs, yet offer no Federal funding to cover 
them. To pay for this unfunded mandate, several commenters stated that 
costs would be passed on to students via tuition increases, decreases 
in funding for higher education, or both.
    Discussion: These regulations do not constitute an unfunded 
mandate. Section 205(b) makes reporting ``in a uniform and 
comprehensible manner that conforms with the definitions and methods 
established by the Secretary'' a condition of the State's receipt of 
HEA funds. And, as we have stated, the regulations implement this 
statutory mandate.
    Changes: None.
Loss of Eligibility To Enroll Students Who Receive HEA-Funded Student 
Financial Aid
    Comments: Many commenters stated that the Department lacks 
authority to establish Federally defined performance criteria for the 
purpose of determining a teacher preparation program's eligibility for 
student financial aid under title IV of the HEA. Commenters expressed 
concern that the Department is departing from the current model, in 
which the Department determines institutional eligibility for title IV 
student aid, to a model in which this function would be outsourced to 
the States. While some commenters acknowledged that, under the HEA, a 
teacher preparation program loses its title IV eligibility if its State 
decides to withdraw approval or financial support, commenters asserted 
that the HEA does not intend for this State determination to be coupled 
with a prescriptive Federal mandate governing how the determination 
should be made. A number of commenters also stated that the regulations 
would result in a process of determining eligibility for Federal 
student aid that will vary by State.
    Similarly, some commenters stated that the proposed requirements in 
Sec.  612.8(b)(1) for regaining eligibility to enroll students who 
receive title IV aid exceed the statutory authority in section 
207(b)(4) of the HEA, which provides that a program is reinstated upon 
a demonstration of improved performance, as determined by the State. 
Commenters expressed concern that the proposed regulations would shift 
this responsibility from the State to the Federal government, and 
stated that teacher preparation programs could be caught in limbo. They 
argued that if a State had already reinstated funding and identified 
that a program had improved performance, the program's ability to 
enroll students who receive student financial aid would be conditioned 
on the Secretary's approval. The commenters contended that policy 
changes as significant as these should come from Congress, after 
scrutiny and deliberation of a reauthorized HEA.
    Discussion: Section 207(b) of the HEA states, in relevant part:
    Any teacher preparation program from which the State has withdrawn 
the State's approval, or terminated the State's financial support, due 
to the low performance of the program based upon the State assessment 
described in subsection (a)--
    (1) Shall be ineligible for any funding for professional 
development activities awarded by the Department;
    (2) May not be permitted to accept or enroll any student who 
receives aid under title IV in the institution's teacher preparation 
program;
    (3) Shall provide transitional support, including remedial services 
if necessary, for students enrolled at the institution at the time of 
termination of financial support or withdrawal of approval; and
    (4) Shall be reinstated upon demonstration of improved performance, 
as determined by the State.
    Sections 612.7 and 612.8 implement this statutory provision through 
procedures that mirror existing requirements governing termination and 
reinstatement of student financial support under title IV of the HEA. 
As noted in the preceding discussion, our regulations do not usurp 
State authority to determine how to assess whether a given program is 
low-performing, and our requirement that States do so using, among 
other things, the indicators of novice teachers' academic content 
knowledge and teaching skills identified in Sec.  612.5 is consistent 
with title II of the HEA.
    Consistent with section 207(a) of the HEA, a State determines a 
teacher preparation program's performance level based on the State's 
use of those indicators and any other criteria or indicators the State 
chooses to use to measure the overall level of the program's 
performance. In addition, consistent with section 207(b), the loss of 
eligibility to enroll students receiving Federal student financial aid 
does not depend upon a Department decision. Rather, the State 
determines whether the performance of a particular teacher preparation 
program is so poor that it withdraws the State's approval of, or 
terminates the State's financial support for, that program. Each State 
may use a different decision model to make this determination, as 
contemplated by section 207(b).
    Commenters' objections to our proposal for how a program subject to 
section 207(b) may regain eligibility to enroll students who receive 
title IV aid are misplaced. Section 207(b)(4) of the HEA provides that 
a program found to be low-performing is reinstated upon the State's 
determination that the program has improved, which presumably would 
need to include the State's reinstatement of State approval or 
financial support, since otherwise the institution would continue to 
lose its ability to accept or enroll students who receive title IV aid 
in its teacher preparation programs. However, the initial loss of 
eligibility to enroll students who receive title IV aid is a 
significant event, and we believe that Congress intended that section 
207(b)(4) be read and implemented not in isolation, but rather in the 
context of the procedures established in 34 CFR 600.20 for 
reinstatement of eligibility based on the State's determination of 
improved performance.
    Changes: None.
Relationship to Department Waivers Under ESEA Flexibility
    Comments: A number of commenters stated that the proposed 
regulations inappropriately extend the Federal requirements of the 
Department's Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA) flexibility 
initiative to States that have either chosen not to seek a waiver of 
certain ESEA requirements or have applied for a waiver but not received 
one. The commenters argued that requiring States to assess all students 
in non-tested grades and subjects (i.e., those grades and subjects for 
which testing is not required under title I, part A of the ESEA)--a 
practice that is currently required only in States with ESEA 
flexibility or in States that have chosen to participate in the Race to 
the Top program--sets a dangerous precedent.
    Discussion: While the regulations are similar to requirements the 
Department established for States that received ESEA flexibility or 
Race to the Top grants regarding linking data on student growth to 
individual teachers of non-tested grades and subjects under ESEA title 
I, part A, they are independent of those requirements. While section 
4(c) of the Every Student Succeeds Act (ESSA) \6\ ends conditions of 
waivers granted under ESEA flexibility on August 1, 2016, States that 
received ESEA flexibility or a Race to the Top grant may well have a 
head start in

[[Page 75500]]

implementing systems for linking academic growth data for elementary 
and secondary school students to individual novice teachers, and then 
linking data on these novice teachers to individual teacher preparation 
programs. However, we believe that all States have a strong interest 
and incentive in finding out whether each of their teacher preparation 
programs is meeting the needs of their K-12 students and the 
expectations of their parents and the public. We therefore expect that 
States will seek to work with other stakeholders to find appropriate 
ways to generate the data needed to perform the program assessments 
that these regulations implementing section 205 of the HEA require.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ ESSA, which was signed into law in December 2015 (e.g., 
after the NPRM was published), reauthorizes and amends the ESEA.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes: None.
Consistency With State Law and Practice
    Comments: A number of commenters expressed concerns about whether 
the proposed regulations were consistent with State law. Some 
commenters stated that California law prohibits the kind of data 
sharing between the two State agencies, the California Commission on 
Teacher Credentialing (CTC) and the California Department of Education 
(CDE), that would be needed to implement the proposed regulations. 
Specifically, the commenter stated that section 44230.5 of the 
California Education Code (CEC) does not allow CTC to release 
information on credential holders to any entity other than the type of 
credential and employing district. In addition, the commenter noted 
that California statutes (sections 44660-44665 of the CEC) authorize 
each of the approximately 1,800 districts and charter schools to 
independently negotiate and implement teacher evaluations, so there is 
no statewide collection of teacher evaluation data. The commenter also 
noted that current law prohibits employers from sharing teacher 
evaluation data with teacher preparation programs or with the State if 
an individual teacher would be identifiable.
    Another commenter argued that in various ways the proposed 
regulations constitute a Federal overreach with regard to what Missouri 
provides in terms of State and local control and governance. 
Specifically, the commenter stated that proposed regulations 
circumvent: The rights of Missouri school districts and citizens under 
the Missouri constitution to control the characteristics of quality 
education; the authority of the Missouri legislative process and the 
State Board of Education to determine program quality; State law, 
specifically, according to the commenter Missouri House Bill 1490 
limits how school districts can share locally held student data such as 
student learning outcomes; and the process already underway to improve 
teacher preparation in Missouri.
    Other commenters expressed concern that our proposal to require 
States to use student learning outcomes, employment outcomes, and 
survey outcomes, as defined in the proposed regulations, would create 
inconsistencies with what they consider to be the more comprehensive 
and more nuanced way in which their States assess teacher preparation 
program performance and then provide relevant feedback to programs and 
the institutions that operate them.
    Finally, a number of commenters argued that requirements related to 
indicators of academic content knowledge and teaching skills are 
unnecessary because there is already an organization, the Council for 
the Accreditation of Educator Preparation (CAEP), which requires IHEs 
to report information similar to what the regulations require. These 
commenters claimed that the reporting of data on indicators of academic 
content knowledge and teaching skills related to each individual 
program on the SRC may be duplicative and unnecessary.
    Discussion: With respect to comments on the CEC, we generally defer 
to each State to interpret its own laws. However, assuming that the CTC 
will play a role in how California would implement these regulations, 
we do not read section 44230.5 of the CEC to prohibit CTC from 
releasing information on credential holders to any entity other than 
the type of credential and employing district, as the commenters state. 
Rather, the provision requires CTC to ``establish a nonpersonally 
identifiable educator identification number for each educator to whom 
it issues a credential, certificate, permit, or other document 
authorizing that individual to provide a service in the public 
schools.'' Moreover, while sections 44660 through 44665 of the CEC 
authorize each LEA in California to independently negotiate and 
implement teacher evaluations, we do not read this to mean that 
California is prohibited from collecting data relevant to the student 
learning outcomes of novice teachers and link them to the teachers' 
preparation program. Commenters did not cite any provision of the CEC 
that prohibits LEAs from sharing teacher evaluation data with teacher 
preparation programs or the State if it is done without identifying any 
individual teachers. We assume that use of the nonpersonally 
identifiable educator identification number that section 44230.5 of the 
CEC directs would provide one way to accomplish this task. Finally, we 
have reviewed the commenters' brief description of the employer surveys 
and teacher entry and retention data that California is developing for 
use in its assessments of teacher preparation programs. Based on the 
comments, and as discussed more fully under the subheading Student 
Learning Outcomes, we believe that the final regulations are not 
inconsistent with California's approach.
    While the commenter who referred to Missouri law raised several 
broad concerns about purported Federal overreach of the State's laws, 
these concerns were very general. However, we note that in previously 
applying for and receiving ESEA flexibility, the Missouri Department of 
Elementary and Secondary Education (MDESE) agreed to have LEAs in the 
State implement basic changes in their teacher evaluation systems that 
would allow them to generate student growth data that would fulfill the 
student learning outcomes requirement. In doing so the MDESE 
demonstrated that it was fully able to implement these types of 
activities without conflict with State law. Moreover, the regulations 
address neither how a State or LEA are to determine the characteristics 
of effective educators, nor State procedures and authority for 
determining when to approve a teacher preparation program. Nor do the 
regulations undermine any State efforts to improve teacher preparation; 
in implementing their responsibilities under sections 205(b) and 207(a) 
of the HEA, they simply require that, in assessing the level of 
performance of each teacher preparation program, States examine and 
report data about the performance of novice teachers the program 
produces.
    Finally, we note that, as enacted, House Bill 1490 specifically 
directs the Missouri State Board of Education to issue a rule regarding 
gathering student data in the Statewide Longitudinal Data System in 
terms of the Board's need to make certain data elements available to 
the public. This is the very process the State presumably would use to 
gather and report the data that these regulations require. In addition, 
we read House Bill 1490 to prohibit the MDESE, unless otherwise 
authorized, ``to transfer personally identifiable student data'', 
something that the regulations do not contemplate. Further, we do not 
read House Bill 1490 as establishing the kind of limitation on LEAs' 
sharing student data with the MDESE that the commenter stresses. House 
Bill 1490 also requires the State Board to ensure

[[Page 75501]]

compliance with the Family Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) 
and other laws and policies; see our discussion of comment on FERPA and 
State privacy laws under Sec.  612.4(b)(3)(ii)(E).
    We are mindful that a number of States have begun their own efforts 
to use various methods and procedures to examine how well their teacher 
preparation programs are performing. For the title II reporting system, 
HEA provides that State reporting must use common definitions and 
reporting methods as the Secretary shall determine necessary. While the 
regulations require all States to use data on student learning 
outcomes, employment outcomes, survey outcomes, and minimum program 
characteristics to determine which programs are low-performing or at-
risk of being low-performing, States may, after working with their 
stakeholders, also adopt other criteria and indicators. We also know 
from the recent GAO report that more than half the States were already 
using information on program graduates' effectiveness in their teacher 
preparation program approval or renewal processes and at least 10 
others planned to do so--data we would expect to align with these 
reporting requirements.\7\ Hence, we trust that what States report in 
the SRCs will complement their own systems of assessing program 
performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ GAO at 13-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, with regard to the work of CAEP, we agree that CAEP may 
require some institutional reporting that may be similar to the 
reporting required under the title II reporting system; however, 
reporting information to CAEP does not satisfy the reporting 
requirements under title II. Regardless of the information reported to 
CAEP, States and institutions still have a statutory obligation to 
submit SRCs and IRCs. The CAEP reporting requirements include the 
reporting of data associated with student learning outcomes, employment 
outcomes, and survey outcomes; however, CAEP standards do not require 
the disaggregation of data for individual teacher preparation programs 
but this disaggregation is necessary for title II reporting.
    Changes: None.
Cost Implications
    Comments: A number of commenters raised concerns about the costs of 
implementing the regulations. They stated that the implementation 
costs, such as those for the required statewide data systems to be 
designed, implemented, and refined in the pilot year, would require 
States either to take funds away from other programs or raise taxes or 
fees to comply. The commenters noted that these costs could be passed 
on to students via tuition increases or result in decreased State 
funding for higher education, and that doing so would create many other 
unintended consequences, such as drawing State funding away from hiring 
of educators, minority-serving institutions, or future innovation, 
reforms, and accountability initiatives. Commenters also stated that 
the cost to institutions of implementing the regulations could pull 
funding away from earning national accreditation.
    Some commenters also expressed concern about the costs to States of 
providing technical assistance to teacher preparation programs that 
they find to be low-performing, and suggested that those programs could 
lose State approval or financial support.
    Finally, in view of the challenges in collecting accurate and 
meaningful data on teacher preparation program graduates who fan out 
across the United States, commenters argued that the Department should 
find ways to provide financial resources to States and institutions to 
help them gather the kinds of data the regulations will require.
    Discussion: The United States has a critical need to ensure that it 
is getting a good return on the billions of dollars of public funds it 
spends producing novice teachers. The teacher preparation program 
reporting system established in title II of the HEA provides an 
important tool for understanding whether these programs are making good 
on this investment. But the system can only serve its purpose if States 
measure and report a program's performance in a variety of ways--in 
particular, based on important inputs, such as good clinical education 
and support, as well as on important outcomes, such as novice teachers' 
success in improving student performance.
    The regulations are designed to achieve these goals, while 
maintaining State responsibility for deciding how to consider the 
indicators of academic content knowledge and teaching skills described 
in Sec.  612.5, along with other relevant criteria States choose to 
use. We recognize that moving from the current system--in which States, 
using criteria of their choosing, identified only 39 programs 
nationally in 2011 as low-performing or at-risk of being low-performing 
(see the NPRM, 79 FR 71823)--to one in which such determinations are 
based on meaningful indicators and criteria of program effectiveness is 
not without cost. We understand that States will need to make important 
decisions about how to provide for these costs. However, as explained 
in the Regulatory Impact Analysis section of this document, we 
concluded both that (1) these costs are manageable, regardless of 
States' current ability to establish the systems they will need, and 
(2) the benefits of a system in which the public has confidence that 
program reporting is valid and reliable are worth those costs.
    While providing technical assistance to low-performing teacher 
preparation programs will entail some costs, Sec.  612.6(b) simply 
codifies the statutory requirement Congress established in section 
207(a) of the HEA and offers examples of what this technical assistance 
could entail. Moreover, we assume that a State would want to provide 
such technical assistance rather than have the program continue to be 
low-performing and so remain at-risk of losing State support (and 
eligibility to enroll students who receive title IV aid).
    Finally, commenters requested that we identify funding sources to 
help States and IHEs gather the required data on students who, upon 
completing their programs, do not stay in the State. We encourage 
States to gather and use data on all program graduates regardless of 
the State to which they ultimately move. However, given the evident 
costs of doing so on an interstate basis, the final regulations permit 
States to exclude these students from their calculations of student 
learning outcomes, their teacher placement and retention rates and from 
the employer and teacher survey (see the definitions of teacher 
placement and retention rate in Sec.  612.2) and provisions governing 
student learning outcomes and survey outcomes in Sec.  612.5(a)(1)(iii) 
and (a)(3)(ii).
    Changes: None.
Section 612.2 Definitions
Content and Pedagogical Knowledge
    Comments: Several commenters requested that we revise the 
definition of ``content and pedagogical knowledge'' to specifically 
refer to a teacher's ability to factor students' cultural, linguistic, 
and experiential backgrounds into the design and implementation of 
productive learning experiences. The commenters stated that pedagogical 
diversity is an important construct in elementary and secondary 
education and should be included in this definition.
    Additional commenters requested that this definition specifically 
refer to knowledge and skills regarding assessment. These commenters 
stated that the ability to measure student

[[Page 75502]]

learning outcomes depends upon a teacher's ability to understand the 
assessment of such learning and not just from the conveyance and 
explanation of content.
    Another commenter recommended that we specifically mention the 
distinct set of instructional skills necessary to address the needs of 
students who are gifted and talented. This commenter stated that there 
is a general lack of awareness of how to identify and support advanced 
and gifted learners, and that this lack of awareness has contributed to 
concerns about how well the Nation's top students are doing compared to 
top students around the world. The commenter also stated that this 
disparity could be rectified if teachers were required to address the 
specific needs of this group of students.
    Multiple commenters requested that we develop data definitions and 
metrics related to the definition of ``content and pedagogical 
knowledge,'' and then collect related data on a national level. They 
stated that such a national reporting system would facilitate 
continuous improvement and quality assurance on a systemic level, while 
significantly reducing burden on States and programs.
    Other commenters recommended that to directly assess for content 
knowledge and pedagogy, the definition of the term include rating 
graduates of teacher preparation programs based on a portfolio of the 
teaching candidates' work over the course of the academic program. 
These commenters stated that reviewing a portfolio reflecting a recent 
graduate's pedagogical preparation would be more reliable than rating 
an individual based on student learning, which cannot be reliably 
measured.
    Discussion: The proposed definition of ``content and pedagogical 
knowledge'' reflected the specific and detailed suggestions of a 
consensus of non-Federal negotiators. We believe that the definition is 
sufficiently broad to address, in general terms, the key areas of 
content and pedagogical knowledge that aspiring teachers should gain in 
their teacher preparation programs.
    In this regard, we note that the purpose here is not to offer a 
comprehensive definition of the term that all States must use, as the 
commenters appear to recommend. Rather, it is to provide a general 
roadmap for States to use as they work with stakeholders (see Sec.  
612.4(c)) to decide how best to determine whether programs that lack 
the accreditation referenced in Sec.  612.5(a)(4)(i) will ensure that 
students have the requisite content and pedagogical knowledge they will 
need as teachers before they complete the programs.
    For this reason, we believe that requiring States to use a more 
prescriptive definition or to develop common data definitions and 
metrics aligned to that definition, as many commenters urged, would 
create unnecessary costs and burdens. Similarly, we do not believe that 
collecting this kind of data on a national level through the title II 
reporting system is worth the significant cost and burden that it would 
entail. Instead, we believe that States, working in consultation with 
stakeholders, should determine whether their State systems for 
evaluating program performance should include the kinds of additions to 
the definition of content and pedagogical knowledge that the commenters 
recommend.
    We also stress that our definition underscores the need for teacher 
preparation programs to train teachers to have the content knowledge 
and pedagogical skills needed to address the learning needs of all 
students. It specifically refers to the need for a teacher to possess 
the distinct skills necessary to meet the needs of English learners and 
students with disabilities, both because students in these two groups 
face particular challenges and require additional support, and to 
emphasize the need for programs to train aspiring teachers to teach to 
the learning needs of the most vulnerable students they will have in 
their classrooms. While the definition's focus on all students plainly 
includes students who are gifted and talented, as well as students in 
all other subgroups, we do not believe that, for purposes of this title 
II reporting system, the definition of ``content and pedagogical 
skills'' requires similar special reference to those or other student 
groups. However, we emphasize again that States are free to adopt many 
of the commenters' recommendations. For example, because the definition 
refers to ``effective learning experiences that make the discipline 
accessible and meaningful for all students,'' States may consider a 
teacher's ability to factor students' cultural, linguistic, and 
experiential backgrounds into the design and implementation of 
productive learning experiences, just as States may include a specific 
focus on the learning needs of students who are gifted and talented.
    Finally, through this definition we are not mandating a particular 
method for assessing the content and pedagogical knowledge of teachers. 
As such, under the definition, States may allow teacher preparation 
programs to use a portfolio review to assess teachers' acquisition of 
content and pedagogical knowledge.
    Changes: None.
Employer Survey
    Comments: None.
    Discussion: The proposed definition of ``survey outcomes'' 
specified that a State would be required to survey the employers or 
supervisors of new teachers who were in their first year of teaching in 
the State where their teacher preparation program is located. To avoid 
confusion with regard to teacher preparation programs provided through 
distance education, in the final regulations we have removed the phrase 
``where their teacher preparation program is located'' from the final 
definition of ``employer survey.'' In addition to including a 
requirement to survey those in their first year of teaching in the 
State and their employers in the ``survey outcomes'' provision that we 
have moved to Sec.  612.5(a)(3) of the final regulations, we are 
including the same clarification in the definitions of ``employer 
survey'' and ``teacher survey''. We also changed the term ``new 
teacher'' to ``novice teacher'' for the reasons discussed in this 
document under the definition of ``novice teacher.''
    Changes: We have revised the definition of ``employer survey'' to 
clarify that this survey is of employers or supervisors of novice 
teachers who are in their first year of teaching.
Employment Outcomes
    Comments: None.
    Discussion: Upon review of the proposed regulations, we recognized 
that the original structure of the regulations could have generated 
confusion. We are concerned that having a definition for the term 
``employment outcomes'' in Sec.  612.2, when that provision largely 
serves to operationalize other definitions in the context of Sec.  
612.5, was not the clearest way to present these requirements. We 
therefore are moving the explanations and requirements of those terms 
into the text of Sec.  612.5(a).
    Changes: We have removed the proposed definition of ``employment 
outcomes'' from Sec.  612.2, and moved the text and requirements from 
the proposed definition to Sec.  612.5(a)(2).
Exceptional Teacher Preparation Program
    Comments: Many commenters opposed having the regulations define, 
and having States identify in their SRCs, ``exceptional teacher 
preparation programs'', stating that section 207(a) of the HEA only 
gives the Department

[[Page 75503]]

authority to require reporting of three categories of teacher 
preparation programs: Low-performing, at-risk of being low-performing, 
and teacher preparation programs that are neither low-performing nor 
at-risk. A number of commenters noted that some States have used a 
designation of exceptional and found that the rating did not indicate 
truly exceptional educational quality. They also stated that teacher 
preparation programs have used that rating in their marketing 
materials, and that it may mislead the public as to the quality of the 
program. In addition, commenters noted that, with respect to the 
determination of a high-quality teacher preparation program for TEACH 
Grant program eligibility, it makes no practical difference whether a 
teacher preparation program is rated as effective or exceptional 
because eligible students would be able to receive TEACH Grants whether 
the programs in which they enroll are effective, exceptional, or some 
other classification above effective.
    Discussion: Section 207(a) of the HEA requires that a State 
identify programs as low-performing or at-risk of being low-performing, 
and report those programs in its SRC. However, section 205(b) of the 
HEA authorizes the Secretary to require States to include other 
information in their SRCs. Therefore, we proposed that States report 
which teacher preparation programs they had identified as exceptional 
because we believe the public should know which teacher preparation 
programs each State has concluded are working very well. We continue to 
urge States to identify for the public those teacher preparation 
programs that are indeed exceptional. Nonetheless, based on our 
consideration of the concerns raised in the comments, and the costs of 
reporting using this fourth performance level, we have decided to 
remove this requirement from the final regulations. Doing so has no 
impact on TEACH Grants because, as commenters noted, an institution's 
eligibility to offer TEACH Grants is impacted only where a State has 
identified a teacher preparation program as low-performing or at-risk. 
Despite these changes, we encourage States to adopt and report on this 
additional performance level.
    Changes: We have removed the proposed definition of ``exceptional 
teacher preparation program,'' and revised the proposed definition of 
``effective teacher preparation program'' under Sec.  612.2 to mean a 
teacher preparation program with a level of performance that is higher 
than low-performing or at-risk. We have also revised Sec.  612.4(b)(1) 
to remove the requirement that an SRC include ``exceptional'' as a 
fourth teacher preparation program performance level.
High-Need School
    Comments: Multiple commenters requested that States be allowed to 
develop and use their own definitions of ``high-need school'' so that 
State systems do not need to be modified to comply with the 
regulations. These commenters stated that many States had made great 
strides in improving the quality of teacher preparation programs, and 
that the definition of ``high-need school'' may detract from the 
reforms already in place in those States. In addition, the commenters 
noted that States are in the best position to define a high-need school 
since they can do so with better knowledge of State-specific context.
    Some commenters suggested, alternatively, that the Department 
include an additional disaggregation requirement for high-need subject 
areas. These commenters stated that targeting high-need subject areas 
would have a greater connection to employment outcomes than would high-
need schools and, as such, should be tracked as a separate category 
when judging the quality of teacher preparation programs.
    A number of commenters requested that the definition of high-need 
school include schools with low graduation rates. Other commenters 
agreed that this definition should be based on poverty, as defined in 
section 200(11) of the HEA, but also recommended that a performance 
component should be included. Specifically, these commenters suggested 
that high schools in which one-third or more of the students do not 
graduate on time be designated as high-need schools. Other commenters 
recommended including geography as an indicator of a school's need, 
arguing that, in their experience, high schools' urbanicity plays a 
significant role in determining student success.
    Other commenters expressed concerns with using a quartile-based 
ranking of all schools to determine which schools are considered high 
need. These commenters stated that such an approach may lead to schools 
with very different economic conditions being considered high need. For 
example, a school in one district might fall into the lowest quartile 
with only 15 percent of students living in poverty while a school in 
another district would need to have 75 percent of students living in 
poverty to meet the same designation.
    Discussion: Our definition of ``high-need school'' mirrors the 
definition of that term in section 200(11)(A) of the HEA and, we 
believe, provides sufficient breadth and flexibility for all States to 
use it to help determine the performance of their teacher preparation 
programs. Under the definition, all schools that are in an LEA's 
highest quartile of schools ranked by family need based on measures 
that include student eligibility for free and reduced price lunch are 
deemed high-need schools. (We focus here on this measure of poverty 
because we believe that this is the primary measure on which many LEAs 
will collect data.) So, too, are schools with high individual family 
poverty rates measured by large numbers or percentages of students who 
are eligible for free and reduced price lunches. Hence, for purposes of 
title II reporting, not only will all schools with sufficiently high 
family poverty rates be considered high-need schools, but, regardless 
of the school's level of family poverty level, every LEA in the Nation 
with four or more schools will have at least one high-need school. The 
definition therefore eliminates a novice teacher's LEA preference as a 
factor affecting the placement or retention rate in high-need schools, 
and thus permits these measures to work well with this definition of 
high-need school. This would not necessarily be true if we permitted 
States to adopt their own definitions of this term.
    We acknowledge the concern expressed by some commenters that the 
definition of ``high-need school'' permits schools in different LEAs 
(and indeed, depending on the breakdown of an LEA's schools in the 
highest quartile based on poverty, in the same LEA as well) that serve 
communities with very different levels of poverty all to be considered 
high-need. However, for a reporting system that will use placement and 
retention rates in high-need schools as factors bearing on the 
performance of each teacher preparation program, States may consider 
applying significantly greater weight to employment outcomes for novice 
teachers who work in LEAs and schools that serve high-poverty areas 
than for novice teachers who work in LEAs and schools that serve low-
poverty areas.
    Moreover, while we acknowledge that the definition of ``high-need 
school'' in section 200(11)(A) of the HEA does not apply to the 
statutory provisions requiring the submission of SRCs and IRCs, we 
believe that if we use the term in the title II reporting system it is 
reasonable that we should give some deference to the definition used 
elsewhere in title II of the HEA. For reasons provided above, we 
believe the definition can work well for the

[[Page 75504]]

indicators concerning teacher placement and retention rates in high-
need schools.
    Furthermore, we disagree with the comments that the definition of 
``high-need school'' should include high-need subject areas. As defined 
in the regulations, a ``teacher preparation program'' is a program that 
leads to an initial State teacher certification or licensure in a 
specific field. Thus, the State's assessment of a teacher preparation 
program's performance already focuses on a specific subject area, 
including those we believe States would generally consider to be high-
need. In addition, maintaining focus on placement of teachers in 
schools where students come from families with high actual or relative 
poverty levels, and not on the subject areas they teach in those 
schools, will help maintain a focus on the success of students who have 
fewer opportunities. We therefore do not see the benefit of further 
burdening State reporting by separately carrying into the definition of 
a ``high-need school'' as commenters recommend, factors that focus on 
high-need subjects.
    We also disagree that the definition of ``high-need school'' should 
include an additional criterion of low graduation rates. While we agree 
that addressing the needs of schools with low graduation rates is a 
major priority, we believe the definition of ``high-need school'' 
should focus on the poverty level of the area the school serves. The 
measure is easy to calculate and understand, and including this 
additional component would complicate the data collection and analysis 
process for States. However, we believe there is a sufficiently high 
correlation between schools in high-poverty areas, which our definition 
would deem high-need, and the schools with low graduation rates on 
which the commenters desire to have the definition focus. We believe 
this correlation means that a large proportion of low-performing 
schools would be included in a definition of high-need schools that 
focuses on poverty.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: None.
    Discussion: Under paragraphs (i)(B) and (ii) of the definition of 
``high-need school'' in the regulations, the identification of a high-
need school may be based, in part, on the percentage of students 
enrolled in the school that are eligible for free or reduced price 
school lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act. 
With the passage of the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010, the 
National School Lunch Program (NSLP) now includes a new universal meal 
option, the ``Community Eligibility Provision'' (CEP or Community 
Eligibility). CEP reduces burden at the household and local level by 
eliminating the need to obtain eligibility data from families through 
individual household applications, and permits schools, if they meet 
certain criteria, to provide meal service to all students at no charge 
to the students or their families. To be eligible to participate in 
Community Eligibility, schools must: (1) Have at least 40 percent of 
their students qualify for free meals through ``direct certification'' 
\8\ in the year prior to implementing Community Eligibility; (2) agree 
to serve free breakfasts and lunches to all students; and, (3) agree to 
cover, with non-Federal funds, any costs of providing free meals to 
students above the amounts provided by Federal assistance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ ``Direct certification'' is a process by which schools 
identify students as eligible for free meals using data from, among 
other sources, the Supplemental Nutrition Assistance Program (SNAP) 
or the Temporary Assistance for Needy Families (TANF) program.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    CEP schools are not permitted to use household applications to 
determine a reimbursement percentage from the USDA. Rather, the USDA 
determines meal reimbursement for CEP schools based on ``claiming 
percentages,'' calculated by multiplying the percentage of students 
identified through the direct certification data by a multiplier 
established in the Healthy, Hunger-Free Kids Act of 2010 and set in 
regulation at 1.6. The 1.6 multiplier provides an estimate of the 
number of students that would be eligible for free and reduced-price 
meals in CEP schools if the schools determined eligibility through 
traditional means, using both direct certification and household 
applications. If a State uses NSLP data from CEP schools when 
determining whether schools are high-need schools, it should not use 
the number of children actually receiving free meals in CEP schools to 
determine the percentage of students from low-income families because, 
in those schools, some children receiving free meals live in households 
that do not meet a definition of low-income. Therefore, States that 
wish to use NSLP data for purposes of determining the percentage of 
children from low-income families in schools that are participating in 
Community Eligibility should use the number of children for whom the 
LEA is receiving reimbursement from the USDA (direct certification 
total with the 1.6 multiplier), not to exceed 100 percent of children 
enrolled. For example, we can consider a school that participates in 
Community Eligibility with an enrollment of 1,000 children. The school 
identifies 600 children through direct certification data as eligible 
for the NSLP. The school multiplies 600 by 1.6, and that result is 960. 
The LEA would receive reimbursement through the NSLP for meals for 960 
children, or 96 percent of students enrolled. In a ranking of schools 
in the LEA on the basis of the percentage of students from low-income 
families, even though 100 percent of students are receiving free meals 
through NSLP, the school would be ranked on the basis of 96 percent of 
students from low-income families. The use of claiming percentages for 
identifying CEP schools as high-need schools, rather than the number of 
students actually receiving free lunch through NSLP ensures 
comparability, regardless of an individual school's decision regarding 
participation in the program.
    Changes: None.
Novice Teacher
    Comments: Many commenters expressed concerns about the proposed 
definition of ``new teacher.'' These commenters noted that the 
definition distinguishes between traditional teacher preparation 
programs and alternative route teacher preparation programs. The 
commenters argued that, because alternative route teacher preparation 
programs place their participants as teachers while they are still 
enrolled, these participants will have already established teacher 
retention rates by the time they complete their programs. Traditional 
program participants, on the other hand, are only placed as teachers 
after earning their credential, leaving their programs at a comparative 
disadvantage under the indicators of academic content knowledge and 
teaching skills. Many of these commenters contended that, as a result, 
comparisons between traditional teacher preparation programs and 
alternative route teacher preparation programs will be invalid. Others 
recommended that the word ``licensure'' be changed to ``professional 
licensure'' to alleviate the need for States to compare traditional 
teacher preparation programs and alternative route teacher preparation 
programs.
    A number of commenters claimed that the proposed definition 
confused the attainment of certification or licensure with graduation 
from a program, which is often a precursor for certification or 
licensure. They stated that the proposed definition was not clear 
regarding how States would report on recent program completers who are 
entering the classroom. Others noted that some

[[Page 75505]]

States allow individuals to be employed as full-time teachers for up to 
five years before obtaining licensure. They contended that reporting 
all of these categories together would provide misleading statistics on 
teacher preparation programs.
    Other commenters specifically requested that the definition include 
pre-kindergarten teachers (if a State requires postsecondary education 
and training for pre-kindergarten teachers), and that pre-kindergarten 
teachers be reflected in teacher preparation program assessment.
    A number of commenters also recommended that the word ``recent'' be 
removed from the definition of ``new teacher'' so that individuals who 
take time off between completing their teaching degree and obtaining a 
job in a classroom are still considered to be new teachers. They argued 
that individuals who take time off to raise a family or who do not 
immediately find a full-time teaching position should still be 
considered new teachers if they have not already had full-time teaching 
experience. Other commenters stated that the term ``new teacher'' may 
result in confusion based on State decisions about when an individual 
may begin teaching. For example, the commenters stated that in Colorado 
teachers may obtain an alternative license and begin teaching before 
completing a formal licensure program. As such, new teachers may have 
been teaching for up to three years at the point that the proposed 
definition would consider them to be a ``new teacher,'' and the 
proposed definition therefore may cause confusion among data entry 
staff about which individuals should be reported as new teachers. They 
recommended the we replace the term ``new teacher'' with the term 
``employed completer'' because the latter more clearly reflects that an 
individual would need to complete his or her program and have found 
employment to be included in the reporting requirements.
    Discussion: The intent of the proposed definition of ``new 
teacher'' was to capture those individuals who have newly entered the 
classroom and become responsible for student outcomes. Upon review of 
the public comments, we agree that the proposed definition of ``new 
teacher'' is unclear and needs revision.
    We understand that many alternative route teacher preparation 
programs place their participants as teachers while they are enrolled 
in their programs, and many traditional preparation program 
participants are only placed after earning their credential. 
Furthermore, we agree that direct comparisons between alternative route 
and traditional teacher preparation programs could be misleading if 
done without a more complete understanding of the inherent differences 
between the two types of programs. For example, a recent completer of 
an alternative route program may actually have several more years of 
teaching experience than a recent graduate of a traditional teacher 
preparation program, so apparent differences in their performance may 
be based more on the specific teacher's experience than the quality of 
the preparation program.
    In addition, we agree with commenters that the preparation of 
preschool teachers is a critical part of improving early childhood 
education, and inclusion of these staff in the assessment of teacher 
preparation program quality could provide valuable insights. We 
strongly encourage States that require preschool teachers to obtain 
either the same level of licensure as elementary school teachers, or a 
level of licensure focused on preschool or early childhood education, 
to include preschool teachers who teach in public schools in their 
assessment of the quality of their teacher preparation programs. 
However, we also recognize that preschool licensure and teacher 
evaluation requirements vary among States and among settings, and 
therefore believe that it is important to leave the determination of 
whether and how to include preschool teachers in this measure to the 
States. We hope that States will base their determination on what is 
most supportive of high-quality early childhood education in their 
State.
    We also agree with commenters that the proposed term ``new 
teacher'' may result in confusion based on State decisions about when 
individuals in an alternative route program have the certification they 
need to begin teaching, and that, in some cases, these individuals may 
have taught for up to three years before the proposed definition would 
consider them to be new teachers. We believe, however, that the term 
``employed completer'' could be problematic for alternative route 
programs because, while their participants are employed, they may not 
have yet completed their program.
    Likewise, we agree with commenters who expressed concern that our 
proposed definition of ``new teacher'' confuses the attainment of 
certification or licensure with graduation from a program leading to 
recommendation for certification or licensure.
    For all of these reasons, we are removing the term and definition 
of ``new teacher'' and replacing it with the term ``novice teacher,'' 
which we are defining as ``a teacher of record in the first three years 
of teaching who teaches elementary or secondary public school students, 
which may include, at a State's discretion, preschool students.'' We 
believe this new term and definition more clearly distinguish between 
individuals who have met all the requirements of a teacher preparation 
program (recent graduates), and those who have been assigned the lead 
responsibility for a student's learning (i.e., a teacher of record as 
defined in this document) but who may or may not have completed their 
teacher preparation program. In doing so, we also have adopted language 
that captures as novice teachers those individuals who are responsible 
for student outcomes, because these are the teachers on whom a 
program's student learning outcomes should focus. We chose a period of 
three years because we believe this is a reasonable timeframe in which 
one could consider a teacher to be a novice, and because it is the 
length of time for which retention rate data will be collected. In this 
regard, the definition of novice teacher continues to include three 
cohorts of teachers, but treats the first year of teaching as the first 
year as a teacher of record regardless of whether the teacher has 
completed a preparation program (as is the case for most traditional 
programs) or is still in process of completing it (as is the case for 
alternate route programs).
    Finally, we agree with commenters that we should remove the word 
``recent'' from the definition, and have made this change. As 
commenters suggest, making this change will ensure that individuals who 
take time off between completing their teacher preparation program and 
obtaining a job in a classroom, or who do not immediately find a full-
time teaching position, are still included in the definition of 
``novice teacher.'' Therefore, our definition of ``novice teacher'' 
does not include the word ``recent''; the term instead clarifies that a 
novice teacher is an individual who is responsible for student 
outcomes, while still allowing individuals who are recent graduates to 
be categorized as novice teachers for three years in order to account 
for delays in placement.
    Changes: We have removed the term ``new teacher'' and replaced it 
with the term ``novice teacher,'' which we define as ``a teacher of 
record in the first three years of teaching who teaches elementary or 
secondary public school students, which may include, at a State's 
discretion, preschool students.'' See the discussion below regarding 
the definition of ``teacher of record.''

[[Page 75506]]

Quality Clinical Preparation
    Comments: Commenters provided a number of specific suggestions for 
revising the proposed definition of ``quality clinical preparation.''
    Commenters suggested that the definition include a requirement that 
mentor teachers be ``effective.'' While our proposed definition did not 
use the term ``mentor teacher,'' we interpret the comments as 
pertaining to the language of paragraph (1) of the proposed 
definition--the requirement that those LEA-based personnel who provide 
training be qualified clinical instructors. Commenters also suggested 
that we eliminate the phrase ``at least in part'' when referring to the 
training to be provided by qualified clinical instructors, and that we 
require the clinical practice to include experience with high-need and 
high-ability students, as well as the use of data analysis and 
development of classroom management skills.
    Other commenters suggested that the definition require multiple 
clinical or field experiences, or both, with effective mentor teachers 
who (1) address the needs of diverse, rural, or underrepresented 
student populations in elementary and secondary schools, including 
English learners, students with disabilities, high-need students, and 
high-ability students, and (2) assess the clinical experiences using a 
performance-based protocol to demonstrate teacher candidates' mastery 
of content and pedagogy.
    Some commenters suggested that the definition require that teacher 
candidates use specific research-based practices in addition to those 
currently listed in the definition, including data analysis, 
differentiation, and classroom management. The commenters recommended 
that all instructors be qualified clinical instructors, and that they 
ensure that clinical experiences include working with high-need and 
high-ability students because doing so will provide a more robust and 
realistic clinical experience.
    Commenters further suggested that ``quality clinical preparation'' 
use a program model similar to that utilized by many alternative route 
programs. This model would include significant in-service training and 
support as a fundamental and required component, alongside an 
accelerated pre-service training program. Another commenter suggested 
the inclusion of residency programs in the definition.
    Commenters also suggested that the Department adopt, for the title 
II reporting system, the definitions of the terms ``clinical 
experience'' and ``clinical practice'' used by CAEP so that the 
regulatory definitions describe a collaborative relationship between a 
teacher preparation program and a school district. Commenters explained 
that CAEP defines ``clinical experiences'' as guided, hands-on, 
practical applications and demonstrations of professional knowledge of 
theory to practice, skills, and dispositions through collaborative and 
facilitated learning in field-based assignments, tasks, activities, and 
assessments across a variety of settings. Commenters further explained 
that CAEP defines ``clinical practice'' as student teaching or 
internship opportunities that provide candidates with an intensive and 
extensive culminating field-based set of responsibilities, assignments, 
tasks, activities, and assessments that demonstrate candidates' 
progressive development of the professional knowledge, skills, and 
dispositions to be effective educators. Another commenter recommended 
that we develop common definitions of data and metrics on quality 
clinical preparation.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenters that it is important to 
ensure that mentor teachers and qualified clinical instructors are 
effective. Effective instructors play an important role in ensuring 
that students in teacher preparation programs receive the best possible 
clinical training if they are to become effective educators. However, 
we believe that defining the term ``quality clinical preparation'' to 
provide that all clinical instructors, whether LEA-based or not, meet 
specific established qualification requirements and use a training 
standard that is publicly available (as required by paragraph (1) of 
our definition) reasonably ensures that students are receiving clinical 
training from effective instructors.
    We agree with the recommendation to remove the phrase ``at least in 
part'' from the definition, so that all training must be provided by 
quality clinical instructors.
    We decline to revise the definition to provide that quality 
clinical preparation specifically include work with high-need or high-
ability students, using data analysis and differentiation, and 
developing classroom management skills. We agree that these are 
important elements in developing highly effective educators and could 
be an important part of clinical preparation. However, the purpose of 
this definition is to highlight general characteristics of quality 
clinical instruction that must be reflected in how a State assesses 
teacher preparation program performance, rather than provide a 
comprehensive list of elements of quality clinical preparation. We 
believe that including the additional elements suggested by the 
commenters would result in an overly prescriptive definition. We note, 
however, that States are free to supplement this definition with 
additional criteria for assessing teacher preparation program 
performance.
    We also decline to revise the definition to provide that quality 
clinical preparation be assessed using a performance-based protocol as 
a means of demonstrating student mastery of content and pedagogy. While 
this is a strong approach that States may choose to take, we are not 
revising the definition to prescribe this particular method because we 
believe it may in some cases be overly burdensome.
    We decline commenters' recommendation to include significant in-
service training and support as a fundamental and required component, 
alongside an accelerated pre-service training program. Similarly, we 
reject the suggestion to include residency programs in the definition. 
Here again, we feel that both of these additional qualifications would 
result in a definition that is too prescriptive. Moreover, as noted 
above, this definition is meant to highlight general characteristics of 
quality clinical instruction that must be reflected in how a State 
assesses teacher preparation program performance, rather than to 
provide a comprehensive list of elements of quality clinical 
preparation.
    Furthermore, while we understand why commenters recommended that we 
use CAEP's definitions, we do not want to issue an overly prescriptive 
definition of what is and is not quality clinical preparation, nor do 
we want to endorse any particular organization's approach. Rather, we 
are defining a basic indicator of teacher preparation program 
performance for programs that do not meet the program accreditation 
provision in Sec.  612.5(a)(4)(i). However, States are free to build 
the CAEP definitions into their own criteria for assessing teacher 
preparation program performance; furthermore, programs may implement 
CAEP criteria.
    We encourage States and teacher preparation programs to adopt 
research-based practices of effective teacher preparation for all 
aspects of their program accountability systems. Indeed, we believe the 
accountability systems that States establish will help programs and 
States to gather more evidence about what aspects of clinical training 
and other parts of preparation programs lead to the most successful 
teachers. However, we decline to develop more

[[Page 75507]]

precise regulatory definitions of data and metrics on quality clinical 
preparation because we feel that these should be determined by the 
State in collaboration with IHEs, LEAs, and other stakeholders (see 
Sec.  612.4(c)).
    Changes: We have revised the definition of ``quality clinical 
preparation'' by removing the phrase ``at least in part'' to ensure 
that all training is provided by quality clinical instructors.
Recent Graduate
    Comments: Multiple commenters recommended replacing the term 
``recent graduate'' with the term ``program completer'' to include 
candidates who have met all program requirements, regardless of 
enrollment in a traditional teacher preparation program or an 
alternative route teacher preparation program. In addition, they 
recommended that States be able to determine the criteria that a 
candidate must satisfy in order to be considered a program completer.
    Other commenters recommended changing the definition of ``recent 
graduate'' to limit it to those graduates of teacher preparation 
programs who are currently credentialed and practicing teachers. The 
commenters stated that this would avoid having programs with completers 
who become gainfully employed in a non-education field or enroll in 
graduate school being penalized when the State determines the program's 
performance.
    Discussion: We intended the term ``recent graduate'' to capture 
those individuals who have met all the requirements of the teacher 
preparation program within the last three title II reporting years. We 
recognize that a number of alternative route programs do not use the 
term ``graduate'' to refer to individuals who have met those 
requirements. However, using the term ``recent graduate'' to encompass 
both individuals who complete traditional teacher preparation programs 
and those who complete alternative route programs is simpler than 
creating a separate term for alternative route participants. Thus, we 
continue to believe that the term ``recent graduate,'' as defined, 
appropriately captures the relevant population for purposes of the 
regulations.
    Furthermore, we decline to amend the definition to include only 
those individuals who are currently credentialed and practicing 
teachers. Doing so would create confusion between this term and 
``novice teacher'' (defined elsewhere in this document). The term 
``novice teacher'' is designed to capture individuals who are in their 
first three years of teaching, whereas the definition of ``recent 
graduate'' is designed to capture individuals who have completed a 
program, regardless of whether they are teaching. In order to maintain 
this distinction, we have retained the prohibitions that currently 
exist in the definitions in the title II reporting system against using 
recommendation to the State for licensure or becoming a teacher of 
record as a condition of being identified as a recent graduate.
    We are, however, making slight modifications to the proposed 
definition. Specifically, we are removing the reference to being hired 
as a full-time teacher and instead using the phrase ``becoming a 
teacher of record.'' We do not believe this substantially changes the 
meaning of ``recent graduate,'' but it does clarify which newly hired, 
full-time teachers are to be captured under the definition.
    We decline to provide States with additional flexibility in 
establishing other criteria for making a candidate a program completer 
because we believe that the revised definition of the term ``recent 
graduate'' provides States with sufficient flexibility. We believe that 
the additional flexibility suggested by the commenters would result in 
definitions that stray from the intent of the regulations.
    Some commenters expressed concern that programs would be penalized 
if some individuals who have completed them go on to become gainfully 
employed in a non-education field or enroll in graduate school. We feel 
that it is important for the public and prospective students to know 
the degree to which participants in a teacher preparation program do 
not become teachers, regardless of whether they become gainfully 
employed in a non-education field. However, we think it is reasonable 
to allow States flexibility to exclude certain individuals when 
determining the teacher placement and retention rates (i.e., those 
recent graduates who have taken teaching positions in another State, or 
who have enrolled in graduate school or entered military service). For 
these reasons, we have not adopted the commenters' recommendation to 
limit the definition of ``recent graduate'' to those graduates of 
teacher preparation programs who are currently credentialed and 
practicing teachers.
    Changes: We have revised the definition of ``recent graduate'' to 
clarify that a teacher preparation program may not use the criterion 
``becoming a teacher of record'' when it determines if an individual 
has met all of the program requirements.
Rigorous Teacher Candidate Exit Qualifications
    Comments: One commenter recommended that we remove the reference to 
entry requirements from the proposed definition of ``rigorous teacher 
entry and exit requirements'' because using rigorous entry requirements 
to assess teacher preparation program performance could compromise the 
mission of minority-serving institutions, which often welcome 
disadvantaged students and develop them into profession-ready teachers. 
Commenters said that those institutions and others seek, in part, to 
identify potential teacher candidates whose backgrounds are similar to 
students they may ultimately teach but who, while not meeting purely 
grade- or test-based entry requirements, could become well-qualified 
teachers through an effective preparation program.
    Commenters recommended adding a number of specific items to the 
definition of exit qualifications, such as classroom management, 
differentiated instructional planning, and an assessment of student 
growth over time.
    Another commenter suggested amending the definition to include 
culturally competent teaching, which the commenter defined as the 
ability of educators to teach students intellectual, social, emotional, 
and political knowledge by utilizing their diverse cultural knowledge, 
prior experiences, linguistic needs, and performance styles. This 
commenter stated that culturally competent teaching is an essential 
pedagogical skill that teachers must possess. The commenter also 
recommended that we include as separate terms and define ``culturally 
competent education'' and ``culturally competent leadership''. Finally, 
this commenter requested that we develop guidance on culturally and 
linguistically appropriate approaches in education.
    Discussion: Although overall research findings regarding the effect 
of teacher preparation program selectivity on student outcomes are 
generally mixed, some research indicates there is a correlation between 
admission requirements for teacher preparation programs and the 
teaching effectiveness of program graduates.\9\ In addition, under our 
proposed definition, States and programs could define ``rigorous entry 
requirements'' in many and varied ways, including through evidence of 
other skills and characteristics

[[Page 75508]]

determined by programs to correlate with graduates' teaching 
effectiveness, such as grit, disposition, or performance-based 
assessments relevant to teaching. Nonetheless, we understand that 
prospective teachers who themselves come from high-need schools--and 
who may therefore bring a strong understanding of the backgrounds of 
students they may eventually teach--could be disproportionately 
affected by grade-based or test-based entry requirements. Additionally, 
because the primary emphasis of the regulations is to ensure that 
candidates graduate from teacher preparation programs ready to teach, 
we agree that measures of program effectiveness should emphasize 
rigorous exit requirements over program entry requirements. Therefore, 
we are revising the regulations to require only rigorous exit 
standards.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ See, for example: Henry, G., & Bastian, K. (2015). Measuring 
Up: The National Council on Teacher Quality's Ratings of Teacher 
Preparation Programs and Measures of Teacher Performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In our definition of rigorous exit requirements, we identified four 
basic characteristics that we believe all teacher candidates should 
possess. Regarding the specific components of rigorous exit 
requirements that commenters suggested (such as standards-based and 
differentiated planning, classroom management, and cultural 
competency), the definition does not preclude States from including 
those kinds of elements as rigorous exit requirements. We acknowledge 
that these additional characteristics, including cultural competency, 
may also be important, but we believe that the inclusion of these 
additional characteristics should be left to the discretion of States, 
in consultation with their stakeholders. To the extent that they choose 
to include them, States would need to develop definitions for each 
additional element. We also encourage interested parties to bring these 
suggestions forward to their States in the stakeholder engagement 
process required of all States in the design of their performance 
rating systems (see Sec.  612.4(c)). Given that we are not adding 
cultural competency into the definition of rigorous candidate exit 
requirements, we are not adding the recommended related definitions or 
developing guidance on this topic at this time.
    In addition, as we reviewed comments, we realized both that the 
phrase ``at a minimum'' was misplaced in the sentence and should refer 
not to the use of an assessment but to the use of validated standards 
and measures of the candidate's effectiveness, and that the second use 
of ``measures of'' in the phrase ``measures of candidate effectiveness 
including measures of curriculum planning'' was redundant.
    Changes: We have revised the term ``rigorous teacher candidate 
entry and exit qualifications'' by removing entry qualifications. We 
have also revised the language in Sec.  612.5(a)(4)(ii)(C) accordingly. 
In addition, we have moved the phrase ``at a minimum'' from preceding 
``assessment of candidate performance'' to preceding ``on validated 
professional teaching standards.'' Finally, we have revised the phrase 
``measures of candidate effectiveness including measures of curriculum 
planning'' to read ``measures of candidate effectiveness in curriculum 
planning.''
Student Achievement in Non-Tested Grades and Subjects
    Comments: Multiple commenters opposed the definition of the term 
``student achievement in non-tested grades and subjects,'' and provided 
different recommendations on how the definition should be revised. Some 
commenters recommended removing the definition from the regulations 
altogether, noting that, for some subjects (such as music, art, 
theater, and physical education), there simply are not effective or 
valid ways to judge the growth of student achievement by test scores. 
Others recommended that student achievement in non-tested grades and 
subjects be aligned to State and local standards. These commenters 
asserted that alignment with State and local standards will ensure 
rigor and consistency for non-tested grades and subjects. A number of 
commenters also recommended that teachers who teach in non-tested 
subjects should be able to use scores from an already administered test 
to count toward their effectiveness rating, a policy that some States 
have already implemented to address student achievement in non-tested 
subjects.
    Discussion: We have adopted the recommendation to remove the 
definition of ``student achievement in non-tested grades and 
subjects,'' and have moved the substance of this definition to the 
definition of ``student growth.'' Upon review of comments regarding 
this definition, as well as comments pertaining to student learning 
outcomes more generally, we have also altered the requirements in Sec.  
612.5(a)(1)(ii) for the calculation of student learning outcomes--
specifically by permitting a State to use another State-determined 
measure relevant to calculating student learning outcomes instead of 
only student growth or a teacher evaluation measure. We believe that 
the increased flexibility resulting from these changes sufficiently 
addresses commenter concerns regarding the definition of ``student 
achievement in non-tested grades and subjects.'' We also believe it is 
important that the regulations permit States to determine an effective 
and valid way to measure growth for students in all grades and subjects 
not covered by section 1111(b)(2222of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, 
and that the revisions we have made provide sufficient flexibility for 
States to do so.
    Under the revised definition of student growth, States must use 
measures of student learning and performance, such as students' results 
on pre-tests and end-of-course-tests, objective performance-based 
assessments, student learning objectives, student performance on 
English language proficiency assessments, and other measures of student 
achievement that are rigorous, comparable across schools, and 
consistent with State requirements. Further, as a number of commenters 
recommended that the definition of student achievement in non-tested 
grades and subjects includes alignment to State and local standards, we 
feel that this new definition of student growth, in conjunction with 
altered requirements in the calculation of student learning outcomes, 
is sufficiently flexible to allow such alignment. Further, a State 
could adopt the commenters' recommendations summarized above under the 
revised requirements for the calculation of student learning outcomes 
and the revised definition of ``student growth.''
    We note that the quality of individual teachers is not being 
measured by the student learning outcomes indicator. Rather, it will 
help measure overall performance of a teacher preparation program 
through an examination of student growth in the many grades and 
subjects taught by novice teachers that are not part of the State's 
assessment system under section 1111(b) of the ESEA, as amended by the 
ESSA.
    Changes: The definition of student achievement in non-tested grades 
and subjects has been removed. The substance of the definition has been 
moved to the definition of student growth.
Student Achievement in Tested Grades and Subjects
    Comments: A number of commenters opposed the definition of 
``student achievement in tested grades and subjects'' because of its 
link to ESEA standardized test scores and the definitions used in ESEA 
flexibility. Commenters found this objectionable because these sources 
are subject to change, which could present complications in future 
implementation

[[Page 75509]]

of the regulations. Further, the commenters asserted that standardized 
testing and value-added models (VAM) \10\ are not valid or reliable and 
should not be used to assess teacher preparation programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ In various comments, commenters used the phrases ``value-
added modeling,'' ``value-added metrics,'' ``value-added measures,'' 
``value-added methods,'' ``value-added estimation,'' and ``value-
added analysis.'' For purposes of these comments, we understand the 
use of these terms to reflect similar ideas and concepts, so for 
ease of presentation of our summary of the comments and our 
responses to them, we use the single phrase ``value-added models,'' 
abbreviated as VAM.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discussion: We have adopted the recommendation to remove the 
definition of ``student achievement in tested grades and subjects.'' 
While we have moved the substance of this definition to the definition 
of ``student growth,'' we have also altered the requirements for the 
calculation of student learning outcomes upon review of comments 
related to this definition and comments pertaining to student learning 
outcomes more generally. We believe that the increased flexibility 
resulting from these changes sufficiently addresses commenter concerns 
regarding the definition of ``student achievement in tested grades and 
subjects.'' We believe it is important that the regulations permit 
States to determine an effective and valid way to measure growth for 
students in grades and subjects covered by section 1111(b)(2) of the 
ESEA, as amended by ESSA, and that the revisions we have made provide 
sufficient flexibility for States to do so.
    While the revised requirement does not necessitate the use of ESEA 
standardized test scores, we believe that the use of such scores could 
be a valid and reliable measure of student growth and encourage its use 
in determining student learning outcomes where appropriate.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \11\ See, for example: Chetty, R., Friedman, J., & Rockoff, J. 
(2014). Measuring the Impacts of Teachers II: Teacher Value-Added 
and Student Outcomes in Adulthood. American Economic Review, 104(9), 
2633-2679 (hereafter referred to as ``Chetty et al.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We now turn to the comments from those who asserted that 
maintaining a link between this definition and conditions of waivers 
granted to States under ESEA flexibility is problematic. While we 
maintain the substance of this definition in the definition of 
``student growth,'' in view of section 4(c) of ESSA, which terminates 
waivers the Department granted under ESEA flexibility as of August 1, 
2016, we have revised the requirements for calculation of student 
learning outcomes in Sec.  612.5(a)(1)(ii) to allow States the 
flexibility to use ``another State-determined measure relevant to 
calculating student learning outcomes.'' We believe that doing so 
allows the flexibility recommended by commenters. In addition, as we 
have stressed above in the discussion of Federal-State-Institution 
Relationship, Generally, under the regulations States have flexibility 
in how to weight each of the indicators of academic content knowledge 
and teaching skills.
    Finally, the use of value-added measures are not specifically 
included in the definition in the revised requirements for the 
calculation of student learning outcomes, or otherwise required by the 
regulations. However, we believe that there is convincing evidence that 
value-added scores, based on standardized tests, can be valid and 
reliable measures of teacher effectiveness and a teacher's effect on 
long-term student outcomes.\12\ See our response to comments regarding 
Sec.  612.5(a)(1), which provides an in-depth discussion of the use of 
student growth and VAM, and why we firmly believe that our student 
learning outcome measure, which references ``student achievement in 
tested grades and subjects'' is valid and reliable.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, for example: Chetty, et al. at 2633-2679.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes: The definition of student achievement in tested grades and 
subjects has been removed. The substance of the definition has been 
moved to the definition of student growth.
Student Growth
    Comments: Multiple commenters opposed the proposed definition of 
``student growth'' because the definition, which was linked to ESEA 
standardized test scores and definitions of terms used for Race to the 
Top, would also be linked to VAM, which commenters stated are not valid 
or reliable. Additionally, other commenters disagreed with the 
suggestion that student growth may be defined as a simple comparison of 
achievement between two points in time, which they said downplays the 
potential challenges of incorporating such measures into evaluation 
systems.
    A number of commenters also stated that the definition of ``student 
growth'' has created new testing requirements in areas that were 
previously not tested. They urged that non-tested grades and subjects 
should not be a part of the definition of student growth. By including 
them in this definition, the commenters argued, States and school 
districts would be required to test students in currently non-tested 
areas, which they contended should remain non-tested. Several 
commenters also stated that, even as the value of yearly student 
testing is being questioned, the regulations would effectively add cost 
and burden to States that have not sought ESEA flexibility or received 
Race to the Top funds.
    Discussion: These regulations define student growth as the change 
in student achievement between two or more points in time, using a 
student's score on the State's assessments under section 1111(b)(2) of 
the ESEA, as amended by ESSA, or other measures of student learning and 
performance, such as student results on pre-tests and end-of-course 
tests; objective performance-based assessments; student learning 
objectives; student performance on English language proficiency 
assessments; and other measures that are rigorous, comparable across 
schools, and consistent with State guidelines.
    Due to the removal of separate definitions of student achievement 
in tested grades and subjects and student achievement in non-tested 
grades and subjects, and their replacement by one flexible definition 
of student growth, we believe we have addressed many concerns raised by 
commenters. This definition, for example, no longer requires States to 
use ESEA standardized test scores to measure student growth in any 
grade or subject, and does not require the use of definitions of terms 
used for Race to the Top.
    We recognize commenters' assertion that student growth defined as a 
comparison of achievement between two points in time downplays the 
potential challenges of incorporating such measures into evaluation 
systems. However, since the revised definition of student growth and 
the revised requirements for calculating student learning outcomes 
allow States a large degree of flexibility in how such measures are 
applied, we do not believe the revised definition will place a 
significant burden on States to implement and incorporate these 
concepts into their teacher preparation assessment systems.
    We have addressed commenters' recommendation that non-tested grades 
and subjects not be a part of the definition of student growth by 
removing the definition of student achievement in non-tested grades and 
subjects, and providing States with flexibility in how they apply the 
definition of student growth, should they choose to use it for 
measuring a program's student learning outcomes. However, we continue 
to believe that student growth in non-tested grades and subjects can 
and should be measured at

[[Page 75510]]

regular intervals. Further, the revisions to the definition address 
commenters' concerns that the regulations would effectively add cost 
and burden to States that have not sought ESEA flexibility or received 
Race to the Top funds.
    Consistent with the definition, and in conjunction with the altered 
requirements for the calculation of student learning outcomes, and the 
removal of the definition of student achievement in tested grades and 
subjects as well as the definition of student achievement in non-tested 
grades and subjects, States have significant flexibility to determine 
the methods they use for measuring student growth and the extent to 
which it is factored into a teacher preparation program's performance 
rating. The Department's revised definition of ``student growth'' is 
meant to provide States with more flexibility in response to 
commenters. Additionally, if a State chooses to use a method that 
controls for additional factors affecting student and teacher 
performance, like VAM, the regulations permit it to do so. See our 
response to comments in Sec.  612.5(a)(1), which provides an in-depth 
discussion of the use of student growth and VAM.
    Changes: The definition of student growth has been revised to be 
the change in student achievement between two or more points in time, 
using a student's scores on the State's assessments under section 
1111(b)(2) of the ESEA or other measures of student learning and 
performance, such as student results on pre-tests and end-of-course 
tests; objective performance-based assessments; student learning 
objectives; student performance on English language proficiency 
assessments; and other measures that are rigorous, comparable across 
schools, and consistent with State guidelines, rather than the change 
between two or more points in time in student achievement in tested 
grades and subjects and non-tested grades and subjects.
Student Learning Outcomes
    Comments: None.
    Discussion: Due to many commenters' concerns regarding State 
flexibility, the use of ESEA standardized test scores, and the 
relationships between our original proposed requirements and those 
under ESEA flexibility, we have included a provision in Sec.  
612.5(a)(1)(ii)(C) allowing States to use a State-determined measure 
relevant to calculating student learning outcomes. This measure may be 
used alone, or in combination with student growth and a teacher 
evaluation measure, as defined. As with the measure for student growth, 
State-determined learning outcomes must be rigorous, comparable across 
schools, and consistent with state guidelines. Additionally, such 
measures should allow for meaningful differentiation between teachers. 
If a State did not select an indicator that allowed for such meaningful 
differentiation among teachers, and instead chose an indicator that led 
to consistently high results among teachers without reflecting existing 
inconsistencies in student learning outcomes--such as average daily 
attendance in schools, which is often uniformly quite high even in the 
lowest performing schools--the result would be very problematic. This 
is because doing so would not allow the State to meaningfully 
differentiate among teachers for the purposes of identifying which 
teachers, and thus which teacher preparation programs, are making a 
positive contribution to improving student learning outcomes.
    Further, upon review of the proposed regulations, we recognized 
that the structure could be confusing. In particular, we were concerned 
that having a definition for the term ``student learning outcomes'' in 
Sec.  612.2, when it largely serves to operationalize other definitions 
in the context of Sec.  612.5, was not the clearest way to present 
these requirements. We therefore are moving the explanations and 
requirements of this term into the text of Sec.  612.5(a).
    Changes: We have altered the requirements in Sec.  612.5(a)(1)(ii) 
for calculating ``student learning outcomes'' to provide States with 
additional flexibility. We have also removed the proposed definition of 
``student learning outcomes'' from Sec.  612.2, and moved the substance 
of the text and requirements of the student learning outcomes 
definition to Sec.  612.5(a)(1).
Survey Outcomes
    Comments: Commenters argued that States need flexibility on the 
types of indicators used to evaluate and improve teacher preparation 
programs. They suggested that States be required to gather data through 
teacher and employer surveys in a teacher's first three years of 
teaching, but be afforded the flexibility to determine the content of 
the surveys. Commenters added that specific content dictated from the 
Federal level would limit innovation in an area where best practices 
are still developing.
    Some commenters also stated that it is important to follow 
graduates through surveys for their first five years of employment, 
rather than just their first year of teaching (as proposed in the 
regulations) to obtain a rich and well-informed understanding of the 
profession over time, as the first five years is a significant period 
when teachers decide whether to leave or stay in the profession.
    Commenters were concerned about the inclusion of probationary 
certificate teachers in surveys of teachers and employers for purposes 
of reporting teacher preparation program performance. Commenters noted 
that, in Texas, alternate route participants may be issued a 
probationary certificate that allows the participants to be employed as 
teachers of record for a period of up to three years while they are 
completing the requirements for a standard certificate. As a result, 
these probationary certificate holders would meet the proposed 
definition of ``new teacher'' and, therefore, they and their 
supervisors would be asked to respond to surveys that States would use 
to determine teacher preparation program performance, even though they 
have not completed their programs.
    In addition, commenters asked which States are responsible for 
surveying teachers from a distance education program and their 
employers or supervisors.
    Discussion: The regulations do not specify the number or type of 
questions to be included in employer or teacher surveys. Rather, we 
have left decisions about the content of these surveys to each State. 
We also note that, under the regulations, States may survey novice 
teachers and their employers for a number of consecutive years, even 
though they are only required to survey during the first year of 
teaching.
    The goal of every teacher preparation program is to effectively 
prepare aspiring teachers to step into a classroom and teach all of 
their students well. As the regulations are intended to help States 
determine whether each teacher preparation program is meeting this 
goal, we have decided to focus on novice teachers in their first year 
of teaching, regardless of the type of certification the teachers have 
or the type of teacher preparation program they attended or are 
attending. When a teacher is given primary responsibility for the 
learning outcomes of a group of students, the type of program she 
attended or is still attending is largely irrelevant--she is expected 
to ensure that her students learn. We expect that alternative route 
teacher preparation programs are ensuring that the teachers they place 
in classrooms prior to completion of their coursework are sufficiently 
prepared to ensure student growth in that school year. We recognize 
that these teachers, and those who completed traditional teacher

[[Page 75511]]

preparation programs, will grow and develop as teachers in their first 
few years in the classroom.
    We agree with commenters who suggested that surveying teachers and 
their employers about the quality of training in the teachers' 
preparation program would provide a more rich and well-informed 
understanding of the programs over time. However, we decline to require 
that States survey novice teachers and their employers for more than 
one year. As an indicator of novice teachers' academic content 
knowledge and teaching skills, these surveys are a much more robust 
indicator of program performance in preparing novice teachers for 
teaching when completed in the first year of teaching. In this way, the 
program is still fresh and teachers and employers can best focus on the 
unique impact of the program independent of other factors that may 
contribute to teaching quality such as on-the-job training. However, if 
they so choose, States are free to survey novice teachers and their 
employers in subsequent years beyond a teacher's first year of 
teaching, and consider the survey results in their assessment of 
teacher preparation program effectiveness.
    For teacher preparation programs provided through distance 
education, a State must survey the novice teachers described in the 
definition of ``teacher survey'' who have completed such a program and 
who teach in that State, as well as the employers of those same 
teachers.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: None.
    Discussion: Upon review, we recognized that the structure of the 
proposed regulations could be confusing. In particular, we were 
concerned that having a definition for the term ``survey outcomes'' in 
Sec.  612.2, when it largely serves to operationalize other definitions 
in the context of Sec.  612.5, was not the clearest way to present 
these requirements. We therefore are removing the definition of 
``survey outcomes'' from Sec.  612.2 and moving its explanations and 
requirements into Sec.  612.5(a)(3).
    Through this change, we are clarifying that the surveys will assess 
whether novice teachers possess the academic content knowledge and 
teaching skills needed to succeed in the classroom. We do so for 
consistency with Sec.  612.5(a), which requires States to assess, for 
each teacher preparation program, indicators of academic content 
knowledge and teaching skills of novice teachers from that program. We 
also have removed the provision that the survey is of teachers in their 
first year of teaching in the State where the teacher preparation is 
located, and instead provide that the survey is of teachers in their 
first year teaching in the State. This change is designed to be 
consistent with new language related to the reporting of teacher 
preparation programs provided through distance education, as discussed 
later in this document. Finally, we are changing the term ``new 
teacher'' to ``novice teacher'' for the reasons discussed under the 
definition of ``novice teacher.''
    Changes: We have moved the content of the proposed definition of 
``survey outcomes'' from Sec.  612.2, with edits for clarity, to Sec.  
612.5(a)(3). We have also replaced the term ``new teacher'' with 
``novice teacher'' in Sec.  612.5(a)(3).
Teacher Evaluation Measure
    Comments: Many commenters noted that the proposed definition of 
``teacher evaluation measure'' is based on the definition of ``student 
growth.'' Therefore, commenters stated that the definition is based on 
VAM, which they argued, citing research, is not valid or reliable for 
this purpose.
    Discussion: The proposed definition of ``teacher evaluation 
measure'' did include a measure of student growth. However, while VAM 
reflects a permissible way to examine student growth, neither in the 
final definition of teacher evaluation measure nor anywhere else in 
these regulations is the use of VAM required. For a more detailed 
discussion of the use of VAM, please see the discussion of Sec.  
612.5(a)(1).
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Commenters stated that the proposed definitions of 
``teacher evaluation measure'' and ``student growth'' offer value from 
a reporting standpoint and should be used when available. Commenters 
also noted that it would be useful to understand novice teachers' 
impact on student growth and recommended that States be required to 
report student growth outcomes separately from teacher evaluation 
measures where both are available.
    Commenters also noted that not all States may have teacher 
evaluation measures that meet the proposed definition because not all 
States require student growth to be a significant factor in teacher 
evaluations, as required by the proposed definition. Other commenters 
suggested that, while student growth or achievement should be listed as 
the primary factors in calculating teacher evaluation measures, other 
factors such as teacher portfolios and student and teacher surveys 
should be included as secondary considerations.
    Some commenters felt that any use of student performance to 
evaluate effectiveness of teacher instruction needs to include multiple 
measures over a period of time (more than one to two years) and take 
into consideration the context (socioeconomic, etc.) in which the 
instruction occurred.
    Discussion: We first stress that the regulations allow States to 
use ``teacher evaluation measures'' as one option for student learning 
outcomes; use of these measures is not required. States also may use 
student growth or, another State-determined measure relevant to 
calculating student learning outcomes, or combination of these three 
options.
    Furthermore, while we agree that reporting on student growth 
separately from teacher evaluation measures would likely provide the 
public with more information about the performance of novice teachers, 
we are committed to providing States the flexibility to develop 
performance systems that best meet their specific needs. In addition, 
because of the evident cost and burden of disaggregating student growth 
data from teacher evaluation measures, we do not believe that the HEA 
title II reporting system is the right vehicle for gathering this 
information. As a result, we decline to require separate reporting.
    States may consider having LEAs incorporate teacher portfolios and 
student and teacher surveys into teacher evaluation measures, as the 
commenters recommended. In this regard, we note that the definition of 
``teacher evaluation measure'' requires use of multiple valid measures, 
and we believe that teacher evaluation systems that use such additional 
measures of professional practice provide the best information on a 
teacher's effectiveness. We also note that, because the definition of 
``novice teacher'' encompasses the first three years as a teacher of 
record, teacher evaluation measures that include up to three years of 
student growth data are acceptable measures of student learning 
outcomes under Sec.  612.5(a)(1). In addition, States can control for 
different kinds of student and classroom characteristics in ways that 
apply our definition of student learning outcomes and student growth. 
See the discussion of Sec.  612.5(a)(2) for further information of the 
student learning outcomes indicator.
    With regard to the comment that some States lack teacher evaluation 
measures that meet the proposed definition because they do not require 
student growth to be a significant factor in teacher evaluations, we 
previously explained in our discussion of Sec.  612.1 (and do so again 
in our discussion of Sec.  612.6) our reasons for removing any

[[Page 75512]]

proposed weightings of indicators from these regulations. Thus we have 
removed the phrase, ``as a significant factor,'' from the definition of 
teacher evaluation measure.
    Changes: We have removed the words ``as a significant factor'' from 
the second sentence of the definition.
    Comments: None.
    Discussion: In response to the student learning outcomes indicator, 
some commenters recommended that States be allowed to use the teacher 
evaluation system they have in place. By proposing definitions relevant 
to student learning outcomes that align with previous Department 
initiatives, our intention was that the teacher evaluation systems of 
States that include student growth as a significant factor, especially 
those that had been granted ESEA flexibility, would meet the 
requirements for student learning outcomes under the regulations. Upon 
further review, we determined that revision to the definition of 
``teacher evaluation measure'' is necessary to ensure that States are 
able to use teacher evaluation measures to collect data for student 
learning outcomes if the teacher evaluation measures include student 
growth, and in order to ensure that the definition describes the 
measure itself, which is then operationalized through a State's 
calculation.
    We understand that some States and districts that use student 
growth in their teacher evaluation systems do not do so for teachers in 
their first year, or first several years, of teaching. We are satisfied 
that such systems meet the requirements of the regulations so long as 
student growth is used as one of the multiple valid measures to assess 
teacher performance within the first three years of teaching. To ensure 
such systems meet the definition of ``teacher evaluation measure,'' we 
are revising the phrase ``in determining each teacher's performance 
level'' in the first sentence of the definition so that it reads ``in 
determining teacher performance.''
    Furthermore, for the reasons included in the discussion of 
Sec. Sec.  612.1 and 612.6, we are removing the phrase ``as a 
significant factor'' from the definition. In addition, we are removing 
the phrase ``of performance levels'' from the second sentence of the 
definition, as inclusion of that phrase in the NPRM was an error.
    In addition, we have determined that the parenthetical phrase 
beginning ``such as'' could be shortened without changing the intent, 
which is to provide examples of other measures of professional 
practice.
    Finally, in response to commenters' desire for additional 
flexibility in calculating student learning outcomes, and given the 
newly enacted ESSA, under which waivers granted under ESEA flexibility 
will terminate as of August 1, 2016, we have revised the regulations so 
that States may use any State-determined measure relevant to 
calculating student learning outcomes, or combination of these three 
options.
    Changes: We have revised the definition of ``teacher evaluation 
measure'' by removing the phrase ``By grade span and subject area and 
consistent with statewide guidelines, the percentage of new teachers 
rated at each performance level under'' and replaced it with ``A 
teacher's performance level based on''. We have removed the final 
phrase ``determining each teacher's performance level'' and replaced it 
with ``assessing teacher performance.'' We have also revised the 
parenthetical phrase beginning ``such as'' so that it reads ``such as 
observations based on rigorous teacher performance standards, teacher 
portfolios, and student and parent surveys.''
Teacher of Record
    Comments: Commenters requested that the Department establish a 
definition of ``teacher of record,'' but did not provide us with 
recommended language.
    Discussion: We used the term ``teacher of record'' in the proposed 
definition of ``new teacher,'' and have retained it as part of the 
definitions of ``novice teacher'' and ``recent graduate.'' We agree 
that a definition of ``teacher of record'' will be helpful and will add 
clarity to those two definitions.
    We are adopting a commonly used definition of ``teacher of record'' 
that focuses on a teacher or co-teacher who is responsible for student 
outcomes and determining a student's proficiency in the grade or 
subject being taught.
    Changes: We have added to Sec.  612.2 a definition of ``teacher of 
record,'' and defined it to mean a teacher (including a teacher in a 
co-teaching assignment) who has been assigned the lead responsibility 
for student learning in a subject or course section.
Teacher Placement Rate
    Comments: Some commenters questioned whether it was beyond the 
Department's authority to set detailed expectations for teacher 
placement rates. Several commenters expressed concerns about which 
individuals would and would not be counted as ``placed'' when 
calculating this rate. In this regard, the commenters argued that the 
Federal government should not mandate the definitive list of 
individuals whom a State may exclude from the placement rate 
calculation; rather, they stated that those decisions should be 
entirely up to the States.
    Discussion: In response to commenters who questioned the 
Department's authority to establish detailed expectations for a 
program's teacher placement rate, we note that the regulations simply 
define the teacher placement rate and how it is to be calculated. The 
regulations also generally require that States use it as an indicator 
of academic content and teaching skills when assessing a program's 
level of performance. And they require this use because we strongly 
believe both (1) that a program's teacher placement rate is an 
important indicator of academic content knowledge and teaching skills 
of recent graduates, and (2) that a rate that is very low, like one 
that is very high, is a reasonable indicator of whether the program is 
successfully performing one of its basic functions--to produce 
individuals who become hired as teachers of record.
    The regulations do not, as the commenters state, establish any 
detailed expectations of what such a low (or high) teacher placement 
rate is or should be. This they leave up to each State, in consultation 
with its group of stakeholders as required under Sec.  612.4(c).
    We decline to accept commenters' recommendations to allow States to 
determine who may be excluded from placement rate calculations beyond 
the exclusions the regulations permit in the definition of ``teacher 
placement rate.'' Congress has directed that States report their 
teacher placement rate data ``in a uniform and comprehensible manner 
that conforms to the definitions and methods established by the 
Secretary.'' See section 205(a) of the HEA. We believe the groups of 
recent graduates that we permit States, at their discretion, to exclude 
from these calculations--teachers teaching out of State and in private 
schools, and teachers who have enrolled in graduate school or entered 
the military--reflect the most common and accepted groups of recent 
graduates that States should be able to exclude, either because States 
cannot readily track them or because individual decisions to forgo 
becoming teachers does not speak to the program's performance. 
Commenters did not propose another comparable group whose failure to 
become novice teachers should allow a State to exclude them in 
calculations of a program's teacher placement rate, and upon review of 
the

[[Page 75513]]

comments we have not identified such a group.
    We accept that, in discussing this matter with its group of 
stakeholders, a State may identify one or more such groups of recent 
graduates whose decisions to pass up opportunities to become novice 
teachers are also reasonable. However, as we said above, a teacher 
placement rate becomes an indicator of a teacher preparation program's 
performance when it is unreasonably low, i.e., below a level of 
reasonableness the State establishes based on the fact that the program 
exists to produce new teachers. We are not aware of any additional 
categories of recent graduates that are not already included in the 
allowable exclusions that would be both sufficiently large and whose 
circumstances are out of the control of the teacher preparation program 
that would, without their exclusion, result in an unreasonably low 
teacher placement rate. Given this, we believe States do not need the 
additional flexibility that the commenters propose.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Commenters also expressed concern about participants who 
are hired in non-teaching jobs while enrolled and then withdraw from 
the program to pursue those jobs, suggesting that these students should 
not be counted against the program. Some commenters questioned the 
efficacy of teacher placement rates as an indicator of teacher 
preparation program performance, given the number of teachers who may 
be excluded from the calculation for various reasons (e.g., those who 
teach in private schools). Other commenters were more generally 
concerned that the discretion granted to States to exclude certain 
categories of novice teachers meant that the information available on 
teacher preparation programs would not be comparable across States.
    Some commenters objected to permitting States to exclude teachers 
or recent graduates who take teaching positions out of State, arguing 
that, to be useful, placement rate data need to be gathered across 
State boundaries as program graduates work in numerous States.
    Discussion: We believe that the revised definition of ``recent 
graduate,'' as well as the allowable exclusions in the definitions of 
both teacher placement and retention rates, not only alleviate obvious 
sources of burden, but provide States with sufficient flexibility to 
calculate these rates in reasonable ways. Program participants who do 
not complete the program do not become recent graduates, and would not 
be included in calculations of the teacher placement rate. However, if 
the commenters intended to address recent graduates who were employed 
in non-teaching positions while in or after completing the program, we 
would decline to accept the recommendation to exclude individuals 
because we believe that, except for those who become teachers out of 
State or in private schools, those who enroll in graduate school, or 
those who enter the military (which the regulations permit States to 
exclude), it is important to assess teacher preparation programs based 
on factors that include their success rates in having recent graduates 
hired as teachers of record.
    With regard to the efficacy of the teacher placement rate as an 
indicator of program performance, we understand that employment 
outcomes, including teacher placement rates, are influenced by many 
factors, some of which are outside of a program's control. However, we 
believe that employment outcomes are, in general, a good reflection of 
program because they signal a program's ability to produce graduates 
whom schools and districts deem to be qualified and seek to hire and 
retain. Moreover, abnormally low employment outcomes are an indication 
that something about the program is amiss (just as abnormally high 
outcomes suggest something is working very well). Further discussion on 
this topic can be found under the subheading Employment Outcomes as a 
Measure of Performance, Sec.  612.5(a)(2).
    While we are sympathetic to the commenters' concern that the 
proposed definition of teacher placement rate permits States to 
calculate employment outcomes only using data on teachers hired to 
teach in public schools, States may not, depending on State law, be 
able to require that private schools cooperate in the State data 
collection that the regulations require. We do note that, generally, 
teacher preparation programs are designed to prepare teachers to meet 
the requirements to teach in public schools nationwide, and over 90 
percent of teachers in elementary and secondary schools do not work in 
private schools.\13\ Additionally, requiring States to collect data on 
teachers employed in private schools or out of State, as well as those 
who enroll in graduate school or enter the military, would create undue 
burden on States. The regulations do not prevent teacher preparation 
entities from working with their States to secure data on recent 
graduates who are subject to one or more of the permissible State 
exclusions and likewise do not prevent the State using those data in 
calculating the program's employment outcomes, including teacher 
placement rates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ According to data from the Bureau of Labor Statistics, in 
May 2014, of the 3,696,580 individuals employed as preschool, 
primary, secondary, and special education school teachers in 
elementary and secondary schools nationwide, only 358,770 were 
employed in private schools. See www.bls.gov/oes/current/naics4_611100.htm and www.bls.gov/oes/current/611100_5.htm .
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, we appreciate commenters' recommendation that the 
regulations include placement rate data for those recent graduates who 
take teaching positions in a different State. Certainly, many novice 
teachers do become teachers of record in States other than those where 
their teacher preparation programs are located. We encourage States and 
programs to develop interstate data-sharing mechanisms to facilitate 
reporting on indicators of program performance to be as comprehensive 
and meaningful as possible.
    Until States have a ready means of gathering these kinds of data on 
an interstate basis, we appreciate that many States may find the costs 
and complexities of this data-gathering to be daunting. On the other 
hand, we do not view the lack of these data (or the lack of data on 
recent graduates teaching in private schools) to undermine the 
reasonableness of employment outcomes as indicators of program 
performance. As we have explained, it is when employment outcomes are 
particularly low that they become indicators of poor performance, and 
we are confident that the States, working in consultation with their 
stakeholders, can determine an appropriate threshold for teacher 
placement and retention rates.
    Finally, we understand that the discretion that the regulations 
grant to each State to exclude novice teachers who teach in other 
States and who work in private schools (and those program graduates who 
go on to graduate school or join the military) means that the teacher 
placement rates for teacher preparation programs will not be comparable 
across States. This is not a major concern. The purpose of the 
regulations and the SRC itself is to ensure that each State reports 
those programs that have been determined to be low-performing or at-
risk of being low-performing based on reasonable and transparent 
criteria. We believe that each State, in consultation with its 
stakeholders (see Sec.  612.4(c), should exercise flexibility to 
determine whether to have the teacher placement rate reflect inclusion 
of those program graduates identified in paragraph (ii) of the 
definition.

[[Page 75514]]

    Changes: None.
    Comments: Several commenters recommended that a State with a 
statewide preschool program that requires early educators to have 
postsecondary training and certification and State licensure be 
required to include data on early educators in the teacher placement 
rate, rather than simply permit such inclusion at the State's 
discretion.
    Discussion: We strongly encourage States with a statewide preschool 
program where early educators are required to obtain State licensure 
equivalent to elementary school teachers to include these teachers in 
their placement data. However, we decline to require States to include 
these early educators in calculations of programs' teacher placement 
rates because early childhood education centers are often independent 
from local districts, or are run by external entities. This would make 
it extremely difficult for States to determine a valid and reasonable 
placement rate for these teachers.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Commenters recommended that teachers who have been hired 
in part-time teaching positions be counted as ``placed,'' arguing that 
the placement of teachers in part-time teaching positions is not 
evidence of a lower quality teacher preparation program.
    Discussion: We are persuaded by comments that a teacher may 
function in a part-time capacity as a teacher of record in the subject 
area and grade level for which the teacher was trained and that, in 
those instances, it would not be appropriate to count this part-time 
placement against a program's teacher placement rate. As such, we have 
removed the requirement that a teacher placement rate be based on the 
percentage of recent graduates teaching in full-time positions.
    Changes: We have removed the full-time employment requirement from 
the definition of ``teacher placement rate.''
    Comments: Commenters asked whether a participant attending a 
teacher preparation program who is already employed as a teacher by an 
LEA prior to graduation would be counted as ``placed'' post-graduation. 
Commenters felt that excluding such students may unduly penalize 
programs that tailor their recruitment of aspiring teachers to working 
adults.
    Discussion: We are uncertain whether the commenter is referring to 
a teacher who has already received initial certification or licensure 
and is enrolled in a graduate degree program or is a participant in an 
alternative route to certification program and is working as a teacher 
as a condition of participation in the program. As discussed in the 
section titled ``Teacher Preparation Program,'' a teacher preparation 
program is defined, in part, as a program that prepares an individual 
for initial certification or licensure. As a result, it is unlikely 
that a working teacher would be participating in such a program. See 
the section titled ``Alternative Route Programs'' for a discussion of 
the use of teacher placement rate in alternative route programs.
    Comments: Some commenters recommended that the teacher placement 
rate calculation account for regional differences in job availability 
and the general competitiveness of the employment market. In addition, 
commenters argued that placement rates should also convey whether the 
placement is in the area in which the candidate is trained to teach or 
out-of-field (i.e., where there is a mismatch between the teacher's 
content training and the area of the placement). The commenters 
suggested that young teachers may be more likely to get hired in out-
of-field positions because they are among the few willing to take those 
jobs. Commenters contended that many teachers from alternative route 
programs (including Teach for America) are in out-of-field placements 
and should be recognized as such. Commenters also argued that high-need 
schools are notoriously staffed by out-of-field teachers, thus, they 
recommended that placement rate data account for the congruency of the 
placement. The commenters stated this is especially important if the 
final regulations include placement rates in high-need schools as an 
indicator of program performance.
    Discussion: We encourage entities operating teacher preparation 
programs to take factors affecting supply and demand, such as regional 
differences in job availability and the general competitiveness of the 
employment market, into consideration when they design and implement 
their programs and work to have their participants placed as teachers.
    Nonetheless, we decline to accept the recommendation that the 
regulations require that the teacher placement rate calculation account 
for these regional differences in job availability and the 
competitiveness of the employment market. Doing so would be complex, 
and would entail very large costs of cross-tabulating data on teacher 
preparation program location, area of residence of the program 
graduate, teacher placement data, and a series of employment and job 
market indicators. States may certainly choose to account for regional 
differences in job availability and the general competitiveness of the 
employment market and pursue the additional data collection that such 
effort would entail. However, we decline to require it.
    As explained in the NPRM, while we acknowledge that teacher 
placement rates are affected by some considerations outside of the 
program's control, we believe that placement rates are still a valid 
indicator of the quality of a teacher preparation program (see the 
discussion of employment outcomes under Sec.  612.5(a)(2)).
    We understand that teachers may be hired to teach subjects and 
areas in which they were not prepared, and that out-of-field placement 
is more frequent in high-need schools. However, we maintain the 
requirement that the teacher placement rate assess the extent to which 
program graduates become novice teachers in the grade-level, grade-
span, and subject area in which they were trained. A high incidence of 
out-of-field placement reflects that the teacher preparation program is 
not in touch with the hiring needs of likely prospective employers, 
thus providing its participants with the academic content knowledge and 
teaching skills to teach in the fields that do not match employers' 
teaching needs. We also recognize that placing teachers in positions 
for which they were not prepared could lead to less effective teaching 
and exacerbate the challenges already apparent in high-need schools.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Some commenters stated that, while it is appropriate to 
exclude the categories of teachers listed in the proposed definition of 
``teacher placement rate,'' data on the excluded teachers would still 
be valuable to track for purposes of the State's quality rating system. 
Commenters proposed requiring States to report the number of teachers 
excluded in each category.
    Discussion: Like the commenters, we believe that the number of 
recent graduates that a State excludes from its calculation of a 
program's teacher placement rate could provide useful information to 
the program. For reasons expressed above in response to comments, 
however, we believe a program's teacher placement rate will be a 
reasonable measure of program performance without reliance on the 
number of teachers in each category whom a State chooses to exclude 
from its calculations. Moreover, we do not believe that the number of 
recent graduates who go on to teach in other States or in private 
schools, or who enter graduate school or the military, is

[[Page 75515]]

a reflection of a program's quality. Because the purpose of the teacher 
placement rate, like all of the regulations' indicators of academic 
content knowledge and teaching skills, is to provide information on the 
performance of the program, we decline to require that States report 
data in their SRCs. We nonetheless encourage States to consider 
obtaining, securing, and publicizing these data as a way to make 
information they provide about each program more robust.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Commenters stated that it is important to have teacher 
placement data beyond the first year following graduation, because 
graduates sometimes move among districts in the early years of their 
careers. One commenter noted that, in the commenter's State, data are 
currently available only for teachers in their first year of teaching, 
and that there is an important Federal role in securing these data 
beyond this first year.
    Discussion: From our review of the comments, we are unclear whether 
the commenters intended to refer to a program's teacher retention rate, 
because recent graduates who become novice teachers and then 
immediately move to another district would be captured by the teacher 
retention rate calculation. But because our definition of ``novice 
teacher'' includes an initial three-year teaching period, program's 
teacher retention rate would still continue to track these teachers in 
future years.
    In addition, we believe a number of commenters may have 
misunderstood how the teacher placement rate is calculated and used. 
Specifically, a number of commenters seemed to believe that the teacher 
placement rate is only calculated in the first year after program 
completion. This is inaccurate. The teacher placement rate is 
determined by calculating the percentage of recent graduates who have 
become novice teachers, regardless of their retention. As such, the 
teacher placement rate captures any recent graduate who works as a 
teacher of record in an elementary or secondary public school, which 
may include preschool at the State's discretion, within three years of 
program completion.
    In order to provide additional clarity, we provide the following 
example. We examine a theoretical group of graduates from a single 
teacher preparation program, as outlined in Table 1. In examining the 
example, it is important to understand that a State reports in its SRC 
for a given year a program's teacher retention rate based on data from 
the second preceding title II reporting year (as the term is defined in 
the regulations). Thus, recent graduates in 2018 (in the 2017-2018 
title II reporting year) might become novice teachers in 2018-2019. The 
State collects these data in time to report them in the SRC to be 
submitted in October 2019. Please see the discussion of the timing of 
the SRC under Sec.  612.4(a)(1)(i) General State Report Card reporting 
and Sec.  612.4(b) Timeline for changes in the reporting timeline from 
that proposed in the NPRM.

BILLING CODE 4000-01-P

[[Page 75516]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31OC16.000


[[Page 75517]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31OC16.001

BILLING CODE 4000-01-C

[[Page 75518]]

    In this example, the teacher preparation program has five 
individuals who met all of the requirements for program completion in 
the 2016-2017 academic year. The State counts these individuals (A, B, 
C, D, and E) in the denominator of the placement rate for the program's 
recent graduates in each of the State's 2018, 2019, and 2020 SRCs 
because they are, or could be, recent graduates who had become novice 
teachers in each of the prior title II reporting years. Moreover, in 
each of these years, the State would determine how many of these 
individuals have become novice teachers. In the 2018 SRC, the State 
identifies that A and B have become novice teachers in the prior 
reporting year. As such, the State divides the total number of recent 
graduates who have become novice teachers (2) by the total number of 
recent graduates from 2016-2017 (5). Hence, in the 2018 SRC, this 
teacher preparation program has a teacher placement rate of 40 percent.
    In the State's 2019 SRC, all individuals who completed the program 
in 2017 and those who completed in 2018 (the 2016-2017 and 2017-2018 
title II reporting years) meet the definition of recent graduate. In 
the 2018-2019 academic year, one additional completer from the 2016-
2017 academic year has become a novice teacher (C), and five (F, G, H, 
J, and K) of the six 2017-2018 program completers have become novice 
teachers. In this instance, Teacher J is included as a recent graduate 
who has become a novice teacher even though Teacher J is not teaching 
in the current year. This is because the definition requires inclusion 
of all recent graduates who have become novice teachers at any time, 
regardless of their retention. Teacher J is counted as a successfully 
placed teacher. The fact that Teacher J is no longer still employed as 
a teacher is captured in the teacher retention rate, not here. As such, 
in the 2019 SRC, the teacher preparation program's teacher placement 
rate is 73 percent (eight program completers out of eleven have been 
placed).
    In the State's 2020 SRC, there are no additional cohorts to add to 
the pool of recent graduates in this example although, in reality, 
States will be calculating this measure using three rolling cohorts of 
program completers each year. In this example, Teacher D has newly 
obtained placement as a novice teacher and would therefore be included 
in the numerator. As with Teacher J in the prior year's SRC, Teachers G 
and K remain in the numerator even though they are no longer teachers 
of record because they have been placed as novice teachers previously. 
In the 2020 SRC, the teacher preparation program's teacher placement 
rate is 82 percent (nine program completers out of eleven have been 
placed).
    In the 2021 SRC, individuals who completed their teacher 
preparation program in the 2016-2017 academic year (A, B, C, D, and E) 
are no longer considered recent graduates since they completed their 
programs prior to the preceding three title II reporting years (2018, 
2019, 2020). As such, the only cohort of recent graduates the State 
examines for this hypothetical teacher preparation program are those 
that completed the program in the 2016-2017 academic year (F, G, H, I, 
J, and K). In the 2020-2021 academic year, Teacher I is placed as a 
novice teacher. Once again, Teachers G and J are included in the 
numerator even though they are not currently employed as teachers 
because they have previously been placed as novice teachers. The 
program's teacher placement rate in the 2021 SRC would be 100 percent.
    In the 2022 SRC, this hypothetical teacher preparation program has 
no recent graduates, as no one completed the requirements of the 
program in any of the three preceding title II reporting years (2019, 
2020, or 2021).
    As noted above, it is important to restate that recent graduates 
who have become novice teachers at any point, such as Teacher J, are 
included in the numerator of this calculation, regardless of whether 
they were retained as a teacher of record in a subsequent year. As 
such, if an individual completed a teacher preparation program in Year 
1 and became a novice teacher in Year 2, regardless of whether he or 
she is still a novice teacher in Year 3, the individual is considered 
to have been successfully placed under this measure. Issues regarding 
retention of teachers are captured by the teacher retention rate 
measure, and therefore departures from a teaching position have no 
negative consequences under the teacher placement rate.
    We have adopted these procedures for State reporting of a program's 
teacher placement rate in each year's SRC to keep them consistent with 
the proposal we presented in the NPRM for reporting teacher placement 
rates over a three-year period, in line with the change in the SRC 
reporting date, and as simple and straightforward as possible. This led 
us to make certain non-substantive changes to the proposed definition 
of teacher retention rate so that the definition is clearer and less 
verbose. In doing so, we have removed the State's option of excluding 
novice teachers who have taken teaching positions that do not require 
State certification (paragraph (ii)(C) of the proposed definition) 
because it seems superfluous; our definition of teacher preparation 
program is one that leads to an initial State teacher certification or 
licensure in a specific field.
    Changes: We have revised the definition of ``teacher placement 
rate'' to include:
    (i) The percentage of recent graduates who have become novice 
teachers (regardless of retention) for the grade level, span, and 
subject area in which they were prepared.
    (ii) At the State's discretion, exclusion from the rate calculated 
under paragraph (i) of this definition of one or more of the following, 
provided that the State uses a consistent approach to assess and report 
on all of the teacher preparation programs in the State:
    (A) Recent graduates who have taken teaching positions in another 
State.
    (B) Recent graduates who have taken teaching positions in private 
schools.
    (C) Recent graduates who have enrolled in graduate school or 
entered military service.
    Comments: None.
    Discussion: The Department recognizes that a State may be unable to 
accurately determine the total number of recent graduates in cases 
where a teacher preparation program provided through distance education 
is offered by a teacher preparation entity that is physically located 
in another State. Each institution of higher education conducting a 
teacher preparation program is required to submit an IRC, which would 
include the total number of recent graduates from each program, to the 
State in which it is physically located. If the teacher preparation 
entity operates a teacher preparation program provided through distance 
education in other States, it is not required to submit an IRC in those 
States. As a result, a State with a teacher preparation program 
provided through distance education that is operated by an entity 
physically located in another State will not have access to information 
on the total number of recent graduates from such program. Even if the 
State could access the number of recent graduates, recent graduates who 
neither reside in nor intend to teach in such State would be captured, 
inflating the number of recent graduates and resulting in a teacher 
placement rate that is artificially low.
    For these reasons, we have has determined that it is appropriate to 
allow States to use the total number of recent graduates who have 
obtained initial certification or licensure in the

[[Page 75519]]

State, rather than the total number of recent graduates, when 
calculating teacher placement rates for teacher preparation programs 
provided through distance education. We believe that teacher placement 
rate calculated using the number of recent graduates who have obtained 
initial certification or licensure is likely more accurate in these 
instances than total recent graduates from a multi-state program. Even 
so, since fewer recent graduates obtain initial certification or 
licensure than the total number of recent graduates, the teacher 
placement rate may be artificially high. To address this, we have also 
revised the employment outcomes section in Sec.  612.5(a)(2) to allow 
States a greater degree of flexibility in calculating and weighting 
employment outcomes for teacher preparation programs offered through 
distance education.
    Changes: We have revised the definition of teacher placement rate 
in Sec.  612.2 to allow States to use the total number of recent 
graduates who have obtained initial certification or licensure in the 
State during the three preceding title II reporting years as the 
denominator in their calculation of teacher placement rate for teacher 
preparation programs provided through distance education instead of the 
total number of recent graduates.
Teacher Preparation Program
    Comments: Commenters stated that the regulations are designed for 
undergraduate teacher preparation programs rather than graduate 
programs, in part because the definition of teacher preparation program 
is linked to specific teaching fields. This could result in small 
program sizes for post-baccalaureate preparation programs.
    Another commenter noted that it offers a number of graduate degree 
programs in education that do not lead to initial certification, but 
that the programs which institutions and States report on under part 
612 are limited to those leading to initial certification.
    Other commenters urged that aggregation of data to elementary and 
secondary data sets would be more appropriate in States with a 
primarily post-baccalaureate teacher preparation model. We understand 
that commenters are suggesting that our proposed definition of 
``teacher preparation program,'' with its focus on the provision of a 
specific license or certificate in a specific field, will give States 
whose programs are primarily at the post-baccalaureate level 
considerable trouble collecting and reporting data for the required 
indicators given their small size. (See generally Sec.  612.4(b)(3).)
    Discussion: The definition of teacher preparation program in the 
regulations is designed to apply to both undergraduate and graduate 
level teacher preparation programs. We do not agree that the definition 
is designed to fit teacher preparation programs better at one or 
another level. With regard to the commenters' concerns about greater 
applicability to graduate-level programs, while the commenters 
identified these as concerns regarding the definition of teacher 
preparation program, we understand the issues described to be about 
program size, which is addressed in Sec.  612.4(b). As such, these 
comments are addressed in the discussion of program size under Sec.  
612.4(b)(3)(ii). We do believe that it is important to clarify that a 
teacher preparation program for purposes of title II, HEA reporting is 
one that leads to initial certification, as has been the case under the 
title II reporting system since its inception.
    Changes: We have revised the definition of the term ``teacher 
preparation program'' to clarify that it is one that leads to initial 
state teacher certification or licensure in a specific field.
    Comments: Commenters noted that, because teacher preparation 
programs in some States confer academic degrees (e.g., Bachelor of Arts 
in English) on graduates rather than degrees in education, it would be 
impossible to identify graduates of teacher preparation programs and 
obtain information on teacher preparation graduates. Additionally, some 
commenters were concerned that the definition does not account for 
students who transfer between programs or institutions, or distinguish 
between students who attended more than one program; it confers all of 
the credit or responsibility for these students' academic content 
knowledge and teaching skills on the program from which the student 
graduates. In the case of alternative route programs, commenters stated 
that students may have received academic training from a different 
program, which could unfairly either reflect poorly on, or give credit 
to, the alternative route program.
    Discussion: Under the regulatory definition of the term, a teacher 
preparation program, whether alternative route or traditional, must 
lead to an initial State teacher certification or licensure in a 
specific field. As a result, a program that does not lead to an initial 
State teacher certification or licensure in a specific field (e.g., a 
Bachelor of Arts in English without some additional education-related 
coursework) is not considered a teacher preparation program that is 
reported on under title II. For example, a program that provides a 
degree in curriculum design, confers a Masters of Education, but does 
not prepare students for an initial State certification or licensure, 
would not qualify as a teacher preparation program under this 
definition. However, a program that prepares individuals to be high 
school English teachers, including preparing them for an initial State 
certification or licensure, but confers no degree would be considered a 
teacher preparation program. The specific type of degree granted by the 
program (if any) is irrelevant to the definition in these regulations. 
Regardless of their structure, all teacher preparation programs are 
responsible for ensuring their students are prepared with the academic 
content knowledge and teaching skills they need to succeed in the 
classroom. Therefore, by having the regulatory definition of teacher 
preparation program encompass all teacher preparation programs, 
regardless of their structure, that lead to initial State teacher 
certification or licensure in a specific field, it makes sense that 
States must report on the performance and associated data of each of 
these programs.
    While we understand that students often transfer during their 
college careers, we believe that that the teacher preparation program 
that ultimately determines that a student is prepared for initial 
certification or licensure is the one responsible for his or her 
performance as a teacher. This is so regardless of whether the student 
started in that program or a different one. The same is true for 
alternative route programs. Since alternative route programs enroll 
individuals who have had careers, work experiences, or academic 
training in fields other than education, participants in these programs 
have almost by definition had academic training elsewhere. However, we 
believe it is fully appropriate to have the alternative route program 
assume full responsibility for effective teacher training under the 
title II reporting system, as it is the program that determined the 
teacher to have sufficient academic content knowledge and teaching 
skills to complete the requirements of the program.
    Finally, we note that in Sec.  612.5(a)(4), the regulations also 
require States to determine whether teacher preparation programs have 
rigorous exit requirements. Hence, regardless of student transfers, the 
public will know whether the State considers program

[[Page 75520]]

completers to have reached a high standard of preparation.
    Changes: None.
    Comment: None.
    Discussion: In considering the comments we received on alternative 
route to certification programs, we realized that our proposed 
definition of ``teacher preparation program'' did not address the 
circumstance where the program, while leading to an initial teacher 
certification or licensure in a specific field, enrolls some students 
in a traditional teacher preparation program and other students in an 
alternative route to certification program (i.e., hybrid programs). 
Like the students enrolled in each of these two programmatic 
components, the components themselves are plainly very different. 
Principally, one offers instruction to those who will not become 
teachers of record until after they graduate and become certified to 
teach, while the other offers instruction to those who already are 
teachers of record (and have met State requirements to teach while 
enrolled in their teacher preparation program), and that thereby 
supports and complements those individuals' current teaching 
experiences. Thus, while each component is ``offered by [the same] 
teacher preparation entity'' and ``leads to an initial State teacher 
certification or licensure in a specific field,'' this is where the 
similarity may end.
    We therefore have concluded that our proposed definition of a 
teacher preparation program does not fit these hybrid programs. Having 
an IHE or the State report composite information for a teacher 
preparation program that has both a traditional and alternative route 
component does not make sense; reporting in the aggregate will mask 
what is happening with or in each component. The clearest and simplest 
way to avoid the confusion in reporting that would otherwise result is 
to have IHEs and States treat each component of such a hybrid program 
as its own teacher preparation program. We have revised the definition 
of a ``teacher preparation program'' in Sec.  612.2 to do just that. 
While doing so may create more small teacher preparation programs that 
require States to aggregate data under Sec.  612.4(b)(3)(ii), this 
consequence will be far outweighed by the benefits of cleaner and 
clearer information.
    Changes: We have revised the definition of a ``teacher preparation 
program'' in Sec.  612.2 to clarify that where some participants in the 
program are in a traditional route to certification or licensure in a 
specific field, and others are in an alternative route to certification 
or licensure in that same field, the traditional and alternative route 
component is each its own teacher preparation program.
Teacher Retention Rate
    Comments: Some commenters stated that by requiring reporting on 
teacher retention rates, both generally and for high-need schools, 
program officials--and their potential applicants--can ascertain if the 
programs are aligning themselves with districts' staffing needs.
    Other commenters stated that two of the allowable options for 
calculating the teacher retention rate would provide useful information 
regarding: (1) The percentage of new teachers hired into full-time 
teaching positions and serving at least three consecutive years within 
five years of being certified or licensed; and (2) the percentage of 
new teachers hired full-time and reaching tenure within five years of 
being certified. According to commenters, the focus of the third 
option, new teachers who were hired and then fired for reasons other 
than budget cuts, could be problematic because it overlooks teachers 
who voluntarily leave high-need schools, or the profession altogether. 
Other commenters recommended removing the definition of teacher 
retention rate from the regulations.
    Another commenter stated that the teacher retention rate, which we 
had proposed to define as any of the three specific rates as selected 
by the State, creates the potential for incorrect calculations and 
confusion for consumers when teachers have initial certification in 
multiple States; however, the commenter did not offer further 
information to clarify its meaning. In addition, commenters stated that 
the proposed definition allows for new teachers who are not retained 
due to market conditions or circumstances particular to the LEA and 
beyond the control of teachers or schools to be excluded from 
calculation of the retention rate, a standard that allows each school 
to determine the criteria for those conditions, which are subject to 
interpretation.
    Several commenters requested clarification of the definition. Some 
asked us to clarify what we meant by tenure. Another commenter asked us 
to clarify how to treat teachers on probationary certificates.
    Another commenter recommended that the Department amend the teacher 
retention rate definition so that it is used to help rate teacher 
preparation programs by comparing the program's recent graduates who 
demonstrate effectiveness and remain in teaching to those who fail to 
achieve high ratings on evaluations. One commenter suggested that 
programs track the number of years graduates taught over the course of 
five years, regardless of whether or not the years taught were 
consecutive. Others suggested shortening the timeframe for reporting on 
retention so that the rate would be reported for each of three 
consecutive years and, as we understand the comments, would apply to 
individuals after they became novice teachers.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenters who stated that reporting 
on teacher retention rates both generally and for high-need schools 
ensures that teacher preparation programs are aligning themselves with 
districts' staffing needs.
    In response to comments, we have clarified and simplified the 
definition of teacher retention rate. We agree with commenters that the 
third proposed option, by which one subtracts from 100 percent the 
percentage of novice teachers who were hired and fired for reasons 
other than budget cuts, is not a true measure of retention because it 
excludes those who voluntarily leave the profession. Therefore, we have 
removed it as an option for calculating the retention rate. Doing so 
also addresses those concerns that the third option allowed for too 
much discretion in interpreting when local conditions beyond the 
schools' control caused teachers to no longer be retained.
    We also agree with commenters that the second proposed option for 
calculating the rate, which looked to the percentage of new teachers 
not receiving tenure within five years, is confusing and does not make 
sense when looking at new teachers, which we had proposed to define as 
covering a three-year teaching period, as tenure may not be reached 
during that timeframe. For these reasons, we also have removed this 
option from the definition. Doing so addresses the commenters' concerns 
that multiple methods for calculating the rate would create confusion. 
We also believe this addresses the comments regarding our use of the 
term tenure as potentially causing confusion.
    We also note that our proposed definition of teacher retention rate 
did not bring in the concept of certification in the State in which one 
teaches. Therefore, we do not believe this definition will cause the 
confusion identified by the commenter who was concerned about teachers 
who were certified to teach in multiple States.
    Additionally, we revised the first option for calculating the 
teacher retention rate to clarify that the rate must be calculated 
three times for each cohort of novice teachers--after the first,

[[Page 75521]]

second, and third years as a novice teacher. We agree with commenters 
who recommended shortening the timeframe for reporting on retention 
from three of five years to the first three consecutive years. We made 
this change because the definition of recent graduate already builds in 
a three-year window to allow for delay in placement, and to simplify 
the data collection and reporting requirements associated with this 
indicator.
    We also agree with the recommendation that States calculate a 
program's retention rate based on three consecutive years after 
individuals become novice teachers. We believe reporting on each year 
for the first three years is a reasonable indicator of academic content 
and teaching skills in that it shows how well a program prepares novice 
teachers to remain in teaching, and also both promotes greater 
transparency and helps employers make more informed hiring decisions. 
We note that teacher retention rate is calculated for all novice 
teachers, which includes those on probationary certificates. This is 
further explained in the discussion of ``Alternative Route Programs'' 
in section 612.5(a)(2).
    We appreciate the suggestions that we should require States to 
report a comparison of retention rates of novice teachers based on 
their evaluation ratings, but decline to prescribe this measure as 
doing so would create costs and complexities that we do not think are 
sufficiently necessary in determining a program's broad level of 
performance. States that are interested in such information for the 
purposes of transparency or accountability are welcome to consider it 
as another criterion for assessing program performance or for other 
purposes.

BILLING CODE 4000-01-P

[[Page 75522]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31OC16.002


[[Page 75523]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31OC16.003


[[Page 75524]]


    When calculating teacher retention rate, it is important to first 
note that the academic year in which an individual met all of the 
requirements for program completion is not relevant. Contrary to 
teacher placement rate, the defining concern of a teacher retention 
rate calculation is the first year in which an individual becomes a 
teacher of record for P-12 public school students. In this example, we 
use the same basic information as we did for the teacher placement rate 
example. As such, Table 2a recreates Table 1, with calculations for 
teacher retention rate instead of the teacher placement rate. However, 
because the first year in which an individual becomes a novice teacher 
is the basis for the calculations, rather than the year of program 
completion, we could rearrange Table 2a in the order in which teachers 
first became novice teachers as in Table 2b.
    In addition, Table 2b removes data on program completion, and 
eliminates both extraneous information before an individual becomes a 
novice teacher and employment information after the State is no longer 
required to report on these individuals for purposes of the teacher 
retention rate.

[[Page 75525]]

[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31OC16.004


[[Page 75526]]


[GRAPHIC] [TIFF OMITTED] TR31OC16.005


[[Page 75527]]


    In this example, this particular teacher preparation program has 
five individuals who became novice teachers for the first time in the 
2017-2018 academic year (Teachers A, B, F, G, and J). For purposes of 
this definition, we refer to these individuals as a cohort of novice 
teachers. As described below, the State will first calculate a teacher 
retention rate for this teacher preparation program in the October 2019 
State report card. In that year, the State will determine how many 
members of the 2017-2018 cohort of novice teachers have been 
continuously employed through the current year. Of Teachers A, B, F, G, 
and J, only teachers A, B, F, and G are still teaching in 2018-2019. As 
such, the State calculates a teacher retention rate of 80 percent for 
this teacher preparation program for the 2019 State Report Card.
    In the October 2020 SRC, the State is required to report on the 
2017-2018 cohort and the 2018-2019 cohort. The membership of the 2017-
2018 cohort does not change. From that cohort, Teachers A, B, and F 
were employed in both the 2018-2019 academic year and the 2019-2020 
academic year. The 2018-2019 cohort consists of Teachers C, H, and K. 
Of those, only Teachers C and H are employed as teachers of record in 
the 2019-2020 academic year. Therefore, the State reports a teacher 
retention rate of 60 percent for the 2017-2018 cohort--because three 
teachers (A, B, and F) were continuously employed through the current 
year out of the five total teachers (A, B, F, G, and J) in that 
cohort--and 67 percent for the 2018-2019 cohort--because 2 teachers (C 
and H) were employed in the current year of the three total teachers 
(C, H, and K) in that cohort.
    In the October 2021 SRC, the State will be reporting on three 
cohorts of novice teachers for the first time--the 2017-2018 cohort (A, 
B, F, G, and J), the 2018-2019 cohort (C, H, and K), and the 2019-2020 
cohort (D). Of the 2017-2018 cohort, only Teachers A and F have been 
continuously employed as a teacher of record since the 2017-2018 
academic year, therefore the State will report a retention rate of 40 
percent for this cohort (two out of five). Of the 2018-2019 cohort, 
only Teachers C and H have been continuously employed since the 2018-
2019 academic year. Despite being a teacher of record for the 2020-2021 
academic year, Teacher K does not count towards this program's teacher 
retention rate because Teacher K was not a teacher of record in the 
2019-2020 academic year, and therefore has not been continuously 
employed. The State would report a 67 percent retention rate for the 
2018-2019 cohort (two out of three). For the 2019-2020 cohort, Teacher 
D is still a teacher of record in the current year. As such, the State 
reports a teacher retention rate of 100 percent for that cohort.
    Beginning with the 2022 SRC, the State no longer reports on the 
2017-2018 cohort. Instead, the State reports on the three most recent 
cohorts of novice teachers--2018-2019 (C, H, and K), 2019-2020 (D), and 
2020-2021 (E and I). Of the members of the 2018-2019 cohort, both 
Teachers C and H have been employed as teachers of record in each year 
from their first year as teachers of record through the current 
reporting year. Teacher K is still not included in the calculation 
because of the failure to be employed as a teacher of record in the 
2019-2020 academic year. Therefore, the State reports a 67 percent 
retention rate for this cohort. Of the 2019-2020 cohort, Teacher D has 
been employed in each academic year since first becoming a teacher of 
record. The State would report a 100 percent retention rate for this 
cohort. Teachers E and I, of the 2020-2021 cohort, have also been 
retained in the 2021-2022 academic year. As such, the State reports a 
teacher retention rate of 100 percent in the 2022 SRC for this cohort.
    Changes: We have revised the definition of teacher retention rate 
by removing the second and third proposed options for calculating it. 
We have replaced the first option with a method for calculating the 
percentage of novice teachers who have been continuously employed as 
teachers of record in each year between their first year as a novice 
teacher and the current reporting year. In doing so, we also clarify 
that the teacher retention rate is based on the percentage of novice 
teachers in each of the three cohorts of novice teachers immediately 
preceding the current title II reporting year.
    Comments: None.
    Discussion: Upon review of comments, we recognized that the data 
necessary to calculate teacher retention rate, as we had proposed to 
define this term, will not be available for the October 2018, 2019 and 
2020 State reports. We have therefore clarified in Sec.  
612.5(a)(2)(ii)the reporting requirements for this indicator for these 
initial implementation years. In doing so, we have re-designated 
proposed Sec.  612.5(a)(2)(ii), which permits States to assess 
traditional and alternative route teacher preparation programs 
differently based on whether there are specific components of the 
programs' policies or structure that affect employment outcomes, as 
Sec.  612.5(a)(2)(iii).
    Changes: We have added Sec.  612.5(a)(2)(ii) to clarify that: For 
the October 2018 State report, the rate does not apply; for the October 
2019 State report, the rate is based on the cohort of novice teachers 
identified in the 2017-18 title II reporting year; for the October 2020 
State report, separate rates will be calculated for the cohorts of 
novice teachers identified in the 2017-18 and 2018-19 title II 
reporting years. In addition, we have re-designated proposed Sec.  
612.5(a)(2)(ii) as Sec.  612.5(a)(2)(iii).
Teacher Survey
    Comments: Commenters stated that the proposed definition of teacher 
survey was unclear about whether all novice teachers or only a sample 
of novice teachers must be surveyed. Commenters also stated that the 
proposed definition missed an opportunity to collect meaningful data 
about teacher preparation program performance because it would only 
require a survey of novice teachers serving in full-time teaching 
positions for the grade level, span, and subject area in which they 
were prepared, and not all the completers of programs. One commenter 
noted that Massachusetts plans to collect survey data from recent 
graduates upon completion and novice teachers after a year of 
employment.
    Some commenters provided recommendations regarding survey content. 
These commenters argued that the teacher survey include questions to 
determine whether a teacher preparation program succeeded in the 
following areas, which, according to the commenters, research shows are 
important for preparing teachers to advance student achievement: 
producing student learning and raising student achievement for all 
students; using data to assess and address student learning challenges 
and successes; providing differentiated teaching strategies for 
students with varied learning needs, including English learners; 
keeping students engaged; managing classroom behavior; and using 
technology to improve teaching and increase student learning.
    Discussion: While the proposed definition of survey outcomes 
provided that States would have to survey all novice teachers in their 
first year of teaching in the State where their teacher preparation 
program is located, our proposed definition of teacher survey limited 
this to those teachers in full-time teaching positions. We agree with 
the commenters' explanations for why States should need to survey all 
novice teachers, and not just those who are in full-time teaching 
positions. For clarity,

[[Page 75528]]

in addition to including the requirement that ``survey outcomes'' be of 
all novice teachers, which we have moved from its own definition in 
proposed Sec. Sec.  612.2 to 612.5(a)(3), we have revised the 
definition of ``teacher survey'' accordingly. We are also changing the 
term ``new teacher'' to ``novice teacher'' for the reasons discussed 
under the definition of ``novice teacher.''
    However, we believe that requiring States to survey all program 
completers would put undue burden on States by requiring them to locate 
individuals who have not been hired as teachers. Rather, we believe it 
is enough that States ensure that surveys are conducted of all novice 
teachers who are in their first year of teaching. We note that this 
change provides consistency with the revised definition of employer 
survey, which is a survey of employers or supervisors designed to 
capture their perceptions of whether the novice teachers they employ or 
supervise, who are in their first year of teaching, were effectively 
prepared. The goal of a teacher preparation program is to effectively 
prepare aspiring teachers to step into a classroom prepared to teach. 
As the regulations seek to help States reach reasonable determinations 
of whether teacher preparation programs are meeting this goal, the 
definition of survey outcomes focuses on novice teachers in their first 
year of teaching. We note that the regulations do not prohibit States 
from surveying additional individuals or conducting their surveys of 
cohorts of teachers over longer periods of time, and we encourage 
States to consider doing so. However, considering the costs associated 
with further surveys of the same cohorts of novice teachers, we believe 
that requiring that these teachers be surveyed once, during their first 
year of teaching, provides sufficient information about the basic 
issue--how well their program prepared them to teach.
    We believe that States, in consultation with their stakeholders 
(see Sec.  612.4(c)), are in the best position to determine the content 
of the surveys used to evaluate the teacher preparation programs in 
their State. Therefore, the regulations do not specify the number or 
types of questions to be included in employer or teacher surveys.
    Changes: We have revised the definition of ``teacher survey'' to 
require States to administer surveys to all novice teachers in their 
first year of teaching in the State.
Title II Reporting Year
    Comments: None.
    Discussion: Since its inception, the title II reporting system has 
used the term ``academic year'' to refer to a period of twelve 
consecutive months, starting September 1 and ending August 31, during 
which States collect and subsequently report data on their annual 
report cards. This period of data collection and reporting is familiar 
to States, institutions, and the public; however, the proposed 
regulations did not contain a definition of this reporting period. In 
order to confirm that we do not intend for States to implement the 
regulations in a way that changes their longstanding practice of using 
that ``academic year'' as the period for their data collection and 
reporting, we believe that it is appropriate to add a definition to the 
regulations. However, to avoid confusion with the very generic term 
academic year, which may mean different things at the teacher 
preparation program and LEA levels, we instead use the term ``title II 
reporting year.''
    Changes: We added the term ``title II reporting year'' under Sec.  
612.2, and defined it as a period of twelve consecutive months, 
starting September 1 and ending August 31.

Subpart B--Reporting Requirements

Section 612.3 What are the regulatory reporting requirements for the 
institutional report card?
Timeline of Reporting Requirements (34 CFR 612.3)
    Comments: While there was some support for our proposal to change 
the IRC due date from April to October, many commenters stated that the 
proposed October 2017 pilot start date for the annual reporting cycle 
for the IRC, using data pertaining to an institution's programs and 
novice teachers for the 2016-2017 academic year, would be unworkable. 
Several commenters therefore strongly recommended that our proposal to 
move the due date for the IRC up by six months to October following the 
end of the institutions' academic year not be implemented.
    Commenters said that the change would make it impossible to collect 
reliable data on several factors and on large numbers of recent 
students. They stated that it would be impossible to submit a final IRC 
by October 1 because students take State licensing assessments, as well 
as enter into, drop from, and complete programs through August 31, and 
therefore final student data, pass rates for students who took 
assessments used for teacher certification or licensure by the State, 
and other information would not be available until September or October 
of each year. Other commenters indicated that, because most teacher 
preparation programs will need to aggregate multiple years of data to 
meet the program size threshold for reporting, the October submission 
date will unnecessarily rush the production and posting of their 
aggregated teacher preparation program data. Some commenters noted that 
changing the IRC due date to October (for reporting on students and 
programs for the prior academic year) would require a change in the 
definition of academic year because, without such a change, the October 
reports could not reflect scores on assessment tests that students or 
program completers took through August 31st. Alternatively, the 
proposal would require institutions to prepare and submit supplemental 
reports later in the year in order for the reports to fully reflect 
information for the prior academic year.
    Some commenters also stated that LEAs have limited staffing and 
cannot provide assistance to institutions during the summer when data 
would be collected, or that because teacher hiring often occurs in 
August, an October IRC due date does not provide enough time to collect 
reliable employment data.
    Discussion: We believe that the NPRM confused many commenters, 
leading them to believe that IRC reporting would occur in the October 
immediately after the end of the title II academic year on August 31. 
Rather, we had intended that the reporting would be on the prior year's 
academic year (e.g., the October 1, 2018 IRC would report data on the 
2016-2017 academic year). However, as we discuss in our response to 
comments on our proposals for the timing of the SRC under Sec.  
612.4(a)(1)(i) General State Report Card reporting and Sec.  612.4(b) 
Timeline, we have decided to maintain the submission date for the SRC 
report in October, and so also maintain the due date for the IRC as 
April of the year following the title II reporting year.
    Finally, while several commenters opined that an October date for 
submission of the IRC did not provide sufficient time for institutions 
to receive information from LEAs, we do not believe that the 
regulations require LEAs to submit any information to institutions for 
purposes of the IRC. We assume that the comments were based on a 
misunderstanding surrounding the data to be reported in the IRC. While 
our proposed indicators of program performance would require States to 
receive and report information from LEAs, institutions would not need 
to receive comparable information from

[[Page 75529]]

LEAs in order to prepare and submit their IRCs.
    Changes: We have revised Sec.  612.3 to provide that the first IRC 
under the regulations, which would cover the 2016-2017 academic year, 
is due not later than April 30, 2018.
Institutional Report Card (34 CFR 612.3(a))
    Comments: Multiple commenters noted that the proposed regulations 
regarding the IRCs do not take into account all of the existing 
reporting demands, including not only the title II report, but also 
reports for national and regional accrediting bodies. Another commenter 
stated that, because feedback loops already exist to improve teacher 
preparation programs, there is no need to have a Federal report card on 
each teacher preparation program.
    On the other hand, some commenters suggested that teacher 
preparation programs report the demographics and outcomes of enrolled 
teacher candidates by race and ethnicity. Specifically, commenters 
suggested reporting the graduation rates, dropout rates, placement 
rates for graduates, first-year evaluation scores (if available), and 
the percentage of teacher candidates who stay within the teaching 
profession for one, three, and five years. Another commenter also 
suggested that gender, age, grade-level, and specialized areas of study 
be included; and that the data be available for cross-tabulation (a 
method of analysis allowing comparison of the relationship between two 
variables). One commenter stated that because title II reporting 
metrics are geared to evaluate how IHEs provide training, recruitment, 
and education to first-time graduates of education programs, the 
metrics cannot be applied to alternative route certification programs, 
which primarily train career changers who already have a degree and 
content knowledge. This commenter argued that attempting to compare the 
results of title II metrics from alternative route certification 
programs and traditional IHE-based programs will result in untrue 
conclusions because the programs' student candidates are so different.
    Another commenter suggested that, in order to ensure that States 
are able to separately report on the performance of alternative route 
preparation programs, IHEs should report whether they have a 
partnership agreement with alternative route providers, and identify 
the candidates enrolled in each of those programs. The commenter noted 
that, while doing so may lead States to identify groups of small 
numbers of alternative route program participants, it may eliminate the 
possibility that candidates who actually participate in alternative 
route programs are identified as graduates of a traditional preparation 
program at the same IHE.
    Another commenter stated that the variety of program academic 
calendars, with their different ``start'' and ``end'' dates in 
different months and seasons of the year, created another source of 
inaccurate reporting. The commenter explained that, with students 
entering a program on different dates, the need to aggregate cohorts 
will result in diffuse data that have relatively little meaning since 
the cohort will lose its cohesiveness. As such, the commenter stated, 
the data reported based on aggregate cohorts should not be used in 
assessing or evaluating the impact of programs on participants.
    A number of commenters noted what they claimed were inherent flaws 
in our proposed IRC. They argued that it has not been tested for 
validity, feasibility, or unintended consequences, and therefore should 
not be used to judge the quality of teacher preparation programs.
    Discussion: In response to comments that would have IHEs report 
more information on race, ethnicity, sex, and other characteristics of 
their students or graduates, the content of the IRC is mandated by 
section 205(a) of the HEA. Section 205(a)(C)(ii) of the HEA provides 
the sole information that IHEs must report regarding the 
characteristics of their students: ``the number of students in the 
program (disaggregated by race, ethnicity, and gender).'' Therefore, we 
do not have the authority to waive or change the statutorily prescribed 
annual reporting requirements for the IRC.
    Regarding the recommendation that institutions report whether their 
teacher preparation programs have partnership agreements with 
alternative route providers, we note that section 205(a) of the HEA 
neither provides for IHEs to include this type of information in their 
IRCs nor authorizes the Secretary to add reporting elements to them. 
However, if they choose, States could require institutions to report 
such data to them for inclusion in the SRCs. We defer to States on 
whether they need such information and, if so, the best way to require 
IHEs to provide it.
    In response to the comment that the IRC is unnecessary because 
institutions already have feedback loops for program improvement, we 
note that by requiring each institution to make the information in the 
IRC available to the general public Congress plainly intends that the 
report serve a public interest that goes beyond the private use the 
institution may make of the reported data. We thus disagree that the 
current feedback loops that IHEs may have for program improvement 
satisfy Congress' intent in this regard.
    We understand that there are differences between traditional and 
alternative route teacher preparation programs and that variability 
among programs in each category (including program start and end dates) 
exists. However, section 205(a) of the HEA is very clear that an IHE 
that conducts either a traditional or alternative route teacher 
preparation program must submit an IRC that contains the information 
Congress has prescribed. Moreover, we do not agree that the 
characteristics of any of these programs, specifically the demographics 
of the participants in these programs or whether participants have 
already earned an undergraduate degree, would necessarily lead to 
inaccurate or confusing reporting of the information Congress requires. 
Nor do we believe that the IRC reporting requirements are so geared to 
evaluate how IHEs provide training, recruitment, and education to 
first-time graduates of education programs that IHEs operating 
alternative route programs cannot explain the specifics of their 
responses.
    We do acknowledge that direct comparisons of traditional and 
alternative route programs would potentially be misleading without 
additional information. However, this is generally true for comparisons 
of all types of programs. For example, a comparison of average cost of 
tuition and fees between two institutions could be misleading without 
the additional context of the average value of financial aid provided 
to each student. Simply because analyzing specific data out of context 
could potentially generate confusion does not mitigate the value of 
reporting the information to the general public that, as we have noted, 
Congress requires.
    With specific regard to the fact that programs have different 
operating schedules, the IRC would have all IHEs report on students 
participating in teacher preparation programs during the reporting year 
based on their graduation date from the program. This would be true 
regardless of the programs' start date or whether the students have 
previous education credentials. We also believe the IRC would become 
too cumbersome if we tried to tailor the specific reporting 
requirements in section 205(a) of the HEA to address and reflect each 
individual program start time, or if the regulations created different 
reporting structures based on the program start time or the previous

[[Page 75530]]

career or educational background of the program participants.
    Furthermore, we see no need for any testing of data reported in the 
IRC for validity, feasibility, or unintended consequences. The data 
required by these regulations are the data that Congress has specified 
in section 205(a) of the HEA. We do not perceive the data elements in 
section 205(a) as posing any particular issues of validity. Just as 
they would in any congressionally mandated report, we expect all 
institutions to report valid data in their IRCs and, if data quality 
issues exist we expect institutions will address them so as to meet 
their statutory obligations. Further, we have identified no issues with 
the feasibility of reporting the required data. While we have worked to 
simplify institutional reporting, institutions have previously reported 
the same or similar data in their IRCs, albeit at a different level of 
aggregation. Finally, we fail to see any unintended consequences that 
follow from meeting the statutory reporting requirements. To the extent 
that States use the data in the IRC to help assess whether a program is 
low-performing or at-risk of being low-performing under section 207(a) 
of the HEA, under our regulations this would occur only if, in 
consultation with their stakeholders under Sec.  612.4(c), States 
decide to use these data for this purpose. If institutions are 
concerned about such a use of these data, we encourage them to be 
active participants in the consultative process.
    Changes: None.
Prominent and Prompt Posting of Institutional Report Card (34 CFR 
612.3(b))
    Comments: Multiple commenters supported the requirement to have 
each IHE post the information in its IRC on its Web site and, if 
applicable, on the teacher preparation program's own Web site. Based on 
the cost estimates in the NPRM, however, several commenters raised 
concerns about the ability of IHEs to do so.
    Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for our proposal 
as an appropriate and efficient way for IHEs to meet their statutory 
responsibility to report annually the content of its IRC to the general 
public (see section 205(a)(1) of the HEA).
    We discuss the comments regarding concerns about the cost estimates 
in the IRC Reporting Requirements section of the Discussion of Costs, 
Benefits, and Transfers in this document.
    Changes: None.
Availability of Institutional Report Card (34 CFR 612.3(c))
    Comments: One commenter recommended that we mandate that each IHE 
provide the information contained in its IRC in promotional and other 
materials it makes available to prospective students, rather than 
leaving it to the discretion of the institution.
    Discussion: While we believe that prospective students or 
participants of a teacher preparation program need to have ready access 
to the information in the institution's IRC, we do not believe that 
requiring the IHE to provide this information in its promotional 
materials is either reasonable or necessary. We believe that the costs 
of doing so would be very large and would likely outweigh the benefits. 
For example, many institutions may make large printing orders for 
pamphlets, brochures, and other promotional materials that get used 
over the course of several years. Requiring the inclusion of IRC 
information in those materials would require that institutions both 
make these promotional materials longer and print them more often. As 
the regulations already mandate that this information be prominently 
posted on the institution's Web site, we fail to see a substantial 
benefit to prospective students that outweighs the additional cost to 
the institution.
    However, while not requiring the information to be included in 
promotional materials, we encourage IHEs and their teacher preparation 
programs to provide it in places that prospective students can easily 
find and access. We believe IHEs can find creative ways to go beyond 
the regulatory requirements to provide this information to students and 
the public without incurring significant costs.
    Changes: None.
Section 612.4 What are the regulatory reporting requirements for the 
State report card?
General (34 CFR 612.4(a))
    Comments: None.
    Discussion: As proposed, Sec.  612.4(a) required all States to meet 
the annual reporting requirements. For clarity, we have revised this 
provision to provide, as does section 205(b) of the HEA, that all 
States that receive HEA funds must do so.
    Changes: We have revised Sec.  612.4(a) to provide that all States 
that receive funds under the HEA must meet the reporting requirements 
required by this regulation.
General (Timeline) (34 CFR 612.4(a)(1)(i)) and Reporting of Information 
on Teacher Preparation Program Performance (Timeline) (34 CFR 612.4(b))
    Comments: Many commenters expressed concern with their State's 
ability to build data systems and to collect and report the required 
data under the proposed timeline.
    Commenters noted that the proposed timeline does not allow States 
enough time to implement the proposed regulations, and that the 
associated logistical challenges impose undue and costly burdens on 
States. Commenters noted that States need more time to make decisions 
about data collection, involve stakeholders, and to pilot and revise 
the data systems--activities that they said cannot be completed in one 
year.
    Several commenters recommended extending the timeline for 
implementation by at least five years. Some commenters suggested 
delaying the reporting of program ratings until at least 2021 to give 
States more time to create data linkages and validate data. Other 
commenters pointed out that their States receive employment and student 
learning data from LEAs in the fall or winter, which they said makes 
reporting outcomes in their SRCs in October of each year, as we had 
proposed, impossible. Still other commenters noted that some data, by 
their nature, may not be available to report by October. Another 
commenter suggested that institutions should report in October, States 
should report outcome data (but not performance designations) in 
February, and then the States should report performance designations in 
June, effectively creating an additional reporting requirement. To 
address the timing problems in the proposed schedule for SRC 
submission, other commenters recommended that the Department continue 
having States submit their SRCs in October. On the other hand, some 
commenters supported or encouraged the Department to maintain the 
proposed timelines.
    Many commenters stated that no State currently implements the 
proposed teacher preparation program rating system. Therefore, to 
evaluate effectiveness, or to uncover unintended consequences, these 
commenters emphasized the importance of permitting States to develop 
and evaluate pilot programs before broader implementation. Some 
commenters therefore recommended that the proposed implementation 
timeline be delayed until the process had been

[[Page 75531]]

piloted and evaluated for efficiency while others recommended a 
multiyear pilot program.
    Discussion: We appreciate the comments supporting the proposed 
reporting timeline changes to the SRC. However, in view of the public's 
explanation of problems that our proposed reporting schedule could 
cause, we are persuaded that the title II reporting cycle should remain 
as currently established--with the institutions submitting their IRCs 
in April of each year, and States submitting their SRCs the following 
October. IHEs and States are familiar with this schedule, and we see 
that our proposal to switch the reporting dates, while having the 
theoretical advantage of permitting the public to review information 
much earlier, was largely unworkable.
    Under the final regulations, the initial SRC (a pilot) would be due 
October 31, 2018, for the 2016-2017 academic year. The October 2018 due 
date provides much more time for submission of the SRC. As we note in 
the discussion of comments received on Sec.  612.3(a) (Reporting 
Requirements for the IRC), IHEs will continue to report on their 
programs, including pass rates for students who took assessments used 
for initial certification or licensure by the State in which the 
teacher preparation program is located, from the prior academic year, 
by April 30 of each year. States therefore will have these data 
available for their October 31 reporting. Because the outcome data 
States will need to collect to help assess the performance of their 
teacher preparation programs (i.e., student learning outcomes, 
employment outcomes, and survey outcomes) would be collected on novice 
teachers employed by LEAs from the prior school year, these data would 
likewise be available in time for the October 31 SRC reporting. Given 
this, we believe all States will have enough time by October 31 of each 
year to obtain the data they need to submit their SRCs. In addition, 
since States are expected to periodically examine the quality of their 
data collection and reporting under Sec.  612.4(c)(2), we expect that 
States have a process by which to make modifications to their system if 
they desire to do so.
    By maintaining the current reporting cycle, States will have a year 
(2016-2017) to design and implement a system. The 42 States, District 
of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico that were previously 
granted ESEA flexibility are therefore well positioned to meet the 
requirements of these regulations because they either already have the 
systems in place to measure student learning outcomes or have worked to 
do so. Moreover, with the flexibility that Sec.  612.5(a)(1)(ii) now 
provides for States to measure student learning outcomes using student 
growth, a teacher evaluation measure, or another State-determined 
measure relevant to calculating student learning outcomes (or any 
combination of these three), all States should be able to design and 
implement their systems in time to submit their initial reports by 
October 31, 2018. Additionally, at least 30 States, the District of 
Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico either already have the 
ability to aggregate data on the achievement of students taught by 
recent graduates and link those data back to teacher preparation 
programs. Similarly, as discussed below, 30 States already implement 
teacher surveys that could be modified to be used in this 
accountability system.
    Particularly given the added flexibility in Sec.  612.5(a)(1)(ii), 
as most States already have or are well on their way to having the 
systems required to implement the regulations, we are confident that 
the reduction in time to prepare before the pilot SRC will be prepared 
and submitted will prove to be manageable. We understand that some 
States will not have complete datasets available for all indicators 
during initial implementation, and so may need to make adjustments 
based on experience during the pilot year. We also stress that the 
October 2018 SRC is a pilot report; any State identification of a 
program as low-performing or at-risk of being low-performing included 
in that report would not have implications either for the program 
generally or for that program's eligibility to participate in the TEACH 
Grant program. Full SRC reporting begins in October 2019.
    In addition, maintaining the SRC reporting date of October 31 also 
is important so that those who want to apply for admission to teacher 
preparation programs and for receipt of TEACH Grants as early as 
January of the year they wish to begin the program know which IHEs have 
programs that States have identified in their SRCs as at-risk or low-
performing. Prospective students should have this information as soon 
as they can so that they know both the State's assessment of each 
program's level of performance and which IHEs lack authority to award 
TEACH Grants. See our response to public comment regarding the 
definition of a TEACH Grant-eligible institution in Sec.  686.2.
    In summary, under our revised reporting cycle, the SRC is due about 
five months earlier than in the proposed regulations. However, because 
the report due October 31, 2018 is a pilot report, we believe that 
States will have sufficient time to complete work establishing their 
reporting and related systems to permit submission of all information 
in the SRC by the first full reporting date of October 31, 2019. While 
we appreciate the comments suggesting that States be able to develop 
and evaluate pilot programs before broader implementation, or that the 
implementation timeline be delayed until the State process has been 
piloted and evaluated for efficiency, we do not believe that adding 
more time for States to develop their systems is necessary. Lastly, 
maintaining the existing timeline does not affect the timing of 
consequences for TEACH Grants for at-risk or low-performing teacher 
preparation programs. Under the regulations, the TEACH Grant 
consequences would apply for the 2021-2022 award year.
    Changes: We have revised Sec.  612.4(a) to provide that State 
reports under these final regulations would be due on October 31, 2018. 
We also changed the date for SRC reporting to October wherever it 
appears in the final regulations.
    Comments: Some commenters expressed concern with States' ability to 
implement valid and reliable surveys in the time provided. Commenters 
argued that issues related to who to survey, when to survey, and how 
often to survey would make this the most challenging performance 
indicator to develop, implement, and use for determining a program's 
performance level. Commenters stated that an institution's capacity to 
track graduates accurately and completely is highly dependent on the 
existence of sophisticated State data systems that track teacher 
employment and on appropriate incentives to assure high response rates 
to surveys, noting that many States do not have such systems in place 
and some are just beginning to implement them. Commenters suggested 
that the Department consider easing the timeline for implementation of 
surveys to reduce the cost and burden of implementation of surveys.
    Discussion: According to the GAO survey of States, 30 States have 
used surveys that assessed principals' and other district personnel's 
satisfaction with recent traditional teacher preparation program 
graduates when evaluating programs seeking State approval.\14\ We 
believe these States can modify these existing survey instruments to 
develop teacher and

[[Page 75532]]

employer surveys that comply with the regulations without substantial 
additional burden. Additionally, States that do not currently use such 
surveys may be able to shorten the time period for developing their own 
surveys by using whole surveys or individual questions already employed 
by other States as a template. States may also choose to shorten the 
time required to analyze survey results by focusing on quantitative 
survey responses (e.g., score on a Likert scale or number of hours of 
training in a specific teaching skill) rather than taking the time to 
code and analyze qualitative written responses. However, we note that, 
in many instances, qualitative responses may provide important 
additional information on program quality. As such, States could opt to 
include qualitative questions in their surveys and send the responses 
to the applicable teacher preparation programs for their own analysis. 
With a far smaller set of responses to analyze, individual programs 
would be able to review and respond much more quickly than the State. 
However, these are decisions left to the States and their stakeholders 
to resolve.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ GAO at 13.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Changes: None.
    Comments: A number of commenters indicated confusion about when 
particular aspects of the proposed IRC and SRC are to be reported and 
recommended clarification.
    Discussion: We agree with the recommendation to clarify the 
reporting of cohorts and metrics for reporting years. The chart below 
outlines how certain metrics will be reported and the reporting 
calendar. We understand that the information reported on the SRC may 
differ from the example provided below because initially some data may 
be unavailable or incomplete. In these instances, we expect that States 
will weight indicators for which data are unavailable in a way that is 
consistent and applies equivalent levels of accountability across 
programs.

                                                 Table 3--Implementation and Reporting Calendar Example
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Year                          2018                    2019                    2020                   2021                   2022
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                             Institutional Report Card (IRC)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
IRC Due Date.......................  April 30, 2018........  April 30, 2019........  April 30, 2020.......  April 30, 2021.......  April 30, 2022.
Pass Rate..........................  Recent graduates (from  Recent graduates (from  Recent graduates       Recent graduates       Recent graduates
                                      AY 2016-17).            AY 2017-18).            (from AY 2018-19).     (from AY 2019-20).     (from AY 2020-21).
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 State Report Card (SRC)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SRC Due Date.......................  October 31, 2018        October 31, 2019......  October 31, 2020.....  October 31, 2021.....  October 31, 2022.
                                      (Pilot).
Placement Rate.....................  C1....................  C1, C2................  C1, C2, C3...........  C2, C3, C4...........  C3, C4, C5.
Retention Rate.....................  N/A...................  C1....................  C1, C2...............  C1, C2, C3...........  C2, C3, C4.
Student Learning Outcomes..........  C1....................  C1, C2................  C1, C2, C3...........  C2, C3, C4...........  C3, C4, C5.
Survey Outcomes....................  C1....................  C2....................  C3...................  C4...................  C5.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                    TEACH Eligibility
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     Not impacted..........  Not impacted..........  Impacts 2021-22 Award  Impacts 2022-23 Award  Impacts 2023-24 Award
                                                                                      Year.                  Year.                  Year.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Academic Year (AY): Title II academic year runs from September 1 to August 31.
Award year: Title IV award year runs from July 1 to June 30.
Note: Data systems are to be designed and implemented during the 2016-17 school year.
C1: Cohort 1, novice teachers whose first year in the classroom is 2017-18.
C2: Cohort 2, novice teachers whose first year in the classroom is 2018-19.
C3: Cohort 3, novice teachers whose first year in the classroom is 2019-20.
C4: Cohort 4, novice teachers whose first year in the classroom is 2020-21.
C5: Cohort 5, novice teachers whose first year in the classroom in 2021-22.

    Changes: None.
    Comments: To reduce information collection and dissemination burden 
on States, a commenter asked that the Department provide a mechanism 
for rolling up IRC data into the State data systems.
    Discussion: The Department currently provides a system by which all 
IHEs may electronically submit their IRC data, and which also 
prepopulates the SRC with relevant information from the IRCs. We intend 
to continue to provide this system.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Some commenters stated that States should be able to 
replace the SRC reporting requirements in these regulations with their 
own State-defined accountability and improvement systems for teacher 
preparation programs.
    Discussion: We disagree that States should be able to replace the 
SRC reporting requirements with their own State-defined accountability 
and improvement systems for teacher preparation programs. Section 
205(b) of the HEA requires reporting of the elements in the SRC by any 
State that receives HEA funding. The measures included in the 
regulations are either specifically required by that provision or are 
needed to give reasonable meaning to the statutorily required 
indicators of academic content knowledge and teaching skills a State 
must use to assess a teacher preparation program's performance. 
However, Sec.  612.5(b) specifically permits a State to assess a 
program's performance using additional indicators predictive of a 
teacher's effect on student performance, provided that it uses the same 
indicators for all teacher preparation programs in the State. Following 
stakeholder consultation (see Sec.  612.4(c)), States are free to adopt 
criteria for assessing program performance beyond those addressed in 
the regulations.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Some commenters recommended that the Department provide 
adequate time for States to examine and address the costs of tracking 
student progress and academic

[[Page 75533]]

gains for teacher preparation program completers who teach out of 
State.
    Discussion: Section 612.5(a)(1) has been revised to clarify that 
States may exclude data regarding teacher performance, or student 
academic progress or growth, for calculating a program's student 
learning outcomes for novice teachers who teach out of State (and who 
teach in private schools). See also the discussion of comments for 
Sec.  612.5(a)(1) (student learning outcomes). To the extent that 
States wish to include this information, they can continue to pilot and 
analyze data collection quality and methodology for a number of years 
before including it in their SRCs.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter specifically recommended laddering in the 
proposed performance criteria only after norming has occurred. We 
interpret this comment to mean that States should have time to collect 
data on the required indicators for multiple years on all programs and 
use that data to establish specific thresholds for acceptable program 
performance on each indicator. This would require a longer timeline 
before using the indicators to assess program performance than the 
Department had proposed.
    Discussion: We will not require ``laddering in'' the criteria in 
Sec.  612.5 only after norming has occurred, as the commenter 
suggested, because we believe that States should be able to set 
identifiable targets for these criteria without respect to the current 
distribution of program for an indicator (e.g., a teacher retention 
rate of less than 50 percent as an indicator of low performance). These 
regulations are not intended to have States identify any particular 
percentage of teacher preparation programs as low-performing or at-risk 
of being low-performing. Rather, while they establish indicators that 
each State will use and report, they leave the process for how it 
determines a teacher preparation program's overall rating to the 
discretion of the State and its consultative group. If States wish to 
incorporate norming, norming around specific performance thresholds 
could be completed during the pilot year and, over time, performance 
thresholds can be adjusted during the periodic examinations of the 
evaluation systems that States must conduct.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Some commenters noted that having States assess the 
performance of teacher preparation programs on a yearly basis seems 
likely to drain already limited State and institutional resources.
    Discussion: Section 207(a) of the HEA expressly requires States to 
provide an ``annual list of low-performing [and at-risk] teacher 
preparation programs.'' We believe that Congress intended the State 
program assessment requirement itself also to be met annually. While we 
have strived to develop a system that keeps costs manageable, we also 
believe that the improvement of teacher preparation programs and 
consumers' use of information in the SRC on program performance 
necessitate both annual reporting and program determinations.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: A number of commenters stated that the availability of 
student growth and achievement data that are derived from State 
assessment results and district-determined measures are subject to 
State legislative requirements and, if the legislature changes them, 
the State assessments given or the times when they are administered 
could be drastically impacted. One commenter stated that, because the 
State operates on a biennial budget cycle, it could not request 
authority for creating the administrative position the State needs to 
comply with the proposed regulations until the 2017-2019 budget cycle.
    Discussion: We understand that the availability of data States will 
need to calculate student learning outcomes for student achievement in 
tested grades and subjects depends to some extent on State legislative 
decisions to maintain compatible State assessments subject to section 
1111(b)(2) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. But we also assume that 
State legislatures will ensure that their States have the means to 
comply with this Federal law, as well as the means to permit the State 
to calculate student growth based on the definition of ``student 
achievement in tested grades and subjects'' in Sec.  612.2. Moreover, 
we believe that our decision to revise Sec.  612.5(a)(1)(ii) to include 
an option for States to use ``another State-determined measure relevant 
to calculating student learning outcomes'' should address the 
commenters' concerns.
    In addition, the commenter who raised concerns based on the State 
legislature being in session on only a biennial basis did not provide 
enough information to permit us to consider why this necessarily bars 
the State's compliance with these regulations.
    Changes: None.
Program-Level Reporting (Including Distance Education) (34 CFR 
612.4(a)(1)(i))
    Comments: Some commenters supported the shift to reporting at the 
individual teacher preparation program rather than at the overall 
institutional level. A couple of commenters agreed that States should 
perform assessments of each program, but be allowed to determine the 
most appropriate way to include outcomes in the individual program 
determinations, including determining how to roll-up outcomes from the 
program level to the entity level. Other commenters noted that States 
should be required to report outcomes by the overall entity, rather 
than by the individual program, because such reporting would increase 
the reliability of the measures and would be less confusing to 
students. Some commenters expressed concerns that only those programs 
that have data demonstrating their graduates' effectiveness in the 
public schools in the State where the institution is located would 
receive a top rating, and entity-level reporting and rating would 
reduce this concern. If States report by entity, they could report the 
range in data across programs in addition to the median, or report data 
by quartile. This would make transparent the differences within an 
entity while maintaining appropriate thresholds.
    Commenters also stated that there are too many variations in 
program size and, as we understand the comment, in the way States 
credential their teacher preparation programs to mandate a single 
Federal approach to disaggregated program reporting for the entire 
Nation.
    Discussion: We appreciate the comments supporting the shift to 
reporting at the program level. The regulations provide extensive 
flexibility to States to determine how to measure and use outcomes in 
determining program ratings. If a State wishes to aggregate program 
level outcomes to the entity level, it is free to do so, though such 
aggregation would not replace the requirements to report at the program 
level unless the program (and the method of aggregation) meets the 
small-size requirements in Sec.  612.4(b)(3)(ii). Regarding the comment 
that reporting at the institutional level is more reliable, we note 
that the commenter did not provide any additional context for this 
statement, though we assume this statement is based on a generalized 
notion that data for the institution as a whole might be more robust 
because of the overall institution's much larger number of recent 
graduates. While we agree that aggregation at a higher level would 
generate more data for each indicator, we believe that the program size 
threshold in Sec.  612.5(b)(3) sufficiently addresses this concern 
while also ensuring that the general public and prospective students 
have access to data that are as specific as

[[Page 75534]]

possible to the individual programs operated by the institution.
    We fail to understand how defining a teacher preparation program as 
we have, in terms of initial State teacher certification or licensure 
in a specific field, creates concerns that top ratings would only go to 
programs with data showing the effectiveness of graduates working in 
public schools in the State. So long as the number of novice teachers 
the program produces meets the minimum threshold size addressed in 
Sec.  612.4(b)(3) (excluding, at the State's discretion, teachers 
teaching out of State and in private schools from determinations of 
student learning outcomes and teacher placement and retention rates as 
permitted by Sec.  612.5(a)(1) and Sec.  612.2, respectively), we are 
satisfied that the reporting of program information will be 
sufficiently robust and obviate concerns about data reliability.
    Moreover, we disagree with the comments that students would find 
reporting of outcomes at the institution level less confusing than 
reporting at the teacher preparation program level. We believe students 
want information about teacher preparation programs that are specific 
to the areas in which they want to teach so they can make important 
educational and career decisions, such as whether to enroll in a 
specific teacher preparation program. This information would be 
presented most clearly at the teacher preparation program level rather 
than at the institutional level, where many programs would be collapsed 
such that a student would not only lack information about whether a 
specific program in which she is interested is low-performing or at 
risk of being low-performing, but also be unable to review data 
relative to indicators of the program's performance.
    We also disagree with the claim that program level reporting as 
required under these regulations is inappropriate due to the variation 
in program size and structure across and within States. Since the 
commenters did not provide an example of how the requirements of these 
regulations make program level reporting impossible to implement, we 
cannot address these concerns more specifically than to say that since 
use of indicators of program performance will generate information 
unique to each program, we fail to see why variation in program size 
and structure undermine these regulations.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: There were many comments related to the reporting of 
information for teacher preparation programs provided through distance 
education. Several commenters indicated that the proposed regulations 
are unclear on how the reporting process would work for distance 
education programs large enough to meet a State's threshold for 
inclusion on their report card (see Sec.  612.4(b)(3)), but that lack a 
physical presence in the State. Commenters indicated that, under our 
proposed regulations, States would need to identify out-of-State 
institutions (and their teacher preparation programs) that are serving 
individuals within their borders through distance education, and then 
collect the data, analyze it, and provide assessments on these programs 
operated from other States. Thus, commenters noted, States may need 
more authority either through regulatory action or legislation to be 
able to collect information from institutions over which they do not 
currently have authority.
    Commenters also requested that the Department clarify what would 
happen to distance education programs and their currently enrolled 
students if multiple States would be assessing a single program's 
effectiveness and doing so with differing results. One commenter 
suggested a ``home State'' model in which, rather than developing 
ratings for each program in each State, all of a provider's distance 
education programs would be evaluated by the State in which the 
provider, as opposed to the program participants, is physically 
located. The commenter argued that this model would increase the 
reliability of the measures and decrease student confusion, especially 
where comparability of measures between States is concerned. Unless 
such a home State model is adopted, the commenter argued, other States 
may discriminate against programs physically located and operated in 
other States by, as we understand the comment, using the process of 
evaluating program performance to create excessive barriers to entry in 
order to protect in-State institutions. Another commenter asked that 
the proposed regulations provide a specific definition of the term 
``distance education.''
    Several commenters expressed support for the change to Sec.  
612.4(a)(1)(ii) proposed in the Supplemental NPRM, which would require 
that reporting on the quality of all teacher preparation programs 
provided through distance education in the State be made by using 
procedures for reporting that are consistent with Sec.  612.4(b)(4), 
but based on whether the program produces at least 25 or fewer than 25 
new teachers whom the State certified to teach in a given reporting 
year.
    While commenters indicated that reporting on hybrid teacher 
preparation programs was a complicated issue, commenters did not 
provide recommendations specific to two questions regarding hybrid 
programs that were posed in the Supplemental NPRM. The first question 
asked under what circumstances, for purposes of both reporting and 
determining the teacher preparation program's level of overall 
performance, a State should use procedures applicable to teacher 
education programs offered through distance education and when it 
should use procedures for teacher preparation programs provided at 
brick-and-mortar institutions. Second, we asked, for a single program, 
if one State uses procedures applicable to teacher preparation programs 
provided through distance education, and another State uses procedures 
for teacher preparation programs provided at brick-and-mortar 
institutions, what are the implications, especially for TEACH Grant 
eligibility, and how these inconsistencies should be addressed.
    In response to our questions, many commenters indicated that it was 
unclear how to determine whether a teacher preparation program should 
be classified as a teacher preparation program provided through 
distance education for reporting under Sec.  612.4(a)(1)(ii) and asked 
for clarification regarding how to determine under what circumstances a 
teacher preparation program should be considered a teacher preparation 
program provided through distance education. One commenter recommended 
that we define a teacher preparation program provided through distance 
education program to be one where the full and complete program can be 
completed without an enrollee ever being physically present at the 
brick-and-mortar institution or any of its branch offices.
    Commenters expressed a number of concerns about reporting. Some 
commenters indicated that while the December 3, 2014, NPRM allowed 
States to report on programs that produced fewer than 25 new teachers, 
it was unclear whether the same permission would be applied to distance 
education programs through the Supplemental NPRM. Additionally, a few 
commenters thought that, in cases where students apply for 
certification in more than one State, the outcomes of a single student 
could be reported multiple times by multiple States. Other commenters 
felt that if States are expected to evaluate distance education 
graduates from other States' programs, the regulations should be 
revised to focus on programs that are

[[Page 75535]]

tailored to meet other States' requirements. A commenter suggested that 
the State in which a distance education program is headquartered should 
be responsible for gathering the data reported by the other States in 
which the program operates and then, using their data along with other 
States' data, that State where the program is headquartered should make 
the determination as to the performance rating of that program. Doing 
so would establish one rating for each distance education program, 
which would come from the State in which it is headquartered. The 
commenter expressed that this would create a simplified rating system 
similar to brick-and-mortar institutions. Another commenter stated that 
the proposed approach would force the States to create a duplicative 
and unnecessary second tracking system through their licensure process 
for graduates of their own teacher preparation programs provided 
through distance education who remain in the State.
    Many commenters voiced concerns related to the identification and 
tracking of distance education programs provided through distance 
education. Specifically, commenters indicated that, because the method 
by which a teacher preparation program is delivered is not transcribed 
or officially recorded on educational credentials, the receiving State 
(the State where the teacher has applied for certification) has no way 
to distinguish teacher preparation programs provided through distance 
education from brick-and-mortar teacher preparation programs. 
Furthermore, receiving States would not be able to readily distinguish 
individual teacher preparation programs provided through distance 
education from one another.
    Finally, a commenter stated that the proposed regulations do not 
require States to provide any notice of their rating, and do not 
articulate an appeal process to enable institutions to challenge, 
inspect, or correct the data and information on the basis of which they 
might have received an adverse rating. Commenters also indicated that 
teacher preparation programs themselves should receive data on States' 
student and program evaluation criteria.
    Discussion: Regarding comments that the regulations need to 
describe how teacher preparation programs provided through distance 
education programs should be reported, we intended for a State to 
report on these programs operating in that State in the same way it 
reports on the State's brick-and-mortar teacher preparation programs.
    We appreciate commenters' expressions of support for the change to 
the proposed regulations under Sec.  612.4(a)(1)(ii), as proposed in 
the Supplemental NPRM, requiring that reporting on the quality of all 
teacher preparation programs provided through distance education in the 
State be made by using procedures for reporting that are consistent 
with proposed Sec.  612.4(b)(4), but based on whether the program 
produces at least 25 or fewer than 25 new teachers whom the State 
certified to teach in a given reporting year. In considering the 
language of proposed Sec.  612.4(a)(1)(ii) and the need for clarity on 
the reporting requirements for teacher preparation programs provided 
through distance education, we have concluded that the provision would 
be simpler if it simply incorporated by reference the reporting 
requirements for those programs in Sec.  612.4(b)(3) of the final 
regulations.
    While we agree with the commenters who stated that the proposed 
regulations were unclear on what constitutes a teacher preparation 
program provided through distance education, we decline to accept the 
recommendation to define a distance education program where the full 
and complete program can be completed without an enrollee ever being 
physically present at the brick-and-mortar institution or any of its 
branch offices because this definition would not be inclusive of 
teacher preparation programs providing significant portions of the 
program through distance education. In addition, the proposed 
definition would allow the teacher preparation program to easily modify 
its requirements such that it would not be considered a teacher 
preparation program provided through distance education.
    Instead, in order to clarify what constitutes a teacher preparation 
program provided through distance education, we are adding the term 
``teacher preparation program provided through distance education'' to 
Sec.  612.2 and defining it as a teacher preparation program in which 
50 percent or more of the program's required coursework is offered 
through distance education. The term distance education is defined 
under 34 CFR 600.2 to mean education that uses one or more specified 
technologies to deliver instruction to students who are separated from 
the instructor and to support regular and substantive interaction 
between the students and the instructor, either synchronously or 
asynchronously. The technologies may include the internet; one-way and 
two-way transmissions through open broadcast, closed circuit, cable, 
microwave, broadband lines, fiber optics, satellite, or wireless 
communications devices; audio conferencing; or video cassettes, DVDs, 
and CD-ROMs, if the cassettes, DVDs, or CD-ROMs are used in a course in 
conjunction with any of the technologies previously in this definition. 
We have incorporated this definition by reference (see Sec.  612.2(a)).
    In the Supplemental NPRM, we specifically requested public comment 
on how to determine when a program that has both brick-and-mortar and 
distance education components should be considered a teacher 
preparation program provided through distance education. While we 
received no suggestions, we believe that it is reasonable that if 50 
percent or more of a teacher preparation program's required coursework 
is offered through distance education, it should be considered a 
teacher preparation program provided through distance education because 
the majority of the program is offered through distance education. This 
50 percent threshold is consistent with thresholds used elsewhere in 
Departmental regulations, such as those relating to correspondence 
courses under 34 CFR 600.7 or treatment of institutional eligibility 
for disbursement of title IV HEA funds for additional locations under 
34 CFR 600.10(b)(3).
    In addition, we do not agree with the suggestion for a ``home 
State'' reporting model, in which all of a provider's distance 
education programs would be evaluated by the State in which the 
provider is physically located. First, section 205(b) of the HEA 
requires States to report on the performance of their teacher 
preparation programs. We feel strongly both that, to date, defining the 
program at the institutional level has not produced meaningful results, 
and that where programs provided through distance education prepare 
individuals to teach in different States, those States--and not only 
the ``home State''--should assess those programs' performance. In 
addition, we believe that each State should, as the law anticipates, 
speak for itself about what it concludes is the performance of each 
teacher preparation program provided through distance education 
operating within its boundaries. Commenters did not provide any 
evidence to support their assertion that States would discriminate 
against distance learning programs physically located in other States, 
nor do we understand how they would do so if, as Sec.  612.4(a) 
anticipates, they develop and apply the same set of criteria (taking 
into consideration the need to have different employment

[[Page 75536]]

outcomes as provided in Sec.  612.4(b)(2) given the nature of these 
programs) for assessing the performance of brick-and-mortar programs 
and programs provided through distance education programs.
    Regarding reporting concerns, we provide under Sec.  612.4(b)(3)(i) 
for annual reporting on the performance of each teacher preparation 
program that produces a total of 25 or more recent graduates in a given 
reporting year (that is, a program size threshold of 25), or, at the 
State's discretion, a lower program size threshold (e.g., 15 or 20). 
Thus, States can use a lower threshold than the 25 recent graduates. We 
do not agree that in cases where students apply for certification in 
more than one State, a single student would necessarily be counted 
multiple times. For calculations of the placement rate for a program 
provided through distance education, the student who teaches in one 
State but who has received teaching certification in that State and 
others would be included in the denominator of placement rates 
calculated by these other States only if those States chose not to 
exclude recent graduates teaching out of State from their calculations. 
(The same would be true of graduates of brick-and-mortar programs.) But 
those other States would only report and use a placement rate in 
assessing the performance of programs provided through distance 
education if they have graduates of those programs who are certified in 
their States (in which case the program size threshold and aggregation 
procedures in Sec.  612.4(b) would apply).
    Further, for the purposes of the teacher placement rate, Sec.  
612.5(a)(2)(iv) permits a State, at its discretion, to assess the 
teacher placement rate for teacher preparation programs provided 
through distance education differently from the teacher placement rate 
for other teacher preparation programs based on whether the differences 
in the way the rate is calculated for teacher preparation programs 
provided through distance education affect employment outcomes.
    States that certify at least 25 teachers from a teacher preparation 
program provided through distance education do have an interest in that 
program and will be reporting on the program as a program in their 
States. Moreover, we disagree that States in which distance education 
programs are headquartered should round up data from other States, 
determine a performance rating, and report it for several reasons. In 
addition to placing a higher cost and burden on a particular State, 
this methodology would undermine the goal of States having a say in the 
quality of the program that is being used to certify teachers in the 
State. The State where a teacher preparation program operating in 
multiple States is housed is not the only State with an interest in the 
program. Finally, we do not believe that the regulations would force 
States to create a duplicative and unnecessary second tracking system 
because a State is already required to report on teacher preparation 
programs in the State.
    We agree with commenters' concerns regarding the identification and 
tracking of teacher preparation programs provided through distance 
education. To address this concern, institutions will be asked to 
report which of their teacher preparation programs are teacher 
preparation programs provided through distance education in the IRC, 
which the institutions provide to the State. The receiving State can 
then verify this information during the teacher certification process 
for a teacher candidate in the State.
    We note that an appeal process regarding a teacher preparation 
program's performance is provided for under Sec.  612.4(c). We also 
note that teacher preparation programs will have access to data on 
States' student and program evaluation criteria because State report 
cards are required to be publicly available.
    Changes: We are adding the term ``teacher preparation program 
provided through distance education'' to Sec.  612.2 and defining it as 
a teacher preparation program in which 50 percent or more of the 
program's required coursework is offered through distance education. We 
are also providing under Sec.  612.4(a)(1)(ii) that States must report 
on the quality of all teacher preparation programs provided through 
distance education in the State consistent with Sec.  612.4(b)(3).
Making the State Report Card Available on the State's Web Site (34 CFR 
612.4(a)(2))
    Comments: One commenter supported the proposed change that any data 
used by the State to help evaluate program performance should be 
published at the indicator level to ensure that programs understand the 
areas they need to improve, and to provide additional information to 
students about program success. Other commenters stated that posting 
SRCs does not lead to constructive student learning or to meeting pre-
service preparation program improvement goals. Many commenters stated 
that the method by which States would share information with consumers 
to ensure understanding of a teacher preparation program's employment 
outcomes or overall rating is not stipulated in the regulations and, 
furthermore, that the Department does not specifically require that 
this information be shared.
    Discussion: We appreciate the comment supporting publication of the 
SRC data on the State's Web site. The regulation specifically requires 
posting ``the State report card information'' on the Web site, and this 
information includes all data that reflect how well a program meets 
indicators of academic content and teaching skills and other criteria 
the State uses to assess a program's level of performance, the 
program's identified level of performance, and all other information 
contained in the SRC.
    While posting of the SRC data on the State's Web site may not lead 
directly to student learning or teacher preparation program 
improvement, it does provide the public with basic information about 
the performance of each program and other, broader measures about 
teacher preparation in the State. Moreover, making this information 
widely available to the general public is a requirement of section 
205(b)(1) of the HEA. Posting this information on the State's Web site 
is the easiest and least costly way for States to meet this 
requirement. We also note that the commenters are mistaken in their 
belief that our proposed regulations did not require that information 
regarding teacher preparation programs be shared with consumers. 
Proposed Sec.  612.4(a)(2) would require States to post on their Web 
sites all of the information required to be included in their SRCs, and 
these data include the data on each program's student learning 
outcomes, employment outcomes, and survey outcomes, and how the data 
contribute to the State's overall evaluation of the program's 
performance. The final regulations similarly require the State to 
include all of these data in the SRC, and Sec.  612.4(a)(2) 
specifically requires the State to make the same SRC information it 
provides to the Secretary in its SRC widely available to the general 
public by posting it on the State's Web site.
    Changes: None.
Meaningful Differentiations in Teacher Preparation Program Performance 
(34 CFR 612.4(b)(1))
    Comments: Multiple commenters expressed general opposition to our 
proposal that in the SRC the State make meaningful differentiation of 
teacher preparation program performance using at least four performance 
levels. These commenters stated that such ratings would not take into 
account the uniqueness of each program, such as the program's size, 
mission, and diversity,

[[Page 75537]]

and therefore would not provide an accurate rating of a program.
    Others noted that simply ascribing one of the four proposed 
performance levels to a program is not nuanced or sophisticated enough 
to fully explain the quality of a teacher preparation program. They 
recommended removing the requirement that SEAs provide a single rating 
to each program, and allow States instead to publish the results of a 
series of performance criteria for each program.
    Discussion: As noted under Sec.  612.1, we have withdrawn our 
proposal to require States to identify programs that are exceptional. 
Therefore, Sec.  612.4(b)(1), like section 207(a) of the HEA, requires 
States in their SRCs to identify programs as being low-performing, at-
risk of being low-performing, or effective or better, with any 
additional categories established at the State's discretion. This 
revised rating requirement mirrors the requirements of section 207(a) 
the HEA for reporting programs that are low-performing or at-risk of 
being low-performing (and thus by inference also identifying those 
programs that are performing well).
    States cannot meet this requirement unless they establish 
procedures for using criteria, including indicators of academic content 
knowledge and teaching skills (see Sec.  612.4(b)(2)(i)), to determine 
which programs are classified in each category. The requirement of 
Sec.  612.4(b)(1) that States make meaningful differentiation of 
teacher preparation program performance using at least these three 
categories simply gives this statutory requirement regulatory 
expression. While Sec.  612.4(b)(1) permits States to categorize 
teacher preparation programs using more than three levels of 
performance if they wish, the HEA cannot be properly implemented 
without States making meaningful differentiation among programs based 
on their overall performance.
    We do not believe that these regulations disregard the uniqueness 
of each program's size, mission, or diversity, as they are intended to 
provide a minimum set of criteria with which States determine program 
performance. They do not prescribe the methods by which programs meet a 
State's criteria for program effectiveness.
    Changes: We have revised Sec.  612.4(b)(1) by removing the proposed 
fourth program performance level, ``exceptional teacher preparation 
program,'' from the rating system.
    Comments: Commenters, for various reasons, opposed our proposal to 
require States, in making meaningful differentiation in program 
performance, to consider employment outcomes in high-need schools and 
student learning outcomes ``in significant part.'' Some commenters 
requested clarification on what ``significant'' means with regard to 
weighting employment outcomes for high-need schools and student 
learning outcomes in determining meaningful differentiations of teacher 
preparation programs. Commenters also noted that including employment 
outcomes for high-need schools will add another level of complexity to 
an already confusing and challenging process. Some commenters 
recommended the Department maintain the focus on teacher placement and 
retention rates, but eliminate the incentives to place recent graduates 
in high-need schools. They stated that doing so will permit these 
indicators to focus on the quality of the program without requiring the 
program to have a focus on having its students teach in high-need 
schools, something that may not be in the mission of all teacher 
preparation programs.
    Multiple other commenters expressed confusion about whether or not 
the regulations incentivize placement in high-need schools by making 
such placement a significant part of how States must determine the 
rating of a teacher preparation program. Some commenters argued that, 
on the one hand, the requirement that States use student learning 
outcomes to help assess a program's overall performance could 
incentivize teacher preparation programs having teaching candidates 
become teachers in schools where students are likely to have higher 
test scores. On the other hand, they argued that the proposed 
regulations would also assess program performance using, as one 
indicator, placement of candidates in high-need schools, an indicator 
that commenters stated would work in the opposite direction. These 
commenters argued that this could cause confusion and will create 
challenges in implementing the regulations by not giving States and 
programs a clear sense of which issue is of greater importance--student 
learning outcomes or placement of teachers in high-need schools.
    Other commenters recommended that the Department set specific 
thresholds based on the affluence of the area the school serves. For 
example, commenters recommended that 85 percent of program graduates 
who work in affluent, high-performing schools should have a certain 
level of student learning outcomes, but that, to have the same level of 
program performance, only 60 percent of program graduates who work in 
high-need schools have perform at that same level.
    Multiple commenters also opposed the inclusion of student learning 
outcomes, employment outcomes, and survey outcomes as indicators of the 
performance of teacher preparation programs. These commenters believed 
that student learning outcomes are embedded in the concept of VAM found 
in standardized testing, a concept they believe constitutes a flawed 
methodology that does not accurately represent teacher preparation 
program effectiveness.
    Discussion: The final regulations require meaningful 
differentiation of teacher preparation programs on the basis of 
criteria that include employment in high-need schools as an indicator 
of program graduates' (or in the case of alternative route programs, 
participants') academic content knowledge and teaching skills for 
several reasons. First, like much of the education community, we 
recognize that the Nation needs more teachers who are better prepared 
to teach in high-need schools. We strongly believe that teacher 
preparation programs should accept a share of the responsibility for 
meeting this challenge. Second, data collected in response to this 
indicator should actually help distinguish the distinct missions of 
teacher preparation programs. For example, certain schools have 
historically focused their programs on recruiting and preparing 
teachers to teach in high-need schools--a contribution States and those 
institutions may understandably want to recognize. Third, we know that 
some indicators may be influenced by graduates' (or in the case of 
alternative route programs, participants') placement in high-need 
schools (e.g., teacher retention rates tend to be lower in high-need 
schools), and States may also want to consider this factor as they 
determine how to use the various criteria and indicators of academic 
content knowledge and teaching skills to identify an overall level of 
program performance.
    However, while States retain the authority to determine thresholds 
for performance under each indicator, in consultation with their 
stakeholder groups (see Sec.  612.4(c)), we encourage States to choose 
thresholds purposefully. We believe that all students, regardless of 
their race, ethnicity, or socioeconomic status, are capable of 
performing at high levels, and that all teacher preparation programs 
need to work to ensure that teachers in all schools are capable of 
helping them do so. We encourage

[[Page 75538]]

States to carefully consider whether differential performance standards 
for teachers in high-need schools reflect sufficiently ambitious 
targets to ensure that all children have access to a high quality 
education.
    Similarly, we encourage States to employ measures of student 
learning outcomes that are nuanced enough to control for prior student 
achievement and observable socio-economic factors so that a teacher's 
contribution to student learning is not affected by the affluence of 
his or her school. Overall, the concerns stated here would also be 
mitigated by use of growth, rather than some indicator of absolute 
performance, in the measure of student learning outcomes. But, here 
again, we feel strongly that decisions about how and when student 
learning outcomes are weighted differently should be left to each State 
and its consultation with stakeholders.
    We respond to the commenters' objections to our requirement that 
States use student learning outcomes, employment outcomes, and survey 
outcomes in their assessment of the performance levels of their teacher 
preparation programs in our discussion of comment on these subjects in 
Sec.  612.5(a). For reasons we addressed above in the discussion of 
Sec.  612.1, while still strongly encouraging States to give 
significant weight to these indicators in assessing a program's 
performance, we have omitted from the final regulations any requirement 
that States consider employment outcomes in high-need schools and 
student outcomes ``in significant part.''
    Changes: We have revised Sec.  612.4(b)(1) by removing the phrase 
``including, in significant part, employment outcomes for high-need 
schools and student learning outcomes.''
    Comments: Commenters recommended that States and their stakeholders 
have the authority to determine how and to what extent outcomes are 
included in accountability decisions for teacher preparation programs 
in order to mitigate the concerns regarding the validity and 
reliability of the student growth indicators. These commenters stated 
that we should give more authority to States and LEAs to identify 
indicators and their relative weighting that would be the greatest 
benefit to their community. Other commenters also stated that the 
proposal to require States to provide meaningful differentiations in 
teacher preparation programs may conflict with existing State 
structures of accountability, and by giving States increased 
flexibility, the Department would avoid inconsistencies with State-
determined levels of quality.
    Discussion: Having withdrawn our proposal to require that student 
growth and employment outcomes in high-need schools be considered ``in 
significant part,'' the final regulations provide States with broad 
flexibility in how they weight different indicators of academic content 
knowledge and teaching skills in evaluating teacher preparation 
programs. While we strongly encourage States to give significant weight 
to these important indicators of a teacher preparation program's 
performance, we provide each State full authority to determine, in 
consultation with its stakeholders, how each of their criteria, 
including the required indicators of academic content knowledge and 
teaching skills, can be best used to fit the individual needs of its 
schools, teachers, and teacher preparation programs.
    Changes: None.
Satisfactory or Higher Student Learning Outcomes for Programs 
Identified as Effective or Higher (34 CFR 612.4(b)(2))
    Comments: Multiple commenters asked us to define the phrase 
``satisfactory or higher student learning outcomes,'' asking 
specifically what requirements a program would have to meet to be rated 
as effective or higher. They also stated that States had insufficient 
guidance on how to define programs as ``effective.'' Some commenters 
also noted that providing flexibility to States to determine when a 
program's student learning outcomes are satisfactory would diminish the 
ability to compare teacher preparation programs, and opposed giving 
States the flexibility to determine for themselves when a program has 
``satisfactory'' student learning outcomes. However, other commenters 
disagreed, stating that States should have flexibility to determine 
when the teachers trained by a particular teacher preparation program 
have students who have achieved satisfactory student learning outcomes 
since States would have a better ability to know how individual teacher 
preparation programs have helped to meet these States' needs.
    Other commenters recommended modifying the regulations so that 
States would need to determine programs to have ``above average student 
learning outcomes'' in order to rate them in the highest category of 
teacher preparation performance. Another commenter suggested that 
student learning data be disaggregated by student groups to show hidden 
inequities, and that States be required to develop a pilot program to 
use subgroup data in their measurement of teacher preparation programs, 
such that if the student subgroup performance falls short the program 
could not be rated as effective or higher.
    Discussion: The Department continues to believe that a teacher 
preparation program should not be rated effective if the learning 
outcomes of the students taught by its graduates (or, in the case of 
alternative route programs, its participants) are not satisfactory. And 
we appreciate the comments from those who supported our proposal. 
Nonetheless, we are persuaded by the comments from those who urged that 
States should have the flexibility to determine how to apply the 
criteria and indicators of student academic achievement and learning 
needs to determine the performance level of each program, and have 
removed this provision from the regulations.
    Changes: We have removed Sec.  612.4(b)(2). In addition, we have 
renumbered Sec.  612.4(b)(3) through (b)(5) as Sec.  612.4(b)(2) 
through (b)(4).
Data for Each Indicator (34 CFR 612.4(b)(2)(i))
    Comments: One commenter requested confirmation that the commenter's 
State would not be required to report the disaggregated data on student 
growth based on assessment test scores for individual teachers, teacher 
preparation programs, or entities on the SRC because the educator 
effectiveness measure approved for its ESEA flexibility waiver meets 
the requirements for student learning outcomes in proposed Sec. Sec.  
612.4(b) and 612.5(a)(1) for both tested and non-tested subjects. The 
commenter stated that it would be cost prohibitive to submit student 
growth information on the SRC separately from reporting on its educator 
effectiveness measure under ESEA flexibility. Furthermore, some 
commenters were concerned that a State's student privacy laws would 
make it difficult to access the disaggregated data as required.
    In addition, some commenters opposed our proposed Sec.  
612.4(b)(2)(i)(B) requiring each State to include in its SRC an 
assurance that a teacher preparation program either is accredited or 
produces teachers with content and pedagogical knowledge because of 
what they described as the federalization of professional standards. 
They indicated that our proposal to offer each State the option of 
presenting an assurance that the program is accredited by a specialized 
accrediting agency would, at best, make the specialized accreditor an 
agent of the Federal government, and at worst, effectively mandate 
specialized accreditation by CAEP. The commenters

[[Page 75539]]

argued instead that professional accreditation should remain a 
voluntary, independent process based on evolving standards of the 
profession. Commenters also noted that no definition of specialized 
accreditation was proposed and requested that we include a definition 
of this term. One commenter recommended that a definition of 
specialized accreditation include the criteria that would be used by 
the Secretary to recognize an agency for the accreditation of 
professional teacher preparation programs, and that one of the criteria 
for a specialized agency should be the inclusion of alternative 
certification programs as eligible professional teacher preparation 
programs.
    Discussion: Under Sec.  612.4(b)(2)(i), States may choose to report 
student learning outcomes using a teacher evaluation measure that meets 
the definition in Sec.  612.2. But if they do so, States still must 
report student learning outcomes for each teacher preparation program 
in the SRC.
    We believe that the costs of this SRC reporting will be manageable 
for all States, and have provided a detailed discussion of costs in the 
RIA section of this document. For further discussion of reporting on 
student learning outcomes, see the discussion in this document of Sec.  
612.5(a)(1). We also emphasize that States will report these data in 
the aggregate at the teacher preparation program level and not at the 
teacher level. Furthermore, while States will need to comply with 
applicable Federal and State student privacy laws in the data they 
report in their SRC, the commenters have not provided information to 
help us understand how our requirements, except as we discuss for Sec.  
612.4(b)(3)(ii)(E), are affected by State student privacy laws.
    In addition, as we reviewed these comments and the proposed 
regulatory language, we realized the word ``disaggregated'' was unclear 
with regard to the factors by which the data should be disaggregated, 
and redundant with regard to the description of indicators in Sec.  
612.5. We have therefore removed this word from Sec.  612.4(b)(2)(i).
    Under Sec.  612.5(a)(4) States must annually report whether each 
program is administered by an entity that is accredited by a 
specialized accrediting agency recognized by the Secretary, or produces 
candidates (1) with content and pedagogical knowledge and quality 
clinical preparation, and (2) who have met rigorous teacher candidate 
exit qualifications. Upon review of the comments and the language of 
Sec.  612.5(a)(4), we have determined that proposed Sec.  
612.4(b)(3)(i)(B), which would have had States provide an assurance in 
their SRCs that each program met the characteristics described in Sec.  
612.5(a)(4), is not needed. We address the substantive comments offered 
on that provision in our discussion of comments on Sec.  612.5(a)(4).
    Finally, in reviewing the public comment, we realized that the 
proposed regulations focused only on having States report in their SRCs 
the data they would provide for indicators of academic knowledge and 
teaching skills that are used to determine the performance level of 
each teacher preparation program. This, of course, was because State 
use of those indicators was the focus of the proposed regulations. But 
we did not mean to suggest that in their SRCs, States would not also 
report the data they would use for other indicators and criteria they 
establish for identifying each's program's level of performance. While 
the instructions in section V of the proposed SRCs imply that States 
are to report their data for all indicators and criteria they use, we 
have revised those instructions to clarify this point.
    Changes: We have revised Sec.  612.4(b)(2)(i) by removing the word 
``disaggregated.'' We also have removed proposed Sec.  
612.4(b)(2)(i)(B) from the regulations.
Weighting of Indicators (34 CFR 612.4(b)(2)(ii))
    Comments: Some commenters stated that a formulaic approach, which 
they argued was implied by the requirement to establish the weights of 
each indicator, will not yield meaningful differentiations among 
programs. The commenters recommended that States be allowed to use a 
multiple-measures system for assessing the performance of teacher 
preparation programs that relies on robust evidence, includes outcomes, 
and gives weight to professional judgment. In addition, some commenters 
recommended that stakeholders provide input as to how and to what 
extent outcomes are included in a teacher preparation program's overall 
performance rating.
    Several commenters noted that the flexibility our proposed 
regulations provide to States to determine the weighting system for use 
of criteria and indicators to assess teacher preparation program 
performance undermines what the commenters state is the Department's 
goal of providing meaningful data to, among other things, facilitate 
State-to-State comparisons. The commenters argue that consumers might 
incorrectly assume the all States are applying the same metrics to 
assess program performance, and so draw incorrect conclusions 
especially for programs located near each other but located in 
different States. Several commenters also expressed concerns about the 
Department's proposal in Sec.  612.5(a)(2) that States be able to weigh 
employment outcomes differently for alternative route programs and 
traditional teacher preparation programs. The commenters argued that 
all teacher preparation programs should be held to the same standards 
and levels of accountability.
    Commenters also stated that our proposal, by which we understand 
the commenters to mean the proposed use of student learning outcomes, 
employment outcomes and survey outcomes as indicators of academic 
content knowledge and teaching skills of teachers whom programs 
prepare, should be adjusted based on the duration of the teachers' 
experience. Commenters stated we should do so because information about 
newer teachers' training programs should be emphasized over information 
about more experienced teachers, for whom data reflecting these 
indicators would likely be less useful.
    Some commenters asked whether, if a VAM is used to generate 
information for indicators of student learning outcomes, the indicators 
should be weighted to count gains made by the lower performing third of 
the student population more than gains made by the upper third of the 
population because it would be harder to increase the former students' 
scores. The commenters noted that poorer performing students will have 
the ability to improve by greater amounts than those who score higher 
on tests.
    Several commenters believed that the weighting of the indicators 
used to report on teacher preparation program performance is a critical 
decision, particularly with respect to the weighting of indicators 
specific to high-need schools, and because of this, decisions on 
weighting should be determined after data are collected and analyzed. 
As an example of why the group of stakeholders should have information 
available prior to making weighting decisions, the commenter noted 
that, if teacher placement in high-need schools has a relatively low-
weight and student growth is negatively associated with the percentage 
of economically disadvantaged students enrolled in the school, programs 
may game the system by choosing to counsel students to seek employment 
in non-high-need schools.
    Finally, several commenters stated that the regulations incentivize 
programs to place graduates in better

[[Page 75540]]

performing schools, noting that the proposed regulations appeared to 
require that student learning outcomes be given the most weight. On the 
other hand, the commenters stated that the proposed regulations 
incentivize the placement of graduates in high-need schools, and argued 
that employment rates in high-need schools would receive the next 
highest weight. They argued that this contradiction would lead to 
confusion and challenges in implementing the regulations.
    Discussion: We have included a summary of these comments here 
because they generally address how States should weight the indicators 
and criteria used to assess the performance of teacher preparation 
programs, and advantages and disadvantages of giving weight to certain 
indicators. However, we stress that we did not intend for States to 
adopt any particular system of weighting to generate an overall level 
of performance for each teacher preparation program from the various 
indicators and criteria they would use. Rather, proposed Sec.  
612.4(b)(3)(ii), like Sec.  612.4(b)(2)(ii) of the final regulations, 
simply directs States to report in their SRCs the weighting it has 
given to the various indicators in Sec.  612.5). Thus, we are not 
requiring any State to adopt some form of formulaic approach. And 
States may, if they choose, build into their indicators and criteria a 
reliance on robust evidence and outcomes, and give weight to 
professional judgment.
    States plainly need to be able to implement procedures for taking 
the data relevant to each of the indicators of academic knowledge and 
teaching skills and other criteria they use to assess program 
performance, and turn those data into a reported overall level of 
program performance. We do not see how States can do this without 
somehow providing some form of weight to each of the indicators they 
use. However, the specific method by which a State does so is left to 
each State, in consultation with its stakeholders (see Sec.  612.4(c)), 
to determine.
    As we addressed in the discussion of Sec.  612.1, we had proposed 
in Sec.  612.4(b)(1) that a State's assessment of a program's 
performance needed to be based ``in significant part'' on the results 
for two indicators, student learning outcomes and employment outcomes 
in high-need schools. But as we noted in our discussion of comment on 
Sec. Sec.  612.1 and 612.4(b)(1), while strongly encouraging States to 
adopt these provisions in their procedures for assessing a program's 
performance, we have revised these final regulations to omit that 
proposal and any other language that any regulatory indicator receive 
special weight.
    Furthermore, the flexibility the regulations accord to States to 
determine how these factors should be weighed to determine a program's 
level of performance extends to the relative weight a State might 
accord to factors like a teacher's experience and to student learning 
outcomes of teachers in low-performing versus high-performing schools. 
It also extends to the weight a State would provide to employment 
outcomes for traditional teacher preparation programs and alternative 
route teacher preparation programs; after all, these types of programs 
are very different in their concept, who they recruit, and when they 
work with LEAs to place aspiring teachers as teachers of record. In 
addition, State flexibility extends to a State's ability to assess the 
overall performance of each teacher preparation program using other 
indicators of academic content knowledge and teaching skills beyond 
those contained in the regulations. We do not believe that this 
flexibility undermines any Departmental goal, or goal that Congress had 
in enacting the title II reporting system.
    Thus, while a State must report the procedures and weighting of 
indicators of academic content knowledge and teaching skills and other 
criteria it uses to assess program performance in its SRC, we believe 
States should be able to exercise flexibility to determine how they 
will identify programs that are low-performing or at-risk of being so. 
In establishing these regulations, we stress that our goal is simple: 
to ensure that the public--prospective teaching candidates, LEAs that 
will employ novice teachers, and State and national policy makers 
alike--has confidence that States are reasonably identifying programs 
that are and are not working, and understand how States are 
distinguishing between the two. The flexibilities the regulations 
accord to States to determine how to determine a program's level of 
performance is fully consistent with this goal. Furthermore, given the 
variation we expect to find in State approaches and the different 
environments in which each State operates, we reiterate that any State-
to-State comparisons will need to be made only with utmost caution.
    As noted above, our discussion of Sec. Sec.  612.1 and 612.4(b)(1) 
stressed both (1) our hope that States would adopt our proposals that 
student learning outcomes and employment outcomes for high-need schools 
be given significant weight, and that to be considered effective a 
teacher preparation program would show positive student learning 
outcomes, and (2) our decision not to establish these proposals as 
State requirements. Thus, we likewise leave to States issues regarding 
incentives that any given weight might cause to placements of aspiring 
teachers and the programs themselves.
    Finally, in reviewing the public comment, we realized that the 
proposed regulations focused only on having States report in their SRCs 
the weights they would provide to indicators of academic knowledge and 
teaching skills used to determine the performance level of each teacher 
preparation program. This, of course, was because State use of those 
indicators was the focus of the proposed regulations. But we did not 
mean to suggest that in their SRCs, States would not also report the 
weights they would provide to other indicators and criteria they 
establish for identifying each program's level of performance. While 
the instructions in section V of the proposed SRCs imply that States 
are to report their weighting for all indicators and criteria they use, 
we have revised them to clarify this point.
    Changes: None.
Reporting the Performance of All Teacher Preparation Programs (34 CFR 
612.4(b)(3))
    Comments: Commenters stated that a number of non-traditional 
teacher preparation program providers will never meet the criteria for 
inclusion in annual reports due to their small numbers of students. 
Commenters noted that this implies that many of the most exemplary 
programs will neither be recognized nor rewarded and may even be harmed 
by their omission in reports provided to the media and public. 
Commenters expressed concern that this might lead prospective students 
and parents to exclude them as viable options, resulting in decreased 
program enrollment.
    Other commenters asked for more clarity on the various methods for 
a program to reach the threshold of 25 new teachers (or other threshold 
set by the State). The commenters also stated that a State could design 
this threshold to limit the impact on programs. Other commenters noted 
that smaller teacher preparation programs may not have the technical 
and human resources to collect the data for proposed reporting 
requirements, i.e., tracking employment and impact on student learning, 
and asked if the goal of these proposed regulations is to encourage 
small programs to close or merge with larger ones.
    Discussion: The regulations establish minimum requirements for 
States to use

[[Page 75541]]

in assessing and reporting the performance of each teacher preparation 
program, and are not intended to facilitate the merger or closure of 
small programs. The proposed regulations provided States with three 
methods of identifying and reporting the performance of teacher 
preparation programs that produce fewer than 25 new teachers--or such 
lower number as the State might choose--in a given reporting year by 
aggregating data to reach the minimum thresholds. Under the final 
regulations, States could: (1) Combine a teacher preparation program's 
performance data with data for other teacher preparation programs that 
are operated by the same teacher preparation entity and are similar to 
or broader than the program in content; (2) combine data over multiple 
years for up to four years until the size threshold is met; or (3) use 
a combination of the two methods. Given statistical and privacy issues 
that are particular to small programs, we believe that these 
aggregation methods will adequately address the desire to have the 
performance of all programs, large and small, reported in SRCs. In 
addition, while we strongly believe that all teacher preparation 
programs should want to gather student learning outcomes and results of 
employment and survey results to help them to improve their programs, 
States, not institutions, ultimately have the responsibility to report 
under Sec.  612.4.
    The proposed regulations had focused State reporting and small 
program aggregation procedures on the number of new teachers a teacher 
preparation program produced. Based on further consideration of these 
and other comments, it became clear that the term ``new teacher'' was 
problematic in this case as it was in other places. We realized that 
this approach would not hold teacher preparation programs accountable 
for producing recent graduates who do not become novice teachers. 
Because we believe that the fundamental purpose of these programs is to 
produce novice teachers, we have concluded that our proposal to have 
State reporting of a program's performance depend on the number of new 
teachers that the program produces was misplaced.
    Therefore, in order to better account for individuals who complete 
a teacher preparation program but who do not become novice teachers, we 
are requiring a State to report annually on the performance of each 
``brick-and-mortar'' teacher preparation program that produces a total 
of 25 or more recent graduates (or such lower threshold as the State 
may establish). Similarly, aggregation procedures for smaller programs 
apply to each teacher preparation program that produces fewer than 25 
recent graduates (or such lower threshold as the State may establish). 
For teacher preparation programs provided through distance education, 
the requirement is the same except that, since States are not likely to 
know the number of recent graduates, States will continue to look at 
whether the program has that same threshold number of 25 recent 
graduates, but in this case, to be counted, these recent graduates need 
to have received an initial certification or licensure from the State 
that allows them to serve in the State as teachers of record for K-12 
students.
    Changes: We have revised Sec.  612.4(b)(3) to provide that a 
State's annual reporting of a teacher preparation program's 
performance, and whether it provides this reporting alternatively 
through small program aggregation procedures, depends on whether the 
program produces a total of 25 or more recent graduates (or such lower 
threshold as the State may establish). For programs provided through 
distance education, the number of recent graduates counted will be 
those who have received an initial certification or licensure from the 
State that allows them to serve in the State as teachers of record for 
K-12 students.
Annual Performance Reporting of Teacher Preparation Programs 
(612.4(b)(3)(i))
    Comments: Two commenters stated that differentiated reporting for 
large and small teacher preparation programs, coupled with allowing 
States to establish what the commenters referred to as ``certain 
criteria,'' will lead to invalid comparisons and rankings both within 
and among States.
    Discussion: The regulations require separate reporting of the 
performance of any teacher preparation program that annually produces 
25 or more recent graduates. For programs that annually produce fewer 
recent graduates, the regulations also establish procedures for data 
aggregation that result in reporting on all of the State's teacher 
preparation programs (except for those programs that are particularly 
small and for which aggregation procedures cannot be applied, or where 
the aggregation would be in conflict with State or Federal privacy or 
confidentiality laws). Based on concerns expressed during the 
negotiated rulemaking sessions, the Department believes that use of an 
``n-size'' of 25 (or such smaller number that a State may adopt) and 
the means of reporting the performance of smaller programs through the 
aggregation procedures address privacy and reliability concerns while 
promoting the goal of having States report on the performance of as 
many programs as possible. Moreover, we reiterate that the purpose of 
these regulations is to identify key indicators that States will use to 
assess the level of performance for each program, and provide 
transparency about how it identifies that level. We are not proposing 
any rankings and continue to caution against making comparisons of 
programs based on data States report.
    Changes: None.
Performance Reporting of Small Teacher Preparation Programs: General 
(34 CFR 612.4(b)(3)(ii))
    Comments: Commenters stated that the low population in some States 
makes privacy of students in elementary and secondary schools, and in 
teacher preparation programs, difficult or impossible to assure. The 
commenters further stated that aggregating student growth data to the 
school level to assure privacy in the title II report would result in 
meaningless ratings, because the teachers in the schools more than 
likely completed the preparation program at different institutions.
    Several commenters were concerned that our proposals for 
aggregating data to be used to annually identify and report the level 
of performance of small teacher preparation programs would make year-
by-year comparisons and longitudinal trends difficult to assess in any 
meaningful way, since it is very likely that States will use different 
aggregation methods institution-by-institution and year-by-year.
    Commenters noted that many small rural teacher preparation programs 
and programs producing small numbers of teachers who disperse across 
the country after program completion do not have the requisite 
threshold size of 25. Commenters stated that for these programs, States 
may be unable to collect sufficient valid data. The result will be 
misinformed high-stakes decision making.
    Some commenters proposed that States be able to report a minimum of 
10 new teachers with aggregation when a minimum is not met instead of 
25. Other options would be to report what data they have or aggregate 
previous years to meet ``n'' size.
    One commenter recommended that rankings be initially based on a 
relatively few, normed criteria common to, and appropriate for, all 
sized programs and States, i.e., a common baseline ranking system. The 
commenter stated that to do otherwise

[[Page 75542]]

could result in States rushing to the lowest (not highest) common 
denominator to protect both quality programs from being unfairly ranked 
in comparison with weaker programs in other States, and small premier 
programs from unfair comparisons with mediocre larger programs.
    Two commenters stated that even though the proposed rules create 
several ways in which States may report the performance of teacher 
preparation programs that annually produce fewer than 25 teachers per 
year, the feasibility of annual reporting at the program level in some 
States would be so limited it would not be meaningful. The commenters 
added that regardless of the aggregation strategy, having a minimum 
threshold of 25 will protect the confidentiality of completers for 
reporting, but requiring annual reporting of programs that produce 25 
or more recent graduates per year will omit a significant number of 
individual programs from the SRC. Several commenters had similar 
concerns and stated that annual reporting of the teacher preparation 
program performance would not be feasible for the majority of teacher 
preparation programs across the country due to their size or where the 
student lives. Commenters specifically mentioned that many programs at 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities will have small cell sizes 
for graduates, which will make statistical conclusions difficult. 
Another commenter had concerns with the manner in which particular 
individual personnel data will be protected from public disclosure, 
while commenters supported procedural improvements in the proposed 
regulations discussed in the negotiated rulemaking sessions that 
addressed student privacy concerns by increasing the reporting 
threshold from 10 to 25.
    Commenters further expressed concerns that for some States, where 
the number of teachers a program produces per year is less than 25, the 
manual calculation that States would need to perform to combine 
programs to aggregate the number of students up to 25 so that the 
States would then report the assessment of program performance and 
information on indicators would not only be excessive, but may lead to 
significant inconsistencies across entities and from one year to the 
next.
    Discussion: We first reiterate that we have revised Sec.  
612.5(a)(1)(ii) so that States do not need to use student growth, 
either by itself or as used in a teacher evaluation measure, for 
student learning outcomes when assessing a teacher preparation 
program's level of performance. While we encourage them to do so, if, 
for reasons the commenters provided or other reasons, they do not want 
to do so, States may instead use ``another State-determined measure 
relevant to calculating student learning outcomes.''
    We do not share commenters' concerns about small elementary and 
secondary schools where privacy concerns purportedly require a school-
level calculation of student growth measures rather than calculation of 
student growth at the teacher level, or related concerns about student 
learning outcomes for an individual teacher not yielding useable 
information about a particular teacher preparation program. Student 
learning outcomes applicable to a particular teacher preparation 
program would not be aggregated at the school level. Whether measured 
using student growth, a teacher evaluation measure, or another State-
determined measure relevant to calculating student learning outcomes, 
each teacher--whether employed in a large school or a small school--has 
some impact on student learning. Under our regulations, these impacts 
would be aggregated across all schools (or at least all public schools 
in the State in which the program is located) that employ novice 
teachers the program had prepared.
    For small teacher preparation programs, we believe that a State's 
use of the aggregation methods reasonably balances the need for annual 
reporting on teacher preparation program performance with the special 
challenges of generating a meaningful annual snapshot of program 
quality for programs that annually produce few teachers. By permitting 
aggregation to the threshold level of similar or broader programs run 
by the same teacher preparation entity (paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(A)) or 
over a period of up to four years (ii)(B)), or both (ii)(C)), we are 
offering States options for meeting their annual reporting 
responsibilities for all programs. However, if aggregation under any of 
the methods identified in Sec.  612.4(b)(3)(ii)(A)-(C) would still not 
yield the requisite program size threshold of 25 recent graduates or 
such lower number that a State establishes, or if reporting such data 
would be inconsistent with Federal or State privacy and confidentiality 
laws and regulations, Sec.  612.4(b)(3)(ii)(D) and Sec.  612.4(b)(5) 
provide that the State would not need to report data on, or identify an 
overall performance rating for, that program.
    Our regulations give States flexibility to determine, with their 
consultative groups, their own ways of determining a teacher 
preparation program's performance. But if a State were to use the 
``lowest common denominator'' in evaluating programs, as the commenter 
suggested, it would not be meeting the requirement in Sec.  612.4(b)(1) 
to identify meaningful differentiation between programs. We continue to 
caution against making comparisons of the performance of each teacher 
preparation program, or the data for each indicator and criterion a 
State uses to determine the overall level of performance, that States 
report in their SRCs. Each teacher preparation program is different; 
each has a different mission and draws different groups of aspiring 
teachers. The purpose of this reporting is to permit the public to 
understand which programs a State determines to be low-performing or 
at-risk of being low-performing, and the reasons for this 
determination. The regulations do not create a national ranking system 
for comparing the performance of programs across States. For these 
reasons, we do not believe that the regulations provide perverse 
incentives for States to lower their standards relative to other 
States.
    While we appreciate the commenter's recommendation that States be 
required to use a set of normed criteria common across all sized 
programs and all States, section 205(b) of the HEA requires each State 
to include in its SRC its criteria for assessing program performance, 
including indicators of academic content knowledge and teaching skills. 
Therefore, subject only to use of the indicators of academic content 
knowledge and teaching skills defined in these regulations, the law 
provides that each State determine how to assess a program's 
performance and, in doing so, how to weight different criteria and 
indicators that bear on the overall assessment of a program's 
performance.
    We appreciate the commenters' statements about potential challenges 
and limitations that the regulations' aggregation procedures pose for 
small teacher preparation programs. However, while we agree that a 
State's use of these procedures for small programs may produce results 
that are less meaningful than those for programs that annually produce 
25 or more recent graduates (or such lower threshold as the State 
establishes), we believe that they do provide information that is far 
more meaningful than the omission of information about performance of 
these small programs altogether. We also appreciate commenters' 
concerns that for some States, the process of aggregating program data 
could entail significant effort. But we assume that data for indicators 
of this and other programs of the same teacher preparation entities 
would be procured

[[Page 75543]]

electronically, and, therefore, do not believe that aggregation of data 
would necessarily need to be performed manually or that the effort 
involved would be ``excessive''. Moreover, the commenters do not 
explain why use of the aggregation methods to identify programs that 
are low-performing or at-risk of being low-performing should lead to 
significant inconsistencies across entities and from one year to the 
next, nor do we agree this will be the case.
    Like the commenter, we are concerned about protection of individual 
personnel data from public disclosure. But we do not see how the 
procedures for aggregating data on small programs, such that what the 
State reports concerns a combined program that meets the size threshold 
of 25 (or such lower size threshold as the State establishes) creates 
legitimate concerns about such disclosure. And as our proposed 
regulations did not contain a size threshold of 10, we do not believe 
we need to make edits to address the specific commenters' concerns 
regarding our threshold number.
    Changes: None.
Aggregating Data for Teacher Preparation Programs Operated by the Same 
Entity (34 CFR 612.4(b)(3)(ii)(A))
    Comments: One commenter expressed concerns for how our proposed 
definition of a teacher preparation program meshed with how States 
would report data for and make an overall assessment of the performance 
of small teacher preparation programs. The commenter noted that the 
proposed regulations define a teacher preparation program as a program 
that is ``offered by a teacher preparation entity that leads to a 
specific State teacher certification or licensure in a specific 
field.'' It therefore appears that a program that is a ``secondary 
mathematics program'' would instead be a ``secondary program.'' Based 
on the proposed regulatory language about aggregation of performance 
data among teacher preparation programs that are operated by the same 
teacher preparation entity and are similar to or broader than the 
program (Sec.  612.4(b)(3)(ii)(A)), the commenter added that it appears 
that a State can collapse secondary content areas (e.g., biology, 
physics) and call it a ``secondary program.''
    Discussion: As explained in our discussion of the prior comments, 
we feel that meeting the program size threshold of 25 novice teachers 
(or any lower threshold a State establishes) by aggregating performance 
data for each of these smaller programs with performance data of 
similar or broader programs that the teacher preparation entity 
operates (thus, in effect, reporting on a broader-based set of teacher 
preparation programs) is an acceptable and reasonable way for a State 
to report on the performance of these programs. Depending on program 
size, reporting could also be even broader, potentially having 
reporting for the entire teacher preparation entity. Indicators of 
teacher preparation performance would then be outcomes for all 
graduates of the combined set of programs, regardless of what subjects 
they teach. A State's use of these aggregation methods balances the 
need to annually report on program performance with the special 
challenges of generating a meaningful annual snapshot of program 
quality for programs that annually produce few novice teachers. We 
understand the commenter's concern that these aggregation measures do 
not precisely align with the definition of teacher preparation program 
and permit, to use the commenter's example, a program that is a 
``secondary mathematics program'' to potentially have its performance 
reported as a broader ``secondary program.'' But as we noted in our 
response to prior comments, if a State does not choose to establish a 
lower size threshold that would permit reporting of the secondary 
mathematics program, aggregating performance data for that program with 
another similar program still provides benefits that far exceed having 
the State report no program performance information at all.
    TEACH Grant eligibility would not be impacted because either the 
State will determine and report the program's performance by 
aggregating relevant data on that program with data for other teacher 
preparation programs that are operated by the same teacher preparation 
entity and are similar to or broader than the program in content, or 
the program will meet the exceptions provided in Sec.  
612.4(b)(3)(ii)(D) and Sec.  612.4(b)(5).
    Changes: None.
Aggregating Data in Performance Reporting (34 CFR 612.4(b)(3)(ii)(B))
    Comments: Several commenters stated that aggregating data for any 
given teacher preparation program over four years to meet the program 
size threshold would result in a significant lack of reliability; some 
urged the Department to cap the number of years allowed for aggregating 
data at three years. Another commenter raised concerns about reported 
data on any given program being affected by program characteristics 
that are prone to change significantly in the span of four years (i.e., 
faculty turnover and changes in clinical practice, curriculum, and 
assessments). The commenter noted that many States' programs will not 
meet the criterion of setting the minimum number of program completers, 
which the commenter stated our proposed regulations set at ten. The 
commenter asked the Department to consider a number of aggregation 
methods to reach a higher completer count.
    Discussion: The proposed regulations did not establish, as a 
threshold for reporting performance data and the program's level of 
performance, a minimum of ten program completers. Rather, where a 
teacher preparation program does not annually produce 25 or more recent 
graduates (or such lower threshold as the State may establish), 
proposed Sec.  612.4(b)(3)(ii)(B) would permit a State to aggregate its 
performance data in any year with performance data for the same program 
generated over a period of up to four years. We appreciate that 
aggregating data on a program's new teachers over a period of up to 
four years is not ideal; as commenters note, program characteristics 
may change significantly in the span of four years.
    However, given the challenges of having States report on the 
performance of small programs, we believe that providing States this 
option, as well as options for aggregating data on the program with 
similar or broader programs of the same teacher preparation entity 
(Sec. Sec.  612.4(b)(3)(ii)(A) and (C)), allows the State to make a 
reasonable determination of the program's level of performance. This is 
particularly so given that the regulations require that the State 
identify only whether a given teacher preparation program is low-
performing or at-risk of being low-performing. We note that States have 
the option to aggregate across programs within an entity, if in 
consultation with stakeholders, they find that produces a more accurate 
representation of program quality. See Sec.  612.4(b)(3)(ii)(A)). We 
believe that a State's use of these alternative methods would produce 
more reliable and valid measures of quality for each of these smaller 
programs and reasonably balance the need annually to report on program 
performance with the special challenges of generating a meaningful 
annual snapshot of program quality for programs that annually produce 
few novice teachers.
    The commenters who recommended reducing the maximum time for 
aggregating data on the same small program from four years to three did 
not explain why the option of having an additional year to report on 
very small programs was preferable to omitting a report on program 
performance

[[Page 75544]]

altogether if the program was still below the size threshold after 
three years. We do not believe that it is preferable. Moreover, if a 
State does not want to aggregate performance data for the same small 
program over a full four years, the regulations permit it instead to 
combine performance data with data for other programs operated by the 
same entity that are similar or broader.
    Changes: None.
Aggregating Data in Performance Reporting of Small Teacher Preparation 
Programs (34 CFR 612.4(b)(3)(ii)(C))
    Comments: Commenters noted that while the proposed rule asserts 
that States may use their discretion on how to report on the 
performance of teacher preparation programs that do not meet the 
threshold of 25 novice teachers (or any lower threshold the State 
establishes), the State may still be reporting on less than half of its 
programs. Commenters note that if this occurs, the Department's 
approach will not serve the purpose of increased accountability of all 
programs. Another commenter stated that human judgment would have to be 
used to aggregate data across programs or across years in order to meet 
the reporting threshold, and this would introduce error in the level of 
performance the State assigns to the program in what the commenter 
characterizes as a high-stakes accountability system.
    Another commenter appears to understand that the government wants 
to review larger data fields for analysis and reporting, but stated 
that the assumption that data from a program with a smaller ``n'' size 
is not report worthy may dampen innovation and learning from a 
sponsoring organization with a stated goal of producing a limited 
number of teachers or is in a locale needing a limited number of 
teachers. The commenter noted that, if a State were to combine 
programs, report years, or some other combination to get to 25, the 
Federally stated goal of collecting information about each program, 
rather than the overall sponsoring organization, is gone. The commenter 
argued that Sec.  612.4(c), which the commenter states requires that 
States report on teacher preparation at the individual program level, 
appears to contradict the over 25 completer rule for reporting.
    Discussion: We expect that, working with their consultative group 
(see Sec.  612.4(c)), States will adopt reasonable criteria for 
deciding which procedure to use in aggregating performance data for 
programs that do not meet the minimum threshold. We also expect that a 
key factor in the State's judgment of how to proceed will be how best 
to minimize error and confusion in reporting data for indicators of 
academic content knowledge and teaching skills and other criteria the 
State uses, and the program's overall level of performance. States will 
want to produce the most reliable and valid measures of quality for 
each of these smaller programs. Finally, while the commenter is correct 
that Sec.  612.4(c) requires States to work with a consultative group 
on procedures for assessing and reporting the performance of each 
teacher preparation program in the State, how the State does so for 
small programs is governed by Sec.  612.4(b)(3)(ii).
    Changes: None.
No Required State Reporting on Small Teacher Preparation Programs That 
Cannot Meet Reporting Options (34 CFR 612.4(b)(4)(ii)(D))
    Comments: Some commenters urged the Department not to exempt from 
State title II reporting those teacher preparation programs that are so 
small they are unable to meet the proposed threshold size requirements 
even with the options for small programs we had proposed.
    Discussion: If a teacher preparation program produces so few recent 
graduates that the State cannot use any of the aggregation methods to 
enable reporting of program performance within a four-year period, we 
do not believe that use of the regulations' indicators of academic 
content knowledge and teaching skills to assess its performance will 
produce meaningful results.
    Changes: None.
No Required State Reporting Where Inconsistent With Federal and State 
Privacy and Confidentiality Laws (34 CFR 612.4(b)(3)(ii)(E))
    Comments: Two commenters objected to the proposed regulations 
because of concerns that the teacher evaluation data and individual 
student data that would be collected and reported would potentially 
violate State statutes protecting or sharing elementary and secondary 
student performance data and teacher evaluation results with any 
outside entity. One commenter expressed general concern about whether 
this kind of reporting would violate the privacy rights of teachers, 
particularly those who are working in their initial years of teaching.
    Another commenter recommended that the proposed regulations include 
what the commenter characterized as the exemption in the Family 
Educational Rights and Privacy Act (FERPA) (34 CFR 99.31 or 99.35) that 
allows for the re-disclosure of student-level data for the purposes of 
teacher preparation program accountability. The commenter stressed that 
the proposed regulations do not address a restriction in FERPA that 
prevents teacher preparation programs from being able to access data 
that the States will receive on program performance. The commenter 
voiced concern that as a result of this restriction in FERPA, IHEs will 
be unable to perform the analyses to determine which components of 
their teacher preparation programs are leading to improvements in 
student academic growth and which are not, and urged that we include an 
exemption in 34 CFR 99.31 or 99.35 to permit the re-disclosure of 
student-level data to IHEs for the purposes of promoting teacher 
preparation program accountability. From a program improvement 
standpoint, the commenter argues that aggregated data are meaningless; 
teacher preparation programs need fine-grained, person-specific data 
(data at the lowest level possible) that can be linked to student 
information housed within the program.
    Yet another commenter stated that surveying students (by which we 
interpret the comment to mean surveying elementary or secondary school 
students) or parents raises general issues involving FERPA.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the concerns raised about 
the privacy of information on students and teachers. Proposed Sec.  
612.4(b)(4)(ii)(E) provided that a State is not required to report data 
on a particular teacher preparation program that does not meet the size 
thresholds under Sec.  612.4(b)(4)(ii)(A)-(C) if reporting these data 
would be inconsistent with Federal or State privacy and confidentiality 
laws and regulations. We had proposed to limit this provision to these 
small programs because we did (and do) not believe that, for larger 
programs, Federal or State laws would prohibit States or State agencies 
from receiving the information they need under our indicators of 
academic content knowledge and teaching skills to identify a program's 
level of performance. The commenters did not provide the text of any 
specific State law to make us think otherwise, and for reasons we 
discuss below, we are confident that FERPA does not create such 
concerns. Still, in an abundance of caution, we have revised this 
provision to clarify that no reporting of data under Sec.  612.4(b) is 
needed if such reporting is inconsistent with Federal or State 
confidentiality laws. We also have redesignated this provision as Sec.  
612.4(b)(5) to clarify that

[[Page 75545]]

it is not limited to reporting of small teacher preparation programs. 
States should be aware of any restrictions in reporting because of 
State privacy laws that affect students or teachers.
    At the Federal level, the final regulations do not amend 34 CFR 
part 99, which are the regulations implementing section 444 of the 
General Education Provisions Act (GEPA), commonly referred to as FERPA. 
FERPA is a Federal law that protects the privacy of personally 
identifiable information in students' education records. See 20 U.S.C. 
1232g; 34 CFR part 99. FERPA applies to educational agencies and 
institutions (elementary and secondary schools, school districts, 
colleges and universities) that are recipients of Federal funds under a 
program administered by the Department. FERPA prohibits educational 
agencies and institutions to which it applies from disclosing 
personally identifiable information from students' education records, 
without the prior written consent of the parent or eligible student, 
unless the disclosure meets an exception to FERPA's general consent 
requirement. The term ``education records'' means those records that 
are: (1) Directly related to a student; and (2) maintained by an 
educational agency or institution or by a party acting for the agency 
or institution. Education records would encompass student records that 
LEAs maintain and that States will need in order to have the data 
needed to apply the regulatory indicators of academic content and 
teaching skills to individual teacher preparation programs.
    As the commenter implicitly noted, one of the exceptions to FERPA's 
general consent requirement permits the disclosure of personally 
identifiable information from education records by an educational 
agency or institution to authorized representatives of a State 
educational authority (as well as to local educational authorities, the 
Secretary, the Attorney General of the United States, and the 
Comptroller General of the United States) as may be necessary in 
connection with the audit, evaluation, or the enforcement of Federal 
legal requirements related to Federal or State supported education 
programs (termed the ``audit and evaluation exception''). The term 
``State and local educational authority'' is not specifically defined 
in FERPA. However, we have previously explained in the preamble to 
FERPA regulations published in the Federal Register on December 2, 2011 
(76 FR 75604, 75606), that the term ``State and local educational 
authority'' refers to an SEA, a State postsecondary commission, Bureau 
of Indian Education, or any other entity that is responsible for and 
authorized under local, State, or Federal law to supervise, plan, 
coordinate, advise, audit, or evaluate elementary, secondary, or 
postsecondary Federal- or State-supported education programs and 
services in the State. Accordingly, an educational agency or 
institution, such as an LEA, may disclose personally identifiable 
information from students' education records to a State educational 
authority that has the authority to access such information for audit, 
evaluation, compliance, or enforcement purposes under FERPA.
    We understand that all SEAs exercise this authority with regard to 
data provided by LEAs, and therefore FERPA permits LEAs to provide to 
SEAs the data the State needs to assess the indicators our regulations 
require. Whether other State agencies such as those that oversee or 
help to administer aspects of higher education programs or State 
teacher certification requirements are also State education 
authorities, and so may likewise receive such data, depends on State 
law. The Department would therefore need to consider State law 
(including valid administrative regulations) and the particular 
responsibilities of a State agency before providing additional guidance 
about whether a particular State entity qualifies as a State 
educational authority under FERPA.
    The commenter would have us go further, and amend the FERPA 
regulations to permit State educational authorities to re-disclose this 
personally identifiable information from students' education records to 
IHEs or the programs themselves in order to give them the disaggregated 
data they need to improve the programs. While we understand the 
commenter's objective, we do not have the legal authority to do this.
    Finally, in response to other comments, FERPA does not extend 
privacy protections to an LEA's records on teachers. Nor do the final 
regulations require any reporting of survey results from elementary or 
secondary school students or their parents. To the extent that either 
is maintained by LEAs, disclosures would be subject to the same 
exceptions and limitations under FERPA as records of or related to 
students.
    Changes: We have revised Sec.  612.4(b)(3)(ii)(E) and have 
redesignated it as Sec.  612.4(b)(5) to clarify that where reporting of 
data on a particular program would be inconsistent with Federal or 
State privacy or confidentiality laws or regulations, the exclusion 
from State reporting of these data is not limited to small programs 
subject to Sec.  612.4(b)(3)(ii).
Fair and Equitable Methods: Consultation With Stakeholders (34 CFR 
612.4(c)(1))
    Comments: We received several comments on the proposed list of 
stakeholders that each State would be required to include, at a 
minimum, in the group with which the State must consult when 
establishing the procedures for assessing and reporting the performance 
of each teacher preparation program in the State (proposed Sec.  
612.4(c)(1)(i)). Some commenters supported the list of stakeholders. 
One commenter specifically supported the inclusion of representatives 
of institutions serving minority and low-income students.
    Some commenters believed that, as the relevant stakeholders will 
vary by State, the regulations should not specify any of the 
stakeholders that each State must include, leaving the determination of 
necessary stakeholders to each State's discretion.
    Some commenters suggested that States be required to include 
representatives beyond those listed in the proposed rule. In this 
regard, commenters stated that representatives of small teacher 
preparation programs are needed to help the State to annually revisit 
the aggregation of data for programs with fewer novice teachers than 
the program size threshold, as would be required under proposed Sec.  
612.4(b)(4)(ii). Some commenters recommended adding advocates for low-
income and underserved elementary and secondary school students. Some 
commenters also stated that advocates for students of color, including 
civil rights organizations, should be required members of the group. In 
addition, commenters believed that the regulations should require the 
inclusion of a representative of at least one teacher preparation 
program provided through distance education, as distance education 
programs will have unique concerns.
    One commenter recommended adding individuals with expertise in 
testing and assessment to the list of stakeholders. This commenter 
noted, for example, that there are psychologists who have expertise in 
aspects of psychological testing and assessment across the variety of 
contexts in which psychological and behavioral tests are administered. 
The commenter stated that, when possible, experts such as these who are 
vested stakeholders in education should be consulted in an effort to 
ensure the procedures for

[[Page 75546]]

assessing teacher preparation programs are appropriate and of high 
quality, and that their involvement would help prevent potential 
adverse, unintended consequences in these assessments.
    Some commenters supported the need for student and parent input 
into the process of establishing procedures for evaluating program 
performance but questioned the degree to which elementary and secondary 
school students and their parents should be expected to provide input 
on the effectiveness of teacher preparation programs.
    One commenter supported including representatives of school boards, 
but recommended adding the word ``local'' before ``school boards'' to 
clarify that the phrase ``school boards'' does not simply refer to 
State boards of education.
    Discussion: We believe that all States must consult with the core 
group of individuals and entities that are most involved with, and 
affected by, how teachers are prepared to teach. To ensure that this is 
done, we have specified this core group of individuals and entities in 
the regulations. We agree with the commenters that States should be 
required to include in the group of stakeholders with whom a State must 
consult representatives of small teacher preparation programs (i.e., 
programs that produce fewer than a program size threshold of 25 novice 
teachers in a given year or any lower threshold set by a State, as 
described in Sec.  612.4(b)(3)(ii)). We agree that the participation of 
representatives of small programs, as is required by Sec.  
612.4(c)(ii)(D), is essential because one of the procedures for 
assessing and reporting the performance of each teacher preparation 
program that States must develop with stakeholders includes the 
aggregation of data for small programs (Sec.  612.4(c)(1)(ii)(B)).
    We also agree with commenters that States should be required to 
include as stakeholders advocates for underserved students, such as 
low-income students and students of color, who are not specifically 
advocates for English learners and students with disabilities. Section 
612.4(c)(ii)(I) includes these individuals, and they could be, for 
example, representatives of civil rights organizations. To best meet 
the needs of each State, and to provide room for States to identify 
other groups of underserved students, the regulations do not specify 
what those additional groups of underserved students must be.
    We agree with the recommendation to require States to include a 
representative of at least one teacher preparation program provided 
through distance education in the group of stakeholders as we agree 
teacher preparation programs provided through distance education are 
different from brick-and-mortar programs, and warrant representation on 
the stakeholder group. Under the final regulations, except for the 
teacher placement rates, States collect information on those programs 
and report their performance on the same basis as brick-and-mortar 
programs. See the discussion of comment on Program-Level Reporting 
(including distance education) (34 CFR 612.4(a)(1)(i)).
    While a State may include individuals with expertise in testing and 
assessment in the group of stakeholders, we do not require this because 
States alternatively may either wish to consult with such individuals 
through other arrangements, or have other means for acquiring 
information in this area that they need.
    Nonetheless, we encourage States to use their discretion to add 
representatives from other groups to ensure the process for developing 
their procedures and for assessing and reporting program performance 
are fair and equitable.
    We thank commenters for their support for our inclusion of 
representatives of ``elementary through secondary students and their 
parents'' in the consultative group. We included them because of the 
importance of having teacher preparation programs focus on their 
ultimate customers--elementary and secondary school students.
    Finally, we agree that the regulation should clarify that the 
school board representatives whom a State must include in its 
consultative group of stakeholders are those of local school boards. 
Similarly, we believe that the regulation should clarify that the 
superintendents whom a State must include in the group of stakeholders 
are LEA superintendents.
    Changes: We have revised Sec.  612.4(c)(1)(i) to clarify that a 
State must include representatives of small programs, other groups of 
underserved students, of local school boards and LEA superintendents 
and a representative of at least one teacher preparation program 
provided through distance education in the group with which the State 
must consult when establishing its procedures.
    Comments: Commenters recommended that States should not be required 
to establish consequences (associated with a program's identification 
as low-performing or at-risk of being low-performing), as required 
under proposed Sec.  612.4(c)(1)(ii)(C), until after the phase-in of 
the regulations. Commenters stated that, because errors will be made in 
the calculation of data and in determining the weights associated with 
specific indicators, States should be required to calculate, analyze, 
and publish the data for at least two years before high-stakes 
consequences are attached. Commenters believed that this would ensure 
initial unintended consequences are identified and addressed before 
programs are subject to high-stakes consequences. Commenters also 
expressed concerns about the ability of States, under the proposed 
timeline for implementation, to implement appropriate opportunities for 
programs to challenge the accuracy of their performance data and 
classification of their program under proposed Sec.  
612.4(c)(1)(ii)(D).
    Commenters also stated that the proposed requirement that the 
procedures for assessing and reporting the performance of each teacher 
preparation program in the State must include State-level rewards and 
consequences associated with the designated performance levels is 
inappropriate because the HEA does not require States to develop 
rewards or consequences associated with the designated performance 
levels of teacher preparation programs. Commenters also questioned the 
amount of information that States would have to share with the group of 
stakeholders establishing the procedures on the fiscal status of the 
State to determine what the rewards should be for high-performing 
programs. Commenters noted that rewards are envisioned as financial in 
nature, but States operate under tight fiscal constraints. Commenters 
believed that States would not want to find themselves in an 
environment where rewards could not be distributed yet consequences 
(i.e., the retracting of monies) would ensue.
    In addition, commenters were concerned about the lack of standards 
in the requirement that States implement a process for programs to 
challenge the accuracy of their performance data and classification. 
Commenters noted that many aspects of the rating system carry the 
potential for inaccurate data to be inputted or for data to be 
miscalculated. Commenters noted that the proposed regulations do not 
address how to ensure a robust and transparent appeals process for 
programs to challenge their classification.
    Discussion: We believe the implementation schedule for these final 
regulations provides sufficient time for States to implement the 
regulations, including the time necessary to develop the procedures for 
assessing and reporting the performance of each

[[Page 75547]]

teacher preparation program in the State (see the discussion of 
comments related to the implementation timeline for the regulations in 
General (Timeline) (34 CFR 612.4(a)(1)(i)) and Reporting of Information 
on Teacher Preparation Program Performance (Timeline) (34 CFR 
612.4(b)). We note that States can use results from the pilot reporting 
year, when States are not required to classify program performance, to 
adjust their procedures. These adjustments could include the weighting 
of indicators, the procedure for program challenges, and other changes 
needed to ensure that unintended consequences are identified and 
addressed before the consequences have high stakes for programs. 
Additionally, under Sec.  612.4(c)(2), a State has the discretion to 
determine how frequently it will periodically examine the quality of 
the data collection and reporting activities it conducts, and States 
may find it beneficial to examine and make changes to their systems 
more frequently during the initial implementation stage.
    The regulations do not require a State to have State-level rewards 
or consequences associated with teacher preparation performance levels. 
To the extent that the State does, Sec.  612.4(b)(2)(iii) requires a 
State to provide that information in the SRC, and Sec.  
612.4(c)(1)(ii)(C) requires the State to include those rewards or 
consequences in the procedures for assessing and reporting program 
performance it establishes in consultation with a representative group 
of stakeholders in accordance with Sec.  612.4(c)(1)(i).
    Certainly, whether a State can afford to provide financial rewards 
is an essential consideration in the development of any State-level 
rewards. We leave it up to each State to determine, in accordance with 
any applicable State laws or regulations, the amount of information to 
be shared in the development of any State-level rewards or 
consequences.
    As a part of establishing appropriate opportunities for teacher 
preparation programs to challenge the accuracy of their performance 
data and program classification, States are responsible for determining 
the related procedures and standards, again in consultation with the 
required representative group of stakeholders. We expect that these 
procedures and standards will afford programs meaningful and timely 
opportunities to appeal the accuracy of their performance data and 
overall program performance level.
    Changes: None.
Fair and Equitable Methods: State Examination of Data Collection and 
Reporting (34 CFR 612.4(c)(2))
    Comments: Commenters asserted that the proposed requirement for a 
State to periodically examine the quality of its data collection and 
reporting activities under proposed Sec.  612.4(c)(2) is insufficient. 
The commenters contended that data collection and reporting activities 
must be routinely and rigorously examined and analyzed to ensure 
transparency and accuracy in the data and in the high-stakes results 
resulting from the use of the data. According to these commenters, 
State data systems are not at this time equipped to fully implement the 
regulations, and thus careful scrutiny of the data collection--
especially in the early years of the data systems--is vital to ensure 
that data from multiple sources are accurate, and, if they are not, 
that modifications are made. Commenters also suggested that there 
should be a mechanism to adjust measures when schools close or school 
boundaries change as programs with smaller numbers of graduates 
concentrated in particular schools could be significantly impacted by 
these changes that are outside the control of teacher preparation 
programs.
    Discussion: The regulations do not specify how often a State must 
examine the quality of its data collection and reporting activities and 
make any appropriate modifications, requiring only that it be done 
``periodically.'' We think that the frequency and extent of this review 
is best left to each State, in consultation with its representative 
group of stakeholders. We understand, as indicated by commenters, that 
many State data systems are not currently ready to fully implement the 
regulations, and therefore it is likely that such examinations and 
modifications will need to be made more frequently during the 
development stage than will be necessary once the systems have been in 
place and operating for a while. As States have the discretion to 
determine the frequency of their examinations and modifications, they 
may establish triggers for examining and, if necessary, modifying their 
procedures. This could include developing a mechanism to modify the 
procedures in certain situations, such as where school closures and 
school boundary changes may inadvertently affect certain teacher 
preparation programs.
    Changes: None.
Section 612.5 What indicators must a State use to report on teacher 
preparation program performance for purposes of the State report card?
Indicators a State Must Use To Report on Teacher Preparation Programs 
in the State Report Card (34 CFR 612.5(a))
    Comments: Some commenters expressed support for the proposed 
indicators, believing they may push States to hold teacher preparation 
programs more accountable. Some commenters were generally supportive of 
the feedback loop where teacher candidate placement, retention, and 
elementary and secondary classroom student achievement results can be 
reported back to the programs and published so that the programs can 
improve.
    In general, many commenters opposed the use of the indicators of 
academic content knowledge and teaching skills in the SRC, stating that 
these indicators are arbitrary, and that there is no empirical evidence 
that connects the indicators to a quality teacher preparation program; 
that the proposed indicators have never been tested or evaluated to 
determine their workability; and that there is no consensus in research 
or among the teaching profession that the proposed performance 
indicators combine to accurately represent teacher preparation program 
quality. Other commenters opined that there is no evidence that the 
indicators selected actually represent program effectiveness, and 
further stated that no algorithm would accurately reflect program 
effectiveness and be able to connect those variables to a ranking 
system. Many commenters expressed concern about the proposed assessment 
system, stating that reliability and validity data are lacking. Some 
commenters indicated that reporting may not need to be annual since 
multi-year data are more reliable.
    Commenters also stated that valid conclusions about teacher 
preparation program quality cannot be drawn using data with 
questionable validity and with confounding factors that cannot be 
controlled at the national level to produce a national rating system 
for teacher preparation programs. Many other commenters stated that 
teacher performance cannot be equated with the performance of the 
students they teach and that there are additional factors that impact 
teacher preparation program effectiveness that have not been taken into 
account by the proposed regulations. We interpret other comments as 
expressing concern that use of the outcome indicators would not 
necessarily help to ensure that teachers

[[Page 75548]]

are better prepared before entering the classroom.
    Commenters stated that there are many potential opportunities for 
measurement error in the outcome indicators and therefore the existing 
data do not support a large, fully scaled implementation of this 
accountability system. Commenters argued that the regulations extend an 
untested performance assessment into a high-stakes realm by determining 
eligibility for Federal student aid through assessing the effectiveness 
of each teacher preparation program. One commenter stated that, in 
proposing the regulations, the Department did not consider issues that 
increase measurement error, and thus decrease the validity of 
inferences that can be made about teacher quality. For example, 
students who graduate but do not find a teaching job because they have 
chosen to stay in a specific geographic location would essentially 
count against a school and its respective ranking. Several commenters 
suggested that we pilot the proposed system and assess its outcomes, 
using factors that are flexible and contextualized within a narrative, 
without high-stakes consequences until any issues in data collection 
are worked out.
    Discussion: We appreciate commenters' concerns about the validity 
and reliability of the individual indicators of academic content 
knowledge and teaching skill in the proposed regulations, as well as 
the relationship between these indicators and the level of performance 
of a teacher preparation program. However, we believe the commenters 
misunderstood the point we were making in the preamble to the NPRM 
about the basis for the proposed indicators. We were not asserting that 
rigorous research studies had necessarily demonstrated the proposed 
indicators--and particularly those for student learning outcomes, 
employment outcomes, employment outcomes in high-need schools and 
survey outcomes--to be valid and reliable. Where we believe that such 
research shows one or more of the indicators to be valid and reliable, 
we have highlighted those findings in our response to the comment on 
that indicator. But our assertion in the preamble to the NPRM was that 
use of these indicators would produce information about the 
performance-level of each teacher preparation program that, speaking 
broadly, is valid and reliable. We certainly did not say that these 
indicators were necessarily the only measures that would permit the 
State's identification of each program's level of performance to be 
appropriate. And in our discussion of public comments we have clarified 
that States are free to work with their consultative group (see Sec.  
612.4(c)) to establish other measures the State would use as well.
    In broad terms, validity here refers to the accuracy of these 
indicators in measuring what they are supposed to measure, i.e., that 
they collectively work to provide significant information about a 
teacher preparation program's level of performance. Again, in broad 
terms, reliability here refers to the extent to which these indicators 
collectively can be used to assess a program's level of performance and 
to yield consistent results.
    For reasons we explain below, we believe it is important that 
teacher preparation programs produce new teachers who positively impact 
student academic success, take jobs as teachers and stay in the 
profession at least three years, and feel confident about the training 
the programs have provided to them. This is what these three indicators 
in our final regulations do--and by contrast what is missing from the 
criteria that States have reported in SRCs that they have used to date 
to assess program performance.
    We do not believe that State conclusions about the performance 
levels of their teacher preparation programs can be valid or reliable 
if they, as State criteria have done to date, focus on inputs a program 
offers any more than an automobile manufacturer's assessment of the 
validity and reliability of its safety and performance testing make 
sense if they do not pay attention to how the vehicles actually perform 
on the road.
    Our final regulations give States, working with their stakeholders, 
the responsibility for establishing procedures for ensuring that use of 
these indicators, and such other indicators of academic content 
knowledge and teaching skills and other criteria the State may 
establish, permits the State to reasonably identify (i.e., with 
reasonable validity and reliability) those teacher preparation programs 
that are low-performing or at-risk of being low-performing. We 
understand that, to do this, they will need to identify and implement 
procedures for generating relevant data on how each program reflects 
these measures and criteria, and for using those data to assess each 
program in terms of its differentiated levels of performance. But we 
have no doubt that States can do this in ways that are fair to entities 
that are operating good programs while at the same time are fair to 
prospective teachers, prospective employers, elementary and secondary 
school students and their parents, and the general public--all of whom 
rely on States to identify and address problems with low-performing or 
at-risk programs.
    We further note that by defining novice teacher to include a three-
year teaching period, which applies collected for student learning 
outcomes and employment outcomes, the regulations will have States use 
data for these indicators of program performance over multiple years. 
Doing so will increase reliability of the overall level of performance 
the State assigns to each program in at least two respects. First, it 
will decrease the chance that one aberrational year of performance or 
any given cohort of program graduates (or program participants in the 
case of alternative route teacher preparation programs) has a 
disproportionate effect on a program's performance. And second, it will 
decrease the chance that the level of performance a State reports for a 
program will be invalid or unreliable.
    We stress, however, that the student learning outcomes, employment 
outcomes, and survey outcomes that the regulations require States to 
use as indicators of academic content and teaching skills are not 
simply measures that logically are important to assessing a program's 
true level of performance. Rather, as we discuss below, we believe that 
these measures are also workable, based on research, and reflective of 
the direction in which many States and programs are going, even if not 
reflecting an outright consensus of all teacher preparation programs.
    In this regard, we disagree with the commenters' assertions that 
these measures are arbitrary, lack evidence of support, and have not 
been tested. The Department's decision to require use of these measures 
as indicators of academic content knowledge and teaching skills is 
reinforced by the adoption of similar indicators by CAEP,\15\ which 
reviews over half of the Nation's teacher preparation programs--and by 
the States of North Carolina, Tennessee, Ohio, and Louisiana, which 
already report annually on indictors of teacher preparation program 
performance based on data from State assessments. The recent GAO report 
determined that more than half the States already utilize data on 
program completers' effectiveness (such as surveys, placement rates, 
and teacher evaluation results) in assessing

[[Page 75549]]

programs, with at least ten more planning to do so.\16\ These measures 
also reflect input received from many non-Federal negotiators during 
negotiated rulemaking. Taken together, we believe that the adoption of 
these measures of academic content knowledge and teaching skills 
reflects the direction in which the field is moving, and the current 
use of similar indicators by several SEAs demonstrates their 
feasibility.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ CAEP 2013 Accreditation Standards, Standard 4, Indicator 4. 
(2013). Retrieved from http://caepnet.org/standards/introduction. 
Amended by the CAEP Board of Directors February 13, 2015.
    \16\ GAO at 13-14.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We acknowledge that many factors account for the variation in a 
teacher's impact on student learning. However, we strongly believe that 
a principal function of any teacher preparation program is to train 
teachers to promote the academic growth of all students regardless of 
their personal and family circumstances, and that the indicators whose 
use the regulations prescribe are already being used to help measure 
programs' success in doing so. For example, Tennessee employs some of 
the outcome measures that the regulations require, and reports that 
some teacher preparation programs consistently produce teachers with 
statistically significant student learning outcomes over multiple 
years.\17\ Delaware also collects and reports data on the performance 
and effectiveness of program graduates by student achievement and 
reports differentiated student learning outcomes by teacher preparation 
program.\18\ Studies of programs in Washington State \19\ and New York 
City,\20\ as well as data from the University of North Carolina 
system,\21\ also demonstrate that graduates of different teacher 
preparation programs show statistically significant differences in 
value-added scores. The same kinds of data from Tennessee and North 
Carolina show large differences in teacher placement and retention 
rates among programs. In Ohio \22\ and North Carolina, survey data also 
demonstrate that, on average, graduates of teacher preparation programs 
can have large differences in opinions of the quality of their 
preparation for the classroom. And a separate study of North Carolina 
teacher preparation programs found statistically significant 
correlations between programs that collect outcomes data on graduates 
and their graduate's value-added scores.\23\ These results reinforce 
that teacher preparation programs play an important role in teacher 
effectiveness, and so give prospective students and employers important 
information about which teacher preparation programs most consistently 
produce teachers who can best promote student academic achievement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ See Report Card on the Effectiveness of Teacher Training 
Programs, Tennessee 2014 Report Card. (n.d.). Retrieved from 
www.tn.gov/thec/article/report-card.
    \18\ See 2015 Delaware Educator Preparation Program Reports. 
(n.d.). Retrieved June 27, 2016 from www.doe.k12.de.us/domain/398.
    \19\ Goldhaber, D., & Liddle, S. (2013). The Gateway to the 
Profession: Assessing Teacher Preparation Programs Based on Student 
Achievement. Economics of Education Review, 34, 29-44.
    \20\ Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, 
J. (2009). Teacher Preparation and Student Achievement. Education 
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 416-440.
    \21\ See UNC Educator Quality Dashboard. (n.d.). Retrieved from 
http://tqdashboard.northcarolina.edu/performance-employment/.
    \22\ See, for example: 2013 Educator Preparation Performance 
Report Adolescence to Young Adult (7-12) Integrated Mathematics Ohio 
State University. Retrieved from http://regents.ohio.gov/educator-accountability/performance-report/2013/OhioStateUniversity/OHSU_IntegratedMathematics.pdf.
    \23\ Henry, G., & Bastian, K. (2015). Measuring Up: The National 
Council on Teacher Quality's Ratings of Teacher Preparation Programs 
and Measures of Teacher Performance.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While we acknowledge that some studies of teacher preparation 
programs \24\ find very small differences at the program level in 
graduates' average effect on student outcomes, we believe that the 
examples we have cited above provide a reasonable basis for States' use 
of student learning outcomes weighted in ways that they have determined 
best reflect the importance of this indicator. In addition, we believe 
the data will help programs develop insights into how they can more 
consistently generate high-performing graduates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \24\ For example: C. Koedel, E. Parsons, M. Podgursky, & M. 
Ehlert (2015). ``Teacher Preparation Programs and Teacher Quality: 
Are There Real Differences Across Programs?'' Education Finance and 
Policy, 10(4): 508-534; P. von Hippel, L. Bellows, C. Osborne, J. 
Arnold Lincove, & N. Mills (2014). ``Teacher Quality Differences 
Between Teacher Preparation Programs: How Big? How Reliable? Which 
Programs Are Different?'' Retrieved from Social Science Research 
Network, http://papers.ssrn.com/sol3/papers.cfm?abstract_id=2506935.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have found little research one way or the other that directly 
ties the performance of teacher preparation programs to employment 
outcomes and survey outcomes. However, we believe that these other 
measures--program graduates and alternative route program participants' 
employment as teachers, retention in the profession, and perceptions 
(with those of their employers) of how well their programs have trained 
them for the classroom--strongly complement use of student learning 
outcomes in that they help to complete the picture of how well programs 
have really trained teachers to take and maintain their teaching 
responsibilities.
    We understand that research into how best to evaluate both teacher 
effectiveness and the quality of teacher preparation programs 
continues. To accommodate future developments in research that improve 
a State's ability to measure program quality as well as State 
perspectives of how the performance of teacher preparation programs 
should best be measured, the regulations allow a State to include other 
indicators of academic content knowledge and teaching skills that 
measure teachers' effects on student performance (see Sec.  612.5(b)). 
In addition, given their importance, while we strongly encourage States 
to provide significant weight in particular to the student learning 
outcomes and retention rate outcomes in high-need schools in their 
procedures for assessing program performance, the Department has 
eliminated the proposed requirements in Sec.  612.4(b)(1) that States 
consider these measures ``in significant part.'' The change confirms 
States' ability to determine how to weight each of these indicators to 
reflect their own understanding of how best to assess program 
performance and address any concerns with measurement error. Moreover, 
the regulations offer States a pilot year, corresponding to the 2017-18 
reporting year (for data States are to report in SRCs by October 31, 
2018, in which to address and correct for any issues with data 
collection, measurement error, validity, or reliability in their 
reported data.
    Use of these indicators themselves, of course, does not ensure that 
novice teachers are prepared to enter the classroom. However, we 
believe that the regulations, including the requirement for public 
reporting on each indicator and criterion a State uses to assess a 
program's level of performance, provide strong incentives for teacher 
preparation programs to use the feedback from these measures to ensure 
that the novice teachers they train are ready to take on their teaching 
responsibilities when they enter the classroom.
    We continue to stress that the data on program performance that 
States report in their SRCs do not create and are not designed to 
promote any kind of a national, in-State, or interstate rating system 
for teacher preparation programs, and caution the public against using 
reported data in this way. Rather, States will use reported data to 
evaluate program quality based on the indicators of academic content 
knowledge and teaching skills and other criteria of program performance 
that they decide to use for this purpose. Of

[[Page 75550]]

course, the Department and the public at large will use the reported 
information to gain confidence in State decisions about which programs 
are low-performing and at-risk of being low-performing (and are at any 
other performance level the State establishes) and the process and data 
States use to make these decisions.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Commenters stated that it is not feasible to collect and 
report student learning outcomes or survey data separately by 
credential program for science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics (STEM) programs in a meaningful way when only one science 
test is administered, and teacher preparation program graduates teach 
two or more science disciplines with job placements in at least two 
fields.
    Discussion: We interpret these comments to be about teacher 
preparation programs that train teachers to teach STEM subjects. We 
also interpret these comments to mean that certain conditions--
including, the placement or retention of recent graduates in more than 
one field, having only one statewide science assessment at the high 
school level, and perhaps program size--may complicate State data 
collection and reporting on the required indicators for preparation 
programs that produce STEM teachers.
    The regulations define the term ``teacher of record'' to clarify 
that teacher preparation programs will be assessed on the aggregate 
outcomes of novice teachers who are assigned the lead responsibility 
for a student's learning in the subject area. In this way, although 
they may generate more data for the student learning outcomes measure, 
novice teachers who are teachers of record for more than one subject 
area are treated the same as those who teach in only one subject area.
    We do not understand why a science teacher whose district 
administers only one examination is in a different position than a 
teacher of any other subject. More important, science is not yet a 
tested grade or subject under section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA, as 
amended by ESSA. Therefore, for the purposes of generating data on a 
program's student learning outcomes, States that use the definition of 
``student growth'' in Sec.  612.2 will determine student growth for 
teacher preparation programs that train science teachers through use of 
measures of student learning and performance that are rigorous, 
comparable across schools, and consistent with State guidelines. These 
might include student results on pre-tests and end-of-course tests, 
objective performance-based assessments, and student learning 
objectives.
    To the extent that the comments refer to small programs that train 
STEM teachers, the commenters did not indicate why our proposed 
procedures for reporting data and levels of performance for small 
teacher preparation programs did not adequately address their concerns. 
For reasons we discussed in response to comments on aggregating and 
then reporting data for small teacher preparation programs (Sec.  
612.4(b)(3)(ii)), we believe the procedures the regulations establish 
for reporting performance of small programs adequately address concerns 
about program size.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Commenters noted that the transition to new State 
assessments may affect reporting on student learning outcomes and 
stated that the proposed regulations fail to indicate when and how 
States must use the results of State assessments during such a 
transition for the purpose of evaluating teacher preparation program 
quality.
    Discussion: For various reasons, one or more States are often 
transitioning to new State assessments, and this is likely to continue 
as States implement section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA, as amended by ESSA. 
Therefore, transitioning to new State assessments should not impact a 
State's ability to use data from these assessments as a measure of 
student learning outcomes, since there are valid statistical methods 
for determining student growth even during these periods of transition. 
However, how this should occur is best left to each State that is going 
through such a transition, just as it is best to leave to each State 
whether to use another State-determined measure relevant to calculating 
student learning outcomes as permitted by Sec.  612.5(a)(1)(ii)(C) 
instead.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Commenters recommended that the student learning outcomes 
indicator take into account whether a student with disabilities uses 
accommodations, and who is providing the accommodation. Another 
commenter was especially concerned about special education teachers' 
individualized progress monitoring plans created to evaluate a 
student's progress on individualized learning outcomes. The commenter 
noted that current research cautions against aggregation of student 
data gathered with these tools for the purposes of teacher evaluation.
    Discussion: Under the regulations, outcome data is reported on 
``teachers of record,'' defined as teachers (including a teacher in a 
co-teaching assignment) who have been assigned the lead responsibility 
for a student's learning in a subject or course section. The teacher of 
record for a class that includes students with disabilities who require 
accommodations is responsible for the learning of those students, which 
may include ensuring the proper accommodations are provided. We decline 
to require, as data to be reported as part of the indicator, the number 
of students with disabilities requiring special accommodations because 
we assume that the LEA will meet its responsibilities to provide needed 
accommodations, and out of consideration for the additional reporting 
burden the proposal would place on States. However, States are free to 
adopt this recommendation if they choose to do so.
    In terms of gathering data about the learning outcomes for students 
with disabilities, the regulations do not require the teacher of record 
to use special education teachers' individualized monitoring plans to 
document student learning outcomes but rather expect teachers to 
identify, based on the unique needs of the students with disabilities, 
the appropriate data source. However, we stress that this issue 
highlights the importance of consultation with key stakeholders, like 
parents of and advocates for students with disabilities, as States 
determine how to calculate their student learning outcomes.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Commenters recommended that the regulations establish the 
use of other or additional indicators, including the new teacher 
performance assessment edTPA, measures suggested by the Higher 
Education Task Force on Teacher Preparation, and standardized 
observations of teachers in the classroom. Some commenters contended 
that a teacher's effectiveness can only be measured by mentor teachers 
and university field instructors. Other commenters recommended applying 
more weight to some indicators, such as students' evaluations of their 
teachers, or increasing emphasis on other indicators, such as teachers' 
scores on their licensure tests.
    Discussion: We believe that the indicators of academic content 
knowledge and teaching skills that the regulations require States to 
use in assessing a program's performance (i.e., student learning 
outcomes, employment outcomes, survey outcomes, and

[[Page 75551]]

information about basic aspects of the program) are the most important 
such indicators in that, by focusing on a few key areas, they provide 
direct information about whether the program is meeting its basic 
purposes. We decline to require that States use additional or other 
indicators like those suggested because we strongly believe they are 
less direct measures of academic content knowledge and teaching skills 
that would also add significant cost and complexity. However, we note 
that if district evaluations of novice teachers use multiple valid 
measures in determining performance levels that include, among other 
things, data on student growth for all students, they are ``teacher 
evaluation measures'' under Sec.  612.2. Therefore, Sec.  
612.5(a)(1)(ii) permits the State to use and report the results of 
those evaluations as student learning outcomes.
    Moreover, under Sec.  612.5(b), in assessing the performance of 
each teacher preparation program, a State may use additional indicators 
of academic content and teaching skills of its choosing, provided the 
State uses a consistent approach for all of its teacher preparation 
programs and these additional indicators provide information on how the 
graduates produced by the program perform in the classroom. In 
consultation with their stakeholder groups, States may wish to use 
additional indicators, such as edTPA, teacher classroom observations, 
or student survey results, to assess teacher preparation program 
performance.
    As we addressed in our discussion of comment on Sec.  
612.4(b)(2)(ii) (Weighting of Indicators), we encourage States to give 
significant weight to student learning outcomes and employment outcomes 
in high-need schools. However, we have removed from the final 
regulations any requirement that States give special weight to these or 
other indicators of academic content knowledge and teaching skills. 
Thus, while States must include in their SRCs the weights they give to 
each indicator and any other criteria they use to identify a program's 
level of performance, each State has full authority to determine the 
weighting it gives to each indicator or criterion.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Some commenters expressed concerns that the regulations 
permit the exclusion of some program graduates (e.g., those leaving the 
State or taking jobs in private schools), thus providing an incomplete 
representation of program performance. In particular, commenters 
recommended using measures that capture the academic content knowledge 
and teaching skills of all recent graduates, such as State licensure 
test scores, portfolio assessments, student and parent surveys, 
performance on the edTPA, and the rate at which graduates retake 
licensure assessments (as opposed to pass rates).
    Discussion: While the three outcome-based measures required by the 
regulations assess the performance of program graduates who become 
novice teachers, the requirement in Sec.  612.5(a)(4) for an indication 
of either a program's specialized accreditation or that it provides 
certain minimum characteristics examines performance based on multiple 
input-based measures that apply to all program participants, including 
those who do not become novice teachers. States are not required to 
also assess teacher preparation programs on the basis of any of the 
additional factors that commenters suggest, i.e., State licensure test 
scores, portfolio assessments, student and parent surveys, performance 
on the edTPA, and the rate at which graduates retake licensure 
assessments. However, we note that IHEs must continue to include 
information in their IRCs on the pass rates of a program's students on 
assessments required for State certification. Furthermore, in 
consultation with their stakeholders, States may choose to use the data 
and other factors commenters recommend to help determine a program's 
level of performance.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: One commenter recommended that the Department fund a 
comprehensive five-year pilot of a variety of measures for assessing 
the range of K-12 student outcomes associated with teacher preparation.
    Discussion: Committing funds for research is outside the scope of 
the regulations. We note that the Institute of Education Sciences and 
other research organizations are conducting research on teacher 
preparation programs that the Department believes will inform advances 
in the field.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Some commenters stated that a teacher preparation 
program's cost of attendance and the average starting salary of the 
novice teachers produced by the program should be included as mandatory 
indicators for program ratings because these two factors, along with 
student outcomes, would better allow stakeholders to understand the 
costs and benefits of a specific teacher preparation program.
    Discussion: Section 205(b)(1)(F) of the HEA requires each State to 
identify in its SRC the criteria it is using to identify the 
performance of each teacher preparation program within the State, 
including its indicators of the academic knowledge and teaching skills 
of the program's students. The regulations define these indicators to 
include four measures that States must use as these indicators.
    While we agree that information that helps prospective students 
identify programs that offer a good value is important, the purpose of 
sections 205(b)(1)(F) and 207(a) of the HEA, and thus our regulations, 
is to have States identify and report on meaningful criteria that they 
use to identify a program's level of performance--and specifically 
whether the program is low-performing or at-risk of being low-
performing. While we encourage States to find ways to make information 
on a program's costs available to the public, we do not believe the 
information is sufficiently related to a program's level of performance 
to warrant the additional costs of requiring States to report it. For 
similar reasons, we decline to add this consumer information to the SRC 
as additional data States need to report independent of its use in 
assessing the program's level of performance.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Multiple commenters stated that the teacher preparation 
system in the United States should mirror that of other countries and 
broaden the definition of classroom readiness. These commenters stated 
that teacher preparation programs should address readiness within a 
more holistic, developmental, and collective framework. Others stated 
that the teacher preparation system should emphasize experiential and 
community service styles of teaching and learning to increase student 
engagement.
    Discussion: While we appreciate commenters' suggestions that 
teacher preparation programs should be evaluated using holistic 
measures similar to those used by other countries, we decline to 
include these kinds of criteria because we believe that the ability to 
influence student growth and achievement is the most direct measure of 
academic knowledge and teaching skills. However, the regulations permit 
States to include indicators like those recommended by the commenters 
in their criteria for assessing program performance.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Commenters noted that post-graduation professional 
development impacts a teacher's job performance in that there may be a 
difference between teachers who continue to learn during their early

[[Page 75552]]

teaching years compared to those who do not, but that the proposed 
regulations did not take this factor into account.
    Discussion: By requiring the use of data from the first, second, 
and third year of teaching, the student learning outcomes measure 
captures improvements in the impact of teachers on student learning 
made over the first three years of teaching. To the extent that 
professional development received in the first three years of teaching 
contributes to a teacher's impact on student learning, the student 
learning outcomes measure may reflect it.
    The commenters may be suggesting that student learning outcomes of 
novice teachers are partially the consequence of the professional 
development they receive, yet the proposed regulations seem to 
attribute student learning outcomes to only the teacher preparation 
program. The preparation that novice teachers receive in their teacher 
preparation programs, of course, is not the only factor that influences 
student learning outcomes. But for reasons we have stated, the failure 
of recent graduates as a whole to demonstrate positive student learning 
outcomes is an indicator that something in the teacher preparation 
program is not working. We recognize that novice teachers receive 
various forms of professional development, but believe that high-
quality teacher preparation programs produce graduates who have the 
knowledge and skills they need to earn positive reviews and stay in the 
classroom regardless of the type of training they receive on the job.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Commenters were concerned that the proposed regulations 
would pressure States to rate some programs as low-performing even if 
all programs in a State are performing adequately. Commenters noted 
that the regulations need to ensure that programs are all rated on 
their own merits, rather than ranked against one another--i.e., 
criterion-referenced rather than norm-referenced. The commenters 
contended that, otherwise, programs would compete against one another 
rather than work together to continually improve the quality of novice 
teachers. Commenters stated that such competition could lead to further 
isolation of programs rather than fostering the collaboration necessary 
for addressing shortages in high-need fields.
    Some commenters stated that although there can be differences in 
traditional and alternative route programs that make comparison 
difficult, political forces that are pro- or anti-alternative route 
programs can attempt to make certain types of programs look better or 
worse. Further, commenters noted that it will be difficult for the 
Department to enforce equivalent levels of accountability and reporting 
when differences exist across States' indicators and relative weighting 
decisions.
    Another commenter recommended that, to provide context, programs 
and States should also report raw numbers in addition to rates for 
these metrics.
    Discussion: We interpret the comment on low-performing programs to 
argue that these regulations might be viewed as requiring a State to 
rate a certain number of programs as low performing regardless of their 
performance. Section 207(a) of the HEA requires that States provide in 
the SRCs an annual list of low-performing teacher preparation programs 
and identify those programs that are at risk of being put on the list 
of low-performing programs. While the regulations require States to 
establish at least three performance categories (those two and all 
other programs, which would therefore be considered effective or 
higher), we encourage States also to differentiate between teacher 
preparation programs whose performance is satisfactory and those whose 
performance is truly exceptional. We believe that recognizing, and 
where possible rewarding (see Sec.  612.4(c)(1)(ii)(C)), excellence 
will help other programs learn from best practice and facilitate 
program improvement of teacher preparation programs and entities. 
Actions like these will encourage collaboration, especially in 
preparing teachers to succeed in high-need areas.
    However, we stress that the Department has no expectation or desire 
that a State will designate a certain number or percentage of its 
programs as low-performing or at-risk of being low-performing. Rather, 
we want States to do what our regulations provide: Assess the level of 
performance of each teacher preparation program based on what they 
determine to be differentiated levels of performance, and report in the 
SRCs (1) the data they secure about each program based on the 
indicators and other criteria they use to assess program performance, 
(2) the weighting of these data to generate the program's level of 
performance, and (3) a list of programs it found to be low-performing 
or at-risk of being low-performing. Beyond this, these regulations do 
not create, and are not designed to promote, an in-State or inter-State 
ranking system, or to rank traditional versus alternative route 
programs based on the reported data.
    We acknowledge that if they choose, States may employ growth 
measures specifically based on a relative distribution of teacher 
scores statewide, which could constitute a ``norm-referenced'' 
indicator. While these statewide scores may not improve on the whole, 
an individual teacher preparation program's performance can still show 
improvement (or declines) relative to average teacher performance in 
the State. The Department notes that programs are evaluated on multiple 
measures of program quality and the other required indicators can be 
criterion-referenced. For example, a State may set a specific threshold 
for retention rate or employer satisfaction that a program must meet to 
be rated as effective. Additionally, States may decide to compare any 
norm-referenced student learning outcomes, and other indicators, to 
those of teachers prepared out of State to determine relative 
improvement of teacher preparation programs as a whole.\25\ But whether 
or not to take steps like these is purely a State decision.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \25\ See, for example: See UNC Educator Quality 
Dashboard.(n.d.). Retrieved from http://tqdashboard.northcarolina.edu/performance-employment/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to the recommendation that report cards include raw 
numbers as well as rates attributable to the indicators and other 
criteria used to assess program performance, Sec.  612.4(b)(2)(i) 
requires the State to report data relative to each indicator identified 
in Sec.  612.5. Section V of the instructions for the SRC asks for the 
numbers and percentages used in the calculation of the indicators of 
academic content knowledge and teaching skills and any other indicators 
and criteria a State uses.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Commenters contended that the proposed regulations do not 
specifically address the skills enumerated in the definition of 
``teaching skills.''
    Discussion: The commenters are correct that the regulations do not 
specifically address the various ``teaching skills'' identified in the 
definition of the term in section 200(23) of the HEA. However, we 
strongly believe that they do not need to do so.
    The regulations require States to use establish four indicators of 
academic content knowledge and teaching skills--student learning 
outcomes, employment outcomes, survey results, and minimum program 
characteristics--in assessing the level of a teacher preparation 
program's performance under sections 205(b)(1)(F) and 207(a) of the 
HEA. In

[[Page 75553]]

establishing these indicators, we are mindful of the definition of 
``teaching skills'' in section 200(23) of the HEA, which includes 
skills that enable a teacher to increase student learning, achievement, 
and the ability to apply knowledge, and to effectively convey and 
explain academic subject matter. In both the NPRM and the discussion of 
our response to comment on Sec.  612.5(a)(1)-(4), we explain why each 
of the four measures is, in fact, a reasonable indicator of whether 
teachers have academic content knowledge and teaching skills. We see no 
reason the regulations need either to enumerate the definition of 
teaching skills in section 200(23) or to expressly tie these indicators 
to the statutory definition of one term included in ``academic content 
knowledge and teaching skills''.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Some commenters stated that the use of a rating system 
with associated consequences is a ``test and punish'' accountability 
model similar to the K-12 accountability system under the ESEA, as 
amended by the No Child Left Behind Act (NCLB). They contended that 
such a system limits innovation and growth within academia and denies 
the importance of capacity building.
    Discussion: We do not believe that the requirements the regulations 
establish for the title II reporting system are punitive. The existing 
HEA title II reporting framework has not provided useful feedback to 
teacher preparation programs, prospective teachers, other stakeholders, 
or the public on program performance. Until now, States have identified 
few programs deserving of recognition or remediation. This is because 
few of the criteria they to date have reported that they use to assess 
program performance, under section 205(b)(1)(F) of the HEA, rely on 
information that examines program quality from the most critical 
perspective--teachers' ability to impact student achievement once they 
begin teaching. Given the importance of academic knowledge and teaching 
skills, we are confident that the associated indicators in the 
regulations will help provide more meaningful information about the 
quality of these programs, which will then facilitate self-improvement 
and, by extension, production of novice teachers better trained to help 
students achieve once they enter the classroom.
    Thus, the regulations address shortcomings in the current State 
reporting system by defining indicators of academic content knowledge 
and teaching skills, focusing on program outcomes that States will use 
to assess program performance. The regulations build on current State 
systems and create a much-needed feedback loop to facilitate program 
improvement and provide valuable information to prospective teachers, 
potential employers, the general public, and the programs themselves. 
We agree that program innovation and capacity building are worthwhile, 
and we believe that what States will report on each program will 
encourage these efforts.
    Under the regulations, teacher preparation programs whose graduates 
(or participants, if they are teachers while being trained in an 
alternative route program) do not demonstrate positive student learning 
outcomes are not punished, nor are States required to punish programs. 
To the extent that proposed Sec.  612.4(b)(2), which would have 
permitted a program to be considered effective or higher only if the 
teachers it produces demonstrate satisfactory or higher student 
learning outcomes, raised concerns about the regulations seeming 
punitive, we have removed that provision from the final regulations. 
Thus, the regulations echo the requirements of section 207(a) of the 
HEA, which requires that States annually identify teacher preparation 
programs that are low-performing or that are at-risk of becoming low-
performing, and section 207(b) of the HEA, which prescribes the 
consequences for a program from which the State has withdrawn its 
approval or terminated its financial support. For a discussion of the 
relationship between the State classification of teacher preparation 
programs and TEACH Grant eligibility, see Sec.  686.2 regarding a TEACH 
Grant-eligible program.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: None.
    Discussion: In removing the term ``new teacher'' and adding the 
term ``novice teacher,'' as discussed earlier in this document, it 
became unclear for what period of time a State must report data related 
to those teachers. To resolve this, we have clarified that a State may, 
at its discretion, exclude from reporting those individuals who have 
not become novice teachers after three years of becoming a ``recent 
graduate,'' as defined in the regulations. We believe that requiring 
States to report on individuals who become novice teachers more than 
three years after those teachers graduated from a teacher preparation 
program is overly burdensome and would not provide an accurate 
reflection of teacher preparation program quality.
    Changes: We have added Sec.  612.5(c) to clarify that States may 
exclude from reporting under Sec.  612.5(a)(1)-(3) individuals who have 
not become novice teachers after three years of becoming recent 
graduates.
Student Learning Outcomes (34 CFR 612.5(a)(1))
Growth, VAM, and Other Methodological Concerns
    Comments: Many commenters argued that the proposed definition of 
``student learning outcomes'' invites States to use VAM to judge 
teachers and teacher preparation programs. Those commenters argued that 
because the efficacy of VAM is not established, the definition of 
``student learning outcomes'' is not solidly grounded in research.
    Discussion: For those States that choose to do so, the final 
regulations permit States to use any measures of student growth for 
novice teachers that meet the definitions in Sec.  612.2 in reporting 
on a program's student learning outcomes. Their options include a 
simple comparison of student scores on assessments between two points 
in time for grades and subjects subject to section 1111(b)(2) of the 
ESEA, as amended by ESSA, a range of options measuring student learning 
and performance for non-tested grades and subjects (which can also be 
used to supplement scores for tested grads and subjects), or more 
complex statistical measures, like student growth percentiles (SGPs) or 
VAM that control for observable student characteristics. A detailed 
discussion of the use of VAM as a specific growth measure follows 
below; the discussion addresses the use of VAM in student learning 
outcomes, should States choose to use it. However, we also note that 
the requirement for States to assess teacher preparation programs 
based, in part, on student learning outcomes also allows States that 
choose not to use student growth to use a teacher evaluation measure or 
another State-determined measure relevant to calculating student 
learning outcomes. Nothing in the final regulations require the use of 
VAM over other methodologies for calculating student growth, 
specifically, or student learning outcomes, more broadly.
    These comments also led us to see potential confusion in the 
proposed definitions of student learning outcomes and student growth. 
In reviewing the proposed regulations, we recognized that the original 
structure of the definition of ``student learning outcomes'' could 
cause confusion. We are concerned that having a definition for the 
term, which was intended only to operationalize the other definitions 
in the context of Sec.  612.5, was not the

[[Page 75554]]

clearest way to present the requirements. To clarify how student 
learning outcomes are considered under the regulations, we have removed 
the definition of ``student learning outcomes'' from Sec.  612.2, and 
revised Sec.  612.5(a)(1) to incorporate, and operationalize, that 
definition.
    Changes: We have removed the definition of ``student learning 
outcomes'' and revised Sec.  612.5(a)(1) to incorporate key aspects of 
that proposed definition. In addition, we have provided States with the 
option to determine student learning outcomes using another State-
determined measure relevant to calculating student learning outcomes.
    Comments: Many commenters stated that the proposed student learning 
outcomes would not adequately serve as an indicator of academic content 
knowledge and teaching skills for the purpose of assessing teacher 
preparation program performance. Commenters also contended that tests 
only measure the ability to memorize and that several kinds of 
intelligence and ways of learning cannot be measured by testing.
    In general, commenters questioned the Department's basis for the 
use of student learning outcomes as one measure of teacher preparation 
program performance, citing research to support their claim that the 
method of measuring student learning outcomes as proposed in the 
regulations is neither valid nor reliable, and that there is no 
evidence to support the idea that student outcomes are related to the 
quality of the teacher preparation program attended by the teacher. 
Commenters further expressed concerns about the emphasis on linking 
children's test scores on mandated standardized tests to student 
learning outcomes. Commenters also stated that teacher preparation 
programs are responsible for only a small portion of the variation in 
teacher quality.
    Commenters proposed that aggregate teacher evaluation results be 
the only measure of student learning outcomes so long as the State 
teacher evaluations do no overly rely on results from standardized 
tests. Commenters stated that in at least one State, teacher 
evaluations cannot be used as part of teacher licensure decisions or to 
reappoint teachers due to the subjective nature of the evaluations.
    Some commenters argued that student growth cannot be defined as a 
simple comparison of achievement between two points in time.
    One commenter, who stated that the proposed regulatory approach is 
thorough and aligned with current trends in evaluation, also expressed 
concern that K-12 student performance (achievement) data are generally 
a snapshot in time, typically the result of one standardized test, that 
does not identify growth over time, the context of the test taking, or 
other variables that impact student learning.
    Commenters further cited research that concluded that student 
achievement in the classroom is not a valid predictor of whether the 
teacher's preparation program was high quality and asserted that other 
professions do not use data in such a simplistic way.
    Another commenter stated that local teacher evaluation instruments 
vary significantly across towns and States.
    Another commenter stated that student performance data reported in 
the aggregate and by subgroups to determine trends and areas for 
improvement is acceptable but should not be used to label or categorize 
a school system, school, or classroom teacher.
    Discussion: As discussed above, in the final regulations we have 
removed the requirement that States consider student growth ``in 
significant part,'' in their procedures for annually assessing teacher 
preparation program performance. Therefore, while we encourage States 
to use student growth as their measure of student learning outcomes and 
to adopt such a weighting of student learning outcomes on their own, 
our regulations give States broad flexibility to decide how to weight 
student learning outcomes in consultation with stakeholders (see Sec.  
612.4(c)), with the aim of it being a sound and reasonable indicator of 
teacher preparation program performance. Similarly, we decline 
commenters' suggestions to restrict the measure of student learning 
outcomes to only aggregated teacher evaluation results, in order to 
maintain that flexibility. With our decision to permit States to use 
their own State-determined measure relevant to calculating student 
learning outcomes rather than student growth or a teacher evaluation 
measure, we have provided even more State flexibility in calculating 
student learning outcomes than commenters had requested.
    As we have previously stated, we intend the use of all indicators 
of academic content knowledge and teaching skills to produce 
information about the performance-level of each teacher preparation 
program that, speaking broadly, is valid and reliable. It is clear from 
the comments we received that there is not an outright consensus on 
using student learning outcomes to help measure teacher preparation 
program performance; however, we strongly believe that a program's 
ability to prepare teachers who can positively influence student 
academic achievement is both an indicator of their academic content 
knowledge and teaching skills, and a critical measure for assessing a 
teacher preparation program's performance. Student learning outcomes 
therefore belong among multiple measures States must use. We continue 
to highlight growth as a particularly appropriate way to measure a 
teacher's effect on student learning because it takes a student's prior 
achievement into account, gives a teacher an opportunity to demonstrate 
success regardless of the student characteristics of the class, and 
therefore reflects the contribution of the teacher to student learning. 
Even where student growth is not used, producing teachers who can make 
a positive contribution to student learning should be a fundamental 
objective of any teacher preparation program and the reason why it 
should work to provide prospective teachers with academic content and 
teaching skills. Hence, student learning outcomes, as we define them in 
the regulations, associated with each teacher preparation program are 
an important part of an assessment of any program's performance.
    States therefore need to collect data on student learning 
outcomes--through either student growth that examines the change in 
student achievement in both tested and non-tested grades and subjects, 
a teacher evaluation measure as defined in the regulations, or another 
State-determined measure relevant to calculating student learning 
outcomes--and then link these data to the teacher preparation program 
that produced (or in the case of an alternative route program, is 
producing) these teachers.
    In so doing, States may if they wish choose to use statistical 
measures of growth, like VAM or student growth percentiles, that 
control for student demographics that are typically associated with 
student achievement. There are multiple examples of the use of similar 
student learning outcomes in existing research and State reporting. 
Tennessee, for example, reports that some teacher preparation programs 
consistently exhibit statistically significant differences in student 
learning outcomes over multiple years, indicating that scores are 
reliable from one year to the next.\26\ Studies from Washington State 
\27\ and New York

[[Page 75555]]

City \28\ also find statistically significant differences in the 
student learning outcomes of teachers from different teacher 
preparation programs as does the University of North Carolina in how it 
assesses its own teacher preparation programs.\29\ Moreover, a 
teacher's effect on student growth is commonly used in education 
research and evaluation studies conducted by the Institute of Education 
Sciences as a valid measure of the effectiveness of other aspects of 
teacher training, like induction or professional development.\30\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \26\ See Report Card on the Effectiveness of Teacher Training 
Programs, Tennessee 2014 Report Card. (n.d.). Retrieved from 
www.tn.gov/thec/article/report-card.
    \27\ D. Goldhaber & S. Liddle (2013). ``The Gateway to the 
Profession: Assessing Teacher Preparation Programs Based on Student 
Achievement.'' Economics of Education Review, 34: 29-44.
    \28\ D. Boyd, P. Grossman, H. Lankford, S. Loeb, & J. Wyckoff. 
(2009). Teacher Preparation and Student Achievement. Education 
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 416-440.
    \29\ See UNC Educator Quality Dashboard.(n.d.). Retrieved from 
http://tqdashboard.northcarolina.edu/performance-employment/.
    \30\ See for example, S. Glazerman, E. Isenberg, S. Dolfin, M. 
Bleeker, A. Johnson, M. Grider & M. Jacobus. 2010). Impacts of 
comprehensive teacher induction: Final results from a randomized 
controlled study (NCEE 2010-4027). Washington, DC: National Center 
for Education Evaluation and Regional Assistance, Institute of 
Education Sciences, U.S. Department of Education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    While some studies of teacher preparation programs \31\ in other 
States have not found statistically significant differences at the 
preparation program level in graduates' effects on student outcomes, we 
believe that there are enough examples of statistically significant 
differences in program performance on student learning outcomes to 
justify their inclusion in the SRC. In addition, because even these 
studies show a wide range of individual teacher effectiveness within a 
program, using these data can provide new insights that can help 
programs to produce more consistently high-performing graduates.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \31\ Koedel, C., Parsons, E., Podgursky, M., & Ehlert, M. 
(2015). Teacher Preparation Programs and Teacher Quality: Are There 
Real Differences Across Programs? Education Finance and Policy, 
10(4), 508-534.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, looking at the related issue of educator evaluations, 
there is debate about the level of reliability and validity of the 
individual elements used in different teacher evaluation systems. 
However, there is evidence that student growth can be a useful and 
effective component in teacher evaluation systems. For example, a study 
found that dismissal threats and financial incentives based partially 
upon growth scores positively influenced teacher 
performance.32 33 In addition, there is evidence that 
combining multiple measures, including student growth, into an overall 
evaluation result for a teacher can produce a more valid and reliable 
result than any one measure alone.\34\ For these reasons, this 
regulation and Sec.  612.5(b) continue to give States the option of 
using teacher evaluation systems based on multiple measures that 
include student growth to satisfy the student learning outcomes 
requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \32\ Dee, T., & Wyckoff, J. (2015). Incentives, Selection, and 
Teacher Performance: Evidence from IMPACT. Journal of Policy 
Analysis and Management, 34(2), 267-297. doi:10.3386/w19529.
    \33\ Henry, G., & Bastian, K. (2015). Measuring Up: The National 
Council on Teacher Quality's Ratings of Teacher Preparation Programs 
and Measures of Teacher Performance.
    \34\ Mihaly, K., McCaffrey, D., Staiger, D., & Lockwood, J. 
(2013, January 8). A Composite Estimator of Effective Teaching.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Teacher preparation programs may well only account for some of the 
variation in student learning outcomes. However, this does not absolve 
programs from being accountable for the extent to which their graduates 
positively impact student achievement. Thus, while the regulations are 
not intended to address the entire scope of student achievement or all 
factors that contribute to student learning outcomes, the regulations 
focus on student learning outcomes as an indicator of whether or not 
the program is performing properly. In doing so, one would expect that, 
through a greater focus on their student learning outcomes, States and 
teacher preparation programs will thereby have the benefit of some 
basic data about where their work to provide all students with academic 
content knowledge and teaching skills need to improve.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Other commenters stated that there are many additional 
factors that can impact student learning outcomes that were not taken 
into account in the proposed regulations; that teacher evaluation is 
incomplete without taking into account the context in which teachers 
work on a daily basis; and that VAM only account for some contextual 
factors. Commenters stated that any proposed policies to directly link 
student test scores to teacher evaluation and teacher preparation 
programs must recognize that schools and classrooms are situated in a 
broader socioeconomic context.
    Commenters pointed out that not all graduates from a specific 
institution or program will be teaching in similar school contexts and 
that many factors influencing student achievement cannot be controlled 
for between testing intervals. Commenters also cited other contributing 
factors to test results that are not in a teacher's control, including 
poverty and poverty-related stress; inadequate access to health care; 
food insecurity; the student's development, family, home life, and 
community; the student's background knowledge; the available resources 
in the school district and classroom; school leadership, school 
curriculum, students not taking testing situations seriously; and 
school working conditions. Commenters also noted that students are not 
randomly placed into classrooms or schools, and are often grouped by 
socioeconomic class, and linguistic segregation, which influences test 
results.
    Discussion: Many commenters described unmeasured or poorly measured 
student and classroom characteristics that might bias the measurement 
of student outcomes and noted that students are not randomly assigned 
to teachers. These are valid concerns and many of the factors stated 
are correlated with student performance.
    However, teacher preparation programs should prepare novice 
teachers to be effective and successful in all classroom environments, 
including in high-need schools. It is for this reason, as well as to 
encourage States to highlight successes in these areas, that we include 
as indicators of academic content knowledge and teaching skills, 
placement and retention rates in high-need schools.
    In addition, States and school districts can control for different 
kinds of student and classroom characteristics in the ways in which 
they determine student learning outcomes (and student growth). States 
can, for example, control for school level characteristics like the 
concentration of low-income students in the school and in doing so 
compare teachers who teach in similar schools. Evidence cited below 
that student growth, as measured by well-designed statistical models, 
captures the causal effects of teachers on their students also suggests 
that measures of student growth can successfully mitigate much of 
potential bias, and supports the conclusion that non-random sorting of 
students into classrooms does not cause substantial bias in student 
learning outcomes. We stress, however, the decision to use such 
controls and other statistical measures to control for student and 
school characteristics in calculating student learning outcomes is up 
to States in consultation with their stakeholder groups.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Commenters contended that although the proposed 
regulations offer States the option of using a teacher evaluation 
measure in lieu of, or in addition to, a student growth measure, this 
option does not provide a real alternative because it also requires 
that

[[Page 75556]]

the three performance levels in the teacher evaluation measure include, 
as a significant factor, data on student growth, and student growth 
relies on student test scores. Also, while the regulations provide that 
evaluations need not rely on VAM, commenters suggested that VAM will 
drive teacher effectiveness determinations because student learning is 
assessed either through student growth (which includes the use of VAM) 
or teacher evaluation (which is based in large part on student growth), 
so there really is no realistic option besides VAM. Commenters also 
stated that VAM requirements in Race to the Top and ESEA flexibility, 
along with State-level legislative action, create a context in which 
districts are compelled to use VAM.
    A large number of commenters stated that research points to the 
challenges and ineffectiveness of using VAM to evaluate both teachers 
and teacher preparation programs, and asserted that the data collected 
will be neither meaningful nor useful. Commenters also stated that use 
of VAM for decision-making in education has been discredited by leading 
academic and professional organizations such as the American 
Statistical Association (ASA) \35\, the American Educational Research 
Association, and the National Academy of Education.36 37 
Commenters provided research in support of their arguments, asserting 
in particular ASA's contention that VAM do not meet professional 
standards for validity and reliability when applied to teacher 
preparation programs. Commenters voiced concerns that VAM typically 
measure correlation and not causation, often citing the ASA's 
assertions. Commenters also contended that student outcomes have not 
been shown to be correlated with, much less predictive of, good 
teaching; VAM scores and rankings can change substantially when a 
different model or test is used, and variation among teachers accounts 
for a small part of the variation in student test scores. One commenter 
stated that student learning outcomes are not data but target skills 
and therefore the Department incorrectly defined ``student learning 
outcomes.'' We interpret this comment to mean that tests that may form 
the base of student growth only measure certain skills rather than 
longer term student outcomes.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \35\ American Statistical Association. (2014). ASA Statement on 
Using Value-Added Models for Educational Assessment: www.amstat.org/policy/pdfs/ASA_VAM_Statement.pdf.
    \36\ American Education Research Association (AERA) and National 
Academy of Education. (2011).Getting teacher evaluation right: A 
brief for policymakers. Washington, DC: AERA.
    \37\ Feuer, M. J., Floden, R. E., Chudowsky, N., & Ahn, J. 
(2013). Evaluation of Teacher Preparation Programs: Purposes, 
Methods, and Policy Options. Washington, DC: National Academy of 
Education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Many commenters also noted that value-added models of student 
achievement are developed and normed to test student achievement, not 
to evaluate educators, so using these models to evaluate educators is 
invalid because the tests have not been validated for that purpose. 
Commenters further noted that value-added models of student achievement 
tied to individual teachers should not be used for high-stakes, 
individual-level decisions or comparisons across highly dissimilar 
schools or student populations.
    Commenters stated that in psychometric terms, VAM are not reliable. 
They contended that it is a well-established principle that reliability 
is a necessary but not sufficient condition for validity. If judgments 
about a teacher preparation program vary based on the method of 
estimating value-added scores, inferences made about programs cannot be 
trusted.
    Others noted Edward Haertel's \38\ conclusion that no statistical 
manipulation can assure fair comparisons of teachers working in very 
different schools, with very different students, under very different 
conditions. Commenters also noted Bruce Baker's conclusions that even a 
20 percent weight to VAM scores can skew results too much. Thus, 
according to the commenters, though the proposed regulations permit 
States to define what is ``significant'' for the purposes of using 
student learning outcomes ``in significant part,'' unreliable and 
invalid VAM scores end up with at least a 20 percent weight in teacher 
evaluations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \38\ Haertel, E. 2013. Reliability and Validity on Inferences 
about Teachers Based on Student Test Scores. The 14th William H. 
Angoff Memorial Lecture, March 22. Princeton, NJ: Educational 
Testing Service. Retrieved from www.ets.org/Media/Research/pdf/PICANG14.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discussion: The proposed definition of teacher evaluation measure 
in Sec.  612.2 did provide that student growth be considered in 
significant part, but we have removed that aspect of the definition of 
teacher evaluation measure from the final regulations. Moreover, we 
agree that use of such an evaluation system may have been required, for 
example, in order for a State to receive ESEA flexibility, and States 
may still choose to consider student growth in significant part in a 
teacher evaluation measure. However, not only are States not required 
to include growth ``in significant part'' in a teacher evaluation 
measure used for student learning outcomes, but Sec.  612.5(a)(1)(ii) 
clarifies that States may choose to measure student learning outcomes 
without using student growth at all.
    On the use of VAM specifically, we reiterate that the regulations 
permit multiple ways of measuring student learning outcomes without use 
of VAM; if they use student growth, States are not required to use VAM. 
We note also that use of VAM was not a requirement of Race to the Top, 
nor was it a requirement of ESEA Flexibility, although many States that 
received Race to the Top funds or ESEA flexibility committed to using 
statistical models of student growth based on test scores. We also 
stress that in the context of these regulations, a State that chooses 
to use VAM and other statistical measures of student growth would use 
them to help assess the performance of teacher preparation programs as 
a whole. Neither the proposed nor final regulations address, as many 
commenters stated, how or whether a State or district might use the 
results of a statistical model for individual teachers' evaluations and 
any resulting personnel actions.
    Many States and districts currently use a variety of statistical 
methods in teacher, principal, and school evaluation, as well as in 
State accountability systems. VAM are one such way of measuring student 
learning outcomes that are used by many States and districts for these 
accountability purposes. While we stress that the regulations do not 
require or anticipate the use of VAM to calculate student learning 
outcomes or teacher evaluation measures, we offer the following summary 
of VAM in view of the significant amount of comments the Department 
received on the subject.
    VAM are statistical methodologies developed by researchers to 
estimate a teacher's unique contribution to growth in student 
achievement, and are used in teacher evaluation and evaluation of 
teacher preparation programs. Several experimental and quasi-
experimental studies conducted in a variety of districts have found 
that VAM scores can measure the causal impact teachers have on student 
learning.\39\ There is also

[[Page 75557]]

strong evidence that VAM measure more than a teacher's ability to 
improve test scores; a recent paper found that teachers with higher VAM 
scores improved long term student outcomes such as earnings and college 
enrollment.\40\ While tests often measure specific skills, these long-
term effects show that measures of student growth are, in fact, 
measuring a teacher's effect on student outcomes rather than simple, 
rote memorization, test preparation on certain target skills, or a 
teacher's performance based solely on one specific student test. VAM 
have also been shown to consistently measure teacher quality over time 
and across different kinds of schools. A well-executed, randomized 
controlled trial found that, after the second year, elementary school 
students taught by teachers with high VAM scores who were induced to 
transfer to low-performing schools had higher reading and mathematics 
scores than students taught by comparison teachers in the same kinds of 
schools.\41\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \39\ For example: Kane, T., & Staiger, D. (2008). Estimating 
teacher impacts on student achievement: An experimental evaluation. 
doi:10.3386/w14607;; Kane, T., McCaffrey, D., Miller, T., & Staiger, 
D. (2013). Have We Identified Effective Teachers? Validating 
Measures of Effective Teaching Using Random Assignment; Bacher-
Hicks, A., Kane, T., & Staiger, D.(2014). Validating Teacher Effect 
Estimates Using Changes in Teacher Assignment in Los Angeles 
(Working Paper No. 20657). Retrieved from National Bureau of 
Economic Research Web Web site: www.nber.org/papers/w20657; Chetty, 
et al. at 2633-2679 and 2593-2632.
    \40\ Chetty, et al at 2633-2679.
    \41\ Glazerman, S., Protik, A., Teh, B., Bruch, J., & Max, J. 
(2013). Transfer incentives for high-performing teachers: Final 
results from a multisite randomized experiment (NCEE 2014-4003). 
Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation and 
Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. 
Department of Education. http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED544269.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department therefore disagrees with commenters who state that 
the efficacy of VAM is not grounded in sound research. We believe that 
VAM is commonly used as a component in many teacher evaluation systems 
precisely because the method minimizes the influence of observable 
factors independent of the teacher that might affect student 
achievement growth, like student poverty levels and prior levels of 
achievement.
    Several commenters raised important points to consider with using 
VAM for teacher evaluation. Many cited the April 8, 2014, ``ASA 
Statement on Using Value-Added Models for Educational Assessment'' 
cited in the summary of comment, that makes several reasonable 
recommendations regarding the use of VAM, including its endorsement of 
wise use of data, statistical models, and designed experiments for 
improving the quality of education. We believe that the definitions of 
``student learning outcomes'' and ``student growth'' in the 
regulations, is fully compatible with valid and reliable ways of 
including VAM to assess the impact of teachers on student academic 
growth. Therefore, States that chose to use VAM to generate student 
learning outcomes would have the means to do what the ASA study 
recommends: Use data and statistical models to improve the quality of 
their teacher preparation programs. The ASA also wisely cautions that 
VAMs are complex statistical models, necessitating high levels of 
statistical expertise to develop and run and should include estimates 
of the model's precision. These specific recommendations are entirely 
consistent with the regulations, and we encourage States to follow them 
when using VAM.
    We disagree, however, with the ASA and commenters' assertions that 
VAM typically measures correlation, not causation, and that VAM does 
not measure teacher contributions toward other student outcomes. These 
assertions contradict the evidence cited above that VAM does measure 
the causal effects of teachers on student achievement, and that 
teachers with high VAM scores also improve long-term student outcomes.
    The implication of the various studies we cited in this section is 
clear; not only can VAM identify teachers who improve short- and long-
term student outcomes, but VAM can play a substantial role in 
effective, useful teacher evaluation systems.
    However, as we have said, States do not need to use VAM to generate 
student learning outcomes. Working with their stakeholders States can, 
if they choose, establish other means of reporting a teacher 
preparation program's ``student learning outcomes'' that meet the basic 
standard in Sec.  612.5(a)(1).
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Two commenters suggested that the United States 
Government Accountability Office (GAO) do an analysis and suggest 
alternatives to VAM.
    Discussion: The Secretary of Education has no authority to direct 
GAO's work, so these comments are outside the Department's authority, 
and the scope of the regulations.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Several commenters opined that it is not fair to measure 
new teachers in the manner proposed in the regulations because it takes 
new teachers three to five years to become good at their craft. Other 
commenters mentioned that value-added scores cannot be generated until 
at least two years after a teacher candidate has graduated.
    Discussion: We recognize the importance of experience in a 
teacher's development. However, while teachers can be expected to 
improve in effectiveness throughout their first few years in the 
classroom, under Sec.  612.5(a)(1)) a State is not using student 
learning outcomes to measure or predict the future or long-term 
performance of any individual teacher. It is using student learning 
outcomes to measure the performance of the teacher preparation program 
that the novice teacher completed--performance that, in part, should be 
measured in terms of a novice teacher's ability to achieve positive 
student learning outcomes in the first year the teacher begins to 
teach.
    We note, however, that there is strong evidence that early career 
performance is a significant predictor of future performance. Two 
studies have found that growth scores in the first two years of a 
teacher's career, as measured by VAM, better predict future performance 
than measured teacher characteristics that are generally available to 
districts, such as a teacher's pathway into teaching, available 
credentialing scores and SAT scores, and competitiveness of 
undergraduate institution.\42\ Given that early career performance is a 
good predictor of future performance, it is reasonable to use early 
career results of the graduates of teacher preparation programs as an 
indicator of the performance of those programs. These studies also 
demonstrate that VAM scores can be calculated for first-year teachers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \42\ Atteberry, A., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2015). Do first 
impressions matter? Improvement in early career teacher 
effectiveness. American Educational Research Association (AERA) 
Open.; Goldhaber, D., & Hansen, M. (2010). Assessing the Potential 
of Using Value-Added Estimates of Teacher Job Performance for Making 
Tenure Decisions. Working Paper 31. National Center for Analysis of 
Longitudinal Data in Education Research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Moreover, even if States choose not to use VAM results as student 
growth measures, the function of teacher preparation programs is to 
train teachers to be ready to teach when they enter the classroom. We 
believe student learning outcomes should be measured early in a 
teacher's career, when the impact of their preparation is likely to be 
the strongest. However, while we urge States to give significant weight 
to their student outcome measures across the board, the regulations 
leave to each State how to weight the indicators of academic content 
knowledge and teaching skills for novice teachers in their first and 
other years of teaching.
    Changes: None.
Differences Between Accountability and Improvement
    Comments: Commenters stated that the Department is confusing 
accountability with improvement by requiring data on and accountability 
of programs. Several commenters

[[Page 75558]]

remarked that VAM will not guarantee continuous program improvement.
    Discussion: The regulations require States to use the indicators of 
academic content knowledge and teaching skills identified in Sec.  
612.5(a), which may include VAM if a State chooses, to determine the 
performance level of each teacher preparation program, to report the 
data generated for each program, and to provide a list of which 
programs the State considers to be low-performing or at-risk of being 
low-performing. In addition, reporting the data the State uses to 
measure student learning outcomes will help States, IHEs, and other 
entities with teacher preparation programs to determine where their 
program graduates (or program participants in the case of alternative 
route to teaching programs) are or are not succeeding in increasing 
student achievement. No information available to those operating 
teacher preparation programs, whether from VAM or another source, can, 
on its own, ensure the programs' continuous improvement. However, those 
operating teacher preparation programs can use data on a program's 
student learning outcomes--along with data from employment outcomes, 
survey outcomes, and characteristics of the program--to identify key 
areas for improvement and focus their efforts. In addition, the 
availability of these data will provide States with key information in 
deciding what technical assistance to provide to these programs.
    Changes: None.
Consistency
    Comments: One commenter noted the lack of consistency in 
assessments at the State level, which we understand to be assessments 
of students across LEAs within the same State, will make the 
regulations almost impossible to operationalize. Another commenter 
noted that the comparisons will be invalid, unreliable, and inherently 
biased in favor of providers that enjoy State sponsorship and are most 
likely to receive favorable treatment under a State-sponsored 
assessment schema (which we understand to mean ``scheme''). Until there 
is a common State assessment which we understand to mean common 
assessment of students across States, the commenter argued that any 
evaluation of teachers using student progress and growth will be 
variable at best.
    Discussion: We first note that, regardless of the assessments a 
State uses to calculate student learning outcomes, the definition of 
student growth in Sec.  612.2 requires that such assessments be 
comparable across schools and consistent with State policies. While 
comparability across LEAs is not an issue for assessments administered 
pursuant to section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA--which are other assessments 
used by the State for purposes of calculating student growth may not be 
identical, but are required to be comparable. As such, we do not 
believe that LEA-to-LEA or school-to-school variation in the particular 
assessments that are administered should inherently bias the 
calculation of student learning outcomes across teacher preparation 
programs.
    Regarding comparability across States in the assessments 
administered to students, nothing in this regulation requires such 
comparability and, we believe such a requirement would infringe upon 
the discretion States have historically been provided under the ESEA in 
determining State standards, assessments, and curricula.
    We understand the other comment to question the validity of 
comparisons of teacher preparation program ratings, as reported in the 
SRC. We continue to stress that the data regarding program performance 
reported in the SRCs and required by the regulations do not create, or 
intend to promote, any in-State or inter-State ranking system. Rather, 
we anticipate that States will use reported data to evaluate program 
performance based on State-specific weighting.
    Changes: None.
Special Populations and Untested Subjects
    Comments: Two commenters stated that VAMs will have an unfair 
impact on special education programs. Another commenter stated that for 
certain subjects, such as music education, it is difficult for students 
to demonstrate growth.
    One commenter stated that there are validity issues with using 
tests to measure the skills of deaf children since standardized tests 
are based on hearing norms and may not be applicable to deaf children. 
Another commenter noted that deaf and hard-of-hearing K-12 students 
almost always fall below expected grade level standards, impacting 
student growth and, as a result, teacher preparation program ratings 
under our proposed regulations. In a similar vein, one commenter 
expressed concern that teacher preparation programs that prepare 
teachers of English learners may be unfairly branded as low-performing 
or at-risk because the students are forced to conform to tests that are 
neither valid nor reliable for them.
    Discussion: The Department is very sensitive to the different 
teaching and learning experiences associated with students with 
disabilities (including deaf and hard-of-hearing students) and English 
learners, and encourages States to use student learning outcome 
measures that allow teachers to demonstrate positive impact on student 
learning outcomes regardless of the prior achievement or other 
characteristics of students in their classroom. Where States use the 
results of assessments or other tests for student learning outcomes, 
such measures must also conform to appropriate testing accommodations 
provided to students that allow them to demonstrate content mastery 
instead of reflecting specific disabilities or language barriers.
    We expect that these measures of student learning outcomes and 
other indicators used in State systems under this regulation will be 
developed in consultation with key stakeholders (see Sec.  612.4(c)), 
and be based on measures of achievement that conform to student 
learning outcomes as described in in Sec.  612.5(a)(1)(ii).
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Several commenters cited a study \43\ stating unintended 
consequences associated with the high-stakes use of VAM, which emerged 
through teachers' responses. Commenters stated that the study revealed, 
among other things, that teachers felt heightened pressure and 
competition. This reduced morale and collaboration, and encouraged 
cheating or teaching to the test.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \43\ Collins, C (2014). Houston, we have a problem: Teachers 
find no value in the SAS education value-added assessment system 
(EVAAS[supreg]), Education Policy Analysis Archives, 22(98).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Some commenters stated that by, in effect, telling teacher 
preparation programs that their graduates should engage in behaviors 
that lift the test scores of their students, the likely main effect 
will be classrooms that are more directly committed to test preparation 
(and to what the psychometric community calls score inflation) than to 
advancement of a comprehensive education.
    Discussion: The Department is sensitive to issues of pressure on 
teachers to artificially raise student assessment scores, and 
perceptions of some teachers that this emphasis on testing reduces 
teacher morale and collaboration. However, States and LEAs have 
responsibility to ensure that test data are monitored for cheating and 
other forms of manipulation, and we have no reason to believe that the 
regulations will increase these incidents. With regard to reducing 
teacher morale and collaboration, value-

[[Page 75559]]

added scores are typically calculated statewide for all teachers in a 
common grade and subject. Because teachers are compared to all 
similarly situated teachers statewide, it is very unlikely that a 
teacher could affect her own score by refusing to collaborate with 
other teachers in a single school. We encourage teachers to collaborate 
across grades, subjects, and schools to improve their practice, but 
also stress that the regulations use student learning outcomes only to 
help assess the performance of teacher preparation programs. Under the 
regulations, where a State does not use student growth or teacher 
evaluation data already gathered for purposes of an LEA educator 
evaluation, data related to student learning outcomes is only used to 
help assess the quality of teacher preparation programs, and not the 
quality of individual teachers.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Commenters were concerned that the regulations will not 
benefit high-need schools and communities because the indicator for 
student learning outcomes creates a disincentive for programs to place 
teachers in high-need schools and certain high-need fields, such as 
English as a Second Language. In particular, commenters expressed 
concern about the requirements that student learning outcomes be given 
significant weight and that a program have satisfactory or higher 
student learning outcomes in order to be considered effective. 
Commenters expressed particular concern in these areas with regard to 
Historically Black Colleges and Universities and other programs whose 
graduates, the commenters stated, are more likely to work in high-need 
schools.
    Commenters opined that, to avoid unfavorable outcomes, teacher 
preparation programs will seek to place their graduates in higher-
performing schools. Rather than encouraging stronger partnerships, 
commenters expressed concern that programs will abandon efforts to 
place graduates in low-performing schools. Others were concerned that 
teachers will self-select out of high-need schools, and a few 
commenters noted that high-performing schools will continue to have the 
most resources while teacher shortages in high-need schools, such as 
those in Native American communities, will be exacerbated.
    Some commenters stated that it was unfair to assess a teacher 
preparation program based on, as we interpret the comment, the student 
learning outcomes of the novice teachers produced by the program 
because the students taught by novice teachers may also receive 
instruction from other teachers who may have more than three years of 
experience teaching.
    Discussion: As we have already noted, under the final regulations, 
States are not required to apply special weight to any of the 
indicators of academic content knowledge and teaching skills. Because 
of their special importance to the purpose of teacher preparation 
programs, we strongly encourage, but do not require, States to include 
employment outcomes for high-need schools and student learning outcomes 
in significant part when assessing teacher preparation program 
performance. We also encourage, but do not require, States to identify 
the quality of a teacher preparation program as effective or higher if 
the State determined that the program's graduates produce student 
learning outcomes that are satisfactory or higher.
    For the purposes of the regulations, student learning outcomes may 
be calculated using student growth. Because growth measures the change 
in student achievement between two or more points in time, the prior 
achievement of students is taken into account. Teacher preparation 
programs may thus be assessed, in part, based on their recent 
graduates' efforts to increase student growth, not on whether the 
teachers' classrooms contained students who started as high or low 
achieving. For this reason, teachers--regardless of the academic 
achievement level of the students they teach--have the same opportunity 
to positively impact student growth. Likewise, teacher preparation 
programs that place students in high-need schools have the same 
opportunity to achieve satisfactory or higher student learning 
outcomes. These regulations take into account the commenters' concerns 
related to teacher equity as placement and retention in high-need 
schools are required metrics.
    We recognize that many factors influence student achievement. 
Commenters who note that students taught by novice teachers may also 
receive instruction from other teachers who may have more than three 
years of experience teaching cite but one factor. But the objective in 
having States use student growth as an indicator of the performance of 
a teacher preparation program is not to finely calculate how novice 
teachers impact student growth. As we have said, it rather is to have 
the State determine whether a program's student learning outcomes are 
so far from the mark as to be an indicator of poor program performance.
    For these reasons, we disagree with commenters that the student 
learning outcomes measure will discourage preparation programs and 
teachers from serving high-need schools. We therefore decline to make 
changes to the regulations.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Commenters expressed concern with labeling programs as 
low-performing if student data are not made available about such 
programs. The commenters stated that this may lead to identifying high-
quality programs as low-performing. They were also concerned about 
transparency, and noted that it would be unfair to label any program 
without actual information on how that label was earned.
    Discussion: We interpret the commenters' concern to be that States 
may not be able to report on student learning outcomes for particular 
teacher preparation programs because districts do not provide data on 
student learning outcomes, and yet still identify programs as low 
performing. In response, we clarify that the State is responsible for 
securing the information needed to report on each program's student 
learning outcomes. Given the public interest in program performance and 
the interest of school districts in having better information about the 
programs in which prospective employees have received their training, 
we are confident that each State can influence its school districts to 
get maximum cooperation in providing needed data.
    Alternatively, to the extent that the commenter was referring to 
difficulties obtaining data for student learning outcomes (or other of 
our indicators of academic content and teaching skills) because of the 
small size of the teacher preparation programs, Sec.  612.4(b)(3)(ii) 
provides different options for aggregation of data so the State can 
provide these programs with appropriate performance ratings. In this 
case, except for teacher preparation programs that are so small that 
even these aggregation methods will not permit the State to identify a 
performance level (see Sec.  612.4(b)(3)(ii)(D) and Sec.  612.4(b)(5)), 
all programs will have data on student learning outcomes with which to 
determine the program's level of performance.
    Changes: None.
State and Local Concerns
    Comments: Several commenters expressed concerns about their 
specific State laws regarding data collection as they affect data 
needed for student learning outcomes. Other commenters noted that some 
States have specific laws preventing aggregated student

[[Page 75560]]

achievement data from being reported for individual teachers. One 
commenter said that its State did not require annual teacher 
evaluations. Some commenters indicated that State standards should be 
nationally coordinated.
    One commenter asked the Department to confirm that the commenters' 
State's ESEA flexibility waiver would meet the student learning outcome 
requirements for both tested and non-tested grades and subjects, and if 
so, given the difficulty and cost, whether the State would still be 
required to report disaggregated data on student growth in assessment 
test scores for individual teachers, programs, or entities in the SRC. 
Commenters also noted that LEAs could be especially burdened, with no 
corresponding State or Federal authority to compel LEA compliance. A 
commenter stated that in one city most teachers have 20 to 40 percent 
of their evaluations based on tests in subjects they do not teach.
    Commenters urged that States be given flexibility in determining 
the components of data collection and reporting systems with minimal 
common elements. This would, as commenters indicated, ultimately delay 
the State's ability to make valid and reliable determinations of 
teacher preparation program quality. Some commenters stated that States 
should be required to use student learning outcomes as a factor in 
performance designations, but allow each State to determine how best to 
incorporate these outcomes into accountability systems.
    Commenters noted that a plan for creating or implementing a measure 
of student achievement in content areas for which States do not have 
valid statewide achievement data was not proposed, nor was a plan 
proposed to pilot or fund such standardized measures.
    Discussion: We agree and understand that some States may have to 
make changes (including legislative, regulatory, budgetary, etc.) in 
order to comply with the regulations. We have allowed time for these 
activities to take place, if necessary, by providing time for data 
system set-up and piloting before full State reporting is required as 
of October 31, 2019. We note that Sec.  612.4(b)(4)(ii)(E) of the 
proposed regulations and Sec.  612.4(b)(5)) of the final regulations 
expressly exempt reporting of data where doing so would violate Federal 
or State privacy laws or regulations. We also provide in Sec.  
612.4(c)(2) that States must periodically examine the quality of the 
data collection and make adjustments as necessary. So if problems 
arise, States need to work on ways to resolve them.
    Regarding the suggestion that State standards for student learning 
outcomes should be nationally coordinated, States are free to 
coordinate. But how each State assesses a program's performance is a 
State decision; the HEA does not otherwise provide for such national 
coordination.
    With respect to the comment asking whether a State's ESEA 
flexibility waiver would meet the student learning outcomes requirement 
for both tested and non-tested grades and subjects, this issue is 
likely no longer relevant since the enactment of the ESSA will make 
ESEA flexibility waivers null and void on August 1, 2016. However, in 
response to the commenters' question, so long as the State is 
implementing the evaluation systems as they committed to do in order to 
receive ESEA flexibility, the data it uses for student learning 
outcomes would most likely represent an acceptable way, among other 
ways, to comply with the title II reporting requirements.
    We understand the comment, that LEAs would be especially burdened 
with no corresponding State or Federal authority to compel LEA 
compliance, to refer to LEA financial costs. It is unclear that LEAs 
would be so burdened. We believe that our cost estimates, as revised to 
respond to public comment, are accurate. Therefore, we also believe 
that States, LEAs, and IHEs will be able meet responsibilities under 
this reporting system without need for new funding sources. We discuss 
authorities related to LEA compliance in the discussion under Sec.  
612.1.
    Regarding specific reporting recommendations for State flexibility 
in use of student learning outcomes, State must use the indicators of 
academic content knowledge and teaching skills identified in Sec.  
612.5(a). However, States otherwise determine for themselves how to use 
these indicators and other indicators and criteria they may establish 
to assess a program's performance. In identifying the performance level 
of each program, States also determine the weighting of all indicators 
and criteria they use to assess program performance.
    Finally, we understand that all States are working to implement 
their responsibilities to provide results of student assessments for 
grades and subjects in which assessments are required under section 
1111(b)(2) of the ESEA, as amended by ESSA. With respect to the comment 
that the Department did not propose a plan for creating or implementing 
a measure of student achievement in content areas for which States do 
not have valid statewide achievement data, the regulations give States 
substantial flexibility in how they measure student achievement. 
Moreover, we do not agree that time to pilot such new assessments or 
growth calculations, or more Federal funding in this area, is needed.
    Changes: None.
Permitted Exclusions From Calculation of Student Learning Outcomes
    Comments: None.
    Discussion: In proposing use of student learning outcomes for 
assessing a teacher preparation program's performance, we had intended 
that States be able, in their discretion, to exclude student learning 
outcomes associated with recent graduates who take teaching positions 
out of State or in private schools--just as the proposed regulations 
would have permitted States to do in calculating employment outcomes. 
Our discussion of costs associated with implementation of student 
learning outcomes in the NPRM (79 FR 71879) noted the proposed 
regulations permitted the exclusion for teachers teaching out of State. 
And respectful of the autonomy accorded to private schools, we never 
intended that States be required to obtain data on student learning 
outcomes regarding recent graduates teaching in those schools.
    However, upon review of the definitions of the terms ``student 
achievement in non-tested grades and subjects,'' ``student achievement 
in tested grades and subjects,'' and ``teacher evaluation measure'' in 
proposed Sec.  612.2, we realized that these definitions did not 
clearly authorize States to exclude student learning outcomes 
associated with these teachers from their calculation of a teacher 
preparation program's aggregate student learning outcomes. Therefore, 
we have revised Sec.  612.5(a)(1) to include authority for the State to 
exclude data on student learning outcomes for students of novice 
teachers teaching out of State or in private schools from its 
calculation of a teacher preparation program's student learning 
outcomes. In doing so, as with the definitions of teacher placement 
rate and teacher retention rate, we have included in the regulations a 
requirement that the State use a consistent approach with regard to 
omitting or using these data in assessing and reporting on all teacher 
preparation programs.
    Changes: We have revised section 612.5(a)(1) to provide that in 
calculating a teacher preparation program's aggregate student learning 
outcomes, at its discretion a State may exclude student learning 
outcomes of students taught by novice teachers teaching out

[[Page 75561]]

of State or in private schools, or both, provided that the State uses a 
consistent approach to assess and report on all of the teacher 
preparation programs in the State.
Employment Outcomes (34 CFR 612.5(a)(2))
Measures of Employment Outcomes
    Comments: Many commenters suggested revisions to the definition of 
``employment outcomes.'' Some commenters mentioned that the four 
measures included in the definition (placement rates, high-need school 
placement rates, retention rates, and high-need school retention rates) 
are not appropriate measures of a program's success in preparing 
teachers. One commenter recommended that high-need school placement 
rates not be included as a required program measure, and that instead 
the Department allow States to use it at their discretion. Other 
commenters recommended including placement and retention data for 
preschool teachers in States where their statewide preschool program 
postsecondary training and certification is required, and the State 
licenses those educators.
    Discussion: For several reasons, we disagree with commenters that 
the employment outcome measures are inappropriate measures of teacher 
preparation program quality. The goals of any teacher preparation 
program should be to provide prospective teachers with the skills and 
knowledge needed to pursue a teaching career, remain successfully 
employed as a teacher, and in doing so produce teachers who meet the 
needs of LEAs and their students. Therefore, the rate at which a 
program's graduates become and remain employed as teachers is a 
critical indicator of program quality.
    In addition, programs that persistently produce teachers who fail 
to find jobs, or, once teaching, fail to remain employed as teachers, 
may well not be providing the level of academic content knowledge and 
teaching skills that novice teachers need to succeed in the classroom. 
Working with their stakeholders (see Sec.  612.4(c)), each State will 
determine the point at which the reported employment outcomes for a 
program go from the acceptable to the unacceptable, the latter 
indicating a problem with the quality of the program. We fully believe 
that these outcomes reflect another reasonable way to define an 
indicator of academic content knowledge and teaching skills, and that 
unacceptable employment outcomes show something is wrong with the 
quality of preparation the teaching candidates have received.
    Further, we believe that given the need for teacher preparation 
programs to produce teachers who are prepared to address the needs of 
students in high-need schools, it is reasonable and appropriate that 
indicators of academic content and teaching skills used to help assess 
a program's performance focus particular attention on teachers in those 
schools. Therefore, we do not believe that States should have the 
option to include teacher placement rates (and teacher retention rates) 
for high-need schools in their SRCs.
    We agree with commenters that, in States where postsecondary 
training and certification is required, and the State licenses those 
teachers, data on the placement and retention of preschool teachers 
should be reported. We strongly encourage States to report this 
information. However, we decline to require that they do so because 
pre-kindergarten licensure and teacher evaluation requirements vary 
significantly between States and among settings, and given these State 
and local differences in approach we believe that it is important to 
leave the determination of whether and how to include preschool 
teachers in this measure to the States.
    Changes: None.
Teacher Placement Rate
    Comments: One commenter recommended that the teacher placement rate 
account for ``congruency,'' which we interpret to mean whether novice 
teachers are teaching in the grade level, grade span, and subject area 
in which they were prepared. The commenter noted that teacher 
preparation programs that are placing teachers in out-of-field 
positions are not aligning with districts' staffing needs. In addition, 
we understand the commenter was noting that procedures LEAs use for 
filling vacancies with teachers from alternative route programs need to 
acknowledge the congruency issue and build in a mechanism to remediate 
it.
    Discussion: We agree that teachers should be placed in a position 
for which they have content knowledge and are prepared. For this 
reason, the proposed and final regulations define ``teacher placement 
rate'' as the percentage of recent graduates who have become novice 
teachers (regardless of retention) for the grade level, grade span, and 
subject area in which they were prepared, except, as discussed in the 
section titled ``Alternative Route Programs,'' we have revised the 
regulations to provide that a State is not required to calculate a 
teacher placement rate for alternative route to certification programs. 
While we do not agree that teacher preparation programs typically place 
teachers in their teaching positions, programs that do not work to 
ensure that novice teachers obtain employment as teachers in a grade 
level, span, or subject area that is the same as that or which they 
were prepared will likely fare relatively poorly on the placement rate 
measure.
    We disagree with the commenter's suggestion that alternative route 
program participants are teaching in out-of-field positions. Employment 
as a teacher is generally a prerequisite to entry into alternative 
route programs, and the alternative route program participants are 
being prepared for an initial certification or licensure in the field 
in which they are teaching. We do not know of evidence to suggest that 
most participants in alternative route programs become teachers of 
record without first having demonstrated adequate subject-matter 
content knowledge in the subjects they teach.
    Nonetheless, traditional route programs and alternative route 
programs recruit from different groups of prospective teachers and have 
different characteristics. It is for this reason that, both in our 
proposed and final regulations, States are permitted to assess the 
employment outcomes of traditional route programs versus alternative 
route programs differently, provided that the different assessments 
result in equivalent standards of accountability and reporting.
    Changes: None.
Teacher Retention Rate
    Comments: Many commenters expressed concern that the teacher 
retention rate measure does not consider other factors that influence 
retention, including induction programs, the support novice teachers 
receive in the classroom, and the districts' resources. Other 
commenters suggested requiring each State to demand from its accredited 
programs a 65 percent retention rate after five years.
    Some commenters also expressed concern about how the retention rate 
measure will be used to assess performance during the first few years 
of implementation. They stated that it would be unfair to rate teacher 
preparation programs without complete information on retention rates.
    Discussion: We acknowledge that retention rates are affected by 
factors outside the teacher preparation program's control. However, we 
believe that a teacher retention rate that is extraordinarily low, just 
as one that is

[[Page 75562]]

extraordinarily high, is an important indicator of the degree to which 
a teacher preparation program adequately prepares teachers to teach in 
the schools that hire them and thus is a useful and appropriate 
indicator of academic content knowledge and teaching skills that the 
State would use to assess the program's performance. The regulations 
leave to the States, in consultation with their stakeholders (see Sec.  
612.4(c)) the determination about how they calculate and then weight a 
program's retention rate. While we agree that programs should strive 
for high retention rates, and encourage States to set rigorous 
performance goals for their programs, we do not believe that the 
Department should set a specific desired rate for this indicator. 
Rather, we believe the States are best suited to determine how to 
implement and weight this measure. However, we retain the proposal to 
have the retention rate apply over the first three years of teaching 
both because we believe that having novice teachers remain in teaching 
for the first three years is key, and because having States continue to 
generate data five years out as the commenter recommended is 
unnecessarily burdensome.
    We understand that, during the initial years of implementation, 
States will not have complete data on retention. We expect that States 
will weigh indicators for which data are unavailable during these 
initial implementation years in a way that is consistent and applies 
equivalent levels of accountability across programs. For further 
discussion of the reporting cycle and implementation timeline, see 
Sec.  612.4(a). We also note that, as we explain in our response to 
comments on the definition of ``teacher retention rate'', under the 
final regulations States will report on teachers who remain in the 
profession in the first three consecutive years after placement.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Commenters expressed concern that the categories of 
teachers who can be excluded from the ``teacher placement rate'' 
calculation are different from those who can be excluded from the 
``teacher retention rate'' calculation. Commenters believed this could 
unfairly affect the rating of teacher preparation programs.
    Discussion: We agree that differences in the categories of teachers 
who can be excluded from the ``teacher placement rate'' calculation and 
the ``teacher retention rate'' calculation should not result in an 
inaccurate portrayal of teacher preparation program performance on 
these measures. Under the proposed regulations, the categories of 
teachers who could be excluded from these calculations would have been 
the same with two exceptions: Novice teachers who are not retained 
specifically and directly due to budget cuts may be excluded from the 
calculation of teacher retention rate only, as may recent graduates who 
have taken teaching positions that do not require State certification. 
A teacher placement rate captures whether a recent graduate has ever 
become a novice teacher and therefore is reliant on initial placement 
as a teacher of record. Retention in a teaching position has no bearing 
on this initial placement, and therefore allowing States to exclude 
teachers from the placement rate who were not retained due to budget 
cuts would not be appropriate. Therefore, the option to exclude this 
category of teachers from the retention rate calculation does not 
create inconsistencies between these measures.
    However, permitting States to exclude from the teacher placement 
rate calculation, but not from the teacher retention rate calculation, 
recent graduates who have taken teaching positions that do not require 
State certification could create inconsistencies between the measures. 
Moreover, upon further review, we believe permitting the exclusion of 
this category of teachers from either calculation runs contrary to the 
purpose of the regulations, which is to assess the performance of 
programs that lead to an initial State teacher certification or 
licensure in a specific field. For these reasons, the option to exclude 
this category of teachers has been removed from the definition of 
``teacher placement rate'' in the final regulations (see Sec.  612.2). 
With this change, the differences between the categories of teachers 
that can be excluded from teacher placement rate and teacher retention 
rate will not unfairly impact the outcomes of these measures, so long 
as the State uses a consistent approach to assess and report on all 
programs in the State.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Commenters stated that this the teacher retention rate 
measure would reflect poorly on special education teachers, who have a 
high turnover rate, and on the programs that prepare them. They argued 
that, in response to the regulations, some institutions will reduce or 
eliminate their special education preparation programs rather than risk 
low ratings.
    Discussion: Novice special education teachers have chosen their 
area of specialization, and their teacher preparation programs trained 
them consistent with State requirements. The percentage of these 
teachers, like teachers trained in other areas, who leave their area of 
specialization within their first three years of teaching, or leave 
teaching completely, is too high on an aggregated national basis.
    We acknowledge that special education teachers face particular 
challenges, and that like other teachers, there are a variety of 
reasons--some dealing with the demands of their specialty, and some 
dealing with a desire for other responsibilities, or personal factors--
for novice special education teachers to decide to move to other 
professional areas. For example, some teachers with special education 
training, after initial employment, may choose to work in regular 
education classrooms, where many children with disabilities are taught 
consistent with the least restrictive environment provisions of the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act. Their specialized training 
can be of great benefit in the regular education setting.
    Under our regulations, States will determine how to apply the 
teacher retention indicator, and so determine in consultation with 
their stakeholders (see Sec.  612.4(c)) what levels of retention would 
be so unreasonably low (or so unexpectedly high) to reflect on the 
quality of the teacher preparation program. We believe this State 
flexibility will incorporate consideration of the programmatic quality 
of special education teacher preparation and the general circumstances 
of employment of these teachers. Special education teachers are 
teachers first and foremost, and we do not believe the programs that 
train special education teachers should be exempted from the State's 
overall calculations of their teacher retention rates. Demand for 
teachers trained in special education is expected to remain high, and 
given the flexibility States have to determine what is a reasonable 
retention rate for novice special education teachers, we do not believe 
that this indicator of program quality will result in a reduction of 
special education preparation programs.
    Changes: None.
Placement in High-Need Schools
    Comments: Many commenters noted that incentivizing the placement of 
novice teachers in high-need schools contradicts the ESEA requirement 
that States work against congregating novice teachers in high-need 
schools. The ``Excellent Educators for All'' \44\ initiative asks 
States to work to ensure

[[Page 75563]]

that high-need schools obtain and retain more experienced teachers. 
Commenters believed States would be challenged to meet the 
contradictory goals of the mandated rating system and the Department's 
other initiatives.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \44\ Equitable Access to Excellent Educators: State Plans to 
Ensure Equitable Access to Excellent Educators.(2014). Retrieved 
from http://www2.ed.gov/programs/titleiparta/resources.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Discussion: The required use of teacher placement and retention 
rates (i.e., our employment rate outcomes) are intended to provide data 
that confirm the extent to which those whom a teacher preparation 
program prepares go on to become novice teachers and remain in teaching 
for at least three years. Moreover, placement rates overall are 
particularly important, in that they provide a baseline context for 
evaluating a program's retention rates. Our employment outcomes include 
similar measures that focus on high-need schools because of the special 
responsibility of programs to meet the needs of those schools until 
such time as SEAs and LEAs truly have implemented their 
responsibilities under 1111(g)(1)(B) and 1112(b)(2) of the ESEA, as 
amended by ESSA, (corresponding to similar requirements in sections 
1111(b)(8)(C) and 1112(c)(1)(L) of the ESEA, as previously amended by 
NCLB) to take actions to ensure that low-income children and children 
of color are not taught at higher rates than other children by 
inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers.
    The Department required all States to submit State Plans to Ensure 
Equitable Access to Excellent Educations (Educator Equity Plans) to 
address this requirement, and we look forward to the time when 
employment outcomes that focus on high-need schools are unnecessary. 
However, it is much too early to remove employment indicators that 
focus on high-need schools. For this reason, we decline to accept the 
commenters' recommendation that we do so because of concern that these 
reporting requirements are inconsistent with those under the ESEA.
    We add that, just as States will establish the weights to these 
outcomes in assessing the level of program performance, States also may 
adjust their expectations for placement and retention rates for high-
need schools in order to support successful implementation of their 
State plans.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Many commenters expressed concern about placing novice 
teachers in high-need schools without additional support systems. 
Several other commenters stated that the proposed regulations would add 
to the problem of chronic turnover of the least experienced teachers in 
high-need schools.
    Discussion: We agree that high-need schools face special 
challenges, and that teachers who are placed in high-need schools need 
to be prepared for those challenges so that they have a positive impact 
on the achievement and growth of their students. By requiring 
transparency in reporting of employment outcomes through disaggregated 
information about high-need schools, we hope that preparation programs 
and high-need schools and districts will work together to ensure novice 
teachers have the academic content knowledge and teaching skills they 
need when placed as well as the supports they need to stay in high-need 
schools.
    We disagree with commenters that the regulations will lead to 
higher turnover rates. By requiring reporting on teacher preparation 
rates by program, we believe that employers will be better able to 
identify programs with strong track records for preparing novice 
teachers who stay, and succeed, in high-need schools. This information 
will help employers make informed hiring decisions and may ultimately 
help districts reduce teacher turnover rates.
    Changes: None.
State Flexibility To Define and Incorporate Measures
    Comments: Commenters suggested that States be able to define the 
specific employment information they are collecting, as well as the 
process for collecting it, so that they can use the systems they 
already have in place. Other commenters suggested that the Department 
require that States use employment outcomes as a factor in performance 
designations, but allow each State to determine how best to incorporate 
these outcomes into accountability systems.
    Several commenters suggested additional indicators that could be 
used to report on employment outcomes. Specifically, commenters 
suggested that programs should report the demographics and outcomes of 
enrolled teacher candidates by race and ethnicity (graduation rate, 
dropout rates, placement rates for graduates, first-year evaluation 
scores (if available), and the percentage of teachers candidates who 
stay within the teaching profession for one, three, and five years). 
Also, commenters suggested that the Department include the use of 
readily-available financial data when reporting employment outcomes. 
Another commenter suggested that the Department collect information on 
how many teachers from each teacher preparation program attain an 
exemplary rating through the statewide evaluation systems. Finally, one 
commenter suggested counting the number of times schools hire graduates 
from the same teacher preparation program.
    Discussion: As with the other indicators, States have flexibility 
to determine how the employment outcome measures will be implemented 
and used to assess the performance of teacher preparation programs. If 
a State wants to adopt the recommendations in the way it implements 
collecting data on placement and retention rates, it certainly may do 
so. But we are mindful of the additional costs associated with 
calculating these employment measures for each teacher preparation 
program that would come from adopting commenters' recommendations to 
disaggregate their employment measures by category of teachers or to 
include the other categories of data they recommend.
    We do not believe that further disaggregation of data as 
recommended will produce a sufficiently useful indicator of teacher 
preparation program performance to justify a requirement that all 
States implement one or more of these recommendations. We therefore 
decline to adopt them. We also do not believe additional indicators are 
necessary to assess the academic content knowledge and teaching skills 
of the novice teachers from each teacher preparation program though 
consistent with Sec.  612.5(b), States are free to adopt them if they 
choose to do so.
    Changes: None.
Employment Outcomes as a Measure of Program Performance
    Comments: Commenters suggested that States be expected to report 
data on teacher placement, without being required to use the data in 
making annual program performance designations.
    Several commenters noted that school districts often handle their 
own decisions about hiring and placement of new school teachers, which 
severely limits institutions' ability to place teachers in schools. 
Many commenters advised against using employment data in assessments of 
teacher preparation programs. Some stated that these data would fail to 
recognize the importance of teacher preparation program students' 
variable career paths and potential for employment in teaching-related 
fields. To narrowly define teacher preparation program quality in terms 
of a limited conception of employment for graduates is misguided and 
unnecessarily damaging.
    Other commenters argued that the assumption underlying this 
proposed

[[Page 75564]]

measure of a relationship between program quality and teacher turnover 
is not supported by research, especially in high-need schools. They 
stated that there are too many variables that impact teacher hiring, 
placement, and retention to effectively connect that variable to the 
quality of teacher preparation programs. Examples provided include: The 
economy and budget cuts, layoffs that poor school districts are likely 
to implement, State politics, the unavailability of a position in given 
content area, personal choices (e.g., having a family), better paying 
positions, out of State positions, private school positions, military 
installations and military spouses, few opportunities for advancement, 
and geographic hiring patterns (e.g., rural versus urban hiring 
patterns). Some commenters also stated that edTPA, which they described 
as an exam that is similar to a bar exam for teaching, would be a much 
more direct, valid measure of a graduate's skills.
    Discussion: We acknowledge that there are factors outside of a 
program's control that influence teacher placement rates and teacher 
retention rates. As commenters note, teacher preparation program 
graduates (or alternative route program participants if a State chooses 
to look at them rather than program graduates) may decide to enter or 
leave the profession due to family considerations, working conditions 
at their school, or other reasons that do not necessarily reflect upon 
the quality of their teacher preparation program or the level of 
content knowledge and teaching skills of the program's graduates.
    In applying these employment outcome measures, it would be absurd 
to assume that States will treat a rate that is below 100 percent as a 
poor reflection on the quality of the teacher preparation program. 
Rather, in applying these measures States may determine what placement 
rates and retention rates would be so low (or so high, if they choose 
to identify exceptionally performing programs) as to speak to the 
quality of the program itself.
    However, while factors like those commenters identify affect 
employment outcomes, we believe that the primary goal of teacher 
preparation programs should be to produce graduates who successfully 
become classroom teachers and stay in teaching at least several years. 
We believe that high placement and retention rates are indicators that 
a teacher preparation program's graduates (or an alternative route 
program's participants if a State chooses to look at them rather than 
program graduates) have the requisite content knowledge and teaching 
skills to demonstrate sufficient competency to find a job, earn 
positive reviews, and choose to stay in the profession. This view is 
shared by States like North Carolina, Louisiana, and Tennessee, as well 
as CAEP, which require reporting on similar outcomes for teacher 
preparation programs.
    Commenters accurately point out that teachers in low-performing 
schools with high concentrations of students of color have 
significantly higher rates of turnover. Research from New York State 
confirms this finding, but also shows that first-year teachers who 
leave a school are, on average, significantly less effective than those 
who stay.\45\ This finding, along with other similar findings,\46\ 
indicates that teacher retention and teaching skills are positively 
associated with one another. Another study found that when given a 
choice between teachers who transfer schools, schools tend to choose 
the teachers with greater impact on student outcomes,\47\ suggesting 
that hiring decisions are also indications of teacher skills and 
content knowledge. Research studies \48\ and available State data \49\ 
on teacher preparation programs placement and retention rates also show 
that there can be large differences in employment outcomes across 
programs within a State. While these rates are no doubt influenced by 
many factors, the Department believes that they are in part a 
reflection of the quality of the program, because they signal a 
program's ability to produce graduates that schools and districts deem 
to be qualified.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \45\ Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., & Loeb, S. (2008). 
Who Leaves? Teacher Attrition and Student Achievement? (Working 
Paper No. 14022). Retrieved from National Bureau of Economic 
Research.
    \46\ Goldhaber, D., Gross, P., & Player, D. (2007). Are public 
schools really losing their ``best''? Assessing the career 
transitions of teachers and their implications for the quality of 
the teacher workforce (Working Paper No. 12).
    \47\ Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., Ronfeldt, M., & Wyckoff, 
J. (2011). The role of teacher quality in retention and hiring: 
Using applications to transfer to uncover preferences of teachers 
and schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(1), 88-
110.
    \48\ Kane, T., Rockoff, J., & Staiger, D. (2008). What does 
certification tell us about teacher effectiveness? Evidence from New 
York City. Economics of Education Review, 27(6), 615-631-615-631.
    \49\ See, for example information on these indicators reported 
by Tennessee and North Carolina: Report Card on the Effectiveness of 
Teacher Training Programs, Tennessee 2014 Report Card. (n.d.). 
Retrieved November 30, 2015, from www.tn.gov/thec/Divisions/AcademicAffairs/rttt/report_card/2014/report_card/14report_card.shtml; UNC Educator Quality Dashboard. (n.d.). 
Retrieved from http://tqdashboard.northcarolina.edu/performance-employment/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The use of employment outcomes as indicators of the performance of 
a teacher preparation program also reflects the relationship between 
teacher retention rates and student outcomes. At the school level, high 
teacher turnover can have multiple negative effects on student 
learning. When a teacher leaves a school, it is more likely that the 
vacancy will be filled by a less-experienced and, on average, less-
effective teacher, which will lower the achievement of students in the 
school. In addition to this effect on the composition of a school's 
teacher workforce, the findings of Ronfeldt, et al. suggest that 
disruption from teacher turnover has an additional negative effect on 
the school as a whole, in part, by lowering the effectiveness of the 
teachers who remain in the school.\50\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \50\ Ronfeldt, M., Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2013). How Teacher 
Turnover Harms Student Achievement. American Education Research 
Journal, 50(1), 4-36.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, we believe that employment outcomes, taken together, serve 
not only as reasonable indicators of academic content knowledge and 
teaching skill, but also as potentially important incentives for 
programs and States to focus on a program's ability to produce 
graduates with the skills and preparation to teach for many years. 
Placement rates overall and in high-need schools specifically, are 
particularly important, in that they provide a baseline context for 
evaluating a program's retention rates. In an extreme example, a 
program may have 100 graduates, but if only one graduate who actually 
secures employment as a teacher, and continues to teach, that school 
would have a retention rate of 100 percent. Plainly, such a retention 
rate does not provide a meaningful or complete assessment of the 
program's impact on teacher retention rate, and thus on this indicator 
of program quality. Similarly, two programs may each produce 100 
teachers, but one program only places teachers in high-need schools, 
while the other places no teachers in high-need schools. Even if the 
programs produced graduates of the exact same quality, the program that 
serves high-need schools would be likely to have lower retention rates, 
due to the challenges described in comments and above.
    Finally, we reiterate that States have flexibility to determine how 
employment outcomes should be weighted, so that they may match their 
metrics to their individual needs and conditions. In regard to using 
other available measures of teaching ability and academic content 
knowledge, like edTPA, we believe that, taken together, outcome-based 
measures that we require

[[Page 75565]]

(student learning outcomes, employment outcomes, and survey outcomes) 
are the most direct measures of academic content knowledge and teaching 
skills. Placement and retention rates reflect the experiences of 
program's recent graduates and novice teachers over the course of three 
to six years (depending on when recent graduates become novice 
teachers), which cannot be captured by other measures. We acknowledge 
that States may wish to include additional indicators, such as student 
survey results, to assess teacher preparation program performance. 
Section 612.5(b) permits States to do so. However, we decline to 
require that States use additional or other indicators like those 
suggested in place of employment outcomes, because we strongly believe 
they are less direct measures of academic content knowledge and 
teaching skills.
    Changes: None.
Validity and Reliability
    Comments: Several commenters indicated that the teacher retention 
data that States would need to collect for each program do not meet the 
standards for being valid or reliable. They stated that data on program 
graduates will be incomplete because States can exclude teachers who 
move across State lines, teach in private schools or in positions which 
do not require certification, or who join the military or go to 
graduate school. Commenters further expressed concern over the numerous 
requests for additional data regarding persistence, academic 
achievement, and job placement that are currently beyond the reach of 
most educator preparation programs.
    Discussion: As we have previously stated, we intend the use of all 
indicators of academic content knowledge and teaching skill to produce 
information about the performance-level of each teacher preparation 
program that, speaking broadly, is valid and reliable. See, generally, 
our discussion of the issue in response to public comment on Indicators 
a State Must Use to Report on Teacher Preparation Programs in the State 
Report Card (34 CFR 612.5(a)).
    It is clear from the comments we received that there is not an 
outright consensus on using employment outcomes to measure teacher 
preparation programs; however, we strongly believe that the inclusion 
of employment outcomes with other measures contributes to States' 
abilities to make valid and reliable decisions about program 
performance. Under the regulations, States will work with their 
stakeholders (see Sec.  612.4(c)) to establish methods for evaluating 
the quality of data related to a program's outcome measures, and all 
other indicators, to ensure that the reported data are fair and 
equitable. As we discussed in the NPRM, in doing so, the State should 
use this process to ensure the reliability, validity, integrity, and 
accuracy of all data reported about the performance of teacher 
preparation programs. We recognize the burden that reporting on 
employment outcomes may place on individual programs, and for this 
reason, we suggest, but do not require, that States examine their 
capacity, within their longitudinal data systems, to track employment 
outcomes because we believe this will reduce costs for IHEs and 
increase efficiency of data collection.
    We recognize that program graduates may not end up teaching in the 
same State as their teacher preparation program for a variety of 
reasons and suggest, but do not require, that States create inter-State 
partnerships to better track employment outcomes of program completers 
as well as agreements that allow them to track military service, 
graduate school enrollment, and employment as teacher in a private 
school. But we do not believe that the exclusion of these recent 
graduates, or those who go on to teach in private schools, jeopardizes 
reasonable use of this indicator of teacher preparation program 
performance. As noted, previously, we have revised the regulations so 
that States may not exclude recent graduates employed in positions 
which do not require certification from their calculations of 
employment outcomes. Working with their stakeholders (see Sec.  
612.4(c) States will be able to determine how best to apply the 
retention rate data that they have.
    Finally, we understand that many teacher preparation programs do 
not currently collect data on factors like job placement, how long 
their graduates who become teachers stay in the profession, and the 
gains in academic achievement that are associated with their graduates. 
However, collecting this information is not beyond those programs' 
capacity. Moreover, the regulations make the State responsible for 
ensuring that data needed for each indicator to assess program 
performance are secured and used. How they will do so would be a 
subject for State discussion with its consultative group.
    Changes: None.
    Data Collection and Reporting Concerns
    Comments: Commenters recommended that placement-rate data be 
collected beyond the first year after graduation and across State 
boundaries. Another commenter noted that a State would need to know 
which ``novice teachers'' or ``recent graduates'' who attended teacher 
preparation programs in their State are not actually teaching in their 
State, and it is unclear how a State would be able to get this 
information. Several commenters further stated that States would need 
information about program graduates who teach in private schools that 
is not publically available and may violate privacy laws to obtain.
    Commenters were concerned about how often data will be updated by 
the Department. They stated that, due to teachers changing schools mid-
year, data will be outdated and not helpful to the consumer. Several 
commenters suggested that a national database would need to be in place 
for accurate data collection so institutions would be able to track 
graduates across State boundaries. Two commenters noted that it will be 
difficult to follow graduates over several years and collect accurate 
data to address all of the areas relevant to a program's retention 
rate, and that therefore reported rates would reflect a great deal of 
missing data.
    Another commenter suggested that the Department provide support for 
the development and implementation of data systems that will allow 
States to safely and securely share employment, placement, and 
retention data.
    Discussion: We note first that, due to the definition of the terms 
``teacher placement rate'' and ``recent graduate'' (see Sec.  612.2), 
placement rate data is collected on individuals who have met the 
requirements of program in any of the three title II reporting years 
preceding the current reporting year.
    In order to decrease the costs associated with calculating teacher 
placement and teacher retention rates and to better focus the data 
collection, our proposed and final definitions of teacher placement 
rate and teacher retention rate in Sec.  612.2 permit States to exclude 
certain categories of novice teachers from their calculations for their 
teacher preparation programs, provided that each State uses a 
consistent approach to assess and report on all of the teacher 
preparation programs in the State. As we have already noted, these 
categories include teachers who teach in other States, teach in private 
schools, are not retained specifically and directly due to budget cuts, 
or join the military or enroll in graduate school. While we encourage 
States to work to capture these data to make the placement and 
retention rates for each program as robust as possible, we understand 
that

[[Page 75566]]

current practicalities may affect their ability to do so for one or 
more of these categories of teachers. But we strongly believe that, 
except in rare circumstances, States will have enough data on 
employment outcomes for each program, based on the numbers of recent 
graduates who take teaching positions in the State, to use as an 
indicator of the program's performance.
    To address confidentiality concerns, Sec.  612.4(b)(5) expressly 
exempts reporting of data where doing so would violate Federal or State 
privacy laws or regulations.
    The regulations do not require States to submit documentation with 
the SRCs that supports their data collections; they only must submit 
the ultimate calculation for each program's indicator (and its 
weighting). However, States may not omit program graduates (or 
participants in alternative route programs if a State chooses to look 
at participants rather than program graduates) from any of the 
calculations of employment or survey outcomes indicators without being 
able to verify that these individuals are in the groups that the 
regulators permit States to omit.
    Some commenters recommended that the Department maintain a national 
database, while others seemed to think that we plan to maintain such a 
database. States must submit their SRCs to the Department annually, and 
the Department intends to make these reports and the data they include, 
like SRCs that States annually submitted in prior years, publicly 
available. The Department has no other plans for activities relevant to 
a national database.
    Commenters were concerned about difficulties in following graduates 
for the three-year period proposed in the NPRM. As discussed in 
response to comment on the ``teacher retention rate'' definition in 
Sec.  612.2, we have modified the definition of ``teacher retention 
rate'' so that States will be reporting on the first three years a 
teacher is in the classroom rather than three out of the first five 
years. We believe this change addresses the commenters' concerns.
    As we interpret the comment, one commenter suggested we provide 
support for more robust data systems so that States have access to the 
employment data of teachers who move to other States. We have technical 
assistance resources dedicated to helping States collect and use 
longitudinal data, including the Statewide Longitudinal Data System's 
Education Data Technical Assistance Program and the Privacy Technical 
Assistance Center, which focuses on the privacy and security of student 
data. We will look into whether these resources may be able to help 
address this matter.
    Changes: None.
Alternative Route Programs
    Comments: Commenters stated that the calculation of placement and 
retention rates for alternative route teacher preparation programs 
should be different from those for traditional route teacher 
preparation programs. Others asked that the regulations ensure the use 
of multiple measures by States in assessing traditional and alternative 
route programs. Many commenters stated that the proposed regulations 
give advantages to alternative route programs, as programs that train 
teachers on the job get significant advantages by being allowed to 
count all of their participants as employed while they are still 
learning to teach, virtually ensuring a very high placement rate for 
those programs. Other commenters suggested that the common starting 
point for both alternative and traditional route programs should be the 
point at which a candidate has the opportunity to become a teacher of 
record.
    As an alternative, commenters suggested that the Department alter 
the definition of ``new teacher'' so that both traditional and 
alternative route teacher candidates start on equal ground. For 
example, the definition might include ``after all coursework is 
completed,'' ``at the point a teacher is placed in the classroom,'' or 
``at the moment a teacher becomes a teacher of record.'' Commenters 
recommended that teacher retention rate should be more in line with 
CAEP standards, which do not differentiate accountability for alternate 
and traditional route teacher preparation programs.
    Many commenters were concerned about the ability of States to 
weight employment outcomes differently for alternative and traditional 
route programs, thus creating unfair comparisons among States or 
programs in different States while providing the illusion of fair 
comparisons by using the same metrics. One commenter was concerned 
about a teacher preparation program's ability to place candidates in 
fields where a degree in a specific discipline is needed, as those jobs 
will go to those with the discipline degree and not to a teacher 
preparation program degree, thus giving teachers from alternative route 
programs an advantage. Others stated that demographics may impact 
whether a student enrolls in a traditional or an alternative route 
program, so comparing the two types of programs in any way is not 
appropriate.
    Discussion: We agree that employment outcomes could vary based 
solely on the type, rather than the quality, of a teacher preparation 
program. While there is great variability both among traditional route 
programs and among alternative route programs, those two types of 
programs have characteristics that are generally very different from 
each other. We agree with commenters that, due to the fundamental 
characteristics of alternative certification programs (in particular 
the likelihood that all participants will be employed as teachers of 
record while completing coursework), the reporting of teacher placement 
rate data of individuals who participated in such programs will 
inevitably result in 100 percent placement rate. However, creation of a 
different methodology for calculating the teacher placement rate solely 
for alternative route programs would be unnecessarily complex and 
potentially confusing for States as they implement these regulations 
and for the public as they examine the data. Accordingly, we have 
removed the requirement that States report and assess the teacher 
placement rate of alternative route programs from the final 
regulations. States may, at their discretion, continue to include 
teacher placement rate for alternative certification programs in their 
reporting system if they determine that this information is meaningful 
and deserves weight. However, they are not required to do so by these 
final regulations.
    For reasons discussed in the Meaningful Differentiations in Teacher 
Preparation Program Performance section of this preamble, we have not 
removed the requirement that States report the teacher placement rate 
in high-need schools for alternative route programs. If a teacher is 
employed as a teacher of record in a high-need school prior to program 
completion, that teacher will be considered to have been placed when 
the State calculates and reports a teacher placement rate for high-need 
schools. Unlike teacher placement rate generally, the teacher placement 
rate in high-need schools can be used to meaningfully differentiate 
between programs of varying quality.
    Recognizing both that (a) the differences in the characteristics of 
traditional and alternative route programs may create differences 
between teacher placement rate in high-need schools and (b) our removal 
of the requirement to include teacher placement rate for alternative 
certification programs creates a different number of required 
indicators for Employment Outcomes between the two

[[Page 75567]]

program types, we have revised Sec.  612.5(a)(2) to clarify that (1) in 
their overall assessment of program performance States may assess 
employment outcomes for these programs differently, and (2) States may 
do so provided that differences in assessments and the reasons for 
those differences are transparent and that assessments result in 
equivalent levels of accountability and reporting irrespective of the 
type of program.
    We believe States are best suited to analyze their traditional and 
alternative route programs and determine how best to apply employment 
outcomes to assess the overall performance of these programs. As such, 
to further promote transparency and fair treatment, we have revised 
section V of the SRC to include the need for each State to describe the 
rationale for how the State is treating the employment outcomes 
differently, provided it has not chosen to add a measure of placement 
rate for alternative route programs and does in fact have different 
bases for accountability.
    We also believe that, as we had proposed, States should apply 
equivalent standards of accountability in how they treat employment 
outcomes for traditional programs and alternative route programs, and 
suggest a few approaches States might consider for achieving such 
equivalency.
    For example, a State might devise a system with five areas in which 
a teacher preparation program must have satisfactory outcomes in order 
to be considered not low-performing or at-risk of being low-performing. 
For the employment outcomes measure (and leaving aside the need for 
employment outcomes for high-need schools), a State might determine 
that traditional route programs must have a teacher placement rate of 
at least 80 percent and a second-year teacher retention rate of at 
least 70 percent to be considered as having satisfactory employment 
outcomes. The State may, in consultation with stakeholders, determine 
that a second-year retention rate of 85 percent for alternative 
certification programs results in an equivalent level of accountability 
for those programs, given that almost all participants in such programs 
in the State are placed and retained for some period of time during 
their program.
    As another example, a State might establish a numerical scale 
wherein the employment outcomes for all teacher preparation programs in 
the State account for 20 percent. A State might then determine that 
teacher placement (overall and at high-needs schools) and teacher 
retention (overall and at high-needs schools) outcomes are weighted 
equally, say at 10 percent each, for all traditional route programs, 
but weight the placement rate in high-need schools at 10 percent and 
retention rate (overall and at high-needs schools) at 10 percent for 
alternative route programs.
    We also recognize that some alternative route programs are 
specifically designed to recruit high-quality participants who may be 
committed to teach only for a few years. Many also recruit participants 
who in college had academic majors in fields similar to what they will 
teach. Since a significant aspect of our indicators of academic content 
knowledge and teaching skills focus on the success of novice teachers 
regardless of the nature of their teacher preparation program, we do 
not believe we should establish a one-size-fits-all rule here. Rather, 
we think that States are in a better position to determine how the 
employment outcomes should best be used to help assess the performance 
of alternative route and traditional route programs.
    We agree that use of multiple measures of program performance is 
important. We reiterate that the regulations require that, in reporting 
the performance of all programs, both traditional and alternative 
route, States must use the four indicators of academic content 
knowledge and teaching skills the regulations identify in Sec.  
612.5(a), including employment outcomes--the teacher placement rate 
(excepting the requirement here for alternative route programs), 
teacher placement rate in high-need schools, teacher retention rate, 
and teacher retention rate in high-need schools--in addition to any 
indicators of academic content knowledge and teaching skills and other 
criteria they may establish on their own.
    However, we do not know of any inherent differences between 
traditional route programs and alternative route programs that should 
require different treatment of the other required indicators--student 
learning outcomes, survey outcomes, and the basic characteristics of 
the program addressed in Sec.  612.5(a)(4). Nor do we see any reason 
why any differences in the type of individuals that traditional route 
programs and alternative route programs enroll should mean that the 
program's student learning outcomes should be assessed differently.
    Finally, while some commenters argued about the relative advantage 
of alternative route or traditional route programs in reporting on 
employment outcomes, we reiterate that neither the regulations nor the 
SRCs pit programs against each other. Each State determines what 
teacher preparation programs are and are not low-performing or at-risk 
of being low-performing (as well as in any other category of 
performance it may establish). Each State then reports the data that 
reflect the indicators and criteria used to make this determination, 
and identifies those programs that are low-performing or at-risk of 
being low-performing. Of course, any differences in how employment 
outcomes are applied to traditional route and alternative route 
programs would need to result in equivalent levels of accountability 
and reporting (see Sec.  612.5(a)(2)(B)). But the issue for each State 
is identifying each program's level of performance relative to the 
level of expectations the State established--not relative to levels of 
performance or results for indicators or criteria that apply to other 
programs.
    Changes: We have revised Sec.  612.5(a)(2)(iii) to clarify that in 
their overall assessment of program performance States may assess 
employment outcomes for traditional route programs and programs 
provided through alternative routes differently provided that doing 
results in equivalent levels of accountability.
    We have also added a new Sec.  612.5(a)(2)(v) to provide that a 
State is not required to calculate a teacher placement rate under 
paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A) of that section for alternative route to 
certification programs.
Teacher Preparation Programs Provided Through Distance Education
    Comments: None.
    Discussion: In reviewing the proposed regulations, we recognized 
that, as with alternative route programs, teacher preparation programs 
provided through distance education may pose unique challenges to 
States in calculating employment outcomes under Sec.  612.5(a)(2). 
Specifically, because such programs may operate across State lines, an 
individual State may be unable to accurately determine the total number 
of recent graduates from any given program and only a subset of that 
total would be, in theory, preparing to teach in that State. For 
example, a teacher preparation entity may be physically located in 
State A and operate a teacher preparation program provided through 
distance education in both State A and State B. While the teacher 
preparation entity is required to submit an IRC to State A, which would 
include the total number of recent graduates from their program, only a 
subset of that total number would be residing in or preparing to teach 
in State A. Therefore, when State A calculates the teacher placement 
rate for that program, it

[[Page 75568]]

would generate an artificially low rate. In addition, State B would 
face the same issue if it had ready access to the total number of 
recent graduates (which it would not as the program would not be 
required to submit an IRC to State B). Any teacher placement rate that 
State B attempts to calculate for this, or any other, teacher 
preparation program provided through distance education would be 
artificially low as recent graduates who did not reside in State B, did 
not enroll in a teacher preparation program in State B, and never 
intended to seek initial certification or licensure in State B would be 
included in the denominator of the teacher placement rate calculation.
    Recognizing these types of issues, the Department has determined 
that it is appropriate to create an alternative method for States to 
calculate employment outcomes for teacher preparation programs provided 
through distance education. Specifically, we have revised the 
definition of teacher placement rate to allow States, in calculating 
teacher placement rate for teacher preparation programs provided 
through distance education, to use the total number of recent graduates 
who have obtained initial certification or licensure in the State 
during the three preceding title II reporting years as the denominator 
in their calculation instead of the total number of recent graduates. 
Additionally, we believe it is appropriate to give States greater 
flexibility in assessing these outcomes, and have added a new Sec.  
612.5(a)(2)(iv) which allows States to assess teacher placement rates 
differently for teacher preparation programs provided through distance 
education provided that the differences in assessment are transparent 
and result in similar levels of accountability for all teacher 
preparation programs.
    Changes: We have added Sec.  612.5(a)(2)(iv), which allows States 
to assess teacher placement rates differently for teacher preparation 
programs provided through distance education so long as the differences 
in assessment are transparent and result in similar levels of 
accountability.
Survey Outcomes (34 CFR 612.5(a)(3))
    Comments: Several commenters agreed that there is value in using 
surveys of teacher preparation program graduates and the administrators 
who employ and supervise them to evaluate the programs, with some 
commenters noting that such surveys are already in place. Some 
commenters expressed concerns about the use of survey data as part of a 
rating system with high-stakes consequences for teacher preparation 
programs. Some commenters felt that States should have discretion about 
how or even whether to incorporate survey outcomes into an 
accountability system. Other commenters suggested making surveys one of 
a number of options that States could elect to include in their systems 
for evaluating the quality of teacher preparation programs. Still other 
commenters felt that, because surveys are currently in place for the 
evaluation of teacher preparation programs (for example, through State, 
accrediting agency, and institutional requirements), Federal 
regulations requiring the use of survey outcomes for this purpose would 
be either duplicative or add unnecessary burden if they differ from 
what currently exists. One commenter stated that Massachusetts is 
currently building valid and reliable surveys of novice teachers, 
recent graduates, employers, and supervising practitioners on educator 
preparation, and this work exceeds the expectation of the proposed 
rules. However, the commenter also was concerned about the reliability, 
validity, and feasibility of using survey outcomes as an independent 
measure for assessing teacher preparation program performance. The 
commenter felt that the proposed regulations do not specify how States 
would report survey results in a way that captures both qualitative and 
quantitative data. The commenter expressed doubt that aggregating 
survey data into a single data point for reporting purposes would 
convey valuable information, and stated that doing so would diminish 
the usefulness of the survey data and could lead to distorted 
conclusions.
    In addition, commenters recommended allowing institutions 
themselves to conduct and report annual survey data for teacher 
graduates and employers, noting that a number of institutions currently 
conduct well-honed, rigorous surveys of teacher preparation program 
graduates and their employers. Commenters were concerned with the 
addition of a uniform State-level survey for assessing teacher 
preparation programs, stating that it is not possible to obtain high 
individual response rates for two surveys addressing the same area. 
Commenters contended that, as a result, the extensive longitudinal 
survey databases established by some of the best teacher education 
programs in the Nation will be at-risk, resulting in the potential loss 
of the baseline data, the annual data, and the continuous improvement 
systems associated with these surveys despite years of investment in 
them and substantial demonstrated benefits.
    Some commenters noted that it is hard to predict how reliable the 
teacher and employer surveys required by the regulations would be as an 
indicator of teacher preparation program quality, since the proposed 
regulations do not specify how these surveys would be developed or 
whether they would be the same across the State or States. In addition, 
the commenters noted that it is hard to predict how reliable the 
surveys may be in capturing teacher and employer perceptions of how 
adequately prepared teachers are since these surveys do not exist in 
most places and would have to be created. Commenters also stated that 
survey data will need to be standardized for all of a State's 
institutions, which will likely result in a significant cost to States.
    Some commenters stated that, in lieu of surveys, States should be 
allowed to create preparation program-school system partnerships that 
provide for joint design and administration of the preparation program. 
They claimed when local school systems and preparation programs jointly 
design and oversee the preparation program, surveys are unnecessary 
because the partnership creates one preparation program entity that is 
responsible for the quality of preparation and satisfaction of district 
and school leaders.
    Discussion: As we stressed in the NPRM, many new teachers report 
entering the profession feeling unprepared for classroom realities. 
Since teacher preparation programs have responsibility for preparing 
teachers for these classroom realities, we believe that asking novice 
teachers whether they feel prepared to teach, and asking those who 
supervise them whether they feel those novice teachers are prepared to 
teach, generate results that are necessary components in any State's 
process of assessing the level of a teacher preparation program's 
performance. Moreover, while all States do not have experience 
employing surveys to determine program effectiveness, we believe that 
their use for this purpose has been well established. As noted in the 
NPRM, two major national organizations focused on teacher preparation 
and others in the higher education world are now incorporating this 
kind of survey data as an indicator of program quality (see 79 FR 
71840).
    We share the belief of these organizations that a novice teacher's 
perception, and that of his or her employer, of the teacher's readiness 
and capability during the first year teaching are key indicators of 
that individual's academic knowledge and teaching skills as well as 
whether his or her preparation program is training teachers

[[Page 75569]]

well. In addition, aside from wanting to ensure that what States report 
about each program's level of performance is reasonable, a major 
byproduct of the regulations is that they can ensure that States have 
accurate information on the quality of teacher preparation programs so 
that they and the programs can make improvements where needed and 
recognize excellence where it exists.
    Regarding commenters concerns about the validity and reliability of 
the use of survey results to help assess program performance, we first 
reference our general discussion of the issue in response to public 
comment on Indicators a State Must Use to Report on Teacher Preparation 
Programs in the State Report Card (34 CFR 612.5(a)).
    Beyond this, it plainly is important that States develop procedures 
to enable teachers' and employers' perceptions to be appropriately used 
and have the desired impacts, and at the same time to enable States to 
use survey results in ways that treat all programs fairly. To do so, we 
strongly encourage States to standardize their use of surveys so that 
for novice teachers who are similarly situated, they seek common 
information from them and their employers. We are confident that, in 
consultation with key stakeholders as provided for in Sec.  
612.4(c)(1), States will be able to develop a standardized, unbiased, 
and reliable set of survey questions, or ensure that IHE surveys meet 
the same standard. This goal would be very difficult to achieve, 
however, if States relied on existing surveys (unless modified 
appropriately) whose questions vary in content and thus solicit 
different information and responses. Of course, it is likely that many 
strong surveys already exist and are in use, and we encourage States to 
consider using such an existing survey so long as it comports with 
Sec.  612.5(a)(3). Where a State finds an existing survey of novice 
teachers and their employers to be adequate, doing so will avoid the 
cost and time of preparing another, and to the extent possible, prevent 
the need for teachers and employers to complete more than one survey, 
which commenters reasonably would like to avoid. Concerns about the 
cost and burden of implementing teacher and employer surveys are 
discussed further with the next set of comments on this section.
    We note that States have the discretion to determine how they will 
publicly post the results of surveys and how they will aggregate the 
results associated with teachers from each program for use as an 
indicator of that program's performance. We encourage States to report 
survey results disaggregated by question (as is done, for example, by 
Ohio \51\ and North Carolina \52\), as we believe this information 
would be particularly useful for prospective teachers in evaluating the 
strengths of different teacher preparation programs. At some point, 
however, States must identify any programs that are low-performing or 
at-risk of being low-performing, and to accomplish this they will need 
to aggregate quantitative and qualitative survey responses in some way, 
in a method developed in consultation with key stakeholders as provided 
for in Sec.  612.4(c)(1).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \51\ See, for example: 2013 Educator Preparation Performance 
Report Adolescence to Young Adult (7-12) Integrated Mathematics Ohio 
State University. (2013). Retrieved from http://regents.ohio.gov/educator-accountability/performance-report/2013/OhioStateUniversity/OHSU_IntegratedMathematics.pdf.
    \52\ See UNC Educator Quality Dashboard. Retrieved from http://tqdashboard.northcarolina.edu/performance-employment/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Like those who commented, we believe that partnerships between 
teacher preparation programs and local school systems have great value 
in improving the transition of individuals whom teacher preparation 
programs train to the classroom and a novice teacher's overall 
effectiveness. However, these partnerships cannot replace survey 
results as an indicator of the program's performance.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Commenters suggested that the Department consider options 
for reducing the cost and burden of implementation, such as clarifying 
that States would not have to survey 100 percent of novice teachers or 
permitting States to conduct surveys less frequently than every year.
    Commenters stated that, if used as expected for comparability 
purposes, the survey would likely need to be designed by and conducted 
through a third-party agency with professional credentials in survey 
design and survey administration. They stated that sampling errors and 
various forms of bias can easily skew survey results and the survey 
would need to be managed by a professional third-party group, which 
would likely be a significant cost to States.
    One commenter recommended that a national training and technical 
assistance center be established to build data capacity, consistency, 
and quality among States and educator preparation providers to support 
scalable continuous improvement and program quality in teacher 
preparation. In support of this recommendation, the commenter, an 
accreditor of education preparation providers, stated that, based on 
its analysis of its first annual collection of outcome data from 
education preparation providers, and its follow-up survey of education 
preparation providers, the availability of survey outcomes data differs 
by survey type. The commenter noted that while 714 teacher preparation 
program providers reported that they have access to completer survey 
data, 250 providers reported that they did not have access. In 
addition, the commenter noted that teacher preparation program 
providers indicated that there were many challenges in reporting 
employment status, including State data systems as well as programs 
that export completers across the nation or internationally.
    Discussion: To obtain the most comprehensive feedback possible, it 
is important for States to survey all novice teachers who are employed 
as teachers in their first year of teaching and their employers. This 
is because feedback from novice teachers is one indicator of how 
successfully a preparation program imparts knowledge of content and 
academic skills, and survey results from only a sample may introduce 
unnecessary opportunities for error and increased cost and burden. 
There is no established n-size at which point a sample is guaranteed to 
be representative, but rather, statistical calculations must be made to 
verify that the sample is representative of the characteristics of 
program completers or participants. While drawing a larger sample often 
increases the likelihood that it will be representative, we believe 
that for nearly all programs, a representative sample will not be 
substantially smaller than the total population of completers. 
Therefore, we do not believe that there is a meaningful advantage to 
undertaking the analysis required to draw a representative sample. 
Furthermore, we believe that any potential advantage does not outweigh 
the potential for error that could be introduced by States or programs 
that unwittingly draw a biased sample, or report that their sample is 
representative, when in fact it is not. As with student learning 
outcomes and employment outcomes, we have clarified in Sec.  
612.5(a)(3)(ii) that a State may exclude from its calculations of a 
program's survey outcomes those survey outcomes for all novice teachers 
who have taken teaching positions in private schools so long as the 
State uses a consistent approach to assess and report on all of the 
teacher preparation programs in the State.
    We note that in ensuring that the required surveys are reasonable 
and appropriate, States have some control

[[Page 75570]]

over the cost of, and the time necessary for, implementing the surveys. 
Through consultation with their stakeholders (see Sec.  612.4(c)), they 
determine the number and type of questions in each survey, and the 
method of dissemination and collection. However, we believe that it is 
important that teacher and employer surveys be conducted at least 
annually. Section 207(a) of the HEA requires that States annually 
identify teacher preparation programs that are low-performing or at-
risk of being low-performing. To implement this requirement, we 
strongly believe that States need to use data from the year being 
evaluated to identify those programs. If data from past years were used 
for annual evaluations, it would impede low-performing programs from 
seeing the benefits of their improvement, tend to enable deteriorating 
programs to rest on their laurels, and prevent prospective teachers and 
employers and the public at large from seeing the program's actual 
level of performance. Moreover, because the regulations require these 
surveys only of novice teachers in their first year of teaching, the 
commenter's proposal to collect survey outcomes less than annually 
would mean that entire cohorts of graduates would not be providing 
their assessment of the quality of their preparation program.
    In considering the comment, we realized that while we estimated 
costs of reporting all indicators of academic content knowledge and 
teaching skills, including survey outcomes, on an annual basis, the 
regulations did not adequately clarify the need to collect and report 
data related to each indicator annually. Therefore, we have revised 
Sec.  612.4(b)(2)(i) to require that data for each indicator be 
provided annually for the most recent title II reporting year.
    Further discussion regarding the cost and burden of implementing 
teacher and employer surveys can be found in the Discussion of Costs, 
Benefits, and Transfers in the RIA section of this document.
    The regulations do not prescribe any particular method for 
obtaining the completed surveys, and States may certainly work with 
their teacher preparation programs and teacher preparation entities to 
implement effective ways to obtain survey results. Beyond this, we 
expect that States will seek and employ the assistance that they need 
to develop, implement, and manage teacher and employer surveys as they 
see fit. We expect that States will ensure the validity and reliability 
of survey outcomes--including how to address responder bias--when they 
establish their procedures for assessing and reporting the performance 
of each teacher preparation program with a representative group of 
stakeholders, as is required under Sec.  612.4(c)(1)(i). The 
regulations do not specify the process States must use to develop, 
implement, or manage their employer surveys, so whether they choose to 
use third-party entities to help them do so is up to them.
    Finally, we believe it is important for the Department to work with 
States and teacher preparation programs across the nation to improve 
those programs, and we look forward to engaging in continuing dialogue 
about how this can be done and what the appropriate role of the 
Department should be. However, the commenters' request for a national 
training and technical assistance center to support scalable continuous 
improvement and to improve program quality is outside the scope of this 
regulation--which is focused on the States' use of indicators of 
academic content knowledge and teaching skills in their processes of 
identifying those programs that are low-performing, or at-risk of being 
low-performing, and other matters related to reporting under the title 
II reporting system.
    Changes: We have added Sec.  612.5(a)(3)(ii) to clarify that a 
State may exclude form its calculations of a program's survey outcomes 
those for novice teachers who take teaching positions in private 
schools so long as the State uses a consistent approach to assess and 
report on all of the teacher preparation programs in the State. In 
addition, we have revised 612.4(b)(2)(i) to provide that data for each 
of the indicators identified in Sec.  612.5 is to be for the most 
recent title II reporting year.
    Comments: Commenters also expressed specific concerns about 
response bias on surveys, such as the belief that teacher surveys often 
end up providing information about the personal likes or dislikes of 
the respondent that can be attributed to issues not related to program 
effectiveness. Commenters stated that surveys can be useful tools for 
the evaluation of programs and methods, but believed the use of surveys 
in a ratings scheme is highly problematic given how susceptible they 
are to what some commenters referred to as ``political manipulation.'' 
In addition, commenters stated that surveys of employer satisfaction 
may be substantially biased by the relationship of school principals to 
the teacher preparation program. Commenters felt that principals who 
are graduates of programs at specific institutions are likely to have a 
positive bias toward teachers they hire from those institutions. 
Commenters also believed that teacher preparation programs unaffiliated 
with the educational leadership at the school will be disadvantaged by 
comparison.
    Commenters also felt that two of our suggestions in the NPRM to 
ensure completion of surveys--that States consider using commercially 
available survey software or that teachers be required to complete a 
survey before they can access their class rosters--raise tremendous 
questions about the security of student data and the sharing of 
identifying information with commercial entities.
    Discussion: We expect that States will ensure the validity and 
reliability of survey outcomes, including how to address responder bias 
and avoid ``political manipulation'' and like problems when they 
establish their procedures for assessing and reporting the performance 
of each teacher preparation program with a representative group of 
stakeholders, as is required under Sec.  612.4(c)(1)(i).
    While it may be true that responder bias could impact any survey 
data, we expect that the variety and number of responses from novice 
teachers employed at different schools and within different school 
districts will ensure that such bias will not substantially affect 
overall survey results.
    There is no reason student data should ever be captured in any 
survey results, even if commercially available software is used or 
teachers are required to complete a survey before they can access and 
verify their class rosters. Commenters did not identify any particular 
concerns related to State or Federal privacy laws, and we do not 
understand what they might be. That being said, we fully expect States 
will design their survey procedures in keeping with requirements of any 
applicable privacy laws.
    Changes: None.
    Comments: Some commenters expressed concerns with the effect that a 
low response rate would have on the use of survey data as an indicator 
of teacher preparation program quality. Commenters noted that obtaining 
responses to teacher and employer surveys can be quite burdensome due 
to the difficulty in tracking graduates and identifying their 
employers. Moreover, commenters stated that obtaining their responses 
is frequently unsuccessful. Some commenters noted that, even with 
aggressive follow-up, it would be difficult to obtain a sufficient 
number of responses to warrant using them in high-stakes decision 
making about program quality. Some commenters felt

[[Page 75571]]

that the regulations should offer alternatives or otherwise address 
what happens if an institution is unable to secure sufficient survey 
responses.
    One commenter shared that, since 2007, the Illinois Association of 
Deans of Public Colleges of Education has conducted graduate surveys of 
new teachers from the twelve Illinois public universities, by mailing 
surveys to new teachers and their employers. The response rate for new 
teachers has been extremely low (44.2 percent for the 2012 survey and 
22.6 percent for the 2013 survey). The supervisor response has been 
higher, but still insufficient, according to the commenter, for the 
purpose of rating programs (65.3 percent for the 2012 survey and 40.5 
percent for the 2013 survey). In addition, the commenter stated that 
some data from these surveys indicate differences in the responses 
provided by new teachers and their supervisors. The commenter felt that 
the low response rate is compounded when trying to find matched pairs 
of teachers and supervisors. Using results from an institution's new 
teacher survey data, the commenter was only able to identify 29 out of 
104 possible matched pairs in 2012 and 11 out of 106 possible matched 
pairs in 2013.
    One commenter from an IHE stated that the institution's return rate 
on graduate surveys over the past 24 years has been 10 to 24 percent, 
which they stated is in line with national response rates. While the 
institution's last survey of 50 school principals had a 50 percent 
return rate, the commenter noted that her institution only surveys 
those school divisions which they know regularly hire its graduates 
because it does not have a source from which it can obtain actual 
employment information for all graduates. According to the commenter, a 
statewide process that better ensures that all school administrators 
provide feedback would be very helpful, but could also be very 
burdensome for the schools.
    Another commenter noted that the response rate from the 
institution's graduates increased significantly when the questionnaire 
went out via email, rather than through the United States Postal 
Service; however, the response rate from school district administrators 
remained dismal, no matter what format was used--mail, email, Facebook, 
Instagram, SurveyMonkey, etc. One commenter added that defaulting back 
to the position of having teachers complete surveys during their school 
days, and thus being yet another imposition on content time in the 
classroom, was not a good alternative to address low response rates. 
Commenters saw an important Federal role in accurately tracking program 
graduates across State boundaries.
    Discussion: We agree that low response rates can affect the 
validity and reliability of survey outcomes as an indicator of program 
performance. While we are not sure why States would necessarily need to 
have match pairs of surveys from novice teachers and their employers as 
long as they achieve what the State and its consultative group 
determine to be a sufficient response rate, we expect that States will 
work to develop procedures that will promote adequate response rates in 
their consultation with stakeholders, as required under Sec.  
612.4(c)(1)(i)). We also expect that States will use survey data 
received for the initial pilot reporting year (2017-2018), when States 
are not required to identify program performance, to adjust their 
procedures, address insufficient response rates, and address other 
issues affecting validity and reliability of survey results. We also 
note that since States, working with their stakeholders, may determine 
how to weight the various indicators and criteria they use to come up 
with a program's overall level of performance, they also have the means 
to address survey response rates that they deem too low to provide any 
meaningful indicator of program quality.
    We believe that States can increase their response rate by 
incorporating the surveys into other structures, for example, having 
LEAs disseminate the survey at various points throughout teachers' 
induction period. Surveys may also be made part of required end-of-year 
closeout activities for teachers and their supervisors. As the 
regulations require States to survey only those teachers who are 
teaching in public schools and the public school employees who employ 
them (see the discussion of the definition of a novice teacher under 
Sec.  612.2(d)), we believe that approaches such as these will enable 
States to achieve reasonably high response rates and, thus, valid 
survey results.
    Finally, before the Department would consider working to develop a 
system, like one the commenter suggested, for tracking program 
graduates across State boundaries, we would want to consult with 
States, IHEs and other stakeholders.
    Changes: None.
Specialized Accreditation (34 CFR 612.5(a)(4)(i))
    Comments: Commenters were both supportive of and opposed to the 
proposed provision regarding specialized accreditation. Some commenters 
noted that CAEP, the new specialized accreditor for teacher preparation 
programs, is not an accreditor currently recognized by the Department, 
which creates the possibility that there would be no federally-
recognized specialized accreditor for teacher preparation programs. 
Commenters believed that the inclusion of this metric is premature 
without an organization, which the Secretary recognizes, that can 
confer accreditation on these programs. Other commenters argued that 
this provision inserts the Federal government into the State program 
approval process by mandating specific requirements that a State must 
consider when approving teacher preparation programs within its 
jurisdiction. They further stated that, although the Department 
references CAEP and its standards for what they referred to as a 
justification for some of the mandated indicators, CAEP does not 
accredit at the program level. They noted that, in fact, no accreditor 
provides accreditation specifically to individual teacher preparation 
programs; CAEP does so only to entities that offer these programs.
    Commenters raised an additional concern that the Department is 
seeking to implicitly mandate national accreditation, which would 
result in increased costs; and that the proposed regulations set a 
disturbing precedent by effectively mandating specialized accreditation 
as a requirement for demonstrating program quality. Some commenters 
were concerned that with CAEP as the only national accreditor for 
teacher preparation, variety of and access to national accreditation 
would be limited and controlled.
    Other commenters expressed concern that our proposal to offer each 
State the option of presenting an assurance that the program is 
accredited by a specialized accrediting agency would, at best, make the 
specialized accreditor an agent of the Federal government, and at 
worst, effectively mandate specialized accreditation by CAEP. The 
commenters argued instead that professional accreditation should remain 
a voluntary, independent process based on evolving standards of the 
profession.
    Some commenters asked that the requirement for State reporting on 
accreditation or program characteristics in Sec.  612.5(a)(4)(i) and 
(ii) be removed because these are duplicative of existing State efforts 
with no clear benefit to understanding whether a teacher preparation 
program can effectively prepare candidates for classroom success, and 
because the proposed regulations are redundant to work being done for 
State and national

[[Page 75572]]

accreditation. Other commenters recommended that States should not be 
required to adhere to one national system because absent a floor for 
compliance purposes, States may build better accreditation systems. One 
commenter proposed that, as an alternative to program accreditation, 
States be allowed to include other indicators predictive of a teacher's 
effect on student performance, such as evidence of the effective use of 
positive behavioral interventions and supports on the basis of the 
aggregate number of suspensions and expulsions written by educators 
from each teacher preparation program.
    Some commenters argued that stronger standards are essential to 
improving teacher preparation programs, and providing some gradation of 
ratings of how well preparation programs are doing would provide useful 
information to the prospective candidates, hiring districts, and the 
teacher preparation programs the IRCs and SRCs are intended to inform. 
They noted that as long as CAEP continued with these accreditation 
levels, rather than lumping them all together under a high-level 
assurance, indicators of these levels should be reflected in the rating 
system. They also stated that where States do not require 
accreditation, States should attempt to assess the level at which 
programs are meeting the additional criteria.
    Some commenters argued that accreditation alone is sufficient to 
hold teacher preparation programs accountable. Other commenters stated 
their agreement that active participation in professional accreditation 
should be recognized as an indicator of program quality. One commenter 
supported the alignment between the proposed regulations and CAEP's 
annual outcomes-based reporting measures, but was concerned that the 
regulations as proposed would spawn 50 separate State reporting 
systems, data definitions, and processes for quality assurance. The 
commenter supported incentivizing accreditation and holding all teacher 
preparation programs to the same standards and reporting requirements, 
and stated that CAEP's new accreditation process would achieve the 
goals of the proposed rules on a national level, while removing burden 
from the States. The commenter expressed concern about the requirement 
that the Secretary recognize the specialized accrediting agency, and 
the statement in the preamble of the NPRM that alternative route 
programs are often not eligible for specialized accreditation.
    The commenter also indicated that current input- and compliance-
based system requirements within the Department's recognition process 
for accreditors runs counter to the overarching goal of providing 
meaningful data and feedback loops for continuous improvement. The 
commenter noted that CAEP was launched to bring all teacher preparation 
programs, whether alternative, higher education based, or online-based, 
into the fold of accreditation. The commenter recommended that 
specialized accrediting agencies recognized by the Council for Higher 
Education Accreditation (CHEA) should be allowed to serve as a State 
indicator for program quality.
    Commenters also noted that no definition of specialized 
accreditation was proposed, and requested that we include a definition 
of this term. One commenter recommended that a definition of 
specialized accreditation include the criteria that the Secretary would 
use to recognize an agency for the accreditation of professional 
teacher preparation programs, and that one of the criteria for a 
specialized agency should be the inclusion of alternative certification 
programs as eligible professional teacher preparation programs.
    Discussion: First, it is important to note that these regulations 
do not set requirements for States' teacher preparation program 
approval processes. The regulations establish requirements for States' 
reporting to the Secretary on teacher preparation programs in their 
States, and specifically their identification of programs determined to 
be low-performing or at-risk of being low-performing, and the basis for 
those determinations.
    Also, upon review of the comments, we realized that imprecise 
wording in the proposed regulations likely led to misunderstanding of 
its intent regarding program-level accreditation. Our intent was 
simple: to allow States able to certify that the entity offering the 
teacher preparation program had been accredited by a teacher 
preparation program accreditor recognized by the Secretary to rely on 
that accreditation to demonstrate that the program produces teacher 
candidates with the basic qualifications identified in Sec.  
612.5(a)(4)(ii) rather than having to separately report on those 
qualifications. The proposed regulations would not have required 
separate accreditation of each individual program offered by an entity, 
but we have revised Sec.  612.5(a)(4)(i) to better reflect this intent. 
In response to the concern about whether an entity that administers an 
alternative route program can receive such accreditation, the entity 
can apply for CAEP accreditation, as one of the commenters noted.
    As summarized above, commenters presented opposing views of the 
role in the regulations of national accreditation through an accreditor 
recognized by the Secretary: Opinions that the inclusion of national 
accreditation in the regulations represented an unauthorized mandate 
for accreditation on the one hand, and an implication that 
accreditation alone was sufficient, thus making other options or 
further indicators unnecessary, on the other. Similarly, some 
commenters argued that the regulations require too much standardization 
across States (through either accreditation or a consistent set of 
broad indicators), while others argued that the regulations either 
allow too much variability among States (leading to lack of 
comparability) or encourage the duplicative effort of creating over 50 
separate systems.
    In the final regulations we seek to balance these concerns. States 
are to assess whether a program either has Federally recognized 
accreditation (Sec.  612.5(a)(4)(i)) or produces teacher candidates 
with certain characteristics (Sec.  612.5(a)(4)(ii)). Allowing States 
to report and assess whether their teacher preparation programs have 
specialized accreditation or produce teacher candidates with specific 
characteristics is not a mandate that a program fulfill either option, 
and it may eliminate or reduce duplication of effort by the State. If a 
State has an existing process to assess the program characteristics in 
Sec.  612.5(a)(4)(ii), it can use that process rather than report on 
whether a program has specialized accreditation; conversely, if a State 
would like to simply use accreditation by an agency that evaluates 
factors in Sec.  612.5(a)(4)(ii) (whether federally recognized or not) 
to fulfill this requirement, it may choose do so. We believe these 
factors do relate to preparation of effective teachers, which is 
reflected in standards and expectations developed by the field, 
including the CAEP standards. And since accreditation remains a 
voluntary process, we cannot rely on it alone for transparency and 
accountability across all programs.
    We now address the commenters' statement that there may be no 
federally recognized accreditor for educator preparation entities. If 
there is none, and a State would like to use accreditation by an agency 
whose standards align with the elements listed

[[Page 75573]]

in Sec.  612.5(a)(4)(ii) (whether federally recognized or not) to 
fulfill the requirements in Sec.  612.5(a)(4)(ii), it may do so. In 
fact, many States have worked or are working with CAEP on partnerships 
to align standards, data collection, and processes.
    As we summarized above, some commenters requested that we include a 
definition of specialized accreditation, and that it include criteria 
the Secretary would use to recognize an agency for accreditation of 
teacher preparation programs, and that one of the criteria should be 
inclusion of alternative certification programs as eligible programs. 
While we appreciate these comments, we believe they are outside the 
scope of the proposed and final regulations.
    Finally, because teacher preparation program oversight authority 
lies with the States, we do not intend for the regulations to require a 
single approach--via accreditation or otherwise--for all States to use 
in assessing the characteristics of teacher preparation programs. We 
do, however, encourage States to work together in designing data 
collection processes, in order to reduce or share costs, learn from one 
another, and allow greater comparability across States.
    In terms of the use of other specific indicators (e.g., positive 
behavioral interventions), we encourage interested parties to bring 
these suggestions forward to their States in the stakeholder engagement 
process required of all States under Sec.  612.4(c).
    As one commenter noted, the current statutory recognition process 
for accreditors is heavily input based, while the emphasis of the 
regulations is on outcomes. Any significant reorientation of the 
accreditor recognition process would require statutory change. 
Nonetheless, given the rigor and general acceptance of the Federal 
recognition process, we believe that accreditation only by a Federally 
recognized accreditor be specifically assessed in Sec.  612.5(a)(4)(i), 
rather than accreditors recognized by outside agencies such as CHEA. 
For programs not accredited by a federally recognized accreditor, 
States determine whether or to what degree a program meets 
characteristics for the alternative, Sec.  612.5(a)(4)(ii).
    Because the regulation provides for use of State procedures as an 
alternative to specialized accreditor recognized by the Secretary, 
nothing in Sec.  612.5(a)(4) would mandate program accreditation by 
CAEP or any other entity. Nor would the regulation otherwise interfere 
in what commenters argue should be a voluntary, independent process 
based on evolving standards of the profession. Indeed, this provision 
does not require any program accreditation at all.
    Changes: We have revised Sec.  612.5(a)(4)(i) to clarify that the 
assessment of whether a program is accredited by a specialized 
accreditor could be fulfilled by assessing the accreditation of the 
entity administering teacher preparation programs, not by accreditation 
of the individual programs themselves.
Characteristics of Teacher Preparation Programs (34 CFR 
612.5(a)(4)(ii))
    Comments: Multiple commenters expressed opposition to this 
provision, which would have States report whether a program lacking 
specialized accreditation under Sec.  612.5(a)(4)(ii), has certain 
basic program characteristics. They stated that it is Federal overreach 
into areas of State or institutional control. For example, while 
commenters raised the issue in other contexts, one commenter noted that 
entrance and exit qualifications of teacher candidates have 
traditionally been the right of the institution to determine when 
considering requirements of State approval of teacher preparation 
programs. Other commenters expressed concern about Federal involvement 
in State and accrediting agency approval of teacher preparation 
programs, in which they stated that the Federal government should have 
limited involvement.
    Other commenters expressed concern about the consequences of 
creating rigorous teacher candidate entry and exit qualifications. Some 
commenters expressed concerns that this requirement does not take into 
account the unique missions of the institutions and will have a 
disproportionate and negative impact on MSIs, which may see decreases 
in eligible teacher preparation program candidates by denying entry to 
candidates who do not meet entry requirements established by this 
provision. These commenters were concerned that rigorous entrance 
requirements could decrease diversity in the teaching profession.
    Commenters also expressed general opposition to requiring rigorous 
entry and exit qualifications because they felt that the general 
assurance of entry and exit requirements did little to provide 
transparency or differentiate programs by program quality. Therefore, 
the provisions were unneeded, and only added to the confusion and 
bureaucracy of these requirements.
    Other commenters noted that a lack of clinical experience similar 
to the teaching environment in which they begin their careers results 
in a struggle for novice teachers, limiting their ability to meet the 
needs of their students in their early years in the classroom. They 
suggested that the regulations include ``teaching placement,'' for 
example, or ``produces teacher candidates with content and pedagogical 
knowledge and quality clinical preparation relevant to their teaching 
placement, who have met rigorous teacher candidate entry and exit 
qualifications pursuant'' to increase the skills and knowledge of 
teacher preparation program completers who are being placed in the 
classroom as a teacher.
    Discussion: While some commenters expressed concern with Federal 
overreach, as noted in the earlier discussion of Sec.  612.5(a)(4)(i) 
these regulations do not set any requirements that States have 
established for approving teacher preparation programs; they establish 
requirements for State reporting to the Secretary on teacher 
preparation programs and how they determined whether any given program 
was low-performing or at-risk of being low-performing. In addition, a 
State may report whether institutions have fulfilled requirements in 
Sec.  612.5(a)(4) through one of two options: Accreditation by an 
accreditor recognized by the Secretary or, consistent with Sec.  
612.5(a)(4)(ii), showing that the program produces teacher candidates 
(1) with content and pedagogical knowledge and quality clinical 
preparation, and (2) who have met rigorous exit qualifications 
(including, as we observe in response to the comments summarized 
immediately above, by being accredited by an agency whose standards 
align with the elements listed in Sec.  612.5(a)(4)(ii)). Thus, the 
regulations do not require that programs produce teacher candidates 
with any Federally prescribed rigorous exit requirements or quality 
clinical preparation.
    Rather, as discussed in our response to public comment in the 
section on Specialized Accreditation, States have the authority to use 
their own process to determine whether a program has these 
characteristics. We feel that this authority provides ample flexibility 
for State discretion in how to treat this indicator in assessing 
overall program performance and the information about each program that 
could help that program in areas of program design. Moreover, the basic 
elements identified in Sec.  612.5(a)(4)(ii) reflect recommendations of 
the non-Federal negotiators, and we agree with them that the presence 
or absence of these elements should impact the overall level of a 
teacher preparation program's performance.
    The earlier discussion of ``rigorous entry and exit requirements'' 
in our

[[Page 75574]]

discussion of public comment on Definitions addresses the comments 
regarding rigorous entry requirements. We have revised Sec.  
612.5(a)(4)(ii)(C) accordingly to focus solely on rigorous exit 
standards. As mentioned in that previous discussion, the Department 
also encourages all States to include diversity of program graduates as 
an indicator in their performance rating systems, to recognize those 
programs that are addressing this critical need in the teaching 
workforce.
    Ensuring that the program produces teacher candidates who have met 
rigorous exit qualifications alone will not provide necessary 
transparency or differentiation of program quality. However, having 
States report data on the full set of indicators for each program will 
provide significant and useful information, and explain the basis for a 
State's determination that a particular program is or is not low-
performing or at-risk of being low-performing.
    We agree with the importance of high quality clinical experience. 
However, it is unrealistic to require programs to ensure that each 
candidate's clinical experience is directly relevant to his or her 
future, as yet undetermined, teaching placement.
    Changes: We have revised Sec.  612.5(a)(4)(ii)(C) to require a 
State to assess whether the teacher preparation program produces 
teacher candidates who have met rigorous teacher candidate exit 
qualifications. We have removed the proposed requirement that States 
assess whether teacher candidates meet rigorous entry requirements.
    Comments: None.
    Discussion: Under Sec.  612.5(a)(4) States must annually report 
whether a program is administered by an entity that is accredited by a 
specialized accrediting agency or produces candidates with the same 
knowledge, preparation, and qualifications. Upon review of the comments 
and the language of Sec.  612.5(a)(4), we realized that the proposed 
lead stem to Sec.  612.5(a)(4)(ii), ``consistent with Sec.  
612.4(b)(3)(i)(B)'', is not needed since the proposed latter provision 
has been removed.
    Changes: We have removed the phrase ``consistent with Sec.  
612.4(b)(3)(i)(B)'' from Sec.  612.5(a)(4)(ii).
Other Indicators of a Teacher's Effect on Student Performance (34 CFR 
612.5(b))
    Comments: Multiple commenters provided examples of other indicators 
that may be predictive of a teacher's effect on student performance and 
requested the Department to include them. Commenters stated that a 
teacher preparation program (by which we assume the commenters meant 
``State'') should be required to report on the extent to which each 
program meets workforce demands in their State or local area. 
Commenters argued this would go further than just reporting job 
placement, and inform the public about how the program works with the 
local school systems to prepare qualified teacher candidates for likely 
positions. Other commenters stated that, in addition to assessments, 
students should evaluate their own learning, reiterating that this 
would be a more well-rounded approach to assessing student success. One 
commenter recommended that the diversity of a teacher preparation 
program's students should be a metric to assess teacher preparation 
programs to ensure that teacher preparation programs have significant 
diversity in the teachers who will be placed in the classroom.
    Discussion: We acknowledge that a State might find that other 
indicators beyond those the regulations require including those 
recommended by the commenters, could be used to provide additional 
information on teacher preparation program performance. The regulations 
permit States to use (in which case they need to report on) additional 
indicators of academic content knowledge and teaching skills to assess 
program performance, including other measures that assess the effect of 
novice teachers on student performance. In addition, as we have 
previously noted, States also may apply and report on other criteria 
they have established for identifying which teacher preparation 
programs are low-performing or at-risk of being low-performing.
    In reviewing commenters' suggestions, we realized that the term 
``predictive'' in the phrase ``predictive of a teacher's effect on 
student performance'' is inaccurate. The additional measures States may 
use are indicators of their academic content knowledge and teaching 
skill, rather than predictors of teacher performance.
    We therefore are removing the word ``predictive'' from the 
regulations. If a State uses other indicators of academic content 
knowledge and teaching skills, it must, as we had proposed, apply the 
same indicators for all of its teacher preparation programs to ensure 
consistent evaluation of preparation programs within the State.
    Changes: We have removed the word ``predictive'' from Sec.  
612.5(b).
    Comments: None.
    Discussion: As we addressed in the discussion of public comments on 
Scope and Purpose (Sec.  612.1), we have removed the proposed 
requirement that in assessing the performance of each teacher 
preparation program States consider student learning outcomes ``in 
significant part.'' In addition, as we addressed in the discussion of 
public comments on Requirements for State Reporting on Characteristics 
of Teacher Preparation Programs (Sec.  612.5(a)(4)(ii)), we have 
removed rigorous entry requirements from the characteristics of teacher 
preparation programs whose administering entities do not have 
accreditation by an agency approved by the Secretary. Proposed Sec.  
612.6(a)(1) stated that States must use student learning outcomes in 
significant part to identify low-performing or at risk programs, and 
proposed Sec.  612.6(b) stated that the technical assistance that a 
State must provide to low-performing programs included technical 
assistance in the form of information on assessing the rigor of their 
entry requirements. We have removed both phrases from the final 
regulations.
    Changes: The phrase ``in significant part'' has been removed from 
Sec.  612.6(a)(1), and ``entry requirement and'' has been removed from 
Sec.  612.6(b).
What must a State consider in identifying low-performing teacher 
preparation programs or at-risk teacher preparation programs, and what 
actions must a State take with respect to those identified as low-
performing? (34 CFR 612.6)
    Comments: Some commenters supported the requirement in Sec.  
612.6(b) that at a minimum, a State must provide technical assistance 
to low-performing teacher preparation programs in the State to help 
them improve their performance. Commenters were supportive of targeted 
technical assistance because it has the possibility of strengthening 
teacher preparation programs and the proposed requirements would allow 
States and teacher preparation programs to focus on continuous 
improvement and particular areas of strength and need. Commenters 
indicated that they were pleased that the first step for a State upon 
identifying a teacher preparation program as at-risk or low-performing 
is providing that program with technical support, including sharing 
data from specific indicators to be used to improve instruction and 
clinical practice. Commenters noted that States can help bridge the gap 
between teacher preparation programs and LEAs by using that data to 
create supports for those teachers whose needs were not met by their 
program. Commenters commended the examples of technical assistance 
provided in the regulations.

[[Page 75575]]

    Some commenters suggested additional examples of technical 
assistance to include in the regulations. Commenters believed that 
technical assistance could include: Training teachers to serve as 
clinical faculty or cooperating teachers using the National Board for 
Professional Teaching Standards; integrating models of accomplished 
practice into the preparation program curriculum; and assisting 
preparation programs to provide richer clinical experiences. Commenters 
also suggested including first-year teacher mentoring programs and peer 
networks as potential ways in which a State could provide technical 
assistance to low-performing programs. One commenter noted that, in a 
recent survey of educators, teachers cite mentor programs in their 
first year of teaching (90 percent) and peer networks (84 percent) as 
the top ways to improve teacher training programs.
    Commenters recommended that States have the discretion to determine 
the scope of the technical assistance, rather than requiring that 
technical assistance focus only on low-performing programs. This would 
allow States to distribute support as appropriate in an individual 
context, and minimize the risk of missing essential opportunities to 
identify best practices from high-performing programs and supporting 
those programs who are best-positioned to be increasingly productive 
and effective providers. Commenters suggested that entities who 
administer teacher preparation programs be responsible for seeking and 
resourcing improvement for their low-performing programs.
    Some commenters suggested that the Federal government provide 
financial assistance to States to facilitate the provision of technical 
assistance to low-performing programs. Commenters suggested that the 
Department make competitive grants available to States to distribute to 
low-performing programs in support of program improvement. Commenters 
also suggested that the Federal government offer meaningful incentives 
to help States design, test, and share approaches to strengthening weak 
programs and support research to assess effective interventions, as it 
would be difficult for States to offer the required technical 
assistance because State agencies have little experience and few staff 
in this area. In addition, commenters recommended that a national 
training and technical assistance center be established to build data 
capacity, consistency, and quality among States and teacher preparation 
programs to support scalable continuous improvement and program quality 
in educator preparation.
    Commenters recommended that, in addition to a description of the 
procedures used to assist low-performing programs as required by 
section 207 of the HEA, States should be required to describe in the 
SRC the technical assistance they provide to low-performing teacher 
preparation programs in the last year. Commenters suggested that this 
would shift the information reported from descriptions of processes to 
more detailed information about real technical assistance efforts, 
which could inform technical assistance efforts in other States.
    Commenters suggested adding a timeframe for States to provide the 
technical assistance to low-performing programs. Commenters suggested a 
maximum of three months from the time that the program is identified as 
low-performing because, while waiting for the assistance, and in the 
early stages of its implementation, the program will continue to 
produce teacher candidates of lower quality.
    Commenters suggested that States should be required to offer the 
assistance of a team of well-recognized scholars in teacher education 
and in the education of diverse students in P-12 schools to assist in 
the assessment and redesign of programs that are rated below effective. 
Some commenters noted that States with publically supported 
universities designated as Historically Black Colleges and 
Universities, Hispanic Serving Institutions, and tribal institutions 
are required to file with the Secretary a supplemental report of equity 
in funding and other support to these institutions. Private and 
publically supported institutions in these categories often lack the 
resources to attract the most recognized scholars in the field.
    Discussion: The Department appreciates the commenters' support for 
the requirement that States provide technical assistance to improve the 
performance of any teacher preparation program in its State that has 
been identified as low-performing.
    We decline to adopt the recommendations of commenters who suggested 
that the regulations require States to provide specific types of 
technical assistance because we seek to provide States with flexibility 
to design technical assistance that is appropriate for the 
circumstances of each low-performing program. States have the 
discretion to implement technical assistance in a variety of ways. The 
regulations outline the minimum requirements, and we encourage States 
that wish to do more, such as providing assistance to at-risk or other 
programs, to do so. Furthermore, nothing in the regulations prohibits 
States from providing technical assistance to at-risk programs in 
addition to low-performing programs. Similarly, while we encourage 
States to provide timely assistance to low-performing programs, we 
decline to prescribe a certain timeframe so that States have the 
flexibility to meet these requirements according to their capacity. In 
the SRC, States are required to provide a description of the process 
used to determine the kind of technical assistance to provide to low-
performing programs and how such assistance is administered.
    The Department appreciates comments requesting Federal guidance and 
resources to support high-quality technical assistance. We agree that 
such activities could be beneficial. However, the commenters' 
suggestions that the Department provide financial assistance to States 
to facilitate their provision of technical assistance, and to teacher 
preparation programs to support their improvement, and request for 
national technical assistance centers to support scalable continuous 
improvement and to improve program quality, are outside the scope of 
this regulation, which is focused on reporting. The Department will 
consider ways to help States implement this and other provisions of the 
regulations, including by facilitating the sharing of best practices 
across States.
    Changes: None.

Subpart C--Consequences of Withdrawal of State Approval or Financial 
Support

What are the consequences for a low-performing teacher preparation 
program that loses the State's approval or the State's financial 
support? (34 CFR 612.7(a))
    Comments: Multiple commenters opposed the consequences for a low-
performing teacher preparation program based on their opinion that the 
loss of TEACH Grant eligibility will result in decreased access to 
higher education for students. Commenters noted that, as institutions 
become unable to award TEACH Grants to students in low-performing 
teacher preparation programs, students attending those programs would 
also lose access to TEACH Grant funds and thereby be responsible for 
the additional costs that the financial aid program normally would have 
covered. If low-income students are required to cover additional

[[Page 75576]]

amounts of their tuition, the commenters asserted, they will be less 
likely to continue their education or to enroll in the first place, if 
they are prospective students. The commenters noted that this would 
disproportionately impact low-income and minority teacher preparation 
students and decrease the enrollment for those populations.
    A number of commenters expressed their concerns about the impacts 
of losing financial aid eligibility, and stated that decreasing 
financial aid for prospective teachers would negatively impact the 
number of teachers joining the profession. As costs for higher 
education continue to increase and less financial aid is available, 
prospective teacher preparation program students may decide not to 
enroll in a teacher preparation program, and instead pursue other 
fields that may offer other financial incentives to offset the costs 
associated with college. The commenters believed this would result in 
fewer teachers entering the field because fewer students would begin 
and complete teacher preparation programs, thus increasing teacher 
shortages. Other commenters were concerned about how performance 
results of teacher preparation programs may impact job outcomes for 
students who attended those programs in the past as their ability to 
obtain jobs may be impacted by the rating of a program they have not 
attended recently. The commenters noted that being rated as low-
performing would likely reduce the ability of a program to recruit, 
enroll, and retain students, which would translate into fewer teachers 
being available for teaching positions. Others stated that there will 
be a decrease in the number of students who seek certification in a 
high-need subject area due to link between TEACH Grant eligibility and 
teacher preparation program metrics. They believe this will increase 
teacher shortages in areas that have a shortage of qualified teachers. 
Additional commenters believed that results from an individual teacher 
would affect privacy concerns and further drive potential teachers away 
from the field due to fears that their performance would be published 
in a public manner.
    Some commenters were specifically concerned about the requirement 
that low-performing programs be required to provide transition support 
and remedial services to students enrolled at the time of termination 
of State support or approval. The commenters noted that low-performing 
programs are unlikely to have the resources or capacity to provide 
transitional support to students.
    Discussion: As an initial matter, we note that the requirements in 
Sec.  612.7(a) are drawn directly from section 207(b) of the HEA, which 
provides that a teacher preparation program from which the State has 
withdrawn its approval or financial support due to the State's 
identification of the program as low-performing may not, among other 
things, accept or enroll any student who receives title IV student aid. 
Section 207(b) of the HEA and Sec.  612.7(a) do not concern simply the 
consequences of a program being rated as low-performing, but rather the 
consequences associated with a State's withdrawal of the approval of a 
program or the State's termination of its financial support based on 
such a rating. Similarly, section 207(b) of the HEA and Sec.  612.7(a) 
do not concern a program's loss of eligibility to participate in the 
TEACH Grant program pursuant to part 686, but rather the statutory 
prohibition on the award of title IV student aid to students enrolled 
in such a teacher preparation program.
    We disagree with the commenters that the loss of TEACH Grant funds 
will have a negative impact on affordability of, and access to attend, 
teacher preparation programs. A program that loses its eligibility 
would be required to provide transitional support, if necessary, to 
students enrolled at the institution at the time of termination of 
financial support or withdrawal of approval to assist students in 
finding another teacher preparation program that is eligible to enroll 
students receiving title IV, HEA funds. By providing transition 
services to students, individuals who receive title IV, HEA funds would 
be able to find another program in which to use their financial aid and 
continue in a teacher preparation program in a manner that will still 
address college affordability. We also disagree with the commenters who 
stated that low-performing programs are unlikely to have the resources 
to provide transitional support to students. We believe that an IHE 
with a low-performing teacher preparation program will be offering 
other programs that may not be considered low-performing. As such, an 
IHE will have resources to provide transition services to students 
affected by the teacher preparation program being labeled as low-
performing even if the money does not come directly from the teacher 
preparation program.
    While teacher preparation program labels may negatively impact job 
market outcomes because low-performing teacher preparation programs' 
ability to recruit and enroll future cohorts of students would be 
negatively impacted by the rating, we believe these labels better serve 
the interests of students who deserve to know the quality of the 
program they may enroll in. As we have explained, Sec.  612.7 applies 
only to programs that lose State approval or financial support as a 
result of being identified by the State as low-performing. It does not 
apply to every program that is identified as low-performing. We believe 
that, while providing information about the quality of a program to a 
prospective student may impact the student's enrollment decision, a 
student who wishes to become a teacher will find and enroll in a 
program that has not lost State approval or State financial support. We 
believe that providing quality consumer information to prospective 
students will allow them to make informed enrollment decisions. 
Students who are aware that a teacher preparation program is not 
approved by the State may reasonably choose not to enter that program. 
Individuals who wish to enter the teaching field will continue to find 
programs that prepare them for the workforce, while avoiding less 
effective programs. By doing so, we believe, the overall impact to the 
number of individuals entering the field will be minimal. Section 
612.4(b) implements protections and allowances for teacher preparation 
programs with a program size of fewer than 25 students, which would 
help to protect against privacy violations, but does not require 
sharing information on individual teacher effectiveness with the 
general public.
    In addition, we believe that, as section 207(b) of the HEA 
requires, removing title IV, HEA program eligibility from low-
performing teacher preparation programs that lose State approval or 
financial support as a result of the State assessment will encourage 
individuals to enroll in more successful teacher preparation programs. 
This will keep more prospective teachers enrolled and will mitigate any 
negative impact on teacher employment rates.
    While these regulations specify that the teacher placement rate and 
the teacher retention rate be calculated separately for high-need 
schools, no requirements have been created to track employment outcomes 
based on high-need subject areas. We believe that an emphasis on high-
need schools will help focus on improving student success across the 
board for students in these schools. In addition, the requirement to 
report performance at the individual teacher preparation program level 
will likely promote reporting by high-need subjects as well.
    Section 612.7(a) codifies statutory requirements related to teacher

[[Page 75577]]

preparation programs that lose State approval or State financial 
support, and the Department does not have flexibility to alter the 
language. This includes the requirements for providing transitional 
services to students enrolled. However, we believe that many transition 
services are already being offered by colleges and universities, as 
well as through community organizations focused on student transition 
to higher education. For example, identifying potential colleges and 
support in admissions and financial aid application completion, 
disability support services, remedial education, as well as career 
services support are all components of transition services that most 
IHEs offer to some degree to their student body.
    The regulations do not require that an institution dictate how a 
student is assisted at the time of termination of financial support or 
withdrawal of approval from the State. Transition services may include 
helping a student transfer to another program at the same institution 
that still receives State funding and State approval, or another 
program at another institution. The transition services offered by the 
institution should be in the best interest of the student and assist 
the student in meeting their educational and occupational goals. 
However, the Department believes that teacher preparation programs may 
be offering these services through their staff already and those 
services should not stop because of the consequences of withdrawal of 
State approval or financial support.
    Changes: None.
Institutional Requirements for Institutions Administering a Teacher 
Preparation Program That Has Lost State Approval or Financial Support 
(34 CFR 612.7(b))
    Comments: One commenter believed that the Department should require 
States to notify K-12 school officials in the instance where a teacher 
preparation program student is involved in clinical practice at the 
school, noting that the K-12 school would be impacted by the loss of 
State support for the teacher preparation program.
    Discussion: We decline to require schools and districts to be 
notified directly when a teacher preparation program of a student 
teacher is assessed as low-performing. While that information would be 
available to the public, we believe that directly notifying school 
officials may unfairly paint students within that program as 
ineffective. A student enrolled in a low-performing teacher preparation 
program may be an effective and successful teacher and we believe that 
notifying school officials directly may influence the school officials 
to believe the student teacher would be a poor performer even though 
there would be no evidence about the individual supporting this 
assumption.
    Additionally, we intend Sec.  612.7(b) to focus exclusively on the 
title IV, HEA consequences to the teacher preparation program that 
loses State approval or financial support and on the students enrolled 
in those programs. This subsection describes the procedure that a 
program must undertake to ensure that students are informed of the loss 
of State approval or financial support.
    Changes: None.
How does a low-performing teacher preparation program regain 
eligibility to accept or enroll students receiving title IV, HEA 
program funds after a loss of the State's approval or the State's 
financial support? (34 CFR 612.8(a))
    Comments: One commenter noted that even if a State has given its 
reinstatement of funds and recognition of improved performance, the 
program would have to wait for the Department's approval to be fully 
reinstated. The commenter stated that this would be Federal overreach 
into State jurisdiction and decision-making. Additionally, the 
commenter noted that the regulations appear to make access to title IV, 
HEA funds for an entire institution contingent on the ratings of 
teacher preparation programs.
    Another commenter noted that some programs might not ever regain 
authorization to prepare teachers if they must transfer students to 
other programs since there will not be any future student outcomes 
associated with the recent graduates of the low-performing programs.
    Discussion: We decline to adopt the suggestion of the commenter 
that the Department should not require an application by a low-
performing teacher preparation program to regain their eligibility to 
accept or enroll students receiving title IV, HEA funds which had 
previously lost their eligibility to do so. Section 207(b)(4) of the 
HEA provides that a teacher preparation program that loses eligibility 
to enroll students receiving title IV, HEA funds may be reinstated upon 
demonstration of improved performance, as determined by the State. 
Reinstatement of eligibility of a low-performing teacher preparation 
program would occur if the program meets two criteria: (1) Improved 
performance on the teacher preparation program performance criteria in 
Sec.  612.5 as determined by the State; and (2) reinstatement of the 
State's approval or the State's financial support, or, if both were 
lost, the State's approval and the State's financial support. Section 
612.8 operationalizes the process for an institution to notify the 
Secretary that the State has determined the program has improved its 
performance sufficiently to regain the States approval or financial 
support and the teacher preparation should again be permitted to enroll 
students receiving title IV aid.
    We do not propose to tie the entire institution's eligibility for 
title IV, HEA funds to the performance of their teacher preparation 
program. Any loss of title IV, HEA funds based on these regulations 
would only apply to the institution's teacher preparation program and 
not to the entire institution. Therefore, an institution would be able 
to have both title IV eligible and non-title IV eligible programs at 
their institution. In addition, based on the reporting by program, an 
institution could have both eligible and non-eligible title IV teacher 
preparation programs based on the rating of each program. The remaining 
programs at the institution would still be eligible to receive title 
IV, HEA funds. We are concerned that our inclusion of proposed Sec.  
612.8(b)(2) may have led the commenter to believe that an entire 
institution would be prohibited from participating in the title IV 
programs as a result of a teacher preparation program's loss of 
approval or financial support based on low performance. To avoid such 
confusion, we have removed Sec.  612.8(b)(2) from the final 
regulations. The institutional eligibility requirements in part 600 
sufficiently describe the requirements for institutions to participate 
in the title IV, HEA programs.
    We believe that providing transitional support to students enrolled 
at the institution at the time a State may terminate financial support 
or withdraw approval of a teacher preparation program will provide 
appropriate consumer protections to students. We disagree with the 
commenter who stated it would be impossible for a program to improve 
its performance on the State assessment, because there could not be any 
data available on which the program could be assessed, such as student 
learning outcomes associated with programs if the program was 
prohibited from enrolling additional title IV eligible students. 
Programs would not be prohibited from enrolling students to determine 
future student outcomes. Programs that have lost State approval or 
financial support would be limited only in their ability to enroll 
additional title IV eligible students, not to enroll all students.

[[Page 75578]]

    Changes: We have removed Sec.  612.8(b)(2), which was related to 
institutional eligibility.

Part 686--Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education 
(TEACH) Grant Program

Subpart A--Scope, Purpose, and General Definitions

Section 686.1 Scope and Purpose
    Comments: None.
    Discussion: The Higher Education Opportunity Act of 2008 (HEOA) 
(Pub. L. 110-315) amended section 465(a)(2)(A) of the HEA to include 
educational service agencies in the description of the term low-income 
school, and added a new section 481(f) that provides that the term 
``educational service agency'' has the meaning given the term in 
section 9101 of the ESEA. Also, the ESSA maintained the definition of 
the term ``educational service agency'', but it now appears in section 
8101 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. We proposed changes to the 
TEACH Grant program regulations to incorporate the statutory change, 
such as replacing the definition of the term ``school serving low-
income students (low-income school)'' in Sec.  686.2 with the term 
``school or educational service agency serving low-income students 
(low-income school).'' Previously, Sec.  686.1 stated that in exchange 
for a TEACH Grant, a student must agree to serve as a full-time teacher 
in a high-need field in a school serving low-income students. We revise 
the section to provide that a student must teach in a school or 
educational service agency serving low-income students.
    Changes: We revised Sec.  686.1 to update the citation in the 
definition of the term educational service agency to section 8101 of 
the ESEA, as amended, and to use the new term ``school or educational 
service agency serving low-income students (low-income school)'' in 
place of the term ``school serving low-income students (low-income 
school).''
Section 686.2 Definitions
Classification of Instructional Program (CIP)
    Comments: None.
    Discussion: In the NPRM, we proposed to use the CIP to identify 
TEACH Grant-eligible STEM programs. Because, as discussed below, we are 
no longer identifying TEACH Grant-eligible STEM programs, the term CIP 
is not used in the final regulations.
    Changes: We have removed the definition of the term CIP from Sec.  
686.2.
High-Quality Teacher Preparation Program Not Provided Through Distance 
Education Sec.  686.2
    Comments: None.
    Discussion: In the NPRM, we proposed a definition for the term 
``high-quality teacher preparation program.'' In response to comments, 
we have added a definition of a ``high-quality teacher preparation 
program provided through distance education'' in Sec.  686.2. We make a 
corresponding change to the proposed definition of the term ``high-
quality teacher preparation program'' to distinguish a ``high-quality 
teacher preparation program not provided through distance education'' 
from a ``high-quality teacher preparation program provided through 
distance education.''
    Furthermore, to ensure that the TEACH Grant program regulations are 
consistent with the changes made to part 612, we have revised the 
timelines that we proposed in the definition of the term high-quality 
teacher preparation program in part 686 that we now incorporate in the 
terms ``high quality teacher preparation not provided through distance 
education'' and ``high quality teacher preparation program provided 
through distance education.'' We have also removed the phrase ``or of 
higher quality'' from ``effective or of higher quality'' to align the 
definition of ``high-quality teacher preparation program not provided 
through distance education'' with the definition of the term 
``effective teacher preparation program'' in 34 CFR 612.1(d), which 
provides that an effective teacher preparation program is a program 
with a level of performance higher than a low-performing teacher 
preparation or an at-risk teacher preparation program. The phrase ``or 
of higher quality'' was redundant and unnecessary.
    The new definition is consistent with changes we made respect to 
program-level reporting (including distance education), which are 
described in the section of the preamble related to Sec.  
612.4(a)(1)(i). We note that the new definition of the term ``high 
quality teacher preparation program not provided through distance 
education'' relates to the classification of the program under 34 CFR 
612.4(b) made by the State where the program was located, as the 
proposed definition of the term ``high-quality teacher preparation 
program'' provided. This is in contrast to the definition of the term 
``high-quality teacher preparation program provided through distance 
education'' discussed later in this document.
    Also, the proposed definition provided that in the 2020-2021 award 
year, a program would be ``high-quality'' only if it was classified as 
an effective teacher preparation program in either or both the April 
2019 and/or April 2020 State Report Cards. We have determined that this 
provision is unnecessary and have deleted it. Now, because the first 
State Report Cards under the regulations will be submitted in October 
2019, we have provided that starting with the 2021-2022 award year, a 
program is high-quality if it is not classified by the State to be less 
than an effective teacher preparation program based on 34 CFR 612.4(b) 
in two out of the previous three years. We note that in the NPRM, the 
definition of the term ``high-quality teacher preparation program'' 
contained an error. The proposed definition provided that a program 
would be considered high-quality if it were classified as effective or 
of higher quality for two out of three years. We intended the 
requirement to be that a program is high-quality if it is not rated at 
a rating lower than effective for two out of three years. This is a 
more reasonable standard, and allows a program that has been rated as 
less than effective to improve its rating before becoming ineligible to 
award TEACH Grants.
    Changes: We have added to Sec.  686.2 the term ``high-quality 
teacher preparation program not provided through distance education'' 
and defined it as a teacher preparation program at which less than 50 
percent of the program's required coursework is offered through 
distance education that, starting with the 2021-2022 award year and 
subsequent award years, is not classified by the State to be less than 
an effective teacher preparation program, based on 34 CFR 612.4(b) in 
two out of the previous three years or meets the exception from State 
reporting of teacher preparation program performance under 34 CFR 
612.4(b)(3)(ii)(D) or 34 CFR 612.4(b)(5).
High-Quality Teacher Preparation Program Provided Through Distance 
Education Sec.  686.2
    Comments: In response to the Supplemental NPRM, many commenters 
stated that it was unfair that one State's classification of a teacher 
preparation program provided through distance education as low-
performing or at-risk of being low-performing would determine TEACH 
Grant eligibility for all students enrolled in that program who receive 
TEACH Grants, even if other States classified the program as effective. 
Commenters did not propose alternative options. One

[[Page 75579]]

commenter argued that the determination of institutional eligibility to 
disburse TEACH Grants is meant to rest squarely with the Department, 
separate from determinations relating to the title II reporting system. 
Another commenter suggested that there should be a single set of 
performance standards for TEACH Grants to which all States agree to 
hold distance education program accountable. Some commenters felt 
teacher preparation programs provided through distance education might 
have few students in a State and, as a result, might become victims of 
an unusually unrepresentative sample in a particular State.
    Several commenters stated that it was unclear how the proposed 
regulations would take into account TEACH Grant eligibility for 
students enrolled in a teacher preparation program provided through 
distance education that does not lead to initial certification or if 
the program does not receive an evaluation by a State. Another 
commenter stated that the proposed regulations would effectively impose 
a requirement for distance education institutions to adopt a 50-State 
authorization compliance strategy to offer their distance education 
teacher licensure programs to students in all 50 States.
    Discussion: We are persuaded by the commenters that the proposed 
regulations were too stringent. Consequently, we are revising the 
proposed definition of ``high-quality teacher preparation program 
provided through distance education'' such that, to become ineligible 
to participate in the TEACH Grant program, the teacher preparation 
program provided through distance education would need to be rated as 
low-performing or at-risk for two out of three years by the same State. 
This revision focuses on the classification of a teacher preparation 
program provided through distance education as provided by the same 
State rather than the classification of a program by multiple States to 
which the commenters objected. Moreover, this is consistent with the 
treatment of teacher preparation programs at brick-and-mortar 
institutions which also have to be classified as low-performing or at-
risk for two out of three years by the same State to become ineligible 
to participate in the TEACH Grant program.
    We disagree with the commenter that the determination of 
institutional eligibility to disburse TEACH Grants is meant to rest 
squarely with the Department, separate from determinations relating to 
teacher preparation program performance under title II of the HEA. The 
HEA provides that the Secretary determines which teacher preparation 
programs are high-quality, and the Secretary has reasonably decided to 
rely, in part, on the classification of teacher preparation program 
performance by States under title II of the HEA. Further, as the 
performance rating of teacher preparation programs not provided through 
distance education could also be subject to unrepresentative samples 
(for example, programs located near a State border), this concern is 
not limited to teacher preparation programs provided through distance 
education.
    The performance standards related to title II are left to a State's 
discretion; thus, if States want to work together create a single set 
of performance standards, there is no barrier to them doing so.
    By way of clarification, the HEA and current regulations provide 
for TEACH Grant eligibility for students enrolled in post-baccalaureate 
and master's degree programs. The eligibility of programs that do not 
lead to initial certification is not based on a title II performance 
rating. In addition, if the teacher preparation program provided 
through distance education is not classified by a State for a given 
year due to small n-size, students would still be able to receive TEACH 
Grants if the program meets the exception from State reporting of 
teacher preparation program performance under 34 CFR 612.4(b)(3)(ii)(D) 
or 34 CFR 612.4(b)(5). We disagree that the regulations effectively 
impose a requirement for distance education institutions to adopt a 50-
State authorization compliance strategy to offer their distance 
education teacher licensure programs to students in all 50 States. 
Rather, our regulations provide, in part, for reporting on teacher 
preparation programs provided through distance education under the 
title II reporting system with the resulting performance level 
classification of the program based on that reporting forming the basis 
for that program's eligibility to disburse TEACH Grants.
    Changes: We have revised the definition of a high-quality teacher 
preparation program provided through distance education to be a teacher 
preparation program at which at least 50 percent of the program's 
required coursework is offered through distance education and that 
starting with the 2021-2022 award year and subsequent award years, is 
not classified by the same State to be less than an effective teacher 
preparation program based on 34 CFR 612.4(b) in two of the previous 
three years or meets the exception from State reporting of teacher 
preparation program performance under 34 CFR 612.4(b)(3)(ii)(D) or 34 
CFR 612.4(b)(5).
TEACH Grant-Eligible Institution
    Comments: Several commenters disagreed with our proposal to link 
TEACH Grant program eligibility to State ratings of teacher preparation 
program performance conducted under the title II reporting system 
described in part 612. Commenters asserted that State ratings of 
teacher preparation programs should not determine TEACH Grant program 
eligibility because it is not a good precedent to withhold financial 
aid from qualified students on the basis of the quality of the program 
in which the student is enrolled. Commenters also expressed concern 
that, under part 612, each State may develop its own criteria for 
assessing teacher preparation program quality, and that this variation 
between States will impact teacher preparation programs' eligibility 
for TEACH Grants. Commenters stated that using different quality 
measures to determine student eligibility for TEACH Grants will be 
unfair to students, as programs in different States will be evaluated 
using different criteria.
    A commenter that offers only graduate degree programs and no 
programs that lead to initial certification noted that the HEA provides 
that current teachers may be eligible for TEACH Grants to obtain 
graduate degrees, and questioned how those students could obtain TEACH 
Grants under the proposed definitions of the terms ``TEACH Grant-
eligible institution'' and ``TEACH Grant-eligible program.''.
    Commenters also expressed concern that the proposed definition of 
the term TEACH Grant-eligible institution will result in an overall 
reduction in the number of institutions that are eligible to provide 
TEACH Grants, and that, because of this reduction, fewer students will 
pursue high-need fields such as special education, or teach in high-
poverty, diverse, urban or rural communities where student test scores 
may be lower. One commenter stated that it is unfair to punish students 
by denying them access to financial aid when the States they live in 
and the institutions they attend may not be able to supply the data on 
which the teacher preparation programs are being assessed.
    Discussion: We believe that creating a link between institutions 
with teacher preparation programs eligible for TEACH Grants and the 
ratings of teacher preparation programs under the title II reporting 
system is critical, and will allow the Secretary to identify what 
teacher preparation programs are high-

[[Page 75580]]

quality. An ``eligible institution,'' as defined in section 420L(1)(A) 
of the HEA, is one that the Secretary determines ``provides high-
quality teacher preparation and professional development services, 
including extensive clinical experience as part of pre-service 
preparation,'' among other requirements. Consistent with this 
requirement, we have defined the term ``TEACH Grant-eligible program'' 
to include those teacher preparation programs that a State has 
determined provide at least effective teacher preparation. Under title 
II of the HEA, States are required to assess the quality of teacher 
preparation programs in the State and to make a determination as to 
whether a program is low-performing or at-risk of being low-performing. 
A teacher preparation program that does not fall under either one of 
these categories is considered an effective teacher preparation program 
under these final regulations. It is appropriate and reasonable for the 
Secretary to rely on a State's assessment of the quality of teacher 
preparation programs in that State for purposes of determining which 
programs are TEACH Grant-eligible programs.
    We agree that States will assess teacher preparation programs based 
on different criteria and measures. The HEA only requires a State to 
assess the quality of teacher preparation in that State and does not 
require comparability between States. That different States may use 
different standards is not necessarily unfair, as it is reasonable for 
States to consider specific conditions in their States when designing 
their annual assessments. We believe it is important that students 
receiving TEACH Grants be enrolled in programs that the State has 
identified as providing effective teacher preparation.
    We agree that in addition to ensuring that students wishing to 
achieve initial certification to become teachers are eligible for TEACH 
Grants, the HEA provides that a teacher or a retiree from another 
occupation with expertise in a field in which there is a shortage of 
teachers, such as mathematics, science, special education, English 
language acquisition, or another high-need field, or a teacher who is 
using high-quality alternative certification routes to become certified 
is eligible to receive TEACH Grants. To ensure that these eligible 
students are able to obtain TEACH grants, we have modified the 
definitions of the terms ``TEACH Grant-eligible institution'' and 
``TEACH Grant-eligible program.''
    We also acknowledge the possibility that the overall number of 
institutions eligible to award TEACH Grants could decrease, because a 
TEACH Grant-eligible institution now must, in most cases, provide at 
least one high quality teacher preparation program, while in the 
current regulation, an institution may be TEACH Grant-eligible if it 
offers a baccalaureate degree that, in combination with other training 
or experience, will prepare an individual to teach in a high-need field 
and has entered into an agreement with another institution to provide 
courses necessary for its students to begin a career in teaching. We 
note that so long as an otherwise eligible institution has one high-
quality teacher preparation program not provided through distance 
education or one high-quality program provided through distance 
education, it continues to be a TEACH Grant-eligible institution. 
Furthermore, we do not believe that fewer incentives for students to 
pursue fields such as special education or to teach in high-poverty, 
diverse, or rural communities where test scores may be lower would 
necessarily be created. TEACH Grants will continue to be available to 
students so long as their teacher preparation programs are classified 
as effective teacher preparation programs by the State (subject to the 
exceptions previously discussed), and we are not aware of any evidence 
that programs that prepare teachers who pursue fields such as special 
education or who teach in communities where test scores are lower will 
be classified as at-risk or low-performing teacher preparation programs 
on the basis of lower test scores. We believe that those students will 
choose to pursue those fields while enrolled in high-quality programs. 
The larger reason that the number of institutions providing TEACH 
Grants may decrease is that the final regulations narrow the definition 
of a TEACH Grant-eligible institution to generally those institutions 
that offer at least one high-quality teacher preparation program not 
provided through distance education or one high-quality teacher 
preparation program provided through distance education at the 
baccalaureate or master's degree level (that also meets additional 
requirements) and institutions that provide a high-quality teacher 
preparation program not provided through distance education or one 
high-quality teacher preparation program provided through distance 
education that is a post-baccalaureate program of study.
    We do not agree that student learning outcomes for any subgroup, 
including for teachers who teach students with disabilities, would 
necessarily be lower if properly measured. Further, student learning 
outcomes is one of multiple measures used to determine a rating and, 
thereby, TEACH eligibility. So a single measure, whether student 
learning outcomes or another, would not necessarily lead to the teacher 
preparation program being determined by the State to be low-performing 
or at-risk of being low-performing and correspondingly being ineligible 
for TEACH Grants. As discussed elsewhere in this document, States 
determine the ways to measure student learning outcomes that give all 
teachers a chance to demonstrate effectiveness regardless of the 
composition of their classrooms, and States may also determine weights 
of the criteria used in their State assessments of teacher preparation 
program quality.
    We do not agree with the comment that the definition of the term 
Teach Grant-eligible program will unfairly punish students who live in 
States or attend institutions that fail to comply with the regulations 
in part 612 by failing to supply the data required in that part. 
Section 205 of the HEA requires States and institutions to submit IRCs 
and SRCs annually. In addition, students will have access to 
information about a teacher preparation program's eligibility before 
they enroll so that they may select programs that are TEACH Grant-
eligible. Section 686.3(c) also allows students who are currently 
enrolled in a TEACH Grant-eligible program to receive additional TEACH 
Grants to complete their program, even if the program becomes 
ineligible to award TEACH Grants to new students.
    For reasons discussed under the TEACH Grant-eligible program 
section of this document, we have made conforming changes to the 
definition of a TEACH Grant-eligible program that are reflected in the 
definition of TEACH Grant-eligible institution where applicable.
    Changes: We have revised the definition of a TEACH Grant-eligible 
institution to provide that, if an institution provides a program that 
is the equivalent of an associate degree as defined in Sec.  
668.8(b)(1) that is acceptable for full credit toward a baccalaureate 
degree in a high-quality teacher preparation program not provided 
through distance education or one high-quality teacher preparation 
program provided through distance education or provides a master's 
degree program that does not meet the definition of the terms ``high 
quality teacher preparation not provided through distance education'' 
or ``high quality teacher preparation program that

[[Page 75581]]

is provided through distance education'' because it is not subject to 
reporting under 34 CFR part 612, but that prepares (1) a teacher or a 
retiree from another occupation with expertise in a field in which 
there is a shortage of teachers, such as mathematics, science, special 
education, English language acquisition, or another high-need field; or 
(2) a teacher who is using high-quality alternative certification 
routes to become certified, the institution is considered a TEACH 
Grant-eligible institution.
TEACH Grant-Eligible Program
    Comments: A commenter recommended the definition of Teach Grant-
eligible program be amended to add ``or equivalent,'' related to the 
eligibility of a two-year program so that the definition would read, 
``Provides a two-year or equivalent program that is acceptable for full 
credit toward a baccalaureate degree in a high-quality teacher 
preparation program'' because some programs could be less than two 
years, but the curriculum covered is the equivalent of a two-year 
program.
    Discussion: We agree with the commenter that some programs could be 
less than two years, but the curriculum could cover the equivalent of a 
two-year program, and therefore agree that the provision regarding what 
constitutes an eligible two-year program of study should be revised. 
However, we base the revision on already existing regulations regarding 
``eligible program'' rather than the commenter's specific language 
recommendations. The regulations for ``eligible program'' in Sec.  
668.8 provide that an eligible program is an educational program that 
is provided by a participating institution and satisfies other relevant 
requirements contained in the section, including that an eligible 
program provided by an institution of higher education must, in part, 
lead to an associate, bachelors, professional, or graduate degree or be 
at least a two academic-year program that is acceptable for full credit 
toward a bachelor's degree. For purposes of Sec.  668.8, the Secretary 
considers an ``equivalent of an associate degree'' to be, in part, the 
successful completion of at least a two-year program that is acceptable 
for full credit toward a bachelor's degree and qualifies a student for 
admission into the third year of a bachelor's degree program. Based on 
these existing regulations, we amended the proposed definition of TEACH 
Grant-eligible program to provide that a program that is the equivalent 
of an associate degree as defined in Sec.  668.8(b)(1) that is 
acceptable for full credit toward a baccalaureate degree in a high-
quality teacher preparation program is considered to be a TEACH Grant-
eligible program. In addition, as described in the discussion of the 
term ``TEACH Grant-eligible institution,'' we have made a corresponding 
change to the definition of the term ``TEACH Grant-eligible program'' 
to ensure that programs that prepare graduate degree students who are 
eligible to receive TEACH grants pursuant to section 420N(a)(2)(B) of 
the HEA are eligible programs. This change applies to programs that are 
not assessed by a State under title II of the HEA.
    Changes: We have revised the definition of TEACH Grant-eligible 
program to provide that a program that is a two-year program or is the 
equivalent of an associate degree as defined in Sec.  668.8(b)(1) that 
is acceptable for full credit toward a baccalaureate degree in a high 
quality teacher preparation program is also considered to be a TEACH 
Grant-eligible program. We have also clarified that a master's degree 
program that does not meet the definition of the terms ``high quality 
teacher preparation not provided through distance education'' or ``high 
quality teacher preparation program that is provided through distance 
education'' because it is not subject to reporting under 34 CFR part 
612, but that prepares (1) a teacher or a retiree from another 
occupation with expertise in a field in which there is a shortage of 
teachers, such as mathematics, science, special education, English 
language acquisition, or another high-need field; or (2) a teacher who 
is using high-quality alternative certification routes to become 
certified is a TEACH Grant-eligible program.
TEACH Grant-Eligible STEM Program
    Comments: Multiple commenters stated that the proposed definition 
of the term TEACH Grant-eligible STEM program was not discussed during 
the negotiated rulemaking process and unreasonably creates a separate 
standard for TEACH Grant eligibility without the corresponding 
reporting required in the SRC. Commenters generally stated that all 
teacher preparation programs should be held accountable in a fair and 
equitable manner. Commenters further stated that the Department did not 
provide any rationale for excepting STEM programs from the ratings of 
teacher preparation programs described in part 612. Commenters also 
noted that the proposed definition ignores foreign language, special 
education, bilingual education, and reading specialists, which are 
identified as high-need fields in the HEA. Several commenters also 
disagreed with the different treatment provided to STEM programs under 
the definition because they believed that STEM fields were being given 
extra allowances with respect to failing programs and that creating 
different standards of program effectiveness for STEM programs and 
teacher preparation programs makes little sense. Commenters suggested 
that, instead, the Department should require that STEM programs to be 
rated as effective or exceptional in order for students in those 
programs to receive TEACH Grants.
    Commenters also questioned what criteria the Secretary would use to 
determine eligibility, since the Secretary would be responsible for 
determining which STEM programs are TEACH Grant-eligible. Finally, 
commenters emphasized the importance of the pedagogical aspects of 
teacher education.
    Discussion: We agree that it is important that teacher preparation 
programs that are considered TEACH Grant-eligible programs be high-
quality programs, and that the proposed definition of the term TEACH 
Grant-eligible STEM program may not achieve that goal. The regulations 
in part 612 only apply to teacher preparation programs, which are 
defined in that part generally as programs that lead to an initial 
State teacher certification or licensure in a specific field. Many STEM 
programs do not lead to an initial State teacher certification or 
licensure, and hence are not subject to the State assessments described 
in part 612 and section 207 of the HEA. We have carefully considered 
the commenters' concerns, and have decided to remove our proposed 
definition of the term TEACH Grant-eligible STEM program because it 
would be difficult to implement and would result in different types of 
programs being held to different quality standards. We also acknowledge 
the importance of the pedagogical aspects of teacher education. A 
result of the removal of this definition will be that a student must be 
enrolled in a high-quality teacher preparation program as defined in 
Sec.  686.2(e) to be eligible for a TEACH Grant, and that few students 
participating in STEM programs will receive TEACH Grants. Those 
students may be eligible for TEACH Grants for post-baccalaureate or 
graduate study after completion of their STEM programs.
    Changes: We have removed the TEACH Grant-eligible STEM program 
definition from Sec.  686.2, as well as references to and uses of that 
definition elsewhere in part 686 where this term appeared.

[[Page 75582]]

Section 686.11 Eligibility To Receive a TEACH Grant
    Comments: Some commenters supported linking TEACH Grant eligibility 
to the title II reporting system for the 2020-2021 title IV award year, 
noting that this would prevent programs that fail to prepare teachers 
effectively from remaining TEACH Grant-eligible, and that linking TEACH 
Grant program eligibility to teacher preparation program quality is an 
important lever to bring accountability to programs equipping teachers 
to teach in the highest need schools. Other commenters were concerned 
that linking title II teacher preparation program ratings to TEACH 
Grant eligibility will have a negative impact on recruitment for 
teacher preparation programs, will restrict student access to TEACH 
Grants, and will negatively impact college affordability for many 
students, especially for low- and middle-income students and students 
of color who may be disproportionately impacted because these students 
typically depend more on Federal student aid. Commenters were concerned 
that limiting aid for these students, as well as for students in rural 
communities or students in special education programs, would further 
increase teacher shortages in these areas, would slow down progress in 
building a culturally and racially representative educator workforce, 
and possibly exacerbate current or pending teacher shortages across the 
nation in general. Many commenters opined that, because there is no 
evidence supporting the use of existing student growth models for 
determining institutional eligibility for the TEACH Grant program, 
institutional eligibility for TEACH Grants and student eligibility for 
all title IV Federal student aid in a teacher preparation program would 
be determined based on an invalid and unreliable rating system. Some 
commenters recommended that Federal student aid be based on student 
need, not institutional ratings, that they asserted lack a sound 
research base because of the potential unknown impacts on 
underrepresented groups. Others expressed concern that financial aid 
offices would experience more burden and more risk of error in the 
student financial aid packaging process because they would have more 
information to review to determine student eligibility. This would 
include, for distance education programs, where each student lives and 
which programs are eligible in which States.
    Many commenters stated that the proposed regulations would grant 
the State, rather than the Department of Education, authority to 
determine TEACH Grant eligibility, which is a delegation of authority 
that Congress did not provide the Department, and that a State's strict 
requirements may make the TEACH Grant program unusable by institutions, 
thereby eliminating TEACH Grant funding from students at those 
institutions. It was recommended that the regulations allow for 
professional judgment regarding TEACH Grant eligibility, that TEACH 
Grants mimic Federal Pell grants in annual aggregates, and that a link 
should be available at studentloans.gov for TEACH Grant requirements. 
One commenter further claimed that the proposed regulations represent a 
profound and unwelcome shift in the historic relationship between 
colleges, States, and the Federal government and that there is no 
indication that the HEA envisions the kind of approach to institutional 
and program eligibility for TEACH Grants proposed in the regulations. 
The commenter opined that substantive changes to the eligibility 
requirements should be addressed through the legislative process, 
rather than through regulation. A commenter noted that a purpose of the 
proposed regulations is to deal with deficiencies in the TEACH Grant 
program, and thus, the Department should focus specifically on issues 
with the TEACH Grant program and not connect these to reporting of the 
teacher preparation programs.
    Discussion: We appreciate the comments supporting the linking of 
TEACH Grant eligibility to the title II reporting system for the 2021-
2022 title IV award year. We disagree, however, with comments 
suggesting that such a link will have a negative impact on recruitment 
for teacher preparation programs and restrict student access to TEACH 
Grants because this circumstance would only arise in the case of 
programs rated other than effective, and it is not unreasonable for 
students to choose to attend teacher preparation programs that are 
effective over those that are not. While we agree that low- and middle-
income students and students of color are more likely to depend on 
Federal student aid, the regulations would not affect their eligibility 
for Federal student aid as long as they are enrolled in a TEACH Grant-
eligible teacher preparation program at a TEACH Grant-eligible 
institution. The same would be true for students in rural communities 
or in special education programs. Because student eligibility for 
Federal student aid would not be affected in these circumstances, 
teacher shortages in these areas also would not be impacted. In 2011, 
only 38 institutions were identified by their States as having a low-
performing teacher preparation program.\53\ That evaluation was based 
on an institution-wide assessment of quality. Under part 612, each 
individual teacher preparation program offered by an institution will 
be evaluated by the State, and it would be unlikely for all teacher 
preparation programs at an institution to be rated as low-performing. 
We believe that students reliant on Federal student aid will have 
sufficient options to enroll in high-quality teacher preparation 
programs under the final regulations. While we hope that students would 
use the ratings of teacher preparation programs to pick more effective 
programs initially, we also provide under Sec.  686.3 that an otherwise 
eligible student who received a TEACH Grant for enrollment in a TEACH 
Grant-eligible program is eligible to receive additional TEACH Grants 
to complete that program, even if that program is no longer considered 
TEACH Grant-eligible. An otherwise eligible student who received a 
TEACH Grant for enrollment in a program before July 1 of the year these 
final regulations become effective would remain eligible to receive 
additional TEACH Grants to complete the program even if the program is 
no longer considered TEACH Grant-eligible under Sec.  686.2(e).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \53\ U.S. Department of Education, Office of Postsecondary 
Education (2013). Preparing and Credentialing the Nation's Teachers: 
The Secretary's Ninth Report on Teacher Quality. Washington, DC. 
Retrieved from https://title2.ed.gov/Public/TitleIIReport13.pdf. 
(Hereafter referred to as ``Secretary's Ninth Report.'')
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    With respect to comments objecting to the use of student growth to 
determine TEACH Grant eligibility, student growth is only one of the 
many indicators that States use to assess teacher preparation program 
quality in part 612, and States have discretion to determine the weight 
assigned to that indicator in their assessment.
    While the new regulations will require financial aid offices to 
track and review additional information with respect to student 
eligibility for TEACH Grants, we do not agree that this would result in 
greater risk of incorrect packaging of financial aid. For an 
institution to begin and continue to participate in any title IV, HEA 
program, the institution must demonstrate to the Secretary that it is 
capable of administering that program under the standards of 
administrative capability provided under Sec.  668.16 (Standards of 
administrative capability). An institution that does not meet 
administrative capability standards

[[Page 75583]]

would not be eligible to disburse any title IV, HEA funds, including 
TEACH Grants. Moreover, institutions have always had to determine 
whether a student seeking a TEACH Grant is enrolled in a TEACH Grant-
eligible program. The final regulations require the institution to be 
aware of whether any of the teacher preparation programs at the 
institution have been rated as low-performing or at-risk by the State 
when identifying which programs that it offers are TEACH Grant-eligible 
programs.
    We disagree with comments asserting that the proposed regulations 
would grant States, rather than the Department, authority to determine 
TEACH Grant eligibility, which they claimed is a delegation of 
authority that Congress did not authorize. The HEA provides that an 
``eligible institution'' for purposes of the TEACH Grant program is one 
``that the Secretary determines . . . provides high quality teacher 
preparation . . . .'' The Secretary has determined that States are in 
the best position to assess the quality of teacher preparation programs 
located in their States, and it is reasonable for the Secretary to rely 
on the results of the State assessment required by section 207 of the 
HEA. We believe that it is appropriate to use the regulatory process to 
define how the Secretary determines that an institution provides high 
quality teacher preparation and that the final regulations reasonably 
amend the current requirements so that they are more meaningful.
    We also disagree with commenters that a State's strict requirements 
may make the TEACH Grant program unusable by institutions and thereby 
eliminate TEACH Grant funding for students at those institutions. We 
believe that States will conduct careful and reasonable assessments of 
teacher preparation programs located in their States, and we also 
believe if a State determines a program is not effective at providing 
teacher preparation, students should not receive TEACH Grants to attend 
that program.
    Regarding the recommendation that the regulations allow for 
professional judgment regarding TEACH Grant eligibility, there is no 
prohibition regarding the use of professional judgment for the TEACH 
Grant program, provided that all applicable regulatory requirements are 
met. With respect to the comment suggesting that the TEACH Grant 
program should mimic the Pell Grant program in annual aggregates, we 
note that, just as the Pell Grant program has its own annual 
aggregates, the TEACH Grant program has its own statutory annual award 
limits that must be adhered to. The HEA provides that a undergraduate 
or post-graduate student may receive up to $4,000 per year, and Sec.  
686.3(a) provides that an undergraduate or post-baccalaureate student 
may receive the equivalent of up to four Scheduled Awards during the 
period required for completion of the first undergraduate baccalaureate 
program of study and the first post-baccalaureate program of study 
combined. For graduate students, the HEA provides up to $4,000 per 
year, and Sec.  686.3(b) stipulates that a graduate student may receive 
the equivalent of up to two Scheduled Awards during the period required 
for the completion of the TEACH Grant-eligible master's degree program 
of study.
    Regarding the comment requesting a link to the TEACH Grant program 
via the studentloans.gov Web site, we do not believe that adding a link 
to the studentloans.gov Web site for TEACH Grants would be helpful, and 
could in fact be confusing. This Web site is specific to loans, not 
grants. Only if a student does not fulfill the Agreement to Serve is 
the TEACH Grant converted to a Direct Unsubsidized Loan. The Web site 
already includes a link to the teach-ats.ed.gov Web site, where 
students can complete TEACH Grant counseling and the Agreement to 
Serve. The Department does provide information about the TEACH Grant 
program on its studentaid.ed.gov Web site.
    We disagree with the comment that the Department should focus 
specifically on issues or deficiencies with the TEACH Grant program and 
not connect any issues or deficiencies to reporting of teacher 
preparation programs under title II. The regulations are intended to 
improve the TEACH Grant program, in part, by operationalizing the 
definition of a high-quality teacher preparation program by connecting 
the definition to the ratings of teacher preparation programs under the 
title II reporting system. The regulations are not meant to address 
specific TEACH Grant program issues or program deficiencies.
    We decline to adopt the suggestion that an at-risk teacher 
preparation program should be given the opportunity and support to 
improve before any consequences, including those regarding TEACH 
Grants, are imposed. The HEA specifies that TEACH Grants may only be 
provided to high-quality teacher preparation programs, and we do not 
believe that a program identified as being at-risk should be considered 
a high-quality teacher preparation program. With respect to the comment 
that institutions in the specific commenter's State will remove 
themselves from participation in the TEACH Grant program rather than 
pursue high-stakes Federal requirements, we note that, while we cannot 
prevent institutions from ending their participation in the program, we 
believe that institutions understand the need for providing TEACH 
Grants to eligible students and that institutions will continue to try 
to meet that need. Additionally, we note that all institutions that 
enroll students receiving Federal financial assistance are required to 
submit an annual IRC under section 205(a) of the HEA, and that all 
States that receive funds under the HEA must submit an annual SRC. 
These provisions apply whether or not an institution participates in 
the TEACH Grant program.
    We agree with the commenters who recommended avoiding specific 
carve-outs for potential mathematics and science teachers. As discussed 
under the section titled ``TEACH Grant-eligible STEM program,'' we have 
removed the TEACH Grant-eligible STEM program definition from Sec.  
686.2 and deleted the term where it appeared elsewhere in Sec.  686.
    Changes: None.
Sec.  686.42 Discharge of Agreement To Serve
    Comments: None.
    Discussion: Section 686.42(b) describes the procedure we use to 
determine a TEACH Grant recipient's eligibility for discharge of an 
agreement to serve based on the recipient's total and permanent 
disability. We intend this procedure to mirror the procedure outlined 
in Sec.  685.213 which governs discharge of Direct Loans. We are making 
a change to Sec.  686.42(b) to make the discharge procedures for TEACH 
Grants more consistent with the Direct Loan discharge procedures. 
Specifically, Sec.  685.213(b)(7)(ii)(C) provides that the Secretary 
does not require a borrower to pay interest on a Direct Loan for the 
period from the date the loan was discharged until the date the 
borrower's obligation to repay the loan was reinstated. This idea was 
not clearly stated in Sec.  686.42(b). We have added new Sec.  
686.42(b)(4) to explicitly state that if the TEACH Grant of a recipient 
whose TEACH Grant agreement to serve is reinstated is later converted 
to a Direct Unsubsidized Stafford Loan, the recipient will not be 
required to pay interest that accrued on the TEACH Grant disbursements 
from the date the agreement to serve was discharged until the date the 
agreement to serve was reinstated. Similarly, Sec.  685.213(b)(7)(iii) 
describes the information that the Secretary's notification to a 
borrower in

[[Page 75584]]

the event of reinstatement of the loan will include. We have amended 
Sec.  686.42(b)(3) to make the TEACH Grant regulations more consistent 
with the Direct Loan regulations. Specifically, we removed proposed 
Sec.  686.42(b)(3)(iii), which provided that interest accrual would 
resume on TEACH Grant disbursements made prior to the date of discharge 
if the agreement was reinstated.
    Changes: We have removed proposed Sec.  686.42(b)(3)(iii) and added 
a new Sec.  686.42(b)(4) to more clearly describe that, if the TEACH 
Grant of a recipient whose TEACH Grant agreement to serve is reinstated 
is later converted to a Direct Unsubsidized Stafford Loan, the 
recipient will not be required to pay interest that accrued on the 
TEACH Grant disbursements from the date the agreement to serve was 
discharged until the date the agreement to serve was reinstated. This 
change also makes the TEACH Grant regulation related to total and 
permanent disability more consistent with the Direct Loan discharge 
procedures.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
    Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether 
this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to 
the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the 
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 
12866 defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely 
to result in a rule that may--
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, 
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or 
tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to 
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
    (2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the 
Executive order.
    This final regulatory action is a significant regulatory action 
subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866.
    We have also reviewed these regulations 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 on 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 regulations only on a reasoned 
determination that their benefits justify their costs. In choosing 
among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches 
that maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows, the 
Department believes that these regulations are consistent with the 
principles in Executive Order 13563.
    We also have determined that this regulatory action does not unduly 
interfere with State, local, or tribal governments in the exercise of 
their governmental functions.
    In this RIA we discuss the need for regulatory action, the 
potential costs and benefits, net budget impacts, assumptions, 
limitations, and data sources, as well as regulatory alternatives we 
considered. Although the majority of the costs related to information 
collection are discussed within this RIA, elsewhere in this document 
under Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we also identify and further 
explain burdens specifically associated with information collection 
requirements.
1. Need for Regulatory Action
    Recent international assessments of student achievement have 
revealed that students in the United States are significantly behind 
students in other countries in science, reading, and mathematics.\54\ 
Although many factors influence student achievement, a large body of 
research has used value-added modeling to demonstrate that teacher 
quality is the largest in-school factor affecting student 
achievement.\55\ We use ``value-added'' modeling and related terms to 
refer to statistical methods that use changes in the academic 
achievement of students over time to isolate and estimate the effect of 
particular factors, such as family, school, or teachers, on changes in 
student achievement.\56\ One study found that the difference between 
having a teacher who performed at a level one standard deviation below 
the mean and a teacher who performed at a level one standard deviation 
above the mean was equivalent to student learning gains of a full 
year's worth of knowledge.\57\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \54\ Kelly, D., Xie, H., Nord, C.W., Jenkins, F., Chan, J.Y., 
Kastberg, D. (2013). Performance of U.S. 15-Year-Old Students in 
Mathematics, Science, and Reading Literacy in an International 
Context: First Look at PISA 2012 (NCES 2014-024). Retrieved from 
U.S. Department of Education, National Center for Education 
Statistics Web site: http://nces.ed.gov/pubs2014/2014024rev.pdf.
    \55\ Sanders, W., Rivers, J.C. (1996). Cumulative and Residual 
Effects of Teachers on Future Student Academic Achievement. 
Retrieved from University of Tennessee, Value-Added Research and 
Assessment Center; Rivkin, S., Hanushek, E., & Kane, T. (2005). 
Teachers, Schools, and Academic Achievement. Econometirica, 417-458; 
Rockoff, J. (2004). The Impact of Individual Teachers on Student 
Achievement: Evidence from Panel Data. American Economic Review, 
94(2), 247-252.
    \56\ For more information on approaches to value-added modeling, 
see also: Braun, H. (2005). Using Student Progress to Evaluate 
Teachers: A Primer on Value-Added Models. Retrieved from http://files.eric.ed.gov/fulltext/ED529977.pdf; Sanders, W.J. (2006). 
Comparisons Among Various Educational Assessment Value-Added Models, 
Power of Two--National Value-Added Conference, Battelle for Kids, 
Columbus, OH. SAS, Inc.
    \57\ E. Hanushek. (1992). The Trade-Off between Child Quantity 
and Quality. Journal of Political Economy, 100(1), 84-117.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A number of factors are associated with teacher quality, including 
academic content knowledge, in-service training, and years of 
experience, but researchers and policymakers have begun to examine 
whether student achievement discrepancies can be

[[Page 75585]]

explained by differences in the preparation their teachers received 
before entering the classroom.\58\ An influential study on this topic 
found that the effectiveness of teachers in public schools in New York 
City who were prepared through different teacher preparation programs 
varied in statistically significant ways, as the student growth found 
using value-added measures shows.\59\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \58\ D. Harris & T. Sass. (2011). Teacher Training, Teacher 
Quality, and Student Achievement. Journal of Public Economics, 95(7-
8), 798-812; D. Aaronson, L. Barrow, & W. Sanders. (2007). Teachers 
and Student Achievement in the Chicago Public High Schools. Journal 
of Labor Economics, 25(1), 95-135; D. Boyd, H. Lankford, S. Loeb, J. 
Rockoff, & Wyckoff, J. (2008). The Narrowing Gap in New York City 
Teacher Qualifications and Its Implications for Student Achievement 
in High-Poverty Schools. Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 
27(4), 793-818.
    \59\ D. Boyd, P. Grossman, H. Lankford, S. Loeb, & J. Wyckoff 
(2009). ``Teacher Preparation and Student Achievement.'' Education 
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4): 416-440.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Subsequent studies have examined the value-added scores of teachers 
prepared through different teacher preparation programs in Missouri, 
Louisiana, North Carolina, Tennessee, and Washington.\60\ Many of these 
studies have found statistically significant differences between 
teachers prepared at different preparation programs. For example, State 
officials in Tennessee and Louisiana have worked with researchers to 
examine whether student achievement could be used to inform teacher 
preparation program accountability. After controlling for observable 
differences in students, researchers in Tennessee found that the most 
effective teacher preparation programs in that State produced graduates 
who were two to three times more likely than other novice teachers to 
be in the top quintile of teachers in a particular subject area, as 
measured by increases in the achievement of their students, with the 
least-effective programs producing teachers who were equally likely to 
be in the bottom quintile.\61\ Analyses based on Louisiana data on 
student growth linked to the programs that prepared students' teachers 
found some statistically significant differences in teacher 
effectiveness.\62\ Although the study's sample size was small, three 
teacher preparation programs produced novice teachers who appeared, on 
average, to be as effective as teachers with at least two years of 
experience, based on growth in student achievement in four or more 
content areas.\63\ A study analyzing differences between teacher 
preparation programs in Washington based on the value-added scores of 
their graduates also found a few statistically significant differences, 
which the authors argued were educationally meaningful.\64\ In 
mathematics, the average difference between teachers from the highest 
performing program and the lowest performing program was approximately 
1.5 times the difference in performance between students eligible for 
free or reduced-price lunches and those who are not, while in reading 
the average difference was 2.3 times larger.\65\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \60\ Koedel, C., Parsons, E., Podgursky, M., & Ehlert, M. 
(2015). Teacher Preparation Programs and Teacher Quality: Are There 
Real Differences Across Programs? Education Finance and Policy, 
10(4), 508-534.; Campbell, S., Henry, G., Patterson, K., Yi, P. 
(2011). Teacher Preparation Program Effectiveness Report. Carolina 
Institute for Public Policy; Goldhaber, D., & Liddle, S. (2013). The 
Gateway to the Profession: Assessing Teacher Preparation Programs 
Based on Student Achievement. Economics of Education Review, 34, 29-
44.
    \61\ Tennessee Higher Education Commission. Report Card on the 
Effectiveness of Teacher Training Programs, 2010.
    \62\ Gansle, K., Noell, G., Knox, R.M., Schafer, M.J. (2010). 
Value Added Assessment of Teacher Preparation Programs in Louisiana: 
2007-2008 TO 2009-2010 Overview of 2010-11 Results. Retrieved from 
Louisiana Board of Regents.
    \63\ Ibid.
    \64\ Goldhaber, D., & Liddle, S. (2013). The Gateway to the 
Profession: Assessing Teacher Preparation Programs Based on Student 
Achievement. Economics of Education Review, 34, 29-44.
    \65\ Ibid. 1.5 times the difference between students eligible 
for free or reduced price lunch is approximately 12 percent of a 
standard deviation, while 2.3 times the difference is approximately 
19 percent of a standard deviation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In contrast to these findings, Koedel, et al. found very small 
differences in effectiveness between teachers prepared at different 
programs in Missouri.\66\ The vast majority of variation in teacher 
effectiveness was within programs, instead of between programs.\67\ 
However, the authors noted that the lack of variation between programs 
in Missouri could reflect a lack of competitive pressure to spur 
innovation within traditional teacher preparation programs.\68\ A 
robust evaluation system that included outcomes could spur innovation 
and increase differentiation between teacher preparation programs.\69\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \66\ Koedel, C., Parsons, E., Podgursky, M., & Ehlert, M. 
(2015). Teacher Preparation Programs and Teacher Quality: Are There 
Real Differences Across Programs? Education Finance and Policy, 
10(4), 508-534.
    \67\ Ibid.
    \68\ Ibid.
    \69\ Ibid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We acknowledge that there is debate in the research community about 
the specifications that should be used when conducting value-added 
analyses of the effectiveness of teachers prepared through different 
preparation programs,\70\ but also recognize that the field is moving 
in the direction of weighting value-added analyses in assessments of 
teacher preparation program quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \70\ For a discussion of issues and considerations related to 
using school fixed effects models to compare the effectiveness of 
teachers from different teacher preparation programs who are working 
in the same school, see Lockwood, J.R., McCaffrey, D., Mihaly, K., 
Sass, T.(2012). Where You Come From or Where You Go? Distinguishing 
Between School Quality and the Effectiveness of Teacher Preparation 
Program Graduates. (Working Paper 63). Retrieved from National 
Center for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, despite the methodological debate in the research community, 
CAEP has developed new standards that require, among other measures, 
evidence that students completing a teacher preparation program 
positively impact student learning.\71\ The new standards are currently 
voluntary for the more than 900 education preparation providers who 
participate in the education preparation accreditation system. 
Participating institutions account for nearly 60 percent of the 
providers of educator preparation in the United States, and their 
enrollments account for nearly two-thirds of newly prepared teachers. 
The new CAEP standards will be required beginning in 2016.\72\ The 
standards are an indication that the effectiveness ratings of teachers 
trained through teacher preparation programs are increasingly being 
used as a way to evaluate teacher preparation program performance. The 
research on teacher preparation program effectiveness is relevant to 
the elementary and secondary schools that rely on teacher preparation 
programs to recruit and select talented individuals and prepare them to 
become future teachers. In 2011-2012 (the most recent year for which 
data are available), 203,701 individuals completed either a traditional 
teacher preparation program or an alternative route program. The 
National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) projects that by 2020, 
public and private schools will need to hire as many as 362,000 
teachers each year due to teacher retirement and attrition and 
increased student enrollment.\73\ In order to meet the needs of public 
and private schools, States may have to expand traditional and 
alternative route

[[Page 75586]]

programs to prepare more teachers, find new ways to recruit and train 
qualified individuals, or reduce the need for novice teachers by 
reducing attrition or developing different staffing models. Better 
information on the quality of teacher preparation programs will help 
States and LEAs make sound staffing decisions.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \71\ CAEP 2013 Accreditation Standards.(2013). Retrieved from 
http://caepnet.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/final_board_approved1.
    \72\ Teacher Preparation: Ensuring a Quality Teacher in Every 
Classroom. Hearing before the Senate Committee on Health, Education, 
Labor and Pensions. 113th Congress. 113th Cong. (2014)(Statement by 
Mary Brabeck).
    \73\ U.S. Department of Education (2015). Table 208.20. Digest 
of Education Statistics, 2014. Retrieved from National Center for 
Education Statistics.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Despite research suggesting that the academic achievement of 
students taught by graduates of different teacher preparation programs 
may vary with regard to their teacher's program, analyses linking 
student achievement to teacher preparation programs have not been 
conducted and made available publicly for teacher preparation programs 
in all States. Congress has recognized the value of assessing and 
reporting on the quality of teacher preparation, and requires States 
and IHEs to report detailed information about the quality of teacher 
preparation programs in the State under the HEA. When reauthorizing the 
title II reporting system, members of Congress noted a goal of having 
teacher preparation programs explore ways to assess the impact of their 
programs' graduates on student academic achievement. In fact, the 
report accompanying the House Bill (H. Rep. 110-500) included the 
following statement, ``[i]t is the intent of the Committee that teacher 
preparation programs, both traditional and those providing alternative 
routes to State certification, should strive to increase the quality of 
individuals graduating from their programs with the goal of exploring 
ways to assess the impact of such programs on student's academic 
achievement.''
    Moreover, in roundtable discussions and negotiated rulemaking 
sessions held by the Department, stakeholders repeatedly expressed 
concern that the current title II reporting system provides little 
meaningful data on the quality of teacher preparation programs or the 
impact of those programs' graduates on student achievement. The recent 
GAO report on teacher preparation programs noted that half or more of 
the States and teacher preparation programs surveyed said the current 
title II data collection was not useful to assessing their programs; 
and none of the surveyed school district staff said they used the 
data.\74\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \74\ GAO at 26.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Currently, States must annually calculate and report data on more 
than 400 data elements, and IHEs must report on more than 150 elements. 
While some information requested in the current reporting system is 
statutorily required, other elements--such as whether the IHE requires 
a personality test prior to admission--are not required by statute and 
do not provide information that is particularly useful to the public. 
Thus, stakeholders stressed at the negotiated rulemaking sessions that 
the current system is too focused on inputs and that outcome-based 
measures would provide more meaningful information.
    Similarly, even some of the statutorily-required data elements in 
the current reporting system do not provide meaningful information on 
program performance and how program graduates are likely to perform in 
a classroom. For example, the HEA requires IHEs to report both scaled 
scores on licensure tests and pass rates for students who complete 
their teacher preparation programs. Yet, research provides mixed 
findings on the relationship between licensure test scores and teacher 
effectiveness.\75\ This may be because most licensure tests were 
designed to measure the knowledge and skills of prospective teachers 
but not necessarily to predict classroom effectiveness.\76\ The 
predictive value of licensure exams is further eroded by the 
significant variation in State pass/cut scores on these exams, with 
many States setting pass scores at a very low level. The National 
Council on Teacher Quality found that every State except Massachusetts 
sets its pass/cut scores on content assessments for elementary school 
teachers below the average score for all test takers, and most States 
set pass/cut scores at the 16th percentile or lower.\77\ Further, even 
with low pass/cut scores, some States allow teacher candidates to take 
licensure exams multiple times. Some States also permit IHEs to exclude 
students who have completed all program coursework but have not passed 
licensure exams when the IHEs report pass rates on these exams for 
individuals who have completed teacher preparation programs under the 
current title II reporting system. This may explain, in part, why 
States and IHEs have reported over the past three years a consistently 
high average pass rate on licensure or certification exams ranging 
between 95 and 96 percent for individuals who completed traditional 
teacher preparation programs in the 2009-10 academic year.\78\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \75\ Clotfelter, C., Ladd, H., & Vigdor, J. (2010). Teacher 
Credentials and Student Achievement: Longitudinal Analysis with 
Student Fixed Effects. Economics of Education Review, 26(6), 673-
682; Goldhaber, D. (2007). Everyone's Doing It, But What Does 
Teacher Testing Tell Us about Teacher Effectiveness? The Journal of 
Human Resources, 42(4), 765-794; Buddin, R., & Zamarro, G. (2009). 
Teacher Qualifications and Student Achievement in Urban Elementary 
Schools. Journal of Urban Economics,66, 103-115.
    \76\ Goldhaber, D. (2007). Everyone's Doing It, But What Does 
Teacher Testing Tell Us about Teacher Effectiveness? The Journal of 
Human Resources, 42(4), 765-794.
    \77\ National Council on Teacher Quality, State Teacher Policy 
Yearbook, 2011. Washington, DC: National Council on Teacher Quality 
(2011). For more on licensure tests, see U.S. Department of 
Education, Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, 
Policy and Program Studies Service (2010), Recent Trends in Mean 
Scores and Characteristics of Test-Takers on Praxis II Licensure 
Tests. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of Education.
    \78\ Secretary's Tenth Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Thus, while the current title II reporting system produces detailed 
and voluminous data about teacher preparation programs, the data do not 
convey a clear picture of program quality as measured by how program 
graduates will perform in a classroom. This lack of meaningful data 
prevents school districts, principals, and prospective teacher 
candidates from making informed choices, creating a market failure due 
to imperfect information.
    On the demand side, principals and school districts lack 
information about the past performance of teachers from different 
teacher preparation programs and may rely on inaccurate assumptions 
about the quality of teacher preparation programs when recruiting and 
hiring novice teachers. An accountability system that provides 
information about how teacher preparation program graduates are likely 
to perform in a classroom and how likely they are to stay in the 
classroom will be valuable to school districts and principals seeking 
to efficiently recruit, hire, train, and retain high-quality educators. 
Such a system can help to reduce teacher attrition, a particularly 
important problem because many novice teachers do not remain in the 
profession, with more than a quarter of novice teachers leaving the 
teaching profession altogether within three years of becoming classroom 
teachers.\79\ High teacher turnover rates are problematic because 
research has demonstrated that, on average, student achievement 
increases considerably with more years of teacher experience in the 
first three through five years of teaching.\80\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \79\ Ingersoll, R. (2003). Is There Really a Teacher Shortage? 
Retrieved from University of Washington Center for the Study of 
Teaching and Policy Web site: http://depts.washington.edu/ctpmail/PDFs/Shortage-RI-09-2003.pdf.
    \80\ Ferguson, R.F. & Ladd, H.F. (1996). How and why money 
matters: An analysis of Alabama schools. In H.F. Ladd (Ed.), Holding 
schools accountable: Performance-based education reform (pp. 265-
298). Washington, DC: The Brookings Institution; Hanushek, E., Kain, 
J., O'Brien, D., & Rivkin, S. (2005). The Market for Teacher Quality 
(Working Paper no. 11154). Retrieved from National Bureau for 
Economic Research Web site: www.nber.org/papers/w11154; Gordon, R., 
Kane, T., Staiger, D. (2006). Identifying Effective Teachers Using 
Performance on the Job; Clotfelter, C., Ladd, H., & Vigdor, J. 
(2007). How and Why Do Teacher Credentials Matter for Student 
Achievement? (Working Paper No. 2). Retrieved from National Center 
for Analysis of Longitudinal Data in Education Research.; Kane, T., 
Rockoff, J., Staiger, D. (2008). What does certification tell us 
about teacher effectiveness? Evidence from New York City. Economics 
of Education Review, 27(6), 615-631.

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

[[Page 75587]]

    On the supply side, when considering which program to attend, 
prospective teachers lack comparative information about the placement 
rates and effectiveness of a program's graduates. Teacher candidates 
may enroll in a program without the benefit of information on 
employment rates post-graduation, employer and graduate feedback on 
program quality, and, most importantly, without understanding how well 
the program prepared prospective teachers to be effective in the 
classroom. NCES data indicate that 66 percent of certified teachers who 
received their bachelor's degree in 2008 took out loans to finance 
their undergraduate education. These teachers borrowed an average of 
$22,905.\81\ The average base salary for full-time teachers with a 
bachelor's degree in their first year of teaching in public elementary 
and secondary schools is $38,490.\82\ Thus, two-thirds of prospective 
teacher candidates may incur debt equivalent to 60 percent of their 
starting salary in order to attend teacher preparation programs without 
access to reliable indicators of how well these programs will prepare 
them for classroom teaching or help them find a teaching position in 
their chosen field. A better accountability system with more meaningful 
information will enable prospective teachers to make more informed 
choices while also enabling and encouraging States, IHEs, and 
alternative route providers to monitor and continuously improve the 
quality of their teacher preparation programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \81\ National Center for Education Statistics (2009). 
Baccalaureate and Beyond Longitudinal Study. Washington, DC: U.S. 
Department of Education.
    \82\ National Center for Education Statistics (2015). Digest of 
Education Statistics, 2014. Washington, DC: U.S. Department of 
Education (2015): Table 211.20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The lack of meaningful data also prevents States from restricting 
program credentials to programs with the demonstrated ability to 
prepare more effective teachers, or accurately identifying low-
performing and at-risk teacher preparation programs and helping these 
programs improve. Not surprisingly, States have not identified many 
programs as low-performing or at-risk based on the data currently 
collected. In the latest title II reporting requirement submissions, 
twenty-one States did not classify any teacher preparation programs as 
low-performing or at-risk.\83\ Of the programs identified by States as 
low-performing or at-risk, 28 were based in IHEs that participate in 
the Teacher Education Assistance for College and Higher Education 
(TEACH) Grant program. The GAO also found that some States were not 
assessing whether programs in their State were low performing at 
all.\84\ Since the beginning of Title II, HEA reporting in 2001, 29 
States and territories have never identified a single IHE with an at-
risk or low-performing teacher preparation program.\85\ Under the final 
regulations, however, every State will collect and report more 
meaningful information about teacher preparation program performance 
which will enable them to target scarce public funding more efficiently 
through direct support to more effective teacher preparation programs 
and State financial aid to prospective students attending those 
programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \83\ Secretary's Tenth Report.
    \84\ GAO at 17.
    \85\ Secretary's Tenth Report.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, under the current title II reporting system, the Federal 
government is unable to ensure that financial assistance for 
prospective teachers is used to help students attend programs with the 
best record for producing effective classroom teachers. The final 
regulations help accomplish this by ensuring that program performance 
information is available for all teacher preparation programs in all 
States and by restricting eligibility for Federal TEACH Grants to 
programs that are rated ``effective.''
    Most importantly, elementary and secondary school students, 
including those students in high-need schools and communities who are 
disproportionately taught by recent teacher preparation program 
graduates, will be the ultimate beneficiaries of an improved teacher 
preparation program accountability system.\86\ Such a system better 
focuses State and Federal resources on promising teacher preparation 
programs while informing teacher candidates and potential employers 
about high-performing teacher preparation programs and enabling States 
to more effectively identify and improve low-performing teacher 
preparation programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \86\ Several studies have found that inexperienced teachers are 
far more likely to be assigned to high-poverty schools, including 
Boyd, D., Lankford, H., Loeb, S., Rockoff, J., & Wyckoff, J. (2008). 
The Narrowing Gap in New York City Teacher Qualifications and Its 
Implications for Student Achievement in High-Poverty Schools. 
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 27(4), 793-818; 
Clotfelter, C., Ladd, H., Vigdor, J., & Wheeler, J. (2007). High 
Poverty Schools and the Distribution of Teachers and Principals. 
North Carolina Law Review, 85, 1345-1379; Sass, T., Hannaway, J., 
Xu, Z., Figlio, D., & Feng, L. (2010). Value Added of Teachers in 
High-Poverty Schools and Lower-Poverty Schools (Working Paper No. 
52). Retrieved from National Center for Analysis of Longitudinal 
Data in Education Research at www.coweninstitute.com/wp-content/uploads/2011/01/1001469-calder-working-paper-52-1.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recognizing the benefits of improved information on teacher 
preparation program quality and associated accountability, several 
States have already developed and implemented systems that map teacher 
effectiveness data back to teacher preparation programs. The 
regulations help ensure that all States generate useful data that are 
accessible to the public to support efforts to improve teacher 
preparation programs.
Brief Summary of the Regulations
    The Department's plan to improve teacher preparation has three core 
elements: (1) Reduce the reporting burden on IHEs while encouraging 
States to make use of data on teacher effectiveness to build an 
effective teacher preparation accountability system driven by 
meaningful indicators of quality (title II accountability system); (2) 
reform targeted financial aid for students preparing to become teachers 
by directing scholarship aid to students attending higher-performing 
teacher preparation programs (TEACH Grants); and (3) provide more 
support for IHEs that prepare high-quality teachers.
    The regulations address the first two elements of this plan. 
Improving institutional and State reporting and State accountability 
builds on the work that States like Louisiana and Tennessee have 
already started, as well as work that is underway in States receiving 
grants under Phase One or Two of the Race to the Top Fund.\87\ All of 
these States have, will soon have, or plan to have statewide systems 
that track the academic growth of a teacher's students by the teacher 
preparation program from which the teacher graduated and, as a result, 
will be better able to identify the teacher preparation programs that 
are producing effective teachers and the policies and programs that 
need to be strengthened to scale those effects.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \87\ The applications and Scopes of Work for States that 
received a grant under Phase One or Two of the Race to the Top Fund 
are available online at: http://www2.ed.gov/programs/racetothetop/awards.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Consistent with feedback the Department has received from 
stakeholders, under the regulations

[[Page 75588]]

States must assess the quality of teacher preparation programs 
according to the following indicators: (1) Student learning outcomes of 
students taught by graduates of teacher preparation programs (as 
measured by aggregating learning outcomes of students taught by 
graduates of each teacher preparation program); (2) job placement and 
retention rates of these graduates (based on the number of program 
graduates who are hired into teaching positions and whether they stay 
in those positions); and (3) survey outcomes for surveys of program 
graduates and their employers (based on questions about whether or not 
graduates of each teacher preparation program are prepared to be 
effective classroom teachers).
    The regulations will help provide meaningful information on program 
quality to prospective teacher candidates, school districts, States, 
and IHEs that administer traditional teacher preparation programs and 
alternative routes to State certification or licensure programs. The 
regulations will make data available that also can inform academic 
program selection, program improvement, and accountability.
    During public roundtable discussions and subsequent negotiated 
rulemaking sessions, the Department consulted with representatives from 
the teacher preparation community, States, teacher preparation program 
students, teachers, and other stakeholders about the best way to 
produce more meaningful data on the quality of teacher preparation 
programs while also reducing the reporting burden on States and teacher 
preparation programs where possible. The regulations specify three 
types of outcomes States must use to assess teacher preparation program 
quality, but States retain discretion to select the most appropriate 
methods to collect and report these data. In order to give States and 
stakeholders sufficient time to develop these methods, the requirements 
of these regulations are implemented over several years.
2. Discussion of Costs, Benefits, and Transfers
    The Department has analyzed the costs of complying with the final 
regulations. Due to uncertainty about the current capacity of States in 
some relevant areas and the considerable discretion the regulations 
will provide States (e.g., the flexibility States would have in 
determining who conducts the teacher and employer surveys), we cannot 
evaluate the costs of implementing the regulations with absolute 
precision. In the NPRM, the Department estimated that the total 
annualized cost of these regulations would be between $42.0 million and 
$42.1 million over ten years. However, based on public comments 
received, it became clear to us that this estimate created confusion. 
In particular, a number of commenters incorrectly interpreted this 
estimate as the total cost of the regulations over a ten year period. 
That is not correct. The estimates in the NPRM captured an annualized 
cost (i.e., between $42.0 million and $42.1 million per year over the 
ten year period) rather than a total cost (i.e., between $42.0 million 
and $42.1 million in total over ten years). In addition, these 
estimated costs reflected both startup and ongoing costs, so affected 
entities would likely see costs higher than these estimates in the 
first year of implementation and costs lower than these estimates in 
subsequent years. The Department believed that these assumptions were 
clearly outlined for the public in the NPRM; however, based on the 
nature of public comments received, we recognize that additional 
explanation is necessary.
    The Department has reviewed the comments submitted in response to 
the NPRM and has revised some assumptions in response to the 
information we received. We discuss specific public comments, where 
relevant, in the appropriate sections below. In general, we do not 
discuss non-substantive comments.
    A number of commenters expressed general concerns regarding the 
cost estimates included in the NPRM and indicated that implementing 
these regulations would cost far more than $42.0 million over ten 
years. As noted above, we believe most of these comments arose from a 
fundamental misunderstanding of the estimates presented in the NPRM. 
While several commenters attempted to provide alternate cost estimates, 
we note that many of these estimates were unreasonably high because 
they included costs for activities or initiatives that are not required 
by the regulations. For instance, in one alternate estimate (submitted 
jointly by the California Department of Education, the California 
Commission on Teacher Credentialing, and the California State Board of 
Education) cited by a number of commenters, over 95 percent of the 
costs outlined were due to non-required activities such as dramatically 
expanding State standardized assessments to all grades and subjects or 
completing time- and cost-intensive teacher evaluations of all teachers 
in the State in every year. Nonetheless, we have taken portions of 
those estimates into account where appropriate (i.e., where the 
alternate estimates reflect actual requirements of the final 
regulations) in revising our assumptions.
    In addition, some commenters argued that our initial estimates were 
too low because they did not include costs for activities not directly 
required by the regulations. These activities included making changes 
in State laws where those laws prohibited the sharing of data between 
State entities responsible for teacher certification and the State 
educational agency. Upon reviewing these comments, we have declined to 
include estimates of these potential costs. Such costs are difficult to 
quantify, as it is unclear how many States would be affected, how 
extensive the needed changes would be, or how much time and resources 
would be required on the part of State legislatures. Also, we believe 
that many States removed potential barriers in order to receive ESEA 
flexibility prior to the passage of ESSA, further minimizing the 
potential cost of legislative changes. To the extent that States do 
experience costs associated with these actions, or other actions not 
specifically required by the regulations and therefore not outlined 
below (e.g., costs associated with including more than the minimum 
number of participants in the consultation process described in Sec.  
612.4(c)), our estimates will not account for those costs.
    We have also updated our estimates using the most recently 
available wage rates from the Bureau of Labor Statistics. We have also 
updated our estimates of the number of teacher preparation programs and 
teacher preparation entities using the most recent data submitted to 
the Department in the 2015 title II data collection. While no 
commenters specifically addressed these issues, we believe that these 
updates will provide the most reasonable estimate of costs.
    Based on revised assumptions, the Department estimates that the 
total annualized cost of the regulations will be between $27.5 million 
and $27.7 million (see the Accounting Statement section of this 
document for further detail). This estimate is significantly lower than 
the total annualized cost estimated in the proposed rule. The largest 
driver of this decrease is the increased flexibility provided to States 
under Sec.  612.5(a)(1)(ii), as explained below. To provide additional 
context, we provide estimates in Table 3 for IHEs, States, and LEAs in 
Year 1 and Year 5. These estimates are not annualized or calculated on 
a net present value basis, but instead represent real dollar estimates.

[[Page 75589]]



        Table 4--Estimated Costs by Entity Type in Years 1 and 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                              Year 1          Year 5
------------------------------------------------------------------------
IHE.....................................      $4,800,050      $4,415,930
State...................................     $24,077,040     $16,111,570
LEA.....................................      $5,859,820      $5,859,820
rrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrrr
  Total.................................     $34,736,910     $26,387,320
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Relative to these costs, the major benefit of the requirements, 
taken as a whole, will be better publicly available information on the 
effectiveness of teacher preparation programs that can be used by 
prospective students when choosing programs to attend; employers in 
selecting teacher preparation program graduates to recruit, train, and 
hire; States in making funding decisions; and teacher preparation 
programs themselves in seeking to improve.
    The following is a detailed analysis of the estimated costs of 
implementing the specific requirements, including the costs of 
complying with paperwork-related requirements, followed by a discussion 
of the anticipated benefits.\88\ The burden hours of implementing 
specific paperwork-related requirements are also shown in the tables in 
the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this document.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \88\ Unless otherwise specified, all hourly wage estimates for 
particular occupation categories were taken from the May 2014 
National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates for Federal, 
State, and local government published by the Department of Labor's 
Bureau of Labor Statistics and available online at www.bls.gov/oes/current/999001.htm.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Title II Accountability System (HEA Title II Regulations)
    Section 205(a) of the HEA requires that each IHE that provides a 
teacher preparation program leading to State certification or licensure 
report on a statutorily enumerated series of data elements for the 
programs it provides. Section 205(b) of the HEA requires that each 
State that receives funds under the HEA provide to the Secretary and 
make widely available to the public information on the quality of 
traditional and alternative route teacher preparation programs that 
includes not less than the statutorily enumerated series of data 
elements it provides. The State must do so in a uniform and 
comprehensible manner, conforming with definitions and methods 
established by the Secretary. Section 205(c) of the HEA directs the 
Secretary to prescribe regulations to ensure the validity, reliability, 
accuracy, and integrity of the data submitted. Section 206(b) requires 
that IHEs provide assurance to the Secretary that their teacher 
training programs respond to the needs of LEAs, be closely linked with 
the instructional decisions novice teachers confront in the classroom, 
and prepare candidates to work with diverse populations and in urban 
and rural settings, as applicable. Consistent with these statutory 
provisions, the Department is issuing regulations to ensure that the 
data reported by IHEs and States is accurate. The following sections 
provide a detailed examination of the costs associated with each of the 
regulatory provisions.
Institutional Report Card Reporting Requirements
    The regulations require that beginning on April 1, 2018, and 
annually thereafter, each IHE that conducts a traditional teacher 
preparation program or alternative route to State certification or 
licensure program and enrolls students receiving title IV, HEA funds, 
report to the State on the quality of its program using an IRC 
prescribed by the Secretary.
    Under the current IRC, IHEs typically report at the entity level, 
rather than the program level, such that an IHE that administers 
multiple teacher preparation programs typically gathers data on each of 
those programs, aggregates the data, and reports the required 
information as a single teacher preparation entity on a single report 
card. By contrast, the regulations generally require that States report 
on program performance at the individual program level. The Department 
originally estimated that the initial burden for each IHE to adjust its 
recordkeeping systems in order to report the required data separately 
for each of its teacher preparation programs would be four hours per 
IHE. Numerous commenters argued that this estimate was low. Several 
commenters argued that initial set-up would take 8 to 12 hours, while 
others argued that it would take 20 to 40 hours per IHE. While we 
recognize that the amount of time it will take to initially adjust 
their record-keeping systems will vary, we believe that the estimates 
in excess of 20 hours are too high, given that IHEs will only be 
adjusting the way in which they report data, rather than collecting new 
data. However, the Department found arguments in favor of both 8 hours 
and 12 hours to be compelling and reasonable. We believe that eight 
hours is a reasonable estimate for how long it will take to complete 
this process generally; and for institutions with greater levels of 
oversight, review, or complexity, this process may take longer. Without 
additional information about the specific levels of review and 
oversight at individual institutions, we assume that the amount of time 
it will take institutions to complete this work will be normally 
distributed between 8 and 12 hours, with a national average of 10 hours 
per institution. Therefore, the Department has upwardly revised its 
initial estimate of four hours to ten hours. In the most recent year 
for which data are available, 1,490 IHEs submitted IRCs to the 
Department, for an estimated one-time cost of $384,120.\89\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \89\ Unless otherwise specified, for paperwork reporting 
requirements, we use a wage rate of $25.78, which is based on a 
weighted national average hourly wage for full-time Federal, State 
and local government workers in office and administrative support 
(75 percent) and managerial occupations (25 percent), as reported by 
the Bureau of Labor Statistics in the National Occupational 
Employment and Wage Estimates, May 2014.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    One commenter argued that institutions would have to make costly 
updates and upgrades to their existing information technology (IT) 
platforms in order to generate the required new reports. However, given 
that institutions will not be required to generate reports on any new 
data elements, but only disaggregate the data already being collected 
by program, and that we include cost estimates for making the necessary 
changes to their existing systems in order to generate reports in that 
way, we do not believe it would be appropriate to include additional 
costs associated with large IT purchases in this cost estimate.
    The Department further estimated that each of the 1,490 IHEs would 
need to spend 78 hours to collect the data elements required for the 
IRC for its teacher preparation programs. Several commenters argued 
that it would take longer than 78 hours to collect the data elements 
required for the IRC each year. The Department reviewed its original 
estimates in light of these comments and the new requirement for IHEs 
to identify, in their IRCs, whether each program met the definition of 
a teacher preparation program provided through distance education. 
Pursuant to that review, the Department has increased its initial 
estimate to 80 hours, for an annual cost of $3,072,980.
    We originally estimated that entering the required information into 
the information collection instrument would take 13.65 hours per 
entity. We currently estimate that, on average, it takes one hour for 
institutions to enter the data for the current IRC. The Department 
believed that it would take institutions approximately as long to 
complete the report for each program as it does currently for the 
entire entity. As such, the regulations would result in an additional 
burden of the time to complete all individual program level

[[Page 75590]]

reports minus the current entity time burden. In the NPRM, this 
estimate was based on an average of 14.65 teacher preparation programs 
per entity--22,312 IHE-based programs divided by 1,522 IHEs. Given that 
entities are already taking approximately one hour to complete the 
report, we estimated the time burden associated with this regulation at 
13.65 hours (14.65 hours to complete individual program level reports 
minus one hour of current entity time burden). Based on the most recent 
data available, we now estimate an average of 16.40 teacher preparation 
programs per entity--24,430 IHE-based programs divided by 1,490 IHEs. 
This results in a total cost of $591,550 to the 1,490 IHEs. One 
commenter stated that it would take a total of 140 hours to enter the 
required information into the information collection instrument. 
However, it appears that this estimate is based on an assumption that 
it would require 10 hours of data entry for each program at an 
institution. Given the number of data elements involved and our 
understanding of how long institutions have historically taken to 
complete data entry tasks, we believe this estimate is high, and that 
our revised estimate, as described above, is appropriate.
    The regulations also require that each IHE provide the information 
reported on the IRC to the general public by prominently and promptly 
posting the IRC on the IHE's Web site, and, if applicable, on the 
teacher preparation portion of the Web site. We originally estimated 
that each IHE would require 30 minutes to post the IRC. One commenter 
stated that this estimate was reasonable given the tasks involved, 
while two commenters argued that this was an underestimate. One of 
these commenters stated that posting data on the institutional Web site 
often involved multiple staff, which was not captured in the 
Department's initial estimate. Another commenter argued that this 
estimate did not take into account time for data verification, drafting 
of summary text to accompany the document, or ensuring compliance with 
the Americans with Disabilities Act (ADA). Given that institutions will 
simply be posting on their Web site the final IRC that was submitted to 
the Department, we assume that the document has already been reviewed 
by all necessary parties and that all included data have been verified 
prior to being submitted to the Department. As such, the requirement to 
post the IRC to the Web site should not incur any additional levels of 
review or data validation. Regarding ADA compliance, we assume the 
commenter was referring to the broad set of statutory requirements 
regarding accessibility of communications by entities receiving Federal 
funding. In general, it is our belief that the vast majority of 
institutions, when developing materials for public dissemination, 
already ensure that such materials meet government- and industry-
recognized standards for accessibility. To the extent that they do not 
already do so, nothing in the regulations imposes additional 
accessibility requirements beyond those in the Rehabilitation Act of 
1973, as amended, or the ADA. As such, while there may be 
accessibility-related work associated with the preparation of these 
documents that is not already within the standard procedures of the 
institution, such work is not a burden created by the regulations. 
Thus, we believe our initial estimate of 30 minutes is appropriate, for 
an annual cumulative cost of $19,210. The estimated total annual cost 
to IHEs to meet the requirements concerning IRCs would be $3,991,030.
    We note that several commenters, in response to the Supplemental 
NPRM, argued that institutions would experience increased compliance 
costs given new provisions related to teacher preparation programs 
provided through distance education. However, nothing in the 
Supplemental NPRM proposed changes to institutional burden under Sec.  
612.3. Under the final regulations, the only increased burden on IHEs 
with respect to teacher preparation programs provided through distance 
education is that they identify whether each of the teacher preparation 
programs they offer meet the definition in Sec.  612.2. We believe that 
the additional two hours estimated for data collection above the 
Department's initial estimate provides more than enough time for IHEs 
to meet this requirement. We do not estimate additional compliance 
costs to accrue to IHEs as a result of provisions in this regulation 
related to teacher preparation programs provided through distance 
education.
State Report Card Reporting Requirements
    Section 205(b) of the HEA requires each State that receives funds 
under the HEA to report annually to the Secretary on the quality of 
teacher preparation in the State, both for traditional teacher 
preparation programs and for alternative routes to State certification 
or licensure programs, and to make this report available to the general 
public. In the NPRM, the Department estimated that the 50 States, the 
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American 
Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands, and the Freely Associated States, which 
include the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of 
Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau would each need 235 hours to 
report the data required under the SRC.
    In response to the original NPRM, two commenters argued that this 
estimate was too low. Specifically, one commenter stated that, based on 
the amount of time their State has historically devoted to reporting 
the data in the SRC, it would take approximately 372.5 hours to 
complete. We note that not all States will be able to complete the 
reporting requirements in 235 hours and that some States, particularly 
those with more complex systems or more institutions, will take much 
longer. We also note that the State identified by the commenter in 
developing the 372.5 hour estimate meets both of those conditions--it 
uses a separate reporting structure to develop its SRC (one of only two 
States nationwide to do so), and has an above-average number of 
preparation programs. As such, it is reasonable to assume that this 
State would require more than the nationwide average amount of time to 
complete the process. Another commenter stated that the Department's 
estimates did not take into account the amount of time and potential 
staff resources needed to prepare and post the information. We note 
that there are many other aspects of preparing and posting the data 
that are not reflected in this estimate, such as collecting, verifying, 
and validating the data. We also note that this estimate does not take 
into account the time required to report on student learning outcomes, 
employment outcomes, or survey results. However, all of these estimates 
are included elsewhere in these cost estimates. We believe that, taken 
as a whole, all of these various elements appropriately capture the 
time and staff resources necessary to comply with the SRC reporting 
requirement.
    As proposed in the Supplemental NPRM, and as described in greater 
detail below, in these final regulations, States will be required to 
report on teacher preparation programs offered through distance 
education that produce 25 or more certified teachers in their State. 
The Department estimates that the reporting on these additional 
programs, in conjunction with the reduction in the total number of 
teacher preparation programs from our initial estimates in the NPRM, 
will result in a net increase in the time necessary to report the data 
required in the SRC from the 235 hours

[[Page 75591]]

estimated in the NPRM to 243 hours, for an annual cost of $369,610.
    Section 612.4(a)(2) requires that States post the SRC on the 
State's Web site. Because all States already have at least one Web site 
in operation, we originally estimated that posting the SRC on an 
existing Web site would require no more than half an hour at a cost of 
$25.78 per hour. Two commenters suggested that this estimate was too 
low. One commenter argued that the Department's initial estimate did 
not take into account time to create Web-ready materials or to address 
technical errors. In general, the regulations do not require the SRC to 
be posted in any specific format and we believe that it would take a 
State minimal time to create a file that would be compliant with the 
regulations by, for example, creating a PDF containing the SRC. We were 
unable to determine from this comment the specific technical errors 
that the commenter was concerned about, but believe that enough States 
will need less than the originally estimated 30 minutes to post the SRC 
so that the overall average will not be affected if a handful of States 
encounter technical issues. Another commenter estimated that, using its 
current Web reporting system, it would take approximately 450 hours to 
initially set up the SRC Web site with a recurring 8 hours annually to 
update it. However, we note that the system the commenter describes is 
more labor intensive and includes more data analysis than the 
regulations require. While we recognize the value in States' actively 
trying to make the SRC data more accessible and useful to the public, 
we cannot accurately estimate how many States will choose to do more 
than the regulations require, or what costs they would encounter to do 
so. We have therefore opted to estimate only the time and costs 
necessary to comply with the regulations. As such, we retain our 
initial estimate of 30 minutes to post the SRC. For the 50 States, the 
District of Columbia, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, Guam, American 
Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, the Commonwealth of the 
Northern Mariana Islands, the Freely Associated States, which include 
the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of 
Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau the total annual estimated cost 
of meeting this requirement would be $760.
Scope of State Reporting
    The costs associated with the reporting requirements in paragraphs 
(b) and (c) of Sec.  612.4 are discussed in the following paragraphs. 
The requirements regarding reporting of a teacher preparation program's 
indicators of academic content knowledge and teaching skills do not 
apply to the insular areas of American Samoa, Guam, the Commonwealth of 
the Northern Mariana Islands, the U.S. Virgin Islands, the freely 
associated States of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the 
Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau. Due to their 
size and limited resources and capacity in some of these areas, we 
believe that the cost to these insular areas of collecting and 
reporting data on these indicators would not be warranted.
Number of Distance Education Programs
    As described in the Supplemental NPRM (81 FR 18808), the Department 
initially estimated that the portions of this regulation relating to 
reporting on teacher preparation programs offered through distance 
education would result in 812 additional reporting instances for 
States. A number of commenters acknowledged the difficulty in arriving 
at an accurate estimate of the number of teacher preparation programs 
offered through distance education that would be subject to reporting 
under the final regulation. However, those commenters also noted that, 
without a clear definition from the Department on what constitutes a 
teacher preparation program offered through distance education, it 
would be exceptionally difficult to offer an alternative estimate. No 
commenters provided alternate estimates. In these final regulations, 
the Department has adopted a definition of teacher preparation program 
offered through distance education. We believe that this definition is 
consistent with our initial estimation methodology and have no reason 
to adjust that estimate at this time.
Reporting of Information on Teacher Preparation Program Performance
    Under Sec.  612.4(b)(1), a State would be required to make 
meaningful differentiations in teacher preparation program performance 
using at least three performance levels--low-performing teacher 
preparation program, at-risk teacher preparation program, and effective 
teacher preparation program--based on the indicators in Sec.  612.5, 
including student learning outcomes and employment outcomes for 
teachers in high-need schools. Because States would have the discretion 
to determine the weighting of these indicators, the Department assumes 
that States would consult with early adopter States or researchers to 
determine best practices for making such determinations and whether an 
underlying qualitative basis should exist for these decisions. The 
Department originally estimated that State higher education authorities 
responsible for making State-level classifications of teacher 
preparation programs would require at least 35 hours to discuss methods 
for ensuring that meaningful differentiations are made in their 
classifications. This initial estimate also included determining what 
it meant for particular indicators to be included ``in significant 
part'' and what constituted ``satisfactory'' student learning outcomes, 
which are not included in the final regulations.
    A number of commenters stated that 35 hours was an underestimate. 
Of the commenters that suggested alternative estimates, those estimates 
typically ranged from 60 to 70 hours (the highest estimate was 350 
hours). Based on these comments, the Department believes that its 
original estimate would not have provided sufficient time for multiple 
staff to meet and discuss teacher preparation program quality in a 
meaningful way. As such, and given that these staff will be making 
decisions regarding a smaller range of issues, the Department is 
revising its estimate to 70 hours per State. We believe that this 
amount of time would be sufficient for staff to discuss and make 
decisions on these issues in a meaningful and purposeful way. To 
estimate the cost per State, we assume that the State employee or 
employees would likely be in a managerial position (with national 
average hourly earnings of $45.58), for a total one-time cost for each 
of the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of 
Puerto Rico of $165,910.
Fair and Equitable Methods
    Section 612.4(c)(1) requires States to consult with a 
representative group of stakeholders to determine the procedures for 
assessing and reporting the performance of each teacher preparation 
program in the State. The regulations specify that these stakeholders 
must include, at a minimum, representatives of leaders and faculty of 
traditional teacher preparation programs and alternative routes to 
State certification or licensure programs; students of teacher 
preparation programs; LEA superintendents; local school board members; 
elementary and secondary school leaders and instructional staff; 
elementary and secondary school students and their parents; IHEs that 
serve high proportions of low-income students or students of color, or 
English learners; advocates for English learners and students with 
disabilities; officials

[[Page 75592]]

of the State's standards board or other appropriate standards body; and 
a representative of at least one teacher preparation program provided 
through distance education. Because the final regulations do not 
prescribe any particular methods or activities, we expect that States 
will implement these requirements in ways that vary considerably, 
depending on their population and geography and any applicable State 
laws concerning public meetings.
    Many commenters stated that their States would likely adopt methods 
different from those outlined below. In particular, these commenters 
argued that their States would include more than the minimum number of 
participants we used for these estimates. In general, while States may 
opt to do more than what is required by the regulations, for purposes 
of estimating the cost, we have based the estimate on what the 
regulations require. If States opt to include more participants or 
consult with them more frequently or for longer periods of time, then 
the costs incurred by States and the participants would be higher.
    In order to estimate the cost of implementing these requirements, 
we assume that the average State will convene at least three meetings 
with at least the following representatives from required categories of 
stakeholders: One administrator or faculty member from a traditional 
teacher preparation program, one administrator or faculty member from 
an alternative route teacher preparation program, one student from a 
traditional or alternative route teacher preparation program, one 
teacher or other instructional staff, one representative of a small 
teacher preparation program, one LEA superintendent, one local school 
board member, one student in elementary or secondary school and one of 
his or her parents, one administrator or faculty member from an IHE 
that serves high percentages of low-income students or students of 
color, one representative of the interests of English learners, one 
representative of the interests of students with disabilities, one 
official from the State's standards board or other appropriate 
standards body, and one administrator or faculty from a teacher 
preparation program provided through distance education. We note that a 
representative of a small teacher preparation program and a 
representative from a teacher preparation program provided through 
distance education were not required stakeholders in the proposed 
regulations, but are included in these final regulations.
    To estimate the cost of participating in these meetings for the 
required categories of stakeholders, we initially assumed that each 
meeting would require four hours of each participant's time and used 
the following national average hourly wages for full-time State 
government workers employed in these professions: Postsecondary 
education administrators, $50.57 (4 stakeholders); elementary or 
secondary education administrators, $50.97 (1 stakeholder); 
postsecondary teachers, $45.78 (1 stakeholder); primary, secondary, and 
special education school teachers, $41.66 (1 stakeholder). For the 
official from the State's standards board or other appropriate 
standards body, we used the national average hourly earnings of $59.32 
for chief executives employed by State governments. For the 
representatives of the interests of students who are English learners 
and students with disabilities, we used the national average hourly 
earnings of $62.64 for lawyers in educational services (including 
private, State, and local government schools). For the opportunity cost 
to the representatives of elementary and secondary school students, we 
used the Federal minimum wage of $7.25 per hour and the average hourly 
wage for all workers of $22.71. These wage rates could represent either 
the involvement of a parent and a student at these meetings, or a 
single representative from an organization representing their interests 
who has an above average wage rate (i.e., $29.96). We used the average 
hourly wage rate for all workers ($22.71) for the school board 
official. For the student from a traditional or alternative route 
teacher preparation program, we used the 25th percentile of hourly wage 
for all workers of $11.04. We also assumed that at least two State 
employees in managerial positions (with national average hourly 
earnings of $45.58) would attend each meeting, with one budget or 
policy analyst to assist them (with national average hourly earnings of 
$33.98).\90\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \90\ Unless otherwise noted, all wage rates in this section are 
based on average hourly earnings as reported by in the May 2014 
National Occupational Employment and Wage Estimates from the Bureau 
of Labor Statistics available online at www.bls.gov/oes/current/oessrci.htm. Where hourly wages were unavailable, we estimated 
hourly wages using average annual wages from this source and the 
average annual hours worked from the National Compensation Survey, 
2010.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A number of commenters stated that this consultation process would 
take longer than the 12 hours in our initial estimate and that our 
estimates did not include time for preparation for the meetings or for 
participant travel. Alternate estimates from commenters ranged from 56 
hours to 3,900 hours. Based on the comments we received, the Department 
believes that both States and participants may opt to meet for longer 
periods of time at each meeting or more frequently. However, we believe 
that many of the estimates from commenters were overestimates for an 
annual process. For example, the 3,900 hour estimate would require a 
commitment on the part of participants totaling 75 hours per week for 
52 weeks per year. We believe this is highly unrealistic. However, we 
do recognize that States and interested parties may wish to spend a 
greater amount of time in the first year to discuss and establish the 
initial framework than we initially estimated. As such, we are 
increasing our initial estimate of 12 hours in the first year to 60 
hours. We believe that this amount of time will provide an adequate 
amount of time for discussion of these important issues. We therefore 
estimate the cumulative cost to the 50 States, the District of 
Columbia, and Puerto Rico to be $2,385,900.
    We also recognize that, although the Department initially only 
estimated this consultative process occurring once every five years, 
States may wish to have a continuing consultation with these 
stakeholders. We believe that this engagement would take place either 
over email or conference call, or with an on-site meeting. We therefore 
are adding an estimated 20 hours per year for the intervening years for 
consulting with stakeholders. We therefore estimate that these 
additional consultations with stakeholders will cumulatively cost the 
50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico $690,110.
    States would also be required to report on the State-level rewards 
or consequences associated with the designated performance levels and 
on the opportunities they provide for teacher preparation programs to 
challenge the accuracy of their performance data and classification of 
the program. Costs associated with implementing these requirements are 
estimated in the discussion of annual costs associated with the SRC.
Procedures for Assessing and Reporting Performance
    Under final Sec.  612.4(b)(3), a State would be required to ensure 
that teacher preparation programs in the State are included on the SRC, 
but with some flexibility due to the Department's recognition that 
reporting on teacher preparation programs particularly consisting of a 
small number of prospective teachers could present privacy and data 
validity concerns. See Sec.  612.4(b)(5). The Department originally

[[Page 75593]]

estimated that each State would need up to 14 hours to review and 
analyze applicable State and Federal privacy laws and regulations and 
existing research on the practices of other States that set program 
size thresholds in order to determine the most appropriate aggregation 
level and procedures for its own teacher preparation program reporting. 
Most of the comments the Department received on this estimate focused 
on the comparability of data across years and stated that this process 
would have to be conducted annually in order to reassess appropriate 
cut points. The Department agrees that comparability could be an issue 
in several instances, but is equally concerned with variability in the 
data induced solely by the small size of programs. As such, we believe 
providing States the flexibility to aggregate data across small 
programs is key to ensuring meaningful data for the public. Upon 
further review, the Department also recognized an error in the NPRM, in 
which we initially stated that this review would be a one-time cost. 
Contrary to that statement, our overall estimates in the NPRM included 
this cost on an annual basis. This review will likely take place 
annually to determine whether there are any necessary changes in law, 
regulation, or practice that need to be taken into consideration. As 
such, we are revising our statement to clarify that these costs will be 
reflected annually. However, because of the error in the original 
description of the burden estimate, this change does not substantively 
affect the underlying calculations.
    Two commenters stated that the Department's initial estimate seemed 
low given the amount of work involved and three other commenters stated 
that the Department's initial estimates were adequate. Another 
commenter stated that this process would likely take longer in his 
State. No commenters offered alternative estimates. For the vast 
majority of States, we continue to believe that 14 hours is a 
sufficient amount of time for staff to review and analyze the 
applicable laws and statutes. However, given the potential complexity 
of these issues, as raised by commenters, we recognize that there may 
be additional staff involved and additional meetings required for 
purposes of consultation. In order to account for these additional 
burdens where they may exist, the Department is increasing its initial 
estimate to 20 hours. We believe that this will provide sufficient time 
for review, analysis, and discussion of these important issues. This 
provides an estimated cost to the 50 States, the District of Columbia, 
and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico of $51,750, based on the average 
national hourly earnings for a lawyer employed full-time by a State 
government ($49.76).
Required Elements of the State Report Card
    For purposes of reporting under Sec.  612.4, each State will need 
to establish indicators that would be used to assess the academic 
content knowledge and teaching skills of the graduates of teacher 
preparation programs within its jurisdiction. At a minimum, States must 
base their assessments on student learning outcomes, employment 
outcomes, survey outcomes, and whether or not the program is accredited 
by a specialized accrediting agency recognized by the Secretary for 
accreditation of professional teacher education programs, or provides 
teacher candidates with content and pedagogical knowledge, and quality 
clinical preparation, and has rigorous teacher candidate exit 
qualifications.
    States are required to report these outcomes for teacher 
preparation programs within their jurisdiction, with the only 
exceptions being for small programs for which aggregation under Sec.  
612.4(b)(3)(ii) would not yield the program size threshold (or for a 
State that chooses a lower program size threshold, would not yield the 
lower program size threshold) for that program, and for any program 
where reporting data would lead to conflicts with Federal or State 
privacy and confidentiality laws and regulations.
Student Learning Outcomes
    In Sec.  612.5, the Department requires that States assess the 
performance of teacher preparation programs based in part on data on 
the aggregate learning outcomes of students taught by novice teachers 
prepared by those programs. States have the option of calculating these 
outcomes using student growth, a teacher evaluation measure that 
includes student growth, another State-determined measure relevant to 
calculating student learning outcomes, or a combination of the three. 
Regardless of how they determine student learning outcomes, States are 
required to link these data to novice teachers and their teacher 
preparation programs. In the NPRM, we used available sources of 
information to assess the extent to which States appeared to already 
have the capacity to measure student learning outcomes and estimated 
the additional costs States that did not currently have the capacity 
might incur in order to comply with the regulations. However, in these 
final regulations, the Department has expanded the definition of 
``teacher evaluation measure'' and provided States with the discretion 
to use a State-determined measure relevant to calculating student 
learning outcomes, which they did not have in the proposed regulations. 
In our initial estimates, the Department assumed that only eight States 
would experience costs associated with measuring student learning 
outcomes. Of those, the Department noted that two already had annual 
teacher evaluations that included at least some objective evidence of 
student learning. For these two States, we estimated it would cost 
approximately $596,720 to comply with the proposed regulations. For the 
six remaining States, we estimated a cost of $16,079,390. We note that 
several commenters raised concerns about the specifics of some of our 
assumptions in making these estimates, particularly the amount of time 
we assumed it would take to complete the tasks we described. We outline 
and respond to those comments below. However, given the revised 
definition of ``teacher evaluation measure,'' the additional option for 
States to use a State-defined measure other than student growth or a 
teacher evaluation measure, and the measures that States are already 
planning to implement consistent with ESSA, we believe all States 
either already have in place a system for measuring student learning 
outcomes or are already planning to have one in place absent these 
regulations. As such, we no longer believe that States will incur costs 
associated with measuring student learning outcomes solely as a result 
of these regulations.
Tested Grades and Subjects
    In the NPRM, we assumed that the States would not need to incur any 
additional costs to measure student growth for tested grades and 
subjects and would only need to link these outcomes to teacher 
preparation programs by first linking the students' teachers to the 
teacher preparation program from which they graduated. The costs of 
linking student learning outcomes to teacher preparation programs are 
discussed below. Several commenters stated that assuming no costs for 
teachers in tested grades and subjects was unrealistic because this 
estimate was based on assurances provided by States, rather than on an 
assessment of actual State practice. We recognize the commenters' 
point. States that have made assurances to provide these student growth 
data may not currently be providing this information

[[Page 75594]]

to teachers and therefore will still incur a cost to do so. However, 
such cost and burden is not occurring as a result of the regulations, 
but as a result of prior assurances made by the States under other 
programs. In general, we do not include costs herein that arise from 
other programs or requirements, but only those that are newly created 
by the final rule. As such, we continue to estimate no new costs in 
this area for States to comply with this final rule.
Non-Tested Grades and Subjects
    In the NPRM, we assumed that the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, 
and the 42 States, which all that had their requests for flexibility 
regarding specific requirements of the ESEA approved, would not incur 
additional costs to comply with the proposed regulations. This was, in 
part, because the teacher evaluation measures that they agreed to 
implement as part of the flexibility would meet the definition of a 
``teacher evaluation measure'' under the proposed regulations. Some 
commenters expressed doubt that there would be no additional costs for 
these States, and others cited costs associated with developing new 
assessments for all currently non-tested grades and subjects (totaling 
as many as 57 new assessments). We recognize that States likely 
incurred costs to implement statewide comprehensive teacher 
evaluations. However, those additional costs did not accrue to States 
as a result of the regulations, but instead as part of their efforts 
under flexibility agreements. Therefore, we do not include an analysis 
of costs for States that received ESEA flexibility herein. 
Additionally, as noted previously, the regulations do not require 
States to develop new assessments for all currently non-tested grades 
and subjects. Therefore, we do not include costs for such efforts in 
these estimates.
    To estimate, in the NPRM, the cost of measuring student growth for 
teachers in non-tested grades and subjects in the eight States that 
were not approved for ESEA flexibility, we divided the States into two 
groups--those who had annual teacher evaluations with at least some 
objective evidence of student learning outcomes and those that did not.
    For those States that did not have an annual teacher evaluation in 
place, we estimated that it would take approximately 6.85 hours of a 
teacher's time and 5.05 hours of an evaluator's time to measure student 
growth using student learning objectives. Two commenters stated that 
these were underestimates, specifically noting that certain student 
outcomes (e.g., in the arts) are process-oriented and would likely take 
longer. We recognize that it may be more time-intensive to develop 
student learning objectives to measure student growth in some subject 
areas. However, the Rhode Island model we used as a basis for these 
estimates was designed to be used across subject areas, including the 
arts. Further, we believe that both teachers and evaluators would have 
sufficient expertise in their content areas that they would be able to 
complete the activities outlined in the Rhode Island guidance in times 
approximating our initial estimates. As such, we continue to believe 
those estimates were appropriate for the average teacher.
    In fact, we believe that this estimate likely overstated the cost 
to States that already require annual evaluations of all novice 
teachers because many of these evaluations would already encompass many 
of the activities in the framework. The National Council on Teacher 
Quality has reported that two of the eight States that did not receive 
ESEA flexibility required annual evaluations of all novice teachers and 
that those evaluations included at least some objective evidence of 
student learning. In these States, we initially estimated that teachers 
and evaluators would need to spend only a combined three hours to 
develop and measure against student learning objectives for the 4,629 
novice teachers in these States.
    Several commenters stated that their States did not currently have 
these data, and others argued that this estimate did not account for 
the costs of verifying the data. We understand that States may not 
currently have structures in place to measure student learning outcomes 
as defined in the proposed rules. However, we believe that the 
revisions in the final rule provide sufficient flexibility to States to 
ensure that they can meet the requirements of this section without 
incurring additional measurement costs as a result of compliance with 
this regulation. We have included costs for challenging data elsewhere 
in these estimates.
Linking Student Learning Outcomes to Teacher Preparation Programs
    Whether using student scores on State assessments, teacher 
evaluation ratings, or other measures of student growth, under the 
regulations States must link the student learning outcomes data back to 
the teacher, and then back to that teacher's preparation program. The 
costs to States to comply with this requirement will depend, in part, 
on the data and linkages in their statewide longitudinal data system. 
Through the Statewide Longitudinal Data Systems (SLDS) program, the 
Department has awarded $575.7 million in grants to support data systems 
that, among other things, allow States to link student achievement data 
to individual teachers and to postsecondary education systems. Forty-
seven States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto 
Rico have already received at least one grant under this program to 
support the development of these data systems, so we expect that the 
cost to these States of linking student learning outcomes to teacher 
preparation programs would be lower than for the remaining States.
    According to information from the SLDS program in June 2015, nine 
States currently link K-12 teacher data including data on both teacher/
administrator evaluations and teacher preparation programs to K-12 
student data. An additional 11 States and the District of Columbia are 
currently in the process of establishing this linkage, and ten States 
and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico have plans to add this linkage to 
their systems during their SLDS grant. Based on this information, it 
appears that 30 States, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, and the 
District of Columbia either already have the ability to aggregate data 
on student achievement of students taught by program graduates and link 
those data back to teacher preparation programs or have committed to 
doing so; therefore, we do not estimate any additional costs for these 
States to comply with this aspect of the regulations. We note that, 
based on information from other Department programs and initiatives, a 
larger number of States currently make these linkages and would 
therefore incur no additional costs associated with the regulations. 
However, for purposes of this estimate, we use data from the SLDS 
program. As a result, these estimates are likely overestimates of the 
actual costs borne by States to make these data connections.
    During the development of the regulations, the Department consulted 
with experts familiar with the development of student growth models and 
longitudinal data systems. These experts indicated that the cost of 
calculating growth for students taught by individual teachers and 
aggregating these data according to the teacher preparation program 
that these teachers completed would vary among States. For example, in 
States in which data on teacher preparation programs are housed within 
different or even multiple different postsecondary data systems that 
are not currently linked to data systems for elementary through 
secondary education students and teachers, these experts suggested that 
a

[[Page 75595]]

reasonable estimate of the cost of additional staff or vendor time to 
link and analyze the data would be $250,000 per State. For States that 
already have data systems that include data from elementary to 
postsecondary education levels, we estimate that the cost of additional 
staff or vendor time to analyze the data would be $100,000. Since we do 
not know enough about the data systems in the remaining 20 States to 
determine whether they are likely to incur the higher or lower estimate 
of costs, we averaged the higher and lower figure. Accordingly we 
estimate that the remaining 20 States will need to incur an average 
cost of $175,000 to develop models to calculate growth for students 
taught by individual teachers and then link these data to teacher 
preparation programs for a total cost of $3,500,000.
    Several commenters stated that their States did not currently have 
the ability to make these linkages and their data systems would have to 
be updated and that, even in States that already have these linkages, 
there may be required updates to the system. We recognize that some 
States for which we assume no costs do not yet have the required 
functionality in their State data systems to make the links required 
under the regulations. However, as noted elsewhere, we reasonably rely 
on the assurances made by States that they are already planning on 
establishing these links, and are not doing so as a result of the 
regulations. As a result, we do not estimate costs for those States 
here. In regards to States that already have systems with these links 
in place, we are not aware of any updates that will need to be made to 
any of these systems solely in order to comply with the regulations, 
and therefore estimate no additional costs to these States.
Employment Outcomes
    The final regulations require States to report employment outcomes, 
including data on both the teacher placement rate and the teacher 
retention rate, and on the effectiveness of a teacher preparation 
program in preparing, placing, and supporting novice teachers 
consistent with local educational needs. We have limited information on 
the extent to which States currently collect and maintain data on 
placement and retention for individual teachers.
    Under Sec.  612.4(b), States are required to report annually, for 
each teacher preparation program, on the teacher placement rate for 
traditional teacher preparation programs, the teacher placement rate 
calculated for high-need schools for all teacher preparation programs 
(whether traditional or alternative route), the teacher retention rate 
for all teacher preparation programs (whether traditional or 
alternative route), and the teacher retention rate calculated for high-
need schools for all teacher preparation programs (whether traditional 
or alternative route). States are not required to report on the teacher 
placement rate for alternative route programs. The Department has 
defined the ``teacher placement rate'' as the percentage of recent 
graduates who have become novice teachers (regardless of retention) for 
the grade level, span, and subject area in which they were prepared. 
``High-need schools'' is defined in Sec.  612.2(d) by using the 
definition of ``high-need school'' in section 200(11) of the HEA. The 
regulations will give States discretion to exclude recent graduates 
from this measure if they are teaching in a private school, teaching in 
another State, teaching in a position that does not require State 
certification, enrolled in graduate school, or engaged in military 
service.
    Section 612.5(a)(2) and the definition of ``teacher retention 
rate'' in Sec.  612.2 require a State to provide data on each teacher 
preparation program's teacher retention rate, by calculating, for each 
of the last three cohorts of novice teachers preceding the current 
title II reporting year, the percentage of those teachers who have been 
continuously employed as teachers of record in each year between their 
first year as a novice teacher and the current reporting year. For the 
purposes of this definition, a cohort of novice teachers is determined 
by the first year in which they were identified as a novice teacher by 
the State. High-need schools is defined in Sec.  612.2 by using the 
definition of ``high-need school'' from section 200(11) of the HEA. The 
regulations give States discretion to exclude novice teachers from this 
measure if they are teaching in a private school or another State, 
enrolled in graduate school, or serving in the military. States also 
have the discretion to treat this rate differently for alternative 
route and traditional route providers.
    In its comments on the Department's Notice of Intention to Develop 
Proposed Regulations Regarding Teacher Preparation Reporting 
Requirements, the Data Quality Campaign reported that 50 States, the 
District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico all collect 
some certification information on individual teachers and that a subset 
of States collect the following specific information on teacher 
preparation or qualifications that is relevant to the requirements: 
Type of teacher preparation program (42 States), location of teacher 
preparation program (47 States), and year of certification (51 
States).\91\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \91\ ED's Notice of Intention to Develop Proposed Regulations 
Regarding Teacher Preparation Reporting Requirements: DQC Comments 
to Share Knowledge on States' Data Capacity. Retrieved from 
www.dataqualitycampaign.org/files/HEA%20Neg%20Regs%20formatted.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Data from the SLDS program indicate that 24 States can currently 
link data on individual teachers with their teacher preparation 
programs, including information on their current certification status 
and placement. In addition, seven States are currently in the process 
of making these links, and 10 States plan to add this capacity to their 
data systems, but have not yet established the link and process for 
doing so. Because these States would also maintain information on the 
certification status and year of certification of individual teachers, 
we assume they would already be able to calculate the teacher placement 
and retention rates for novice teachers but may incur additional costs 
to identify recent graduates who are not employed in a full-time 
teaching position within the State. It should be possible to do this at 
minimal cost by matching rosters of recent graduates from teacher 
preparation programs against teachers employed in full-time teaching 
positions who received their initial certification within the last 
three years. Additionally, because States already maintain the 
necessary information in State databases to identify schools as ``high-
need,'' we do not believe there would be any appreciable additional 
cost associated with adding ``high-need'' flags to any accounting of 
teacher retention or placement rates in the State.
    Several commenters stated that it was unrealistic to assume that 
any States currently had the information required under the regulations 
as the requirements were new. While we recognize that States may not 
have previously conducted these specific data analyses in the past, 
this does not mean that their systems are incapable of doing so. In 
fact, as outlined above, information available to the Department 
indicates that at least 24 States already have this capacity and that 
an additional 17 are in the process of developing it or plan to do so. 
Therefore, regardless of whether the specific data analysis itself is 
new, these States will not incur additional costs associated with the 
final regulations to establish that functionality.
    The remaining 11 States may need to collect additional information 
from teacher preparation programs and LEAs because they do not appear 
to be able to link information on the employment,

[[Page 75596]]

certification, and teacher preparation program for individual teachers. 
If it is not possible to establish this link using existing data 
systems, States may need to obtain some or all of this information from 
teacher preparation programs or from the teachers themselves. The 
American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education reported that, 
in 2012, 495 of 717 institutions (or about 70 percent) had begun 
tracking their graduates into job placements. Although half of those 
institutions have successfully obtained placement information, these 
efforts suggest that States may be able to take advantage of work 
already underway.\92\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \92\ American Association of Colleges for Teacher Education 
(2013), The Changing Teacher Preparation Profession: A report from 
AACTE's Professional Education Data System (PEDS).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A number of commenters stated that IHEs would experience 
substantial burden in obtaining this information from all graduates. We 
agree that teacher preparation programs individually tracking and 
contacting their recent graduates would be highly burdensome and 
inefficient. However, in the regulations, the reporting burden falls on 
States, rather than institutions. As such, we believe it would be 
inappropriate to assume data collection costs and reporting burdens 
accruing to institutions.
    For each of these 11 States, the Department originally estimated 
that 150 hours may be required at the State level to collect 
information about novice teachers employed in full-time teaching 
positions (including designing the data collection instruments, 
disseminating them, providing training or other technical assistance on 
completing the instruments, collecting the data, and checking their 
accuracy). Several commenters stated that the Department's estimates 
were too low. One commenter estimated that this process would take 350 
hours. Another commenter indicated that his State takes approximately 
100 hours to collect data on first year teachers and that data 
collection on more cohorts would take more time. Generally, the 
Department believes that this sort of data collection is subject to 
economies of scale--that for each additional cohort on which data are 
collected in a given year, the average time and cost associated with 
each cohort will decrease. This belief arises from the fact that many 
of the costs associated with such a collection, such as designing the 
data request instruments and disseminating them, are largely fixed. As 
such, we do not think that collecting data on three cohorts will take 
three times as long as collecting data on one. However, we do recognize 
that there could be wide variation across States depending on the 
complexity of their systems and the way in which they opt to collect 
these data. For example, a State that sends data requests to individual 
LEAs to query their own data systems will experience a much higher 
overall burden with this provision than one that sends data requests to 
a handful of analysts at the State level who perform a small number of 
queries on State databases. Because of this potentially wide variation 
in burden across States, it is difficult to accurately estimate an 
average. However, based on public comment, we recognize that our 
initial estimate may have been too low. However, we also believe that 
States will make every effort to reduce the burdens associated with 
this provision. As such, we are increasing our estimate to 200 hours, 
with an expectation that this may vary widely across States. Using this 
estimate, we calculate a total annual cost to the 11 States of 
$112,130, based on the national average hourly wage for education 
administrators of $50.97.
Teacher Preparation Program Characteristics
    Under Sec.  612.5(a)(4) States are required to report whether each 
teacher preparation program in the State either: (a) Is accredited by a 
specialized accrediting agency recognized by the Secretary for 
accreditation of professional teacher education programs, or (b) 
provides teacher candidates with content and pedagogical knowledge and 
quality clinical preparation, and has rigorous teacher candidate exit 
standards. As discussed in greater detail in the Paperwork Reduction 
Act section of this document, we estimate that the total cost to the 50 
States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico 
of providing these assurances for the estimated 15,335 teacher 
preparation programs nationwide for which States have already 
determined are accredited based on previous title II reporting 
submissions would be $790,670, assuming that 2 hours were required per 
teacher preparation program and using an estimated hourly wage of 
$25.78. Several commenters argued that these estimates did not 
accurately reflect the costs associated with seeking specialized 
accreditation. We agree with this statement. However, the regulations 
do not require programs to seek specialized accreditation. Thus, there 
would be no additional costs associated with this requirement for 
programs that are already seeking or have obtained specialized 
accreditation. If teacher preparation programs that do not currently 
have specialized accreditation decide to seek it, they would not be 
doing so because of a requirement in these regulations, and therefore, 
it would be inappropriate to include those costs here.
Survey Outcomes
    The Department requires States to report--disaggregated for each 
teacher preparation program--qualitative and quantitative data from 
surveys of novice teachers and their employers in order to capture 
their perceptions of whether novice teachers who were prepared at a 
teacher preparation program in that State possess the skills needed to 
succeed in the classroom. The design and implementation of these 
surveys would be determined by the State, but we provide the following 
estimates of costs associated with possible options for meeting this 
requirement.
    Some States and IHEs currently survey graduates or recent graduates 
of teacher preparation programs. According to experts consulted by the 
Department, depending on the number of questions and the size of the 
sample, some of these surveys have been administered quite 
inexpensively. Oregon conducted a survey of a stratified random sample 
of approximately 50 percent of its teacher preparation program 
graduates and estimated that it cost $5,000 to develop and administer 
the survey and $5,000 to analyze and report the data. Since these data 
will be used to assess and publicly report on the quality of each 
teacher preparation program, we expect that the cost of implementing 
the proposed regulations is likely to be higher, because States may 
need to survey a larger sample of teachers and their employers in order 
to capture information on all teacher preparation programs.
    Another potential factor in the cost of the teacher and employer 
surveys would be the number and type of questions. We have consulted 
with researchers experienced in the collection of survey data, and they 
have indicated that it is important to balance the burden on the 
respondent with the need to collect adequate information. In addition 
to asking teachers and their employers whether graduates of particular 
teacher preparation programs are adequately prepared before entering 
the classroom, States may also wish to ask about course-taking and 
student teaching experiences, as well as to collect demographic 
information on the respondent, including information on the school 
environment in which the

[[Page 75597]]

teacher is currently employed. Because the researchers we consulted 
stressed that teachers and their employers are unlikely to respond to a 
survey that requires more than 30 minutes to complete, we assume that 
the surveys would not exceed this length.
    Based on our consultation with experts and previous experience 
conducting surveys of teachers through evaluations of Department 
programs or policies, we originally estimated that it would cost the 
average State approximately $25,000 to develop the survey instruments, 
including instructions for the survey recipients. However, a number of 
commenters argued that these development costs were far too low. 
Alternate estimates provided by commenters ranged from $50,000 per 
State to $200,000, with the majority of commenters offering a $50,000 
estimate. As such, the Department has revised its original estimate to 
$50,000. This provides a total cost to the 50 States, the District of 
Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico of $2,600,000. However, 
we recognize that the cost would be lower for States that identify an 
existing instrument that could be adapted or used for this purpose, 
potentially including survey instruments previously developed by other 
States.\93\ If States surveyed all individuals who completed teacher 
preparation programs in the previous year, we estimate that they would 
survey 180,744 teachers, based on the reported number of individuals 
completing teacher preparation programs, both traditional and 
alternative route programs, during the 2013-2014 academic year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \93\ The experts with whom we consulted did not provide 
estimates of the number of hours involved in the development of this 
type of survey. For the estimated burden hours for the Paperwork 
Reduction Act section, this figure represents 1,179 hours at an 
average hourly wage rate of $42.40, based on the hourly wage for 
faculty at a public IHE and statisticians employed by State 
governments.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    To estimate the cost of administering these surveys, we consulted 
researchers with experience conducting a survey of all recent graduates 
of teacher preparation programs in New York City.\94\ In order to meet 
the target of a 70 percent response rate for that survey, the 
researchers estimated that their cost per respondent was $100, which 
included an incentive for respondents worth $25. We believe that it is 
unlikely that States will provide cash incentives for respondents to 
the survey, thus providing an estimate of $75 per respondent. However, 
since the time of data collection in that survey, there have been 
dramatic advances in the availability and usefulness of online survey 
software with a corresponding decrease in cost. As such, we believe 
that the $75 per respondent estimate may actually provide an extreme 
upper bound and may dramatically over-estimate the costs associated 
with administering any such survey. For example, several prominent 
online survey companies offer survey hosting services for as little as 
$300 per year for unlimited questions and unlimited respondents. In the 
NPRM, using that total cost, and assuming surveys administered and 
hosted by the State and using the number of program graduates in 2013 
(203,701), we estimated that the cost per respondent would range from 
$0.02 to $21.43, with an average cost per State of $0.97. We recognize 
that this estimate would represent an extreme lower bound and many 
States are unlikely to see costs per respondent that low until the 
survey is fully integrated into existing systems. For example, States 
may be able to provide teachers with a mechanism, such as an online 
portal, to both verify their class rosters and complete the survey. 
Because teachers would be motivated to ensure that they were not 
evaluated based on the performance of students they did not teach, 
requiring novice teachers to complete the survey in order to access 
their class rosters would increase the response rate for the survey and 
allow novice teachers to select their teacher preparation program from 
a pull-down menu, reducing the amount of time required to link the 
survey results to particular programs. States could also have teacher 
preparation programs disseminate the novice teacher survey with other 
information for teacher preparation program alumni or have LEAs 
disseminate the novice teacher survey during induction or professional 
development activities. We believe that, as States incorporate these 
surveys into other structures, data collection costs will dramatically 
decline towards the lower bounds noted above.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \94\ These cost estimates were based primarily on our 
consultation with a researcher involved in the development, 
implementation, and analysis of surveys of teacher preparation 
program graduates and graduates of alternative certification 
programs in New York City in 2004 as part of the Teacher Pathways 
Project. These survey instruments are available online at: 
www.teacherpolicyresearch.org/TeacherPathwaysProject/Surveys/tabid.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The California State School Climate Survey (CSCS) is one portion of 
the larger California School Climate, Health, & Learning Survey, 
designed to survey teachers and staff to address questions of school 
climate. While the CSCS is subsidized by the State of California, it is 
also offered to school districts outside of the State for a fee, 
ranging from $500 to $1,500 per district, depending on its enrollment 
size. Applying this cost structure to all school districts nationwide 
with enrollment (as outlined in the Department's Common Core of Data), 
we estimated in the NPRM that costs would range from a low of $0.05 per 
FTE teacher to $500 per FTE teacher with an average of $21.29 per FTE. 
However, these costs are inflated by single-school, single-teacher 
districts, which are largely either charter schools or small, rural 
school districts unlikely to administer separate surveys. When removing 
single-school, single-teacher districts, the average cost per 
respondent decreased to $12.27.
    Given the cost savings associated with online administration of 
surveys and the likelihood that States will fold these surveys into 
existing structures, we believe that many of these costs are likely 
over-estimates of the actual costs that States will bear in 
administering these surveys. However, for purposes of estimating costs 
in this context, we use a rate of $30.33 per respondent, which 
represents a cost per respondent at the 85th percentile of the CSCS 
administration and well above the maximum administration cost for 
popular consumer survey software. One commenter stated that the 
Department's initial estimate was appropriate; but also suggested that, 
to reduce costs further, a survey could be administered less than 
annually, or only a subset of novice teachers could be surveyed. One 
commenter argued that this estimate was too low and provided an 
alternate estimate of aggregate costs for their State of $300,000 per 
year. We note, however, that this commenter's alternate estimate was 
actually a lower cost per respondent than the Department's initial 
estimate--approximately $25 per respondent compared to $30.33. Another 
commenter argued that administration of the survey would cost $100 per 
respondent. Some commenters also argued that administering the survey 
would require additional staff. Given the information discussed above 
and that public comment was divided on whether our estimate was too 
high, too low, or appropriate, we do not believe there is adequate 
reason to change our initial estimate of $30.33 per respondent. 
Undoubtedly, some States may bear the administration costs by hiring 
additional staff while others will contract with an outside entity for 
the administration of the survey. In either case, we believe our 
original estimates to be reasonable. Using that estimate, we estimate 
that, if States surveyed a combined sample of 180,744 teachers and an 
equivalent number of

[[Page 75598]]

employers,\95\ with a response rate of 70 percent, the cumulative cost 
to the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of 
Puerto Rico of administering the survey would be $7,674,760.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \95\ We note that, to the extent that multiple novice teachers 
are employed in the same school, there would be fewer employers 
surveyed than the estimates outlined above. However, for purposes of 
this estimate, we have assumed an equivalent number of employers. 
This assumption will result in an overestimate of actual costs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    If States surveyed all teacher preparation program graduates and 
their employers, assuming that both the teacher and employer surveys 
would take no more than 30 minutes to complete, that the employers are 
likely to be principals or district administrators, and a response rate 
of 70 percent of teachers and employers surveyed, the total estimated 
burden for 126,521 teachers and their 126,521 employers of completing 
the surveys would be $2,635,430 and $3,224,390 respectively, based on 
the national average hourly wage of $41.66 for elementary and secondary 
public school teachers and $50.97 for elementary and secondary school 
level administrators. These costs would vary depending on the extent to 
which a State determines that it can measure these outcomes based on a 
sample of novice teachers and their employers. This may depend on the 
distribution of novice teachers prepared by teacher preparation 
programs throughout the LEAs and schools within each State and also on 
whether or not some of this information is available from existing 
sources such as surveys of recent graduates conducted by teacher 
preparation programs as part of their accreditation process.
    One commenter stated that principals would be unlikely to complete 
these surveys unless paid to do so. We recognize that some 
administrators may see these surveys as a burden and may be less 
willing to complete these surveys. However, we believe that States will 
likely take this factor into consideration when designing and 
administering these surveys by either reducing the amount of time 
necessary to complete the surveys, providing a financial incentive to 
complete them, or incorporating the surveys into other, pre-existing 
instruments that already require administrator input. Some States may 
also simply make completion a mandatory part of administrators' duties.
Annual Reporting Requirements Related to State Report Card
    As discussed in greater detail in the Paperwork Reduction Act 
section of this document, Sec.  612.4 includes several requirements for 
which States must annually report on the SRC. Using an estimated hourly 
wage of $25.78, we estimate that the total cost for the 50 States, the 
District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico to report the 
following required information in the SRC would be: Classifications of 
teacher preparation programs ($370,280, based on 0.5 hours per 28,726 
programs); assurances of accreditation ($98,830, based on 0.25 hours 
per 15,335 programs); State's weighting of the different indicators in 
Sec.  612.5 ($340 annually, based on 0.25 hours per State); State-level 
rewards and consequences associated with the designated performance 
levels ($670 in the first year and $130 thereafter, based on 0.5 hours 
per State in the first year and 0.1 hours per State in subsequent 
years); method of program aggregation ($130 annually, based on 0.1 
hours per State); and process for challenging data and program 
classification ($4,020 in the first year and $1,550 thereafter, based 
on 3 hours per State in the first year and 6 hours for 10 States in 
subsequent years).
    The Department's initial estimates also included costs associated 
with the examination of data collection quality (5.3 hours per State 
annually), and recordkeeping and publishing related to appeal decisions 
(5.3 hours per State). However, one commenter stated that the 
examination of data quality would take a high level of scrutiny and 
would take more time than was originally estimated and that our 
estimate associated with recordkeeping and publishing was low. 
Additionally, several commenters responded generally to the overall 
cost estimates in the NPRM with concerns about data quality and review. 
In response to these general concerns, and upon further review, the 
Department believes that States are likely to engage in a more robust 
data quality review process in response to these regulations. 
Furthermore, we believe that the associated documentation and 
recordkeeping estimates may have been lower than those reasonably 
expected by States. As such, the Department has increased its estimate 
of the time required from the original 5.3 hour estimate to 10 hours in 
both cases. These changes result in an estimated cost of $13,410 for 
each of the two components. The sum of these annual reporting costs 
would be $495,960 for the first year and $492,950 in subsequent years, 
based on a cumulative burden hours of 19,238 hours in the first year 
and 19,121 hours in subsequent years.
    In addition, a number of commenters expressed concern that our 
estimates included time and costs associated with challenging data and 
program classification but did not reflect time and costs associated 
with allowing programs to actually review data in the SRC to ensure 
that the teachers attributed to them were actual recent program 
graduates. We agree that program-level review of these data may be 
necessary, particularly in the first few years, in order to ensure 
valid and reliable data. As such, we have revised our cost estimates to 
include time for programs to individually review data reports to ensure 
their accuracy. We assume that this review will largely consist of 
matching lists of recent teacher preparation program graduates with 
prepopulated lists provided by the State. Based on the number of 
program completers during the 2013-2014 academic year, and the total 
number of teacher preparation programs in that year, we estimate the 
average program would review a list of 19 recent graduates (180,744 
program completers each year over three years divided by 27,914 
programs). As such, we do not believe this review will take a 
considerable amount of time. However, to ensure that we estimate 
sufficient time for this review, we estimate 1 hour per program for a 
total cost for the 27,914 teacher preparation programs of $719,620.
    Under Sec.  612.5, States would also incur burden to enter the 
required aggregated information on student learning, employment, and 
survey outcomes into the information collection instrument for each 
teacher preparation program. Using the estimated hourly wage rate of 
$25.78, we estimate the following cumulative costs to the 50 States, 
the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico to report on 27,914 teacher 
preparation programs and 812 teacher preparation programs provided 
through distance education: Annual reporting on student learning 
outcomes ($1,851,390 annually, based on 2.5 hours per program); and 
annual reporting of employment outcomes ($2,591,950 annually, based on 
3.5 hours per program); and annual reporting of survey outcomes 
($740,560 annually, based on 1 hour per program).
    After publication of the NPRM, we recognized that our initial 
estimates did not include costs or burden associated with States' 
reporting data on any other indicators of academic content knowledge 
and teaching skills. To the

[[Page 75599]]

extent that States use additional indicators not required by these 
regulations, we believe that they will choose to use indicators 
currently in place for identifying low-performing teacher preparation 
programs rather that instituting new indicators and new data collection 
processes. As such, we do not believe that States will incur any 
additional data collection costs. Additionally, we assume that 
transitioning reporting on these indicators from the entity level to 
the program level will result in minimal costs at the State level that 
are already captured elsewhere in these estimates. As such, we believe 
the only additional costs associated with these other indicators will 
be in entering the aggregated information into the information 
collection instrument. We assume that, on average, it will take States 
1 hour per program to enter this information. States with no or few 
other indicators will experience much lower costs than those estimated 
here. Those States that use a large number of other indicators may 
experience higher costs than those estimated here, though we believe it 
is unlikely that the data entry process per program for these other 
indicators will exceed this estimate. As such, we estimate an annual 
cost to the 50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico of 
$740,560 to report on other indicators of academic content knowledge 
and teaching skills.
    Our estimate of the total annual cost of reporting these outcome 
measures on the SRC related to Sec.  612.5 is $5,924,460, based on 
229,808 hours.
Potential Benefits
    The principal benefits related to the evaluation and classification 
of teacher preparation programs under the regulations are those 
resulting from the reporting and public availability of information on 
the effectiveness of teachers prepared by teacher preparation programs 
within each State. The Department believes that the information 
collected and reported as a result of these requirements will improve 
the accountability of teacher preparation programs, both traditional 
and alternative route to certification programs, for preparing teachers 
who are equipped to succeed in classroom settings and help their 
students reach their full potential.
    Research studies have found significant and substantial variation 
in teaching effectiveness among individual teachers and some variation 
has also been found among graduates of different teacher preparation 
programs.\96\ For example, Tennessee reports that some teacher 
preparation programs consistently report statistically significant 
differences in student learning outcomes for grades and subjects 
covered by State assessments over multiple years and meaningful 
differences in teacher placement and retention rates.\97\ Because this 
variation in the effectiveness of graduates is not associated with any 
particular type of preparation program, the only way to determine which 
programs are producing more effective teachers is to link information 
on the performance of teachers in the classroom back to their teacher 
preparation programs.\98\ The regulations do this by requiring States 
to link data on student learning outcomes, employment outcomes, and 
teacher and employer survey outcomes back to the teacher preparation 
programs, rating each program based on these data, and then making that 
information available to the public.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \96\ See, for example: Boyd, D., Grossman, P., Lankford, H., 
Loeb, S., & Wyckoff, J. (2009). Teacher Preparation and Student 
Achievement. Education Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 31(4), 416-
440.
    \97\ See Report Card on the Effectiveness of Teacher Training 
Programs, Tennessee 2014 Report Card. (n.d.). Retrieved from http://www.tn.gov/thec/article/report-card.
    \98\ Kane, T., Rockoff, J., & Staiger, D. (2008). What does 
certification tell us about teacher effectiveness? Evidence from New 
York City. Economics of Education Review, 27(6), 615-631.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department recognizes that simply requiring States to assess 
the performance of teacher preparation programs and report this 
information to the public will not produce increases in student 
achievement, but it is an important part of a larger set of policies 
and investments designed to attract talented individuals to the 
teaching profession; prepare them for success in the classroom; and 
support, reward, and retain effective teachers. In addition, the 
Department believes that, once information on the performance of 
teacher preparation programs is more readily available, a variety of 
stakeholders will become better consumers of these data, which will 
ultimately lead to improved student achievement by influencing the 
behavior of States seeking to provide technical assistance to low-
performing programs, IHEs engaging in deliberate self-improvement 
efforts, prospective teachers seeking to train at the highest quality 
teacher preparation programs, and employers seeking to hire the most 
highly qualified novice teachers.
    Louisiana has already adopted some of the proposed requirements and 
has begun to see improvements in teacher preparation programs. Based on 
data suggesting that the English Language Arts teachers prepared by the 
University of Louisiana at Lafayette were producing teachers who were 
less effective than other novice teachers prepared by other programs, 
Louisiana identified the program in 2008 as being in need of 
improvement and provided additional analyses of the qualifications of 
the program's graduates and of the specific areas where the students 
taught by program graduates appeared to be struggling.\99\ When data 
suggested that students struggled with essay questions, faculty from 
the elementary education program and the liberal arts department in the 
university collaborated to restructure the teacher education curriculum 
to include more writing instruction. Based on 2010-11 data, student 
learning outcomes for teachers prepared by this program are now 
comparable to other novice teachers in the State, and the program is no 
longer identified for improvement.\100\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \99\ Sawchuk, S. (2012). Value Added Concept Proves Beneficial 
to Teacher Colleges. Retrieved from www.edweek.org.
    \100\ Gansle, K., Noell, G., Knox, R.M., Schafer, M.J. (2010). 
Value Added Assessment of Teacher Preparation Programs in Louisiana: 
2007-2008 to 2009-2010 Overview of 2010-11 Results. Retrieved from 
Louisiana Board of Regents.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    This is one example, but it suggests that States can use data on 
student learning outcomes for graduates of teacher preparation programs 
to help these programs identify weaknesses and implement needed reforms 
in a reasonable amount of time. As more information becomes available 
and if the data indicate that some programs produce more effective 
teachers, LEAs seeking to hire novice teachers will prefer to hire 
teachers from those programs. All things being equal, aspiring teachers 
will elect to pursue their degrees or certificates at teacher 
preparation programs with strong student learning outcomes, placement 
and retention rates, survey outcomes, and other measures.
TEACH Grants
    The final regulations link program eligibility for participation in 
the TEACH Grant program to the State assessment of program quality 
under 34 CFR part 612. Under Sec. Sec.  686.11(a)(1)(iii) and 686.2(d), 
to be eligible to receive a TEACH Grant for a program, an individual 
must be enrolled in a high-quality teacher preparation program--that 
is, a program that is classified by the State as effective or higher in 
either or both the October 2019 or October 2020 SRC for the 2021-2022 
title IV, HEA award year; or, classified by the State as effective or 
higher in two out of

[[Page 75600]]

the previous three years, beginning with the October 2020 SRC, for the 
2022-2023 title IV, HEA award year, under 34 CFR 612.4(b). As noted in 
the NPRM, the Department estimates that approximately 10 percent of 
TEACH Grant recipients are not enrolled in teacher preparation 
programs, but are majoring in such subjects as STEM, foreign languages, 
and history. Under the final regulations, in a change from the NPRM and 
from the current TEACH Grant regulations, students would need to be in 
an effective teacher preparation program as defined in Sec.  612.2, but 
those who pursue a dual-major that includes a teacher preparation 
program would be eligible for a TEACH Grant. Additionally, institutions 
could design and designate programs that aim to develop teachers in 
STEM and other high-demand teaching fields that combine subject matter 
and teacher preparation courses as TEACH Grant eligible programs. 
Therefore, while we expect some reduction in TEACH Grant volume as 
detailed in the Net Budget Impacts section of this Regulatory Impact 
Analysis (RIA), we do expect that many students interested in teaching 
STEM and other key subjects will still be able to get TEACH Grants at 
some point in their postsecondary education.
    In addition to the referenced benefits of improved accountability 
under the title II reporting system, the Department believes that the 
regulations relating to TEACH Grants will also contribute to the 
improvement of teacher preparation programs. Linking program 
eligibility for TEACH Grants to the performance assessment by the 
States under the title II reporting system provides an additional 
factor for prospective students to consider when choosing a program and 
an incentive for programs to achieve a rating of effective or higher.
    In order to analyze the possible effects of the regulations on the 
number of programs eligible to participate in the TEACH Grant program 
and the amount of TEACH Grants disbursed, the Department analyzed data 
from a variety of sources. This analysis focused on teacher preparation 
programs at IHEs. This is because, under the HEA, alternative route 
programs offered independently of an IHE are not eligible to 
participate in the TEACH Grant program. For the purpose of analyzing 
the effect of the regulations on TEACH Grants, the Department estimated 
the number of teacher preparation programs based on data from the 
Integrated Postsecondary Education Data System (IPEDS) about program 
graduates in education-related majors as defined by the Category of 
Instructional Program (CIP) codes and award levels. For the purposes of 
this analysis, ``teacher preparation programs'' refers to programs in 
the relevant CIP codes that also have the IPEDS indicator flag for 
being a State-approved teacher education program.
    As detailed in the NPRM published December 3, 2014, in order to 
estimate how many programs might be affected by a loss of TEACH Grant 
eligibility, the Department had to estimate how many programs will be 
individually evaluated under the regulations, which encourage States to 
report on the performance of individual programs offered by IHEs rather 
than on the aggregated performance of programs at the institutional 
level as currently required. As before, the Department estimates that 
approximately 3,000 programs may be evaluated at the highest level of 
aggregation and approximately 17,000 could be evaluated if reporting is 
done at the most disaggregated level. Table 3 summarizes these two 
possible approaches to program definition that represent the opposite 
ends of the range of options available to the States. Based on IPEDS 
data, approximately 30 percent of programs defined at the six digit CIP 
code level have at least 25 novice teachers when aggregated across 
three years, so States may add one additional year to the analysis or 
aggregate programs with similar features to push more programs over the 
threshold, pursuant to the regulations. The actual number of programs 
at IHEs reported on will likely fall between these two points 
represented by Approach 1 and Approach 2. The final regulations define 
a teacher preparation program offered through distance education as a 
teacher preparation program at which at least 50 percent of the 
program's required coursework is offered through distance education and 
that starting with the 2021-2022 award year and subsequent award years, 
is not classified as less than effective, based on 34 CFR 612.4(b), by 
the same State for two out of the previous three years or meets the 
exception from State reporting of teacher preparation program 
performance under 34 CFR 612.4(b)(3)(ii)(D) or (E). The exact number of 
these programs is uncertain, but in the Supplemental NPRM concerning 
teacher preparation programs offered through distance education, the 
Department estimated that 812 programs would be reported. Whatever the 
number of programs, the TEACH Grant volume associated with these 
schools is captured in the amounts used in our Net Budget Impacts 
discussion. In addition, as discussed earlier in the Analysis of 
Comments and Changes section, States will have to report on alternative 
certification teacher preparation programs that are not housed at IHEs, 
but they are not relevant for analysis of the effects on TEACH Grants 
because they are ineligible for title IV, HEA funds and are not 
included in Table 5.

                      Table 5--Teacher Preparation Programs at IHEs and TEACH Grant Program
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                          Approach 1         Approach 1         Approach 2         Approach 2
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                            TEACH Grant                           TEACH Grant
                                            Total          participating          Total          participating
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Total........................              2,522              1,795             11,931              8,414
4-year..............................              2,365              1,786             11,353              8,380
2-year or less......................                157                  9                578                 34
Private Not-for-Profit Total........              1,879              1,212             12,316              8,175
4-year..............................              1,878              1,212             12,313              8,175
2-year or less......................                  1  .................                  3  .................
Private For-Profit Total............                 67                 39                250                132
4-year..............................                 59                 39                238                132
2-year or less......................                  8  .................                 12  .................
                                     ---------------------------------------------------------------------------
    Total...........................              4,468              3,046             24,497             16,721
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 75601]]

    Given the number of programs and their TEACH Grant participation 
status as described in Table 3, the Department examined IPEDS data and 
the Department's budget estimates for 2017 related to TEACH Grants to 
estimate the effect of the regulations on TEACH Grants beginning with 
the FY 2021 cohort when the regulations would be in effect. Based on 
prior reporting, only 37 IHEs (representing an estimated 129 programs) 
were identified as having a low-performing or at-risk program in 2010 
and twenty-seven States have not identified any low-performing programs 
in twelve years. Given prior identification of such programs and the 
fact that the States would continue to control the classification of 
teacher preparation programs subject to analysis, the Department does 
not expect a large percentage of programs to be subject to a loss of 
eligibility for TEACH Grants. Therefore, the Department evaluated the 
effects on the amount of TEACH Grants disbursed and the number of 
recipients on the basis of the States classifying a range of three 
percent, five percent, or eight percent of programs to be low-
performing or at-risk. These results are summarized in Table 6. 
Ultimately, the number of programs affected is subject to the program 
definition, rating criteria, and program classifications adopted by the 
individual States, so the distribution of those effects is not known 
with certainty. However, the maximum effect, whatever the distribution, 
is limited by the amount of TEACH Grants made and the percentage of 
programs classified as low-performing and at-risk that participate in 
the TEACH Grant program. In the NPRM, the Department invited comments 
about the expected percentage of programs that will be found to be low-
performing and at-risk. No specific comments were received, so the 
updated numbers based on the budget estimates for 2017 apply the same 
percentages as were used in the NPRM.

    Table 6--Estimated Effect in 2021 on Programs and TEACH Grant Amounts of Different Rates of Ineligibility
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                 3%                 5%                 8%
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                               [Percentage of low-performing or at-risk programs]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Programs:
    Approach 1.........................................                214                356                570
    Approach 2.........................................                385                641              1,026
    TEACH Grant Recipients.............................              1,061              1,768              2,828
    TEACH Grant Amount at Low-Performing or At-Risk             $3,127,786         $5,212,977         $8,340,764
     programs..........................................
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated effects presented in Table 4 reflect assumptions 
about the likelihood of a program being ineligible and do not take into 
account the size of the program or participation in the TEACH Grant 
program. The Department had no program level performance information 
and treats the programs as equally likely to become ineligible for 
TEACH Grants. If, in fact, factors such as size or TEACH Grant 
participation were associated with high or low performance, the number 
of TEACH Grant recipients and TEACH Grant volume could deviate from 
these estimates.
    Whatever the amount of TEACH Grant volume at programs found to be 
ineligible, the effect on IHEs will be reduced from the full amounts 
represented by the estimated effects presented here as students could 
elect to enroll in other programs at the same IHE that retain 
eligibility because they are classified by the State as effective or 
higher. Another factor that would reduce the effect of the regulations 
on programs and students is that an otherwise eligible student who 
received a TEACH Grant for enrollment in a TEACH Grant-eligible program 
is eligible to receive additional TEACH Grants to complete the program, 
even if that program loses status as a TEACH Grant-eligible program.
    Several commenters expressed concern that linking TEACH Grant 
eligibility to the State's evaluation of the program would harm teacher 
development from, and availability to, poor and underserved 
communities. We believe that the pilot year that provides some warning 
of program performance, the flexibility for States to develop their 
evaluation criteria, and a long history of programs performing above 
the at-risk or low-performing levels will reduce the possibility of 
this effect. The Department continues to expect that over time a large 
portion of the TEACH Grant volume now disbursed to students at programs 
that will be categorized as low-performing or at-risk will be shifted 
to programs that remain eligible. The extent to which this happens will 
depend on other factors affecting the students' enrollment decisions 
such as in-State status, proximity to home or future employment 
locations, and the availability of programs of interest, but the 
Department believes that students will take into account a program's 
rating and the availability of TEACH Grants when looking for a teacher 
preparation program. As discussed in the Net Budget Impacts section of 
this RIA, the Department expects that the reduction in TEACH Grant 
volume will taper off as States identify low-performing and at-risk 
programs and those programs are improved or are no longer eligible for 
TEACH Grants. Because existing recipients will continue to have access 
to TEACH Grants, and incoming students will have notice and be able to 
consider the program's eligibility for TEACH Grants in making an 
enrollment decision, the reduction in TEACH Grant volume that is 
classified as a transfer from students at ineligible programs to the 
Federal government will be significantly reduced from the estimated 
range of approximately $3.0 million to approximately $8.0 million in 
Table 4 for the initial years the regulations are in effect. While we 
have no past experience with students' reaction to a designation of a 
program as low-performing and loss of TEACH Grant eligibility, we 
assume that, to the extent it is possible, students would choose to 
attend a program rated effective or higher. For IHEs, the effect of the 
loss of TEACH Grant funds will depend on the students' reaction and how 
many choose to enroll in an eligible program at the same IHE, choose to 
attend a different IHE, or make up for the loss of TEACH Grants by 
funding their program from other sources.
    The Department does not anticipate that many programs will lose 
State approval or financial support. If this does occur, IHEs with such 
programs would have to notify enrolled and accepted students 
immediately, notify the Department within 30 days, and

[[Page 75602]]

disclose such information on its Web site or promotional materials. The 
Department estimates that 50 IHEs would offer programs that lose State 
approval or financial support and that it would take 5.75 hours to make 
the necessary notifications and disclosures at a wage rate of $25.78 
for a total cost of $7,410. Finally, some of the programs that lose 
State approval or financial support may apply to regain eligibility for 
title IV, HEA funds upon improved performance and restoration of State 
approval or financial support. The Department estimates that 10 IHEs 
with such programs would apply for restored eligibility and the process 
would require 20 hours at a wage rate of $25.78 for a total cost of 
$5,160.
3. Regulatory Alternatives Considered
    The final regulations were developed through a negotiated 
rulemaking process in which different options were considered for 
several provisions. Among the alternatives the Department considered 
were various ways to reduce the volume of information States and 
teacher preparation programs are required to collect and report under 
the existing title II reporting system. One approach would have been to 
limit State reporting to items that are statutorily required. While 
this would reduce the reporting burden, it would not address the goal 
of enhancing the quality and usefulness of the data that are reported. 
Alternatively, by focusing the reporting requirements on student 
learning outcomes, employment outcomes, and teacher and employer survey 
data, and also providing States with flexibility in the specific 
methods they use to measure and weigh these outcomes, the regulations 
balance the desire to reduce burden with the need for more meaningful 
information.
    Additionally, during the negotiated rulemaking session, some non-
Federal negotiators spoke of the difficulty States would have 
developing the survey instruments, administering the surveys, and 
compiling and tabulating the results for the employer and teacher 
surveys. The Department offered to develop and conduct the surveys to 
alleviate additional burden and costs on States, but the non-Federal 
negotiators indicated that they preferred that States and teacher 
preparation programs conduct the surveys.
    One alternative considered in carrying out the statutory directive 
to direct TEACH Grants to ``high quality'' programs was to limit 
eligibility only to programs that States classified as ``exceptional'', 
positioning the grants more as a reward for truly outstanding programs 
than as an incentive for low-performing and at-risk programs to 
improve. In order to prevent a program's eligibility from fluctuating 
year-to-year based on small changes in evaluation systems that are 
being developed and to keep TEACH Grants available to a wider pool of 
students, including those attending teacher preparation programs 
producing satisfactory student learning outcomes, the Department and 
most non-Federal negotiators agreed that programs rated effective or 
higher would be eligible for TEACH Grants.
4. Net Budget Impacts
    The final regulations related to the TEACH Grant program are 
estimated to have a net budget impact of $0.49 million in cost 
reduction over the 2016 to 2026 loan cohorts. These estimates were 
developed using the Office of Management and Budget's (OMB) Credit 
Subsidy Calculator. The OMB calculator takes projected future cash 
flows from the Department's student loan cost estimation model and 
produces discounted subsidy rates reflecting the net present value of 
all future Federal costs associated with awards made in a given fiscal 
year. Values are calculated using a ``basket of zeros'' methodology 
under which each cash flow is discounted using the interest rate of a 
zero-coupon Treasury bond with the same maturity as that cash flow. To 
ensure comparability across programs, this methodology is incorporated 
into the calculator and used Government-wide to develop estimates of 
the Federal cost of credit programs. Accordingly, the Department 
believes it is the appropriate methodology to use in developing 
estimates for these regulations. That said, in developing the following 
Accounting Statement, the Department consulted with OMB on how to 
integrate the Department's discounting methodology with the discounting 
methodology traditionally used in developing regulatory impact 
analyses.
    Absent evidence of the impact of these regulations on student 
behavior, budget cost estimates were based on behavior as reflected in 
various Department data sets and longitudinal surveys. Program cost 
estimates were generated by running projected cash flows related to the 
provision through the Department's student loan cost estimation model. 
TEACH Grant cost estimates are developed across risk categories: 
Freshmen/sophomores at 4-year IHEs, juniors/seniors at 4-year IHEs, and 
graduate students. Risk categories have separate assumptions based on 
the historical pattern of the behavior of borrowers in each category--
for example, the likelihood of default or the likelihood to use 
statutory deferment or discharge benefits.
    As discussed in the TEACH Grants section of the Discussion of 
Costs, Benefits, and Transfers section in this RIA, the regulations 
could result in a reduction in TEACH Grant volume. Under the effective 
dates and data collection schedule in the regulations, that reduction 
in volume would start with the 2021 TEACH Grant cohort. The Department 
assumes that the effect of the regulations would be greatest in the 
first years they were in effect as the low-performing and at-risk 
programs are identified, removed from TEACH Grant eligibility, and 
helped to improve or are replaced by better performing programs. 
Therefore, the percent of volume estimated to be at programs in the 
low-performing or at-risk categories is assumed to drop for future 
cohorts. As shown in Table 7, the net budget impact over the 2016-2026 
TEACH Grant cohorts is approximately $0.49 million in reduced costs.

                                        Table 7--Estimated Budget Impact
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PB 2017 TEACH Grant:
    Awards..................        35,354        36,055        36,770        37,498        38,241        38,999
    Amount..................   104,259,546   106,326,044   108,433,499   110,582,727   112,774,555   115,009,826
Remaining Volume after
 Reduction from Change in
 TEACH Grants for STEM
 Programs:
    %.......................        92.00%        92.00%        92.00%        92.00%        92.00%        92.00%
    Awards..................        32,526        33,171        33,828        34,498        35,182        35,879
    Amount..................    95,918,782    97,819,960    99,758,819   101,736,109   103,752,591   105,809,040
Low Performing and At Risk:
    %.......................         5.00%         3.00%         1.50%         1.00%         0.75%         0.50%
    Awards..................         1,626           995           507           345           264           179
    Amount..................     4,795,939     2,934,599     1,496,382     1,017,361       778,144       529,045
Redistributed TEACH Grants:

[[Page 75603]]

 
    %.......................           75%           75%           75%           75%           75%           75%
    Amount..................     3,596,954     2,200,949     1,122,287       763,021       583,608       396,784
Reduced TEACH Grant Volume:
    %.......................           25%           25%           25%           25%           25%           25%
    Amount..................     1,198,985       733,650       374,096       254,340       194,536       132,261
Estimated Budget Impact of
 Policy:
    Subsidy Rate............        17.00%        17.16%        17.11%        16.49%        16.40%        16.24%
    Baseline Volume.........   104,259,546   106,326,044   108,433,499   110,582,727   112,774,555   115,009,826
    Revised Volume..........   103,060,561   105,592,394   108,059,403   110,328,387   112,580,019   114,877,565
    Baseline Cost...........    17,724,123    18,245,549    18,552,972    18,235,092    18,495,027    18,677,596
    Revised Cost............    17,520,295    18,119,655    18,488,964    18,193,151    18,463,123    18,656,117
    Estimated Cost Reduction       203,827       125,894        64,008        41,941        31,904        21,479
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The estimated budget impact presented in Table 5 is defined against 
the PB 2017 baseline costs for the TEACH Grant program, and the actual 
volume of TEACH Grants in 2021 and beyond will vary. The budget impact 
estimate depends on the assumptions about the percent of TEACH Grant 
volume at programs that become ineligible and the share of that volume 
that is redistributed or reduced as shown in Table 5. Finally, absent 
evidence of different rates of loan conversion at programs that will be 
eligible or ineligible for TEACH Grants when the proposed regulations 
are in place, the Department did not assume a different loan conversion 
rate as TEACH Grants shifted to programs rated effective or higher. 
However, given that placement and retention rates are one element of 
the program evaluation system, the Department does hope that, as 
students shift to programs rated effective, more TEACH Grant recipients 
will fulfill their service obligations. If this is the case and their 
TEACH Grants do not convert to loans, the students who do not have to 
repay the converted loans will benefit and the expected cost reductions 
for the Federal government may be reduced or reversed because more of 
the TEACH Grants will remain grants and no payment will be made to the 
Federal government for these grants. The final regulations also change 
total and permanent disability discharge provisions related to TEACH 
Grants to be more consistent with the treatment of interest accrual for 
total and permanent discharges in the Direct Loan program. This is not 
expected to have a significant budget impact.
    In addition to the TEACH Grant provision, the regulations include a 
provision that would make a program ineligible for title IV, HEA funds 
if the program was found to be low-performing and subject to the 
withdrawal of the State's approval or termination of the State's 
financial support. As noted in the NPRM, the Department assumes this 
will happen rarely and that the title IV, HEA funds involved would be 
shifted to other programs. Therefore, there is no budget impact 
associated with this provision.
5. 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 
these final regulations. This table provides our best estimate of the 
changes in annual monetized costs, benefits, and transfers as a result 
of the final regulations.

------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Category                             Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Better and more publicly available
 information on the effectiveness of
 teacher preparation programs...........          Not Quantified
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of TEACH Grants to better
 performing programs....................          Not Quantified
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Category                               Costs
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                7%              3%
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Institutional Report Card (set-up,            $3,734,852      $3,727,459
 annual reporting, posting on Web site).
------------------------------------------------------------------------
State Report Card (Statutory                  $3,653,206      $3,552,147
 requirements: Annual reporting, posting
 on Web site; Regulatory requirements:
 Meaningful differentiation, consulting
 with stakeholders, aggregation of small
 programs, teacher preparation program
 characteristics, other annual reporting
 costs).................................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporting Student Learning Outcomes           $2,317,111      $2,249,746
 (develop model to link aggregate data
 on student achievement to teacher
 preparation programs, modifications to
 student growth models for non-tested
 grades and subjects, and measuring
 student growth)........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporting Employment Outcomes (placement      $2,704,080      $2,704,080
 and retention data collection directly
 from IHEs or LEAs).....................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporting Survey Results (developing         $14,621,104     $14,571,062
 survey instruments, annual
 administration, and response costs)....
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reporting Other Indicators..............        $740,560        $740,560
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Identifying TEACH Grant-eligible                 $12,570         $12,570
 Institutions...........................
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Category                             Transfers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Reduced costs to the Federal government        ($60,041)       ($53,681)
 from TEACH Grants to prospective
 students at teacher preparation
 programs found ineligible..............
------------------------------------------------------------------------


[[Page 75604]]

6. Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis
    These regulations will affect IHEs that participate in the title 
IV, HEA programs, including TEACH Grants, alternative certification 
programs not housed at IHEs, States, and individual borrowers. The U.S. 
Small Business Administration (SBA) Size Standards define for-profit 
IHEs as ``small businesses'' if they are independently owned and 
operated and not dominant in their field of operation with total annual 
revenue below $7,000,000. The SBA Size Standards define nonprofit IHEs 
as small organizations if they are independently owned and operated and 
not dominant in their field of operation, or as small entities if they 
are IHEs controlled by governmental entities with populations below 
50,000. The revenues involved in the sector affected by these 
regulations, and the concentration of ownership of IHEs by private 
owners or public systems means that the number of title IV, HEA 
eligible IHEs that are small entities would be limited but for the fact 
that the nonprofit entities fit within the definition of a small 
organization regardless of revenue. The potential for some of the 
programs offered by entities subject to the final regulations to lose 
eligibility to participate in the title IV, HEA programs led to the 
preparation of this Final Regulatory Flexibility Analysis.
Description of the Reasons That Action by the Agency Is Being 
Considered
    The Department has a strong interest in encouraging the development 
of highly trained teachers and ensuring that today's children have high 
quality and effective teachers in the classroom, and it seeks to help 
achieve this goal in these final regulations. Teacher preparation 
programs have operated without access to meaningful data that could 
inform them of the effectiveness of their teachers who graduate and go 
on to work in the classroom setting.
    The Department wants to establish a teacher preparation feedback 
mechanism premised upon teacher effectiveness. Under the final 
regulations, an accountability system would be established that would 
identify programs by quality so that effective teacher preparation 
programs could be recognized and rewarded and low-performing programs 
could be supported and improved. Data collected under the new system 
will help all teacher preparation programs make necessary corrections 
and continuously improve, while facilitating States' efforts to reshape 
and reform low-performing and at-risk programs.
    We are issuing these regulations to better implement the teacher 
preparation program accountability and reporting system under title II 
of the HEA and to revise the regulations implementing the TEACH Grant 
program. Our key objective is to revise Federal reporting requirements, 
while reducing institutional burden, as appropriate. Additionally, we 
aim to have State reporting focus on the most important measures of 
teacher preparation program quality while tying TEACH Grant eligibility 
to assessments of program performance under the title II accountability 
system. The legal basis for these regulations is 20 U.S.C. 1022d, 
1022f, and 1070g, et seq.
    The final regulations related to title II reporting affect a larger 
number of entities, including small entities, than the smaller number 
of entities that could lose TEACH Grant eligibility or title IV, HEA 
program eligibility. The Department has more data on teacher 
preparation programs housed at IHEs than on those independent of IHEs. 
Whether evaluated at the aggregated institutional level or the 
disaggregated program level, as described in the TEACH Grant section of 
the Discussion of Costs, Benefits, and Transfers section in this RIA as 
Approach 1 and Approach 2, respectively, State-approved teacher 
preparation programs are concentrated in the public and private not-
for-profit sectors. For the provisions related to the TEACH Grant 
program and using the institutional approach with a threshold of 25 
novice teachers (or a lower threshold at the discretion of the State), 
since the IHEs will be reporting for all their programs, we estimate 
that approximately 56.4 percent of teacher preparation programs are at 
public IHEs--the vast majority of which would not be small entities, 
and 42.1 percent are at private not-for-profit IHEs. The remaining 1.5 
percent are at private for-profit IHEs and of those with teacher 
preparation programs, approximately 18 percent had reported FY 2012 
total revenues under $7 million based on IPEDS data and are considered 
small entities. Table 8 summarizes the estimated number of teacher 
preparation programs offered at small entities.

                             Table 8--Teacher Preparation Programs at Small Entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                    % of Total      Programs at
                                                       Total        Programs at      programs       TEACH Grant
                                                     programs     small entities    offered at     participating
                                                                                  small entities  small entities
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public:
    Approach 1..................................           2,522              17               1              14
    Approach 2..................................          11,931              36               0              34
Private Not-for-Profit:
    Approach 1..................................           1,879           1,879             100           1,212
    Approach 2..................................          12,316          12,316             100           8,175
Private For-Profit:
    Approach 1..................................              67              12              18               1
    Approach 2..................................             250              38              15              21
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Source: IPEDS
Note: Table includes programs at IHEs only.

    The Department has no indication that programs at small entities 
are more likely to be ineligible for TEACH Grants or title IV, HEA 
funds. Since all private not-for-profit IHEs are considered to be small 
because none are dominant in the field, we would expect about 5 percent 
of TEACH Grant volume at teacher preparation programs at private not-
for-profit IHEs to be at ineligible programs. In AY 2014-15, 
approximately 43.7 percent of TEACH Grant disbursements went to private 
not-for-profit IHEs, and by applying that to the estimated TEACH Grant 
volume in 2021 of $95,918,782, the Department estimates that TEACH 
Grant volume at private not-for-profit IHEs in 2021 would be 
approximately $42.0 million. At the five percent low-performing or at-
risk rate assumed in the TEACH Grants portion

[[Page 75605]]

of the Cost, Benefits, and Transfers section of the Regulatory Impact 
Analysis, TEACH Grant revenues would be reduced by approximately $2.1 
million at programs at private not-for-profit entities in the initial 
year the regulations are in effect and a lesser amount after that. Much 
of this revenue could be shifted to eligible programs within the IHE or 
the sector, and the cost to programs would be greatly reduced by 
students substituting other sources of funds for the TEACH Grants.
    In addition to the teacher preparation programs at IHEs included in 
Table 6, approximately 1,281 alternative certification programs offered 
outside of IHEs are subject to the reporting requirements in the 
regulations. The Department assumes that a significant majority of 
these programs are offered by non-profit entities that are not dominant 
in the field, so all of the alternative certification teacher 
preparation programs are considered to be small entities. However, the 
reporting burden for these programs falls on the States. As discussed 
in the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this document, the estimated 
total paperwork burden on IHEs would decrease by 66,740 hours. Small 
entities would benefit from this relief from the current institutional 
reporting requirements.
    The final regulations are unlikely to conflict with or duplicate 
existing Federal regulations.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    The Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) does not require you to 
respond to a collection of information unless it displays a valid OMB 
control number. We display the valid OMB control numbers assigned to 
the collections of information in these final regulations at the end of 
the affected sections of the regulations.
    Sections 612.3, 612.4, 612.5, 612.6, 612.7, 612.8, and 686.2 
contain information collection requirements. Under the PRA, the 
Department has submitted a copy of these sections, related forms, and 
Information Collection Requests (ICRs) to the Office of Management and 
Budget (OMB) for its review.
    The OMB control number associated with the regulations and related 
forms is 1840-0837. Due to changes described in the Discussion of 
Costs, Benefits, and Transfers section of the RIA, estimated burdens 
have been updated below.
Start-Up and Annual Reporting Burden
    These regulations implement a statutory requirement that IHEs and 
States establish an information and accountability system through which 
IHEs and States report on the performance of their teacher preparation 
programs. Because parts of the regulations require IHEs and States to 
establish or scale up certain systems and processes in order to collect 
information necessary for annual reporting, IHEs and States may incur 
one-time start-up costs for developing those systems and processes. The 
burden associated with start-up and annual reporting is reported 
separately in this statement.
Section 612.3 Reporting Requirements for the Institutional Report Cards
    Section 205(a) of the HEA requires that each IHE that provides a 
teacher preparation program leading to State certification or licensure 
report on a statutorily enumerated series of data elements for the 
programs it provides. The HEOA revised a number of the reporting 
requirements for IHEs.
    The final regulations under Sec.  612.3(a) require that, beginning 
on April 1, 2018, and annually thereafter, each IHE that conducts 
traditional or alternative route teacher preparation programs leading 
to State initial teacher certification or licensure and that enrolls 
students receiving title IV, HEA funds report to the State on the 
quality of its programs using an IRC prescribed by the Secretary.
Start-Up Burden
Entity-Level and Program-Level Reporting
    Under the current IRC, IHEs typically report at the entity level 
rather than the program level. For example, if an IHE offers multiple 
teacher preparation programs in a range of subject areas (for example, 
music education and special education), that IHE gathers data on each 
of those programs, aggregates the data, and reports the required 
information as a single teacher preparation entity on a single report 
card. Under the final regulations and for the reasons discussed in the 
NPRM and the preamble to this final rule, reporting is now required at 
the teacher preparation program level rather than at the entity level. 
No additional data must be gathered as a consequence of this regulatory 
requirement; instead, IHEs will simply report the required data before, 
rather than after, aggregation.
    As a consequence, IHEs will not be required to alter appreciably 
their systems for data collection. However, the Department acknowledges 
that in order to communicate disaggregated data, minimal recordkeeping 
adjustments may be necessary. The Department estimates that initial 
burden for each IHE to adjust its recordkeeping systems will be 10 
hours per entity. In the most recent year for which data are available, 
1,490 IHEs reported required data to the Department through the IRC. 
Therefore, the Department estimates that the one-time total burden for 
IHEs to adjust recordkeeping systems will be 14,900 hours (1,490 IHEs 
multiplied by 10 burden hours per IHE).
Subtotal of Start-Up Burden Under Sec.  612.3
    The Department believes that IHEs' experience during prior title II 
reporting cycles has provided sufficient knowledge to ensure that IHEs 
will not incur any significant start-up burden, except for the change 
from entity-level to program-level reporting described above. 
Therefore, the subtotal of start-up burden for Sec.  612.3 is 14,900 
hours.
Annual Reporting Burden
Changes to the Institutional Report Card
    For a number of years IHEs have gathered, aggregated, and reported 
data on teacher preparation program characteristics, including those 
required under the HEOA, to the Department using the IRC approved under 
OMB control number 1840-0837. The required reporting elements of the 
IRC principally concern admissions criteria, student characteristics, 
clinical preparation, numbers of teachers prepared, accreditation of 
the program, and the pass rates and scaled scores of teacher candidates 
on State teacher certification and licensure examinations.
    Given all of the reporting changes under these final rules as 
discussed in the NPRM, the Department estimates that each IHE will 
require 66 fewer burden hours to prepare the revised IRC annually. The 
Department estimates that each IHE will require 146 hours to complete 
the current IRC approved by OMB. There would thus be an annual burden 
of 80 hours to complete the revised IRC (146 hours minus 66 hours in 
reduced data collection). The Department estimates that 1,490 IHEs 
would respond to the IRC required under the regulations, based on 
reporting figures from the most recent year data are available. 
Therefore, reporting data using the IRC would represent a total annual 
reporting burden of 119,200 hours (80 hours multiplied by 1,490 IHEs).
Entity-Level and Program-Level Reporting
    As noted in the start-up burden section of Sec.  612.3, under the 
current IRC, IHEs report teacher preparation program data at the entity 
level. The final regulations require that each IHE

[[Page 75606]]

report disaggregated data at the teacher preparation program level. The 
Department believes this will not require any additional data 
collection or appreciably alter the time needed to calculate data 
reported to the Department. However, the Department believes that some 
additional reporting burden will exist for IHEs' electronic input and 
submission of disaggregated data because each IHE typically houses 
multiple teacher preparation programs.
    Based on the most recent year of data available, the Department 
estimates that there are 27,914 teacher preparation programs at 1,490 
IHEs nationwide. Based on these figures, the Department estimates that 
on average, each of these IHEs offers 16.40 teacher preparation 
programs. Because each IHE already collects disaggregated IRC data, the 
Department estimates it will take each IHE one additional hour to fill 
in existing disaggregated data into the electronic IRC for each teacher 
preparation program it offers. Because IHEs already have to submit an 
IRC for the IHE, we estimate that the added burden for reporting on a 
program level will be 15.40 hours (an average of 16.40 programs at one 
hour per program, minus the existing submission of one IRC for the IHE, 
or 15.40 hours). Therefore, each IHE will incur an average burden 
increase of 15.40 hours (1 hour multiplied by an average of 15.40 
teacher preparation programs at each IHE), and there will be an overall 
burden increase of 22,946 hours each year associated with this 
regulatory reporting requirement (15.40 multiplied by 1,490 IHEs).
Posting on the Institution's Web site
    The regulations also require that the IHE provide the information 
reported on the IRC to the general public by prominently and promptly 
posting the IRC information on the IHE's Web site. Because the 
Department believes it is reasonable to assume that an IHE offering a 
teacher preparation program and communicating data related to that 
program by electronic means maintains a Web site, the Department 
presumes that posting such information to an already-existing Web site 
will represent a minimal burden increase. The Department therefore 
estimates that IHEs will require 0.5 hours (30 minutes) to meet this 
requirement. This would represent a total burden increase of 745 hours 
each year for all IHEs (0.5 hours multiplied by 1,490 IHEs).
Subtotal of Annual Reporting Burden Under Sec.  612.3
    Aggregating the annual burdens calculated under the preceding 
sections results in the following burdens: Together, all IHEs would 
incur a total burden of 119,200 hours to develop the systems needed to 
meet the requirements of the revised IRC, 22,946 hours to report 
program-level data, and 745 hours to post IRC data to their Web sites. 
This would constitute a total burden of 142,891 hours of annual burden 
nationwide.
Total Institutional Report Card Reporting Burden
    Aggregating the start-up and annual burdens calculated under the 
preceding sections results in the following burdens: Together, all IHEs 
would incur a total start-up burden under Sec.  612.3 of 14,900 hours 
and a total annual reporting burden under Sec.  612.3 of 142,891 hours. 
This would constitute a total burden of 157,791 total burden hours 
under Sec.  612.3 nationwide.
    The burden estimate for the existing IRC approved under OMB control 
number 1840-0837 was 146 hours for each IHE with a teacher preparation 
program. When the current IRC was established, the Department estimated 
that 1,250 IHEs would provide information using the electronic 
submission of the form for a total burden of 182,500 hours for all IHEs 
(1,250 IHEs multiplied by 146 hours). Applying these estimates to the 
current number of IHEs that are required to report (1,490) would 
constitute a burden of 217,540 hours (1,490 IHEs multiplied by 146 
hours). Based on these estimates, the revised IRC would constitute a 
net burden reduction of 59,749 hours nationwide (217,540 hours minus 
157,791 hours).
Section 612.4 Reporting Requirements for the State Report Card
    Section 205(b) of the HEA requires that each State that receives 
funds under the HEA provide to the Secretary and make widely available 
to the public not less than the statutorily required specific 
information on the quality of traditional and alternative route teacher 
preparation programs. The State must do so in a uniform and 
comprehensible manner, conforming with definitions and methods 
established by the Secretary. Section 205(c) of the HEA directs the 
Secretary to prescribe regulations to ensure the validity, reliability, 
accuracy, and integrity of the data submitted. Section 206(b) requires 
that IHEs assure the Secretary that their teacher training programs 
respond to the needs of LEAs, be closely linked with the instructional 
decisions novice teachers confront in the classroom, and prepare 
candidates to work with diverse populations and in urban and rural 
settings, as applicable.
    Implementing the relevant statutory directives, the regulations 
under Sec.  612.4(a) require that, starting October 1, 2019, and 
annually thereafter, each State report on the SRC the quality of all 
approved teacher preparation programs in the State, whether or not they 
enroll students receiving Federal assistance under the HEA, including 
distance education programs. This new SRC, to be implemented in 2019, 
is an update of the current SRC. The State must also make the SRC 
information widely available to the general public by posting the 
information on the State's Web site.
    Section 103(20) of the HEA and Sec.  612.2(d) of the proposed 
regulations define ``State'' to include nine locations in addition to 
the 50 States: The Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, the District of 
Columbia, Guam, American Samoa, the United States Virgin Islands, the 
Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the Freely Associated 
States, which include the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the 
Federated States of Micronesia, and the Republic of Palau. For this 
reason, all reporting required of States explicitly enumerated under 
Sec.  205(b) of the HEA (and the related portions of the regulations, 
specifically Sec. Sec.  612.4(a) and 612.6(b)), apply to these 59 
States. However, certain additional regulatory requirements 
(specifically Sec. Sec.  612.4(b), 612.4(c), 612.5, and 612.6(a)) only 
apply to the 50 States of the Union, the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico, 
and the District of Columbia. The burden estimates under those portions 
of this report apply to those 52 States. For a full discussion of the 
reasons for the application of certain regulatory provisions to 
different States, see the preamble to the NPRM.
Entity-Level and Program-Level Reporting
    As noted in the start-up and annual burden sections of Sec.  612.3, 
under the current information collection process, data are collected at 
the entity level, and the final regulations require data reporting at 
the program level. In 2015, States reported that there were 27,914 
teacher preparation programs offered, including 24,430 at IHEs and 
3,484 through alternative route teacher preparation programs not 
associated with IHEs. In addition, as discussed in the Supplemental 
NPRM, the Department estimates that the sections of these final 
regulations addressing teacher preparation programs offered through 
distance education will result in 812 additional reporting instances.

[[Page 75607]]

Because the remainder of the data reporting discussed in this burden 
statement is transmitted using the SRC, for those burden estimates 
concerning reporting on the basis of teacher preparation programs, the 
Department uses the estimate of 28,726 teacher preparation programs 
(27,914 teacher preparation programs plus 812 reporting instances 
related to teacher preparation programs offered through distance 
education).
Start Up and Annual Burden Under Sec.  612.4(a)
    Section 612.4(a) codifies State reporting requirements expressly 
referenced in section 205(b) of the HEA; the remainder of Sec.  612.4 
provides for reporting consistent with the directives to the Secretary 
under sections 205(b) and (c) and the required assurance described in 
section 206(c).
    The HEOA revised a number of the reporting requirements for States. 
The requirements of the SRC are more numerous than those contained in 
the IRC, but the reporting elements required in both are similar in 
many respects. In addition, the Department has successfully integrated 
reporting to the extent that data reported by IHEs in the IRC is pre-
populated in the relevant fields on which the States are required to 
report in the SRC. In addition to the elements discussed in Sec.  612.3 
of this burden statement regarding the IRC, under the statute a State 
must also report on its certification and licensure requirements and 
standards, State-wide pass rates and scaled scores, shortages of highly 
qualified teachers, and information related to low-performing or at-
risk teacher preparation programs in the State.
    The SRC currently in use, approved under OMB control number 1840-
0837, collects information on these elements. States have been 
successfully reporting information under this collection for many 
years. The burden estimate for the existing SRC was 911 burden hours 
per State. In the burden estimate for that SRC, the Department reported 
that 59 States were required to report data, equivalent to the current 
requirements. This represented a total burden of 53,749 hours for all 
States (59 States multiplied by 911 hours). This burden calculation was 
made on entity-level, rather than program-level, reporting (for a more 
detailed discussion of the consequences of this issue, see the sections 
on entity-level and program-level reporting in Sec. Sec.  612.3 and 
612.4). However, because relevant program-level data reported by the 
IHEs on the IRC will be pre-populated for States on the SRC, the burden 
associated with program-level reporting under Sec.  612.4(a) will be 
minimal. Those elements that will require additional burden are 
discussed in the subsequent paragraphs of this section.
Elements Changed in the State Report Card
    Using the calculations outlined in the NPRM and changes discussed 
above, the Department estimates that the total reporting burden for 
each State will be 243 hours (193 hours for the revised SRC plus the 
additional statutory reporting requirements totaling 50 hours). This 
would represent a reduction of 668 burden hours for each State to 
complete the requirements of the SRC, as compared to approved OMB 
collection 1840-0837 (911 burden hours under the current SRC compared 
to 243 burden hours under the revised SRC). The total burden for States 
to report this information would be 14,337 hours (243 hours multiplied 
by 59 States).
Posting on the State's Web Site
    The final regulations also require that the State provide the 
information reported on the SRC to the general public by prominently 
and promptly posting the SRC information on the State's Web site. 
Because the Department believes it is reasonable to assume that each 
State that communicates data related to its teacher preparation 
programs by electronic means maintains a Web site, the Department 
presumes that posting such information to an already-existing Web site 
represents a minimal burden increase. The Department therefore 
estimates that States will require 0.5 hours (30 minutes) to meet this 
requirement. This would represent a total burden increase of 29.5 hours 
each year for all IHEs (0.5 hours multiplied by 59 States).
Subtotal Sec.  612.4(a) Start-Up and Annual Reporting Burden
    As noted in the preceding discussion, there is no start-up burden 
associated solely with Sec.  612.4(a). Therefore, the aggregate start-
up and annual reporting burden associated with reporting elements under 
Sec.  612.4(a) would be 14,366.5 hours (243 hours multiplied by 59 
States plus 0.5 hours for each of the 59 States).
Reporting Required Under Sec.  612.4(b) and Sec.  612.4(c)
    The preceding burden discussion of Sec.  612.4 focused on burdens 
related to the reporting requirements under section 205(b) of the HEA 
and reflected in 34 CFR 612.4(a). The remaining burden discussion of 
Sec.  612.4 concerns reporting required under Sec.  612.4(b) and (c).
Start-Up Burden
Meaningful Differentiations
    Under Sec.  612.4(b)(1), a State is required to make meaningful 
differentiations in teacher preparation program performance using at 
least three performance levels--low-performing teacher preparation 
program, at-risk teacher preparation program, and effective teacher 
preparation program--based on the indicators in Sec.  612.5 and 
including employment outcomes for high-need schools and student 
learning outcomes.
    The Department believes that State higher education authorities 
responsible for making State-level classifications of teacher 
preparation programs will require time to make meaningful 
differentiations in their classifications and determine whether 
alternative performance levels are warranted. States are required to 
consult with external stakeholders, review best practices by early 
adopter States that have more experience in program classification, and 
seek technical assistance.
    States will also have to determine how they will make such 
classifications. For example, a State may choose to classify all 
teacher preparation programs on an absolute basis using a cut-off score 
that weighs the various indicators, or a State may choose to classify 
teacher preparation programs on a relative basis, electing to classify 
a certain top percentile as exceptional, the next percentile as 
effective, and so on. In exercising this discretion, States may choose 
to consult with various external and internal parties and discuss 
lessons learned with those States already making such classifications 
of their teacher preparation programs.
    The Department estimates that each State will require 70 hours to 
make these determinations, and this would constitute a one-time total 
burden of 3,640 hours (70 hours multiplied by 52 States).
Assurance of Specialized Accreditation
    Under Sec.  612.4(b)(3)(i)(A), for each teacher preparation 
program, a State must provide disaggregated data for each of the 
indicators identified pursuant to Sec.  612.5. See the start-up burden 
section of Sec.  612.5 for a more detailed discussion of the burden 
associated with gathering the indicator data required to be reported 
under this regulatory section. See the annual reporting burden section 
of Sec.  612.4 for a discussion of the ongoing reporting burden 
associated with reporting

[[Page 75608]]

disaggregated indicator data under this regulation. No further burden 
exists beyond the burden described in these two sections.
    Under Sec.  612.4(b)(3)(i)(B), a State is required to provide, for 
each teacher preparation program in the State, the State's assurance 
that the teacher preparation program either: (a) Is accredited by a 
specialized agency or (b) provides teacher candidates with content and 
pedagogical knowledge, quality clinical preparation, and rigorous 
teacher exit qualifications. See the start-up burden section of Sec.  
612.5 for a detailed discussion of the burden associated with gathering 
the indicator data required to be reported under this regulation. See 
the annual reporting burden section of Sec.  612.4 for a discussion of 
the ongoing reporting burden associated with reporting these 
assurances. No further burden exists beyond the burden described in 
these two sections.
Indicator Weighting
    Under Sec.  612.4(b)(2)(ii), a State must provide its weighting of 
the different indicators in Sec.  612.5 for purposes of describing the 
State's assessment of program performance. See the start-up burden 
section of Sec.  612.4 on stakeholder consultation for a detailed 
discussion of the burden associated with establishing the weighting of 
the various indicators under Sec.  612.5. See the annual reporting 
burden section of Sec.  612.4 for a discussion of the ongoing reporting 
burden associated with reporting these relative weightings. No further 
burden exists beyond the burden described in these two sections.
State-Level Rewards or Consequences
    Under Sec.  612.4(b)(2)(iii), a State must provide the State-level 
rewards or consequences associated with the designated performance 
levels. See the start-up burden section of Sec.  612.4 on stakeholder 
consultation for a more detailed discussion of the burden associated 
with establishing these rewards or consequences. See the annual 
reporting burden section of Sec.  612.4 for a discussion of the ongoing 
reporting burden associated with reporting these relative weightings. 
No further burden exists beyond the burden described in these two 
sections.
Aggregation of Small Programs
    Under Sec.  612.4(b)(3), a State must ensure that all of its 
teacher preparation programs in that State are represented on the SRC. 
The Department recognized that many teacher preparation programs 
consist of a small number of prospective teachers and that reporting on 
these programs could present privacy and data validity issues. After 
discussion and input from various non-Federal negotiators during the 
negotiated rulemaking process, the Department elected to set a required 
reporting program size threshold of 25. However, the Department 
realized that, on the basis of research examining accuracy and validity 
relating to reporting small program sizes, some States may prefer to 
report on programs smaller than 25. Section 612.4(b)(3)(i) permits 
States to report using a lower program size threshold. In order to 
determine the preferred program size threshold for its programs, a 
State may review existing research or the practices of other States 
that set program size thresholds to determine feasibility for its own 
teacher preparation program reporting. The Department estimates that 
such review will require 20 hours for each State, and this would 
constitute a one-time total burden of 1,040 hours (20 hours multiplied 
by 52 States).
    Under Sec.  612.4(b)(3), all teacher preparation entities must 
report on the remaining small programs that do not meet the program 
size threshold the State chooses. States will be able to do so through 
a combination of two possible aggregation methods described in Sec.  
612.4(b)(3)(ii). The preferred aggregation methodology is to be 
determined by the States after consultation with a group of 
stakeholders. For a detailed discussion of the burden related to this 
consultation process, see the start-up burden section of Sec.  612.4, 
which discusses the stakeholder consultation process. Apart from the 
burden discussed in that section, no other burden is associated with 
this requirement.
Stakeholder Consultation
    Under Sec.  612.4(c), a State must consult with a representative 
group of stakeholders to determine the procedures for assessing and 
reporting the performance of each teacher preparation program in the 
State. This stakeholder group, composed of a variety of members 
representing viewpoints and interests affected by these regulations, 
must provide input on a number of issues concerning the State's 
discretion. There are four issues in particular on which the 
stakeholder group advises the State--
    a. The relative weighting of the indicators identified in Sec.  
612.5;
    b. The preferred method for aggregation of data such that 
performance data for a maximum number of small programs are reported;
    c. The State-level rewards or consequences associated with the 
designated performance levels; and
    d. The appropriate process and opportunity for programs to 
challenge the accuracy of their performance data and program 
classification.
    The Department believes that this consultative process will require 
that the group convene at least three times to afford each of the 
stakeholder representatives multiple opportunities to meet and consult 
with the constituencies they represent. Further, the Department 
believes that members of the stakeholder group will require time to 
review relevant materials and academic literature and advise on the 
relative strength of each of the performance indicators under Sec.  
612.5, as well as any other matters requested by the State.
    These stakeholders will also require time to advise whether any of 
the particular indicators will have more or less predictive value for 
the teacher preparation programs in their State, given its unique 
traits. Finally, because some States have already implemented one or 
more components of the regulatory indicators of program quality, these 
stakeholders will require time to review these States' experiences in 
implementing similar systems. The Department estimates that the 
combination of gathering the stakeholder group multiple times, review 
of the relevant literature and other States' experiences, and making 
determinations unique to their particular State will take 900 hours for 
each State (60 hours per stakeholder multiplied by 15 stakeholders). 
This would constitute a one-time total of 46,800 hours for all States 
(900 hours multiplied by 52 States).
Subtotal of Start-Up Burden Under Sec.  612.4(b) and Sec.  612.4(c)
    Aggregating the start-up burdens calculated under the preceding 
sections results in the following burdens: All States would incur a 
total burden of 3,640 hours to make meaningful differentiations in 
program classifications, 1,040 hours to determine the State's 
aggregation of small programs, and 46,800 hours to complete the 
stakeholder consultation process. This would constitute a total of 
51,480 hours of start-up burden nationwide.
Annual Reporting Burden
Classification of Teacher Preparation Programs
    The bulk of the State burden associated with assigning programs 
among classification levels should be in

[[Page 75609]]

gathering and compiling data on the indicators of program quality that 
compose the basis for the classification. Once a State has made a 
determination of how a teacher preparation program will be classified 
at a particular performance level, applying the data gathered under 
Sec.  612.5 to this classification basis is straightforward. The 
Department estimates that States will require 0.5 hours (30 minutes) to 
apply already-gathered indicator data to existing program 
classification methodology. The total burden associated with 
classification of all teacher preparation programs using meaningful 
differentiations would be 14,363 hours each year (0.5 hours multiplied 
by 28,726 teacher preparation programs).
Disaggregated Data on Each Indicator in Sec.  612.5
    Under Sec.  612.4(b)(2)(i)(A), States must report on the indicators 
of program performance in Sec.  612.5. For a full discussion of the 
burden related to the reporting of this requirement, see the annual 
reporting burden section of Sec.  612.5. Apart from the burden 
discussed in this section, no other burden is associated with this 
requirement.
Indicator Weighting
    Under Sec.  612.4(b)(2)(ii), States must report the relative weight 
it places on each of the different indicators enumerated in Sec.  
612.5. The burden associated with this reporting is minimal: After the 
State, in consultation with a group of stakeholders, has made the 
determination about the percentage weight it will place on each of 
these indicators, reporting this information on the SRC is a simple 
matter of inputting a number for each of the indicators. Under Sec.  
612.5, this minimally requires the State to input eight general 
indicators of quality.

    Note:  The eight indicators are--
    a. Associated student learning outcome results;
    b. Teacher placement results;
    c. Teacher retention results;
    d. Teacher placement rate calculated for high-need school 
results;
    e. Teacher retention rate calculated for high-need school 
results;
    f. Teacher satisfaction survey results;
    g. Employer satisfaction survey results; and
    h. Teacher preparation program characteristics.

    This reporting burden will not be affected by the number of teacher 
preparation programs in a State, because such weighting applies equally 
to each program. Although the State has the discretion to add 
indicators, the Department does not believe that transmission of an 
additional figure representing the percentage weighting assigned to 
that indicator will constitute an appreciable burden increase. The 
Department therefore estimates that each State will incur a burden of 
0.25 hours (15 minutes) to report the relative weighting of the 
regulatory indicators of program performance. This would constitute a 
total burden on States of 13 hours each year (0.25 hours multiplied by 
52 States).
State-Level Rewards or Consequences
    Similar to the reporting required under Sec.  612.4(b)(2)(ii), 
after a State has made the requisite determination about rewards and 
consequences, reporting those rewards and consequences represents a 
relatively low burden. States must report this on the SRC during the 
first year of implementation, the SRC could provide States with a drop-
down list representing common rewards or consequences in use by early 
adopter States, and States can briefly describe those rewards or 
consequences not represented in the drop-down options. For subsequent 
years, the SRC could be pre-populated with the prior-year's selected 
rewards and consequences, such that there will be no further burden 
associated with subsequent year reporting unless the State altered its 
rewards and consequences. For these reasons, the Department estimates 
that States will incur, on average, 0.5 hours (30 minutes) of burden in 
the first year of implementation to report the State-level rewards and 
consequences, and 0.1 hours (6 minutes) of burden in each subsequent 
year. The Department therefore estimates that the total burden for the 
first year of implementation of this regulatory requirement will be 26 
hours (0.5 hours multiplied by 52 States) and 5.2 hours each year 
thereafter (0.1 hours multiplied by 52 States).
Stakeholder Consultation
    Under Sec.  612.4(b)(4), during the first year of reporting and 
every five years thereafter, States must report on the procedures they 
established in consultation with the group of stakeholders described 
under Sec.  612.4(c)(1). The burden associated with the first and third 
of these four procedures, the weighting of the indicators and State-
level rewards and consequences associated with each performance level, 
respectively, are discussed in the preceding paragraphs of this 
section.
    The second procedure, the method by which small programs are 
aggregated, is a relatively straightforward reporting procedure on the 
SRC. Pursuant to Sec.  612.4(b)(3)(ii), States are permitted to use one 
of two methods, or a combination of both in aggregating small programs. 
A State can aggregate programs that are similar in teacher preparation 
subject matter. A State can also aggregate using prior year data, 
including that of multiple prior years. Or a State can use a 
combination of both methods. On the SRC, the State simply indicates the 
method it uses. The Department estimates that States will require 0.5 
hours (30 minutes) to enter these data every fifth year. On an 
annualized basis, this would therefore constitute a total burden of 5.2 
hours (0.5 hours multiplied by 52 States divided by five to annualize 
burden for reporting every fifth year).
    The fourth procedure that States must report under Sec.  
612.4(b)(4) is the method by which teacher preparation programs in the 
State are able to challenge the accuracy of their data and the 
classification of their program. First, the Department believes that 
States will incur a paperwork burden each year from recordkeeping and 
publishing decisions of these challenges. Because the Department 
believes the instances of these appeals will be relatively rare, we 
estimate that each State will incur 10 hours of burden each year 
related to recordkeeping and publishing decisions. This would 
constitute an annual reporting burden of 520 hours (10 hours multiplied 
by 52 States).
    After States and their stakeholder groups determine the preferred 
method for programs to challenge data, reporting that information will 
likely take the form of narrative responses. This is because the method 
for challenging data may differ greatly from State to State, and it is 
difficult for the Department to predict what methods States will 
choose. The Department therefore estimates that reporting this 
information in narrative form during the first year will constitute a 
burden of 3 hours for each State. This would represent a total 
reporting burden of 156 hours (3 hours multiplied by 52 States).
    In subsequent reporting cycles, the Department can examine State 
responses and (1) pre-populate this response for States that have not 
altered their method for challenging data or (2) provide a drop-down 
list of representative alternatives. This will minimize subsequent 
burden for most States. The Department therefore estimates that in 
subsequent reporting cycles (every five years under the final 
regulations), only 10 States will require more time to provide 
additional narrative responses totaling 3 burden

[[Page 75610]]

hours each, with the remaining 42 States incurring a negligible burden. 
This represents an annualized reporting burden of 6 hours for those 10 
States (3 hours multiplied by 10 States, divided by 5 years), for a 
total annualized reporting burden of 60 hours for subsequent years (6 
hours multiplied by 10 States).
    Under Sec.  612.4(c)(2), each State must periodically examine the 
quality of its data collection and reporting activities and modify 
those activities as appropriate. The Department believes that this 
review will be carried out in a manner similar to the one described for 
the initial stakeholder determinations in the preceding paragraphs: 
States will consult with representative groups to determine their 
experience with providing and using the collected data, and they will 
consult with data experts to ensure the validity and reliability of the 
data collected. The Department believes such a review will recur every 
three years, on average. Because this review will take place years 
after the State's initial implementation of the regulations, the 
Department further believes that the State's review will be of 
relatively little burden. This is because the State's review will be 
based on the State's own experience with collecting and reporting data 
pursuant to the regulations, and because States can consult with many 
other States to determine best practices. For these reasons, the 
Department estimates that the periodic review and modification of data 
collection and reporting will require 30 hours every three years or an 
annualized burden of 10 hours for each State. This would constitute a 
total annualized burden of 520 hours for all States (10 hours per year 
multiplied by 52 States).
Subtotal Annual Reporting Burden Under Sec.  612.4(b) and Sec.  
612.4(c)
    Aggregating the annual burdens calculated under the preceding 
sections results in the following: All States would incur a burden of 
14,363 hours to report classifications of teacher preparation programs, 
13 hours to report State indicator weightings, 26 hours in the first 
year and 5.2 hours in subsequent years to report State-level rewards 
and consequences associated with each performance classification, 5.2 
hours to report the method of program aggregation, 520 hours for 
recordkeeping and publishing appeal decisions, 156 hours the first year 
and 60 hours in subsequent years to report the process for challenging 
data and program classification, and 520 hours to report on the 
examination of data collection quality. This totals 15,603.2 hours of 
annual burden in the first year and 15,486.4 hours of annual burden in 
subsequent years nationwide.
Total Reporting Burden Under Sec.  612.4
    Aggregating the start-up and annual burdens calculated under the 
preceding sections results in the following burdens: All States would 
incur a total burden under Sec.  612.4(a) of 14,366.5 hours, a start-up 
burden under Sec. Sec.  612.4(b) and 612.4(c) of 51,480 hours, and an 
annual burden under Sec. Sec.  612.4(b) and 612.4(c) of 15,603.2 hours 
in the first year and 15,486.4 hours in subsequent years. This totals 
between 81,332.9 and 81,449.7 total burden hours under Sec.  612.4 
nationwide. Based on the prior estimate of 53,749 hours of reporting 
burden on OMB collection 1840-0837, the total burden increase under 
Sec.  612.4 is between 27,583.9 hours and 27,700.7 hours (53,749 hours 
minus a range of 81,332.9 and 81,449.7 total burden hours).
Section 612.5 Indicators a State Must Use To Report on Teacher 
Preparation Program Performance
    The final regulations at Sec.  612.5(a)(1) through (a)(4) identify 
those indicators that a State is required to use to assess the academic 
content knowledge and teaching skills of novice teachers from each of 
its teacher preparation programs. Under the regulations, a State must 
use the following indicators of teacher preparation program 
performance: (a) Student learning outcomes, (b) employment outcomes, 
(c) survey outcomes, and (d) whether the program (1) is accredited by a 
specialized accrediting agency or (2) produces teacher candidates with 
content and pedagogical knowledge and quality clinical preparation, who 
have met rigorous exit standards. Section 612.5(b) permits a State, at 
its discretion, to establish additional indicators of academic content 
knowledge and teaching skills.
Start-Up Burden
Student Learning Outcomes
    As described in the Discussion of Costs, Benefits, and Transfers 
section of the RIA, we do not estimate that States will incur any 
additional burden associated with creating systems for evaluating 
student learning outcomes. However, the regulations also require that 
States link student growth or teacher evaluation data back to each 
teacher's preparation programs consistent with State discretionary 
guidelines included in Sec.  612.4. Currently, few States have such 
capacity. However, based on data from the SLDS program, it appears that 
30 States, the District of Columbia, and the Commonwealth of Puerto 
Rico either already have the ability to aggregate data on student 
achievement and map back to teacher preparation programs or have 
committed to do so. For these 30 States, the District of Columbia, and 
the Commonwealth of Puerto Rico we estimate that no additional costs 
will be needed to link student learning outcomes back to teacher 
preparation programs.
    For the remaining States, the Department estimates that they will 
require 2,940 hours for each State, for a total burden of 58,800 hours 
nationwide (2,940 hours multiplied by 20 States).
Employment Outcomes
    Section 612.5(a)(2) requires a State to provide data on each 
teacher preparation program's teacher placement rate as well as the 
teacher placement rate calculated for high-need schools. High-need 
schools are defined in Sec.  612.2(d) by using the definition of 
``high-need school'' in section 200(11) of the HEA. The regulations 
give States discretion to exclude those novice teachers or recent 
graduates from this measure if they are teaching in a private school, 
teaching in another State, enrolled in graduate school, or engaged in 
military service. States also have the discretion to treat this rate 
differently for alternative route and traditional route providers.
    Section 612.5(a)(2) requires a State to provide data on each 
teacher preparation program's teacher retention rate and teacher 
retention rate calculated for high-need schools. The regulations give 
States discretion to exclude those novice teachers or recent graduates 
from this measure if they are teaching in a private school (or other 
school not requiring State certification), another State, enrolled in 
graduate school, or serving in the military. States also have the 
discretion to treat this rate differently for alternative route and 
traditional route providers.
    As discussed in the NPRM, the Department believes that only 11 
States will likely incur additional burden in collecting information 
about the employment and retention of recent graduates of teacher 
preparation programs in its jurisdiction. To the extent that it is not 
possible to establish these measures using existing data systems, 
States may need to obtain some or all of this information from teacher 
preparation programs or from the teachers themselves upon requests for 
certification and licensure. The Department estimates that 200 hours 
may be required at the State level to collect information about novice

[[Page 75611]]

teachers employed in full-time teaching positions (including designing 
the data request instruments, disseminating them, providing training or 
other technical assistance on completing the instruments, collecting 
the data, and checking their accuracy), which would amount to a total 
of 2,200 hours (200 hours multiplied by 11 States).
Survey Outcomes
    Section 612.5(a)(3) requires a State to provide data on each 
teacher preparation program's teacher survey results. This requires 
States to report data from a survey of novice teachers in their first 
year of teaching designed to capture their perceptions of whether the 
training that they received was sufficient to meet classroom and 
profession realities.
    Section 612.5(a)(3) also requires a State to provide data on each 
teacher preparation program's employer survey results. This requires 
States to report data from a survey of employers or supervisors 
designed to capture their perceptions of whether the novice teachers 
they employ or supervise were prepared sufficiently to meet classroom 
and profession realities.
    Some States and IHEs already survey graduates of their teacher 
preparation programs. The sampling size and length of survey instrument 
can strongly affect the potential burden associated with administering 
the survey. The Department has learned that some States already have 
experience carrying out such surveys (for a more detailed discussion of 
these and other estimates in this section, see the Discussion of Costs, 
Benefits and Transfers section regarding student learning outcomes in 
the RIA). In order to account for variance in States' abilities to 
conduct such surveys, the variance in the survey instruments 
themselves, and the need to ensure statistical validity and 
reliability, the Department assumes a somewhat higher burden estimate 
than States' initial experiences.
    Based on Departmental consultation with researchers experienced in 
carrying out survey research, the Department assumes that survey 
instruments will not require more than 30 minutes to complete. The 
Department further assumes that a State can develop a survey in 1,224 
hours. Assuming that States with experience in administering surveys 
will incur a lower cost, the Department assumes that the total burden 
incurred nationwide would maximally be 63,648 hours (1,224 hours 
multiplied by 52 States).
Teacher Preparation Program Characteristics
    Under Sec.  612.5(a)(4), States must report, for each teacher 
preparation program in the State whether it: (a) Is accredited by a 
specialized accrediting agency recognized by the Secretary for 
accreditation of professional teacher education programs, or (b) 
provides teacher candidates with content and pedagogical knowledge and 
quality clinical preparation, and has rigorous teacher candidate exit 
standards.
    CAEP, a union of two formerly independent national accrediting 
agencies, the National Council for Accreditation of Teacher Education 
(NCATE) and the Teacher Education Accreditation Council (TEAC), reports 
that currently it has fully accredited approximately 800 IHEs. The 
existing IRC currently requires reporting of whether each teacher 
preparation program is accredited by a specialized accrediting agency, 
and if so, which one. We note that, as of July 1, 2016, CAEP has not 
been recognized by the Secretary for accreditation of teacher 
preparation programs. As such, programs accredited by CAEP would not 
qualify under Sec.  612.5(a)(4)(i). However, as described in the 
discussion of comments above, States would be able to use accreditation 
by CAEP as an indicator that the teacher preparation program meets the 
requirements of Sec.  612.5(a)(4)(ii). In addition, we explain in the 
comments above that a State also could meet the reporting requirements 
in Sec.  612.5(a)(4)(ii) by indicating that a program has been 
accredited by an accrediting organization whose standards cover the 
program characteristics identified in that section. Because section 
205(a)(1)(D) of the HEA requires IHEs to include in their IRCs the 
identity of any agency that has accredited their programs, and the 
number of such accrediting agencies is small, States should readily 
know whether these other agencies meet these standards. For these 
reasons, the Department believes that no significant start-up burden 
will be associated with State determinations of specialized 
accreditation of teacher preparation programs for those programs that 
are already accredited.
    As discussed in the NPRM, the Department estimates that States will 
have to provide information for 15,335 teacher preparation programs 
nationwide (11,461 unaccredited programs at IHEs plus 3,484 programs at 
alternative routes not affiliated with an IHE plus 390 reporting 
instances for teacher preparation programs offered through distance 
education).
    The Department believes that States will be able to make use of 
accreditation guidelines from specialized accrediting agencies to 
determine the measures that will adequately inform them about which of 
its teacher preparation programs provide teacher candidates with 
content and pedagogical knowledge, quality clinical preparation, and 
have rigorous teacher candidate exit qualifications--the indicators 
contained in Sec.  612.5(a)(4)(ii). The Department estimates that 
States will require 2 hours for each teacher preparation program to 
determine whether or not it can provide such information. Therefore, 
the Department estimates that the total reporting burden to provide 
this information would be 30,670 hours (15,335 teacher preparation 
programs multiplied by 2 hours).
Subtotal of Start-Up Reporting Burden Under Sec.  612.5
    Aggregating the start-up burdens calculated under the preceding 
sections results in the following burdens: All States would incur a 
burden of 58,800 hours to link student learning outcome measures back 
to each teacher's preparation program, 2,200 hours to measure 
employment outcomes, 63,648 hours to develop surveys, and 30,670 hours 
to establish the process to obtain information related to certain 
indicators for teacher preparation programs without specialized 
accreditation. This totals 155,318 hours of start-up burden nationwide.
Annual Reporting Burden
    Under Sec.  612.5(a), States must transmit, through specific 
elements on the SRC, information related to indicators of academic 
content knowledge and teaching skills of novice teachers for each 
teacher preparation program in the State. We discuss the burden 
associated with establishing systems related to gathering these data in 
the section discussing start-up burden associated with Sec.  612.5. The 
following section describes the burden associated with gathering these 
data and reporting them to the Department annually.
Student Learning Outcomes
    Under Sec.  612.5(a)(1), States are required to transmit 
information related to student learning outcomes for each teacher 
preparation program in the State. The Department believes that in order 
to ensure the validity of the data, each State will require two hours 
to gather and compile data related to the student learning outcomes of 
each teacher preparation program. Much of

[[Page 75612]]

the burden related to data collection will be built into State-
established reporting systems, limiting the burden related to data 
collection to technical support to ensure proper reporting and to 
correct data that had been inputted incorrectly. States have the 
discretion to use student growth measures or teacher evaluation 
measures in determining student learning outcomes. Regardless of the 
measure(s) used, the Department estimates that States will require 0.5 
hours (30 minutes) for each teacher preparation program to convey this 
information to the Department through the SRC. This is because these 
measures will be calculated on a quantitative basis. The combination of 
gathering and reporting data related to student learning outcomes 
therefore constitutes a burden of 2.5 hours for each teacher 
preparation program, and would represent a total burden of 71,815 hours 
annually (2.5 hours multiplied by 28,726 teacher preparation programs).
Employment Outcomes
    Under Sec.  612.5(a)(2), States are required to transmit 
information related to employment outcomes for each teacher preparation 
program in the State. In order to report employment outcomes to the 
Department, States must compile and transmit teacher placement rate 
data, teacher placement rate data calculated for high-need schools, 
teacher retention rate data, and teacher retention rate data for high-
need schools. Similar to the process for reporting student learning 
outcome data, much of the burden related to gathering data on 
employment outcomes is subsumed into the State-established data 
systems, which provides information on whether and where teachers were 
employed. The Department estimates that States will require 3 hours to 
gather data both on teacher placement and teacher retention for each 
teacher preparation program in the State. Reporting these data using 
the SRC is relatively straightforward. The measures are the percentage 
of teachers placed and the percentage of teachers who continued to 
teach, both generally and at high-need schools. The Department 
therefore estimates that States will require 0.5 hours (30 minutes) for 
each teacher preparation program to convey this information to the 
Department through the SRC. The combination of gathering and reporting 
data related to employment outcomes therefore constitutes a burden of 
3.5 hours for each teacher preparation program and would represent a 
total burden of 100,541 hours annually (3.5 hours multiplied by 28,726 
teacher preparation programs).
Survey Outcomes
    In addition to the start-up burden needed to produce a survey, 
States will incur annual burdens to administer the survey. Surveys will 
include, but will not be limited to, a teacher survey and an employer 
survey, designed to capture perceptions of whether novice teachers who 
are employed as teachers in their first year of teaching in the State 
where the teacher preparation program is located possess the skills 
needed to succeed in the classroom. The burdens for administering an 
annual survey will be borne by the State administering the survey and 
the respondents completing it. For the reasons discussed in the RIA in 
this document, the Department estimates that States will require 
approximately 0.5 hours (30 minutes) per respondent to collect a 
sufficient number of survey instruments to ensure an adequate response 
rate. The Department employs an estimate of 253,042 respondents (70 
percent of 361,488--the 180,744 completers plus their 180,744 
employers) that will be required to complete the survey. Therefore, the 
Department estimates that the annual burden to respondents nationwide 
would be 126,521 hours (285,181 respondents multiplied by 0.5 hours per 
respondent).
    With respect to burden incurred by States to administer the surveys 
annually, the Department estimates that one hour of burden will be 
incurred for every respondent to the surveys. This would constitute an 
annual burden nationwide of 253,042 hours (253,042 respondents 
multiplied by one hour per respondent).
    Under Sec.  612.5(a)(3), after these surveys are administered, 
States are required to report the information using the SRC. In order 
to report survey outcomes to the Department, the Department estimates 
that States will need 0.5 hours to report the quantitative data related 
to the survey responses for each instrument on the SRC, constituting a 
total burden of one hour to report data on both instruments. This would 
represent a total burden of 28,726 hours annually (1 hour multiplied by 
28,726 teacher preparation programs). The total burden associated with 
administering, completing, and reporting data on the surveys therefore 
constitutes 408,289 hours annually (126,521 hours plus 253,042 hours 
plus 28,726 hours).
Teacher Preparation Program Characteristics
    Under Sec.  612.5(a)(4), States are required to report whether each 
program in the State is accredited by a specialized accrediting agency 
recognized by the Secretary, or produces teacher candidates with 
content and pedagogical knowledge, with quality clinical preparation, 
and who have met rigorous teacher candidate exit qualifications. The 
Department estimates that 726 IHEs offering teacher preparation 
programs are or will be accredited by a specialized accrediting agency 
(see the start-up burden discussion for Sec.  612.5 for an explanation 
of this figure). Using the IRC, IHEs already report to States whether 
teacher preparation programs have specialized accreditation. However, 
as noted in the start-up burden discussion of Sec.  612.5, as of July 
1, 2016, there are no specialized accrediting agencies recognized by 
the Secretary for teacher preparation programs. As such, the Department 
does not expect any teacher preparation program to qualify under Sec.  
612.5(a)(4)(i). However, as discussed elsewhere in this document, 
States can use accreditation by CAEP or another entity whose standards 
for accreditation cover the basic program characteristics in Sec.  
612.5(a)(4)(ii) as evidence that the teacher preparation program has 
satisfied the indicator of program performance in that provision. Since 
IHEs are already reporting whether they have specialized accreditation 
in their IRCs, and this reporting element will be pre-populated for 
States on the SRC, States would simply need to know whether these 
accrediting agencies have standards that examine the program 
characteristics in Sec.  612.5(a)(4)(ii). Therefore, the Department 
estimates no additional burden for this reporting element for programs 
that have the requisite accreditation.
    Under Sec.  612.5(a)(4)(ii), for those programs that are not 
accredited by a specialized accrediting agency, States are required to 
report on certain indicators in lieu of that accreditation: Whether the 
program provides teacher candidates with content and pedagogical 
knowledge and quality clinical preparation, and has rigorous teacher 
candidate exit qualifications. We assume that such requirements are 
already built into State approval of relevant programs. The Department 
estimates that States will require 0.25 hours (15 minutes) to provide 
to the Secretary an assurance, in a yes/no format, whether each teacher 
preparation program in its jurisdiction not holding a specialized 
accreditation from CAEP, NCATE, or TEAC meets these indicators.
    As discussed in the start-up burden section of Sec.  612.5 which 
discusses reporting of teacher preparation program characteristics, the 
Department

[[Page 75613]]

estimates States will have to provide such assurances for 15,335 
teacher preparation programs that do not have specialized 
accreditation. Therefore, the Department estimates that the total 
burden associated with providing an assurance that these teacher 
preparation programs meet these indicators is 3,834 hours (0.25 hours 
multiplied by the 15,335 teacher preparation programs that do not have 
specialized accreditation).
Other Indicators
    Under Sec.  612.5(b), States may include additional indicators of 
academic content knowledge and teaching skill in their determination of 
whether teacher preparation programs are low-performing. As discussed 
in the Discussion of Costs, Benefits, and Transfers section of the RIA, 
we do not assume that States will incur any additional burden under 
this section beyond entering the relevant data into the information 
collection instrument. The Department estimates that the total 
reporting burden associated with this provision will be 28,726 hours 
(28,726 teacher preparation programs multiplied by 1 hour).
Subtotal of Annual Reporting Burden Under Sec.  612.5
    Aggregating the annual burdens calculated under the preceding 
sections results in the following burdens: All States would incur a 
burden of 71,815 hours to report on student learning outcome measures 
for all subjects and grades, 100,541 hours to report on employment 
outcomes, 408,289 hours to report on survey outcomes, 3,834 hours to 
report on teacher preparation program characteristics, and 28,726 hours 
to report on other indicators not required in Sec.  612.5(a)(1)-(4). 
This totals 613,204.75 hours of annual burden nationwide.
Total Reporting Burden Under Sec.  612.5
    Aggregating the start-up and annual burdens calculated under the 
preceding sections results in the following burdens: All States would 
incur a start-up burden under Sec.  612.5 of 155,318 hours and an 
annual burden under Sec.  612.5 of 613,204.75 hours. This totals 
768,522.75 burden hours under Sec.  612.5 nationwide.
Section 612.6 What Must a State Consider in Identifying Low-Performing 
Teacher Preparation Programs or At-Risk Programs?
    The regulations in Sec.  612.6 require States to use criteria, 
including, at a minimum, indicators of academic content knowledge and 
teaching skills from Sec.  612.5, to identify low-performing or at-risk 
teacher preparation programs.
    For a full discussion of the burden related to the consideration 
and selection of the criteria reflected in the indicators described in 
Sec.  612.5, see the start-up burden section of Sec. Sec.  612.4(b) and 
612.4(c) discussing meaningful differentiations. Apart from that burden 
discussion, the Department believes States will incur no other burden 
related to this regulatory provision.
Section 612.7 Consequences for a Low-Performing Teacher Preparation 
Program That Loses the State's Approval or the State's Financial 
Support
    For any IHE administering a teacher preparation program that has 
lost State approval or financial support based on being identified as a 
low-performing teacher preparation program, the regulations under Sec.  
612.7 require the IHE to--(a) notify the Secretary of its loss of State 
approval or financial support within thirty days of such designation; 
(b) immediately notify each student who is enrolled in or accepted into 
the low-performing teacher preparation program and who receives funding 
under title IV, HEA that the IHE is no longer eligible to provide such 
funding to them; and (c) disclose information on its Web site and 
promotional materials regarding its loss of State approval or financial 
support and loss of eligibility for title IV funding.
    The Department does not expect that a large percentage of programs 
will be subject to a loss of title IV eligibility. The Department 
estimates that approximately 50 programs will lose their State approval 
or financial support.
    For those 50 programs, the Department estimates that it will take 
each program 15 minutes to notify the Secretary of its loss of 
eligibility; 5 hours to notify all students who are enrolled in or 
accepted into the program and who receive funding under title IV of the 
HEA; and 30 minutes to disclose this information on its Web sites and 
promotional materials, for a total of 5.75 hours per program. The 
Department estimates the total burden at 287.5 hours (50 programs 
multiplied by 5.75 hours).
Section 612.8 Regaining Eligibility To Accept or Enroll Students 
Receiving Title IV, HEA Funds After Loss of State Approval or Financial 
Support
    The regulations in Sec.  612.8 provide a process for a low-
performing teacher preparation program that has lost State approval or 
financial support to regain its ability to accept and enroll students 
who receive title IV, HEA funds. Under this process, IHEs will submit 
an application and supporting documentation demonstrating to the 
Secretary: (1) Improved performance on the teacher preparation program 
performance criteria reflected in indicators described in Sec.  612.5 
as determined by the State; and (2) reinstatement of the State's 
approval or the State's financial support.
    The process by which programs and institutions apply for title IV 
eligibility already accounts for the burden associated with this 
provision.
Total Reporting Burden Under Part 612
    Aggregating the total burdens calculated under the preceding 
sections of part 612 results in the following burdens: Total burden 
hours incurred under Sec.  612.3 is 157,791 hours, under Sec.  612.4 is 
between 81,332.9 hours and 81,449.7 hours, under Sec.  612.5 is 
768,522.75 hours, under Sec.  612.7 is 287.5 hours, and under Sec.  
612.8 is 200 hours. This totals between 1,008,134.15 hours and 
1,008,250.95 hours nationwide.
Reporting Burden Under Part 686
    The changes to part 686 in these regulations have no measurable 
effect on the burden currently identified in the OMB Control Numbers 
1845-0083 and 1845-0084.
    Consistent with the discussions above, the following chart 
describes the sections of the final regulations involving information 
collections, the information being collected, and the collections the 
Department has submitted to the OMB for approval and public comment 
under the Paperwork Reduction Act. In the chart, the Department labels 
those estimated burdens not already associated an OMB approval number 
under a single prospective designation ``OMB 1840-0837.'' This label 
represents a single information collection; the different sections of 
the regulations are separated in the table below for clarity and to 
appropriately divide the burden hours associated with each regulatory 
section.
    Please note that the changes in burden estimated in the chart are 
based on the change in burden under the current IRC OMB control numbers 
1840-0837 and ``OMB 1840-0837.'' The burden estimate for 612.3 is based 
on the most recent data available for the number of IHEs that are 
required to report (i.e. 1,522 IHEs using most recent data available 
rather than 1,250 IHEs using prior estimates). For a complete 
discussion of the costs associated with the burden incurred under these 
regulations, please see the RIA in this document, specifically the 
accounting statement.

[[Page 75614]]



------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     OMB Control No. and
     Regulatory section           Information        estimated change in
                                   collection            the burden
------------------------------------------------------------------------
612.3......................  This section requires  OMB 1840-0837--The
                              IHEs that provide a    burden will
                              teacher preparation    decrease by 64,421
                              program leading to     hours.
                              State certification
                              or licensure to
                              provide data on
                              teacher preparation
                              program performance
                              to the States.
612.4......................  This section requires  OMB 1840-0837--The
                              States that receive    burden will
                              funds under the        increase by between
                              Higher Education Act   27,700.7 hours.
                              of 1965, as amended,
                              to report to the
                              Secretary on the
                              quality of teacher
                              preparation in the
                              State, both for
                              traditional teacher
                              preparation programs
                              and for alternative
                              route to State
                              certification and
                              licensure programs.
612.5......................  This regulatory        OMB 1840-0837--The
                              section requires       burden will
                              States to use          increase by
                              certain indicators     768,522.75.
                              of teacher
                              preparation
                              performance for
                              purposes of the
                              State report card.
612.6......................  This regulatory        OMB 1840-0837--The
                              section requires       burden associated
                              States to use          with this
                              criteria, including    regulatory
                              indicators of          provision is
                              academic content       accounted for in
                              knowledge and          other portions of
                              teaching skills, to    this burden
                              identify low-          statement.
                              performing or at-
                              risk teacher
                              preparation programs.
612.7......................  The regulations under  OMB 1840-0837--The
                              this section require   burden will
                              any IHE                increase by 287.5
                              administering a        hours.
                              teacher preparation
                              program that has
                              lost State approval
                              or financial support
                              based on being
                              identified as a low-
                              performing teacher
                              preparation program
                              to notify the
                              Secretary and
                              students receiving
                              title IV, HEA funds,
                              and to disclose this
                              information on its
                              Web site.
612.8......................  The regulations in     OMB 1840-0837--The
                              this section provide   burden will
                              a process for a low-   increase by 200
                              performing teacher     hours.
                              preparation program
                              that lost State
                              approval or
                              financial support to
                              regain its ability
                              to accept and enroll
                              students who receive
                              title IV funds.
    Total Change in Burden.  .....................  Total increase in
                                                     burden under parts
                                                     612 will be between
                                                     732,173.15 hours
                                                     and 732,289.95
                                                     hours.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Intergovernmental Review
    These programs are subject to the requirements of Executive Order 
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of 
the Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a 
strengthened federalism. The Executive order relies on processes 
developed by State and local governments for coordination and review of 
proposed Federal financial assistance.
    This document provides early notification of our specific plans and 
actions for these programs.
Assessment of Educational Impact
    In the NPRM we requested comments on whether the proposed 
regulations would require transmission of information that any other 
agency or authority of the United States gathers or makes available.
    Based on the response to the NPRM and on our review, we have 
determined that these final regulations do not require transmission of 
information that any other agency or authority of the United States 
gathers or makes available.
Federalism
    Executive Order 13132 requires us to ensure meaningful and timely 
input by State and local elected officials in the development of 
regulatory policies that have federalism implications. ``Federalism 
implications'' means substantial direct effects on the States, on the 
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the 
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of 
government.
    In the NPRM we identified a specific section that may have 
federalism implications and encouraged State and local elected 
officials to review and provide comments on the proposed regulations. 
In the Public Comment section of this preamble, we discuss any comments 
we received on this subject.
    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 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.

List of Subjects in 34 CFR Parts 612 and 686

    Administrative practice and procedure, Aliens, Colleges and 
universities, Consumer protection, Grant programs--education, Loan 
programs--education, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements, 
Selective Service System, Student aid, Vocational education.

    Dated: October 11, 2016.
John B. King, Jr.,
Secretary of Education.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary amends 
chapter VI of title 34 of the Code of Federal Regulations as follows:

0
1. Part 612 is added to read as follows:

PART 612--TITLE II REPORTING SYSTEM

Subpart A--Scope, Purpose, and Definitions
Sec.

[[Page 75615]]

612.1 Scope and purpose.
612.2 Definitions.
Subpart B--Reporting Requirements
612.3 What are the regulatory reporting requirements for the 
Institutional Report Card?
612.4 What are the regulatory reporting requirements for the State 
Report Card?
612.5 What indicators must a State use to report on teacher 
preparation program performance for purposes of the State report 
card?
612.6 What must States consider in identifying low-performing 
teacher preparation programs or at-risk teacher preparation 
programs, and what actions must a State take with respect to those 
programs identified as low-performing?
Subpart C--Consequences of Withdrawal of State Approval or Financial 
Support
612.7 What are the consequences for a low-performing teacher 
preparation program that loses the State's approval or the State's 
financial support?
612.8 How does a low-performing teacher preparation program regain 
eligibility to accept or enroll students receiving Title IV, HEA 
funds after loss of the State's approval or the State's financial 
support?

    Authority:  20 U.S.C. 1022d and 1022f.

Subpart A--Scope, Purpose, and Definitions


Sec.  612.1  Scope and purpose.

    This part establishes regulations related to the teacher 
preparation program accountability system under title II of the HEA. 
This part includes:
    (a) Institutional Report Card reporting requirements.
    (b) State Report Card reporting requirements.
    (c) Requirements related to the indicators States must use to 
report on teacher preparation program performance.
    (d) Requirements related to the areas States must consider to 
identify low-performing teacher preparation programs and at-risk 
teacher preparation programs and actions States must take with respect 
to those programs.
    (e) The consequences for a low-performing teacher preparation 
program that loses the State's approval or the State's financial 
support.
    (f) The conditions under which a low-performing teacher preparation 
program that has lost the State's approval or the State's financial 
support may regain eligibility to resume accepting and enrolling 
students who receive title IV, HEA funds.


Sec.  612.2  Definitions.

    (a) The following terms used in this part are defined in the 
regulations for Institutional Eligibility under the HEA, 34 CFR part 
600:

Distance education
Secretary
State
Title IV, HEA program

    (b) The following term used in this part is defined in subpart A of 
the Student Assistance General Provisions, 34 CFR part 668:

Payment period

    (c) The following term used in this part is defined in 34 CFR 77.1:

Local educational agency (LEA)

    (d) Other terms used in this part are defined as follows:
    At-risk teacher preparation program: A teacher preparation program 
that is identified as at-risk of being low-performing by a State based 
on the State's assessment of teacher preparation program performance 
under Sec.  612.4.
    Candidate accepted into the teacher preparation program: An 
individual who has been admitted into a teacher preparation program but 
who has not yet enrolled in any coursework that the institution has 
determined to be part of that teacher preparation program.
    Candidate enrolled in the teacher preparation program: An 
individual who has been accepted into a teacher preparation program and 
is in the process of completing coursework but has not yet completed 
the teacher preparation program.
    Content and pedagogical knowledge: An understanding of the central 
concepts and structures of the discipline in which a teacher candidate 
has been trained, and how to create effective learning experiences that 
make the discipline accessible and meaningful for all students, 
including a distinct set of instructional skills to address the needs 
of English learners and students with disabilities, in order to assure 
mastery of the content by the students, as described in applicable 
professional, State, or institutional standards.
    Effective teacher preparation program: A teacher preparation 
program with a level of performance higher than a low-performing 
teacher preparation program or an at-risk teacher preparation program.
    Employer survey: A survey of employers or supervisors designed to 
capture their perceptions of whether the novice teachers they employ or 
supervise who are in their first year of teaching were effectively 
prepared.
    High-need school: A school that, based on the most recent data 
available, meets one or both of the following:
    (i) The school is in the highest quartile of schools in a ranking 
of all schools served by a local educational agency (LEA), ranked in 
descending order by percentage of students from low-income families 
enrolled in such schools, as determined by the LEA based on one of the 
following measures of poverty:
    (A) The percentage of students aged 5 through 17 in poverty counted 
in the most recent Census data approved by the Secretary.
    (B) The percentage of students eligible for a free or reduced price 
school lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act [42 
U.S.C. 1751 et seq.].
    (C) The percentage of students in families receiving assistance 
under the State program funded under part A of title IV of the Social 
Security Act (42 U.S.C. 601 et seq.).
    (D) The percentage of students eligible to receive medical 
assistance under the Medicaid program.
    (E) A composite of two or more of the measures described in 
paragraphs (i)(A) through (D) of this definition.
    (ii) In the case of--
    (A) An elementary school, the school serves students not less than 
60 percent of whom are eligible for a free or reduced price school 
lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School Lunch Act; or
    (B) Any school other than an elementary school, the school serves 
students not less than 45 percent of whom are eligible for a free or 
reduced price school lunch under the Richard B. Russell National School 
Lunch Act.
    Low-performing teacher preparation program: A teacher preparation 
program that is identified as low-performing by a State based on the 
State's assessment of teacher preparation program performance under 
Sec.  612.4.
    Novice teacher: A teacher of record in the first three years of 
teaching who teaches elementary or secondary public school students, 
which may include, at a State's discretion, preschool students.
    Quality clinical preparation: Training that integrates content, 
pedagogy, and professional coursework around a core of pre-service 
clinical experiences. Such training must, at a minimum--
    (i) Be provided by qualified clinical instructors, including school 
and LEA-based personnel, who meet established qualification 
requirements and who use a training standard that is made publicly 
available;
    (ii) Include multiple clinical or field experiences, or both, that 
serve diverse, rural, or underrepresented student populations in 
elementary through secondary school, including English learners and 
students with disabilities, and that are assessed using a performance-
based protocol to

[[Page 75616]]

demonstrate teacher candidate mastery of content and pedagogy; and
    (iii) Require that teacher candidates use research-based practices, 
including observation and analysis of instruction, collaboration with 
peers, and effective use of technology for instructional purposes.
    Recent graduate: An individual whom a teacher preparation program 
has documented as having met all the requirements of the program in any 
of the three title II reporting years preceding the current reporting 
year, as defined in the report cards prepared under Sec. Sec.  612.3 
and 612.4. Documentation may take the form of a degree, institutional 
certificate, program credential, transcript, or other written proof of 
having met the program's requirements. For the purposes of this 
definition, a program may not use either of the following criteria to 
determine if an individual has met all the requirements of the program:
    (i) Becoming a teacher of record; or
    (ii) Obtaining initial certification or licensure.
    Rigorous teacher candidate exit qualifications: Qualifications of a 
teacher candidate established by a teacher preparation program prior to 
the candidate's completion of the program using an assessment of 
candidate performance that relies, at a minimum, on validated 
professional teaching standards and measures of the candidate's 
effectiveness in curriculum planning, instruction of students, 
appropriate plans and modifications for all students, and assessment of 
student learning.
    Student growth: The change in student achievement between two or 
more points in time, using a student's scores on the State's 
assessments under section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA or other measures of 
student learning and performance, such as student results on pre-tests 
and end-of-course tests; objective performance-based assessments; 
student learning objectives; student performance on English language 
proficiency assessments; and other measures that are rigorous, 
comparable across schools, and consistent with State guidelines.
    Teacher evaluation measure: A teacher's performance level based on 
an LEA's teacher evaluation system that differentiates teachers on a 
regular basis using at least three performance levels and multiple 
valid measures in assessing teacher performance. For purposes of this 
definition, multiple valid measures must include data on student growth 
for all students (including English learners and students with 
disabilities) and other measures of professional practice (such as 
observations based on rigorous teacher performance standards, teacher 
portfolios, and student and parent surveys).
    Teacher of record: A teacher (including a teacher in a co-teaching 
assignment) who has been assigned the lead responsibility for student 
learning in a subject or area.
    Teacher placement rate: (i) The percentage of recent graduates who 
have become novice teachers (regardless of retention) for the grade 
level, grade span, and subject area in which they were prepared.
    (ii) At the State's discretion, the rate calculated under paragraph 
(i) of this definition may exclude one or more of the following, 
provided that the State uses a consistent approach to assess and report 
on all of the teacher preparation programs in the State:
    (A) Recent graduates who have taken teaching positions in another 
State.
    (B) Recent graduates who have taken teaching positions in private 
schools.
    (C) Recent graduates who have enrolled in graduate school or 
entered military service.
    (iii) For a teacher preparation program provided through distance 
education, a State calculates the rate under paragraph (i) of this 
definition using the total number of recent graduates who have obtained 
certification or licensure in the State during the three preceding 
title II reporting years as the denominator.
    Teacher preparation entity: An institution of higher education or 
other organization that is authorized by the State to prepare teachers.
    Teacher preparation program: A program, whether traditional or 
alternative route, offered by a teacher preparation entity that leads 
to initial State teacher certification or licensure in a specific 
field. Where some participants in the program are in a traditional 
route to certification or licensure in a specific field, and others are 
in an alternative route to certification or licensure in that same 
field, the traditional and alternative route components are considered 
to be separate teacher preparation programs. The term teacher 
preparation program includes a teacher preparation program provided 
through distance education.
    Teacher preparation program provided through distance education: A 
teacher preparation program at which at least 50 percent of the 
program's required coursework is offered through distance education.
    Teacher retention rate: The percentage of individuals in a given 
cohort of novice teachers who have been continuously employed as 
teachers of record in each year between their first year as a novice 
teacher and the current reporting year.
    (i) For the purposes of this definition, a cohort of novice 
teachers includes all teachers who were first identified as a novice 
teacher by the State in the same title II reporting year.
    (ii) At the State's discretion, the teacher retention rates may 
exclude one or more of the following, provided that the State uses a 
consistent approach to assess and report on all teacher preparation 
programs in the State:
    (A) Novice teachers who have taken teaching positions in other 
States.
    (B) Novice teachers who have taken teaching positions in private 
schools.
    (C) Novice teachers who are not retained specifically and directly 
due to budget cuts.
    (D) Novice teachers who have enrolled in graduate school or entered 
military service.
    Teacher survey: A survey administered to all novice teachers who 
are in their first year of teaching that is designed to capture their 
perceptions of whether the preparation that they received from their 
teacher preparation program was effective.
    Title II reporting year: A period of twelve consecutive months, 
starting September 1 and ending August 31.

Subpart B--Reporting Requirements


Sec.  612.3  What are the regulatory reporting requirements for the 
Institutional report card?

    Beginning not later than April 30, 2018, and annually thereafter, 
each institution of higher education that conducts a teacher 
preparation program and that enrolls students receiving title IV HEA 
program funds--
    (a) Must report to the State on the quality of teacher preparation 
and other information consistent with section 205(a) of the HEA, using 
an institutional report card that is prescribed by the Secretary;
    (b) Must prominently and promptly post the institutional report 
card information on the institution's Web site and, if applicable, on 
the teacher preparation program portion of the institution's Web site; 
and
    (c) May also provide the institutional report card information to 
the general public in promotional or other materials it makes available 
to prospective students or other individuals.


Sec.  612.4  What are the regulatory reporting requirements for the 
State report card?

    (a) General. Beginning not later than October 31, 2018, and 
annually

[[Page 75617]]

thereafter, each State that receives funds under the HEA must--
    (1) Report to the Secretary, using a State report card that is 
prescribed by the Secretary, on--
    (i) The quality of all teacher preparation programs in the State 
consistent with paragraph (b)(3) of this section, whether or not they 
enroll students receiving Federal assistance under the HEA; and
    (ii) All other information consistent with section 205(b) of the 
HEA; and
    (2) Make the State report card information widely available to the 
general public by posting the State report card information on the 
State's Web site.
    (b) Reporting of information on teacher preparation program 
performance. In the State report card, beginning not later than October 
31, 2019, and annually thereafter, the State--
    (1) Must make meaningful differentiations in teacher preparation 
program performance using at least three performance levels--low-
performing teacher preparation program, at-risk teacher preparation 
program, and effective teacher preparation program--based on the 
indicators in Sec.  612.5.
    (2) Must provide--
    (i) For each teacher preparation program, data for each of the 
indicators identified in Sec.  612.5 for the most recent title II 
reporting year;
    (ii) The State's weighting of the different indicators in Sec.  
612.5 for purposes of describing the State's assessment of program 
performance; and
    (iii) Any State-level rewards or consequences associated with the 
designated performance levels;
    (3) In implementing paragraph (b)(1) through (2) of this section, 
except as provided in paragraphs (b)(3)(ii)(D) and (b)(5) of this 
section, must ensure the performance of all of the State's teacher 
preparation programs are represented in the State report card by--
    (i)(A) Annually reporting on the performance of each teacher 
preparation program that, in a given reporting year, produces a total 
of 25 or more recent graduates who have received initial certification 
or licensure from the State that allows them to serve in the State as 
teachers of record for K-12 students and, at a State's discretion, 
preschool students (i.e., the program size threshold); or
    (B) If a State chooses a program size threshold of less than 25 
(e.g., 15 or 20), annually reporting on the performance of each teacher 
preparation program that, in a given reporting year, produces an amount 
of recent graduates, as described in this paragraph (b)(3)(i), that 
meets or exceeds this threshold; and
    (ii) For any teacher preparation program that does not meet the 
program size threshold in paragraph (b)(3)(i)(A) or (B) of this 
section, annually reporting on the program's performance by aggregating 
data under paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(A), (B), or (C) of this section in 
order to meet the program size threshold except as provided in 
paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(D) of this section.
    (A) The State may report on the program's performance by 
aggregating data that determine the program's performance with data for 
other teacher preparation programs that are operated by the same 
teacher preparation entity and are similar to or broader than the 
program in content.
    (B) The State may report on the program's performance by 
aggregating data that determine the program's performance over multiple 
years for up to four years until the program size threshold is met.
    (C) If the State cannot meet the program size threshold by 
aggregating data under paragraph (b)(3)(ii)(A) or (B) of this section, 
it may aggregate data using a combination of the methods under both of 
these paragraphs.
    (D) The State is not required under this paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of 
this section to report data on a particular teacher preparation program 
for a given reporting year if aggregation under paragraph (b)(3)(ii) of 
this section would not yield the program size threshold for that 
program; and
    (4) Must report on the procedures established by the State in 
consultation with a group of stakeholders, as described in paragraph 
(c)(1) of this section, and on the State's examination of its data 
collection and reporting, as described in paragraph (c)(2) of this 
section, in the State report card submitted--
    (i) No later than October 31, 2019, and every four years 
thereafter; and
    (ii) At any other time that the State makes a substantive change to 
the weighting of the indicators or the procedures for assessing and 
reporting the performance of each teacher preparation program in the 
State described in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (5) The State is not required under this paragraph (b) to report 
data on a particular teacher preparation program if reporting these 
data would be inconsistent with Federal or State privacy and 
confidentiality laws and regulations.
    (c) Fair and equitable methods--(1) Consultation. Each State must 
establish, in consultation with a representative group of stakeholders, 
the procedures for assessing and reporting the performance of each 
teacher preparation program in the State under this section.
    (i) The representative group of stakeholders must include, at a 
minimum, representatives of--
    (A) Leaders and faculty of traditional teacher preparation programs 
and alternative routes to State certification or licensure programs;
    (B) Students of teacher preparation programs;
    (C) LEA superintendents;
    (D) Small teacher preparation programs (i.e., programs that produce 
fewer than a program size threshold of 25 recent graduates in a given 
year or any lower threshold set by a State, as described in paragraph 
(b)(3)(i) of this section);
    (E) Local school boards;
    (F) Elementary through secondary school leaders and instructional 
staff;
    (G) Elementary through secondary school students and their parents;
    (H) IHEs that serve high proportions of low-income students, 
students of color, or English learners;
    (I) English learners, students with disabilities, and other 
underserved students;
    (J) Officials of the State's standards board or other appropriate 
standards body; and
    (K) At least one teacher preparation program provided through 
distance education.
    (ii) The procedures for assessing and reporting the performance of 
each teacher preparation program in the State under this section must, 
at minimum, include--
    (A) The weighting of the indicators identified in Sec.  612.5 for 
establishing performance levels of teacher preparation programs as 
required by this section;
    (B) The method for aggregation of data pursuant to paragraph 
(b)(3)(ii) of this section;
    (C) Any State-level rewards or consequences associated with the 
designated performance levels; and
    (D) Appropriate opportunities for programs to challenge the 
accuracy of their performance data and classification of the program.
    (2) State examination of data collection and reporting. Each State 
must periodically examine the quality of the data collection and 
reporting activities it conducts pursuant to paragraph (b) of this 
section and Sec.  612.5, and, as appropriate, modify its procedures for 
assessing and reporting the performance of each teacher preparation 
program in the State using

[[Page 75618]]

the procedures in paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
    (d) Inapplicability to certain insular areas. Paragraphs (b) and 
(c) of this section do not apply to American Samoa, the Commonwealth of 
the Northern Mariana Islands, the freely associated States of the 
Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, 
the Republic of Palau, Guam, and the United States Virgin Islands.


Sec.  612.5  What indicators must a State use to report on teacher 
preparation program performance for purposes of the State report card?

    (a) For purposes of reporting under Sec.  612.4, a State must 
assess, for each teacher preparation program within its jurisdiction, 
indicators of academic content knowledge and teaching skills of novice 
teachers from that program, including, at a minimum, the following 
indicators:
    (1) Student learning outcomes.
    (i) For each year and each teacher preparation program in the 
State, a State must calculate the aggregate student learning outcomes 
of all students taught by novice teachers.
    (ii) For purposes of calculating student learning outcomes under 
paragraph (a)(1)(i) of this section, a State must use:
    (A) Student growth;
    (B) A teacher evaluation measure;
    (C) Another State-determined measure that is relevant to 
calculating student learning outcomes, including academic performance, 
and that meaningfully differentiates among teachers; or
    (D) Any combination of paragraphs (a)(1)(ii)(A), (B), or (C) of 
this section.
    (iii) At the State's discretion, in calculating a teacher 
preparation program's aggregate student learning outcomes a State may 
exclude one or both of the following, provided that the State uses a 
consistent approach to assess and report on all of the teacher 
preparation programs in the State--
    (A) Student learning outcomes of students taught by novice teachers 
who have taken teaching positions in another State.
    (B) Student learning outcomes of all students taught by novice 
teachers who have taken teaching positions in private schools.
    (2) Employment outcomes.
    (i) Except as provided in paragraph (a)(2)(v) of this section, for 
each year and each teacher preparation program in the State, a State 
must calculate:
    (A) Teacher placement rate;
    (B) Teacher placement rate in high-need schools;
    (C) Teacher retention rate; and
    (D) Teacher retention rate in high-need schools.
    (ii) For purposes of reporting the teacher retention rate and 
teacher retention rate in high-need schools under paragraph 
(a)(2)(i)(C) and (D) of this section--
    (A) Except as provided in paragraph (B), the State reports a 
teacher retention rate for each of the three cohorts of novice teachers 
immediately preceding the current title II reporting year.
    (B)(1) The State is not required to report a teacher retention rate 
for any teacher preparation program in the State report to be submitted 
in October 2018.
    (2) For the State report to be submitted in October 2019, the 
teacher retention rate must be calculated for the cohort of novice 
teachers identified in the 2017-2018 title II reporting year.
    (3) For the State report to be submitted in October 2020, separate 
teacher retention rates must be calculated for the cohorts of novice 
teachers identified in the 2017-2018 and 2018-2019 title II reporting 
years.
    (iii) For the purposes of calculating employment outcomes under 
paragraph (a)(2)(i) of this section, a State may, at its discretion, 
assess traditional and alternative route teacher preparation programs 
differently, provided that differences in assessments and the reasons 
for those differences are transparent and that assessments result in 
equivalent levels of accountability and reporting irrespective of the 
type of program.
    (iv) For the purposes of the teacher placement rate under paragraph 
(a)(2)(i)(A) and (B) of this section, a State may, at its discretion, 
assess teacher preparation programs provided through distance education 
differently from teacher preparation programs not provided through 
distance education, based on whether the differences in the way the 
rate is calculated for teacher preparation programs provided through 
distance education affect employment outcomes. Differences in 
assessments and the reasons for those differences must be transparent 
and result in equivalent levels of accountability and reporting 
irrespective of where the program is physically located.
    (v) A State is not required to calculate a teacher placement rate 
under paragraph (a)(2)(i)(A) of this section for alternative route to 
certification programs.
    (3) Survey outcomes. (i) For each year and each teacher preparation 
program on which a State must report a State must collect through 
survey instruments qualitative and quantitative data including, but not 
limited to, a teacher survey and an employer survey designed to capture 
perceptions of whether novice teachers who are employed in their first 
year of teaching possess the academic content knowledge and teaching 
skills needed to succeed in the classroom.
    (ii) At the State's discretion, in calculating a teacher 
preparation program's survey outcomes the State may exclude survey 
outcomes for all novice teachers who have taken teaching positions in 
private schools provided that the State uses a consistent approach to 
assess and report on all of the teacher preparation programs in the 
State.
    (4) Characteristics of teacher preparation programs. Whether the 
program--
    (i) Is administered by an entity accredited by an agency recognized 
by the Secretary for accreditation of professional teacher education 
programs; or
    (ii) Produces teacher candidates--
    (A) With content and pedagogical knowledge;
    (B) With quality clinical preparation; and
    (C) Who have met rigorous teacher candidate exit qualifications.
    (b) At a State's discretion, the indicators of academic content 
knowledge and teaching skills may include other indicators of a 
teacher's effect on student performance, such as student survey 
results, provided that the State uses the same indicators for all 
teacher preparation programs in the State.
    (c) A State may, at its discretion, exclude from its reporting 
under paragraph (a)(1)-(3) of this section individuals who have not 
become novice teachers after three years of becoming recent graduates.
    (d) This section does not apply to American Samoa, the Commonwealth 
of the Northern Mariana Islands, the freely associated states of the 
Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of Micronesia, 
the Republic of Palau, Guam, and the United States Virgin Islands.


Sec.  612.6  What must a State consider in identifying low-performing 
teacher preparation programs or at-risk teacher preparation programs, 
and what actions must a State take with respect to those programs 
identified as low-performing?

    (a)(1) In identifying low-performing or at-risk teacher preparation 
programs the State must use criteria that, at a minimum, include the 
indicators of academic content knowledge and teaching skills from Sec.  
612.5.
    (2) Paragraph (a)(1) of this section does not apply to American 
Samoa, the

[[Page 75619]]

Commonwealth of the Northern Mariana Islands, the freely associated 
states of the Republic of the Marshall Islands, the Federated States of 
Micronesia, the Republic of Palau, Guam, and the United States Virgin 
Islands.
    (b) At a minimum, a State must provide technical assistance to low-
performing teacher preparation programs in the State to help them 
improve their performance in accordance with section 207(a) of the HEA. 
Technical assistance may include, but is not limited to: Providing 
programs with information on the specific indicators used to determine 
the program's rating (e.g., specific areas of weakness in student 
learning, job placement and retention, and novice teacher and employer 
satisfaction); assisting programs to address the rigor of their exit 
criteria; helping programs identify specific areas of curriculum or 
clinical experiences that correlate with gaps in graduates' 
preparation; helping identify potential research and other resources to 
assist program improvement (e.g., evidence of other successful 
interventions, other university faculty, other teacher preparation 
programs, nonprofits with expertise in educator preparation and teacher 
effectiveness improvement, accrediting organizations, or higher 
education associations); and sharing best practices from exemplary 
programs.

Subpart C--Consequences of Withdrawal of State Approval or 
Financial Support


Sec.  612.7  What are the consequences for a low-performing teacher 
preparation program that loses the State's approval or the State's 
financial support?

    (a) Any teacher preparation program for which the State has 
withdrawn the State's approval or the State has terminated the State's 
financial support due to the State's identification of the program as a 
low-performing teacher preparation program--
    (1) Is ineligible for any funding for professional development 
activities awarded by the Department as of the date that the State 
withdrew its approval or terminated its financial support;
    (2) May not include any candidate accepted into the teacher 
preparation program or any candidate enrolled in the teacher 
preparation program who receives aid under title IV, HEA programs in 
the institution's teacher preparation program as of the date that the 
State withdrew its approval or terminated its financial support; and
    (3) Must provide transitional support, including remedial services, 
if necessary, to students enrolled at the institution at the time of 
termination of financial support or withdrawal of approval for a period 
of time that is not less than the period of time a student continues in 
the program but no more than 150 percent of the published program 
length.
    (b) Any institution administering a teacher preparation program 
that has lost State approval or financial support based on being 
identified as a low-performing teacher preparation program must--
    (1) Notify the Secretary of its loss of the State's approval or the 
State's financial support due to identification as low-performing by 
the State within 30 days of such designation;
    (2) Immediately notify each student who is enrolled in or accepted 
into the low-performing teacher preparation program and who receives 
title IV, HEA program funds that, commencing with the next payment 
period, the institution is no longer eligible to provide such funding 
to students enrolled in or accepted into the low-performing teacher 
preparation program; and
    (3) Disclose on its Web site and in promotional materials that it 
makes available to prospective students that the teacher preparation 
program has been identified as a low-performing teacher preparation 
program by any State and has lost the State's approval or the State's 
financial support, including the identity of the State or States, and 
that students accepted or enrolled in the low-performing teacher 
preparation program may not receive title IV, HEA program funds.


Sec.  612.8  How does a low-performing teacher preparation program 
regain eligibility to accept or enroll students receiving Title IV, HEA 
program funds after loss of the State's approval or the State's 
financial support?

    (a) A low-performing teacher preparation program that has lost the 
State's approval or the State's financial support may regain its 
ability to accept and enroll students who receive title IV, HEA program 
funds upon demonstration to the Secretary under paragraph (b) of this 
section of--
    (1) Improved performance on the teacher preparation program 
performance criteria in Sec.  612.5 as determined by the State; and
    (2) Reinstatement of the State's approval or the State's financial 
support, or, if both were lost, the State's approval and the State's 
financial support.
    (b) To regain eligibility to accept or enroll students receiving 
title IV, HEA funds in a teacher preparation program that was 
previously identified by the State as low-performing and that lost the 
State's approval or the State's financial support, the institution that 
offers the teacher preparation program must submit an application to 
the Secretary along with supporting documentation that will enable the 
Secretary to determine that the teacher preparation program has met the 
requirements under paragraph (a) of this section.

PART 686--TEACHER EDUCATION ASSISTANCE FOR COLLEGE AND HIGHER 
EDUCATION (TEACH) GRANT PROGRAM

0
2. The authority citation for part 686 continues to read as follows:

    Authority:  20 U.S.C. 1070g, et seq., unless otherwise noted.


Sec.  686.1   [Amended]

0
3. Section 686.1 is amended by removing the words ``school serving low-
income students'' and adding, in their place, the words ``school or 
educational service agency serving low-income students (low-income 
school)''.

0
4. Section 686.2 is amended by:
0
A. Redesignating paragraph (d) as paragraph (e).
0
B. Adding a new paragraph (d).
0
C. In newly redesignated paragraph (e):
0
i. Redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) in the definition of ``Academic 
year or its equivalent for elementary and secondary schools (elementary 
or secondary academic year)'' as paragraphs (i) and (ii);
0
ii. Adding in alphabetical order the definition of ``Educational 
service agency'';
0
iii. Redesignating paragraphs (1) through (7) in the definition of 
``High-need field'' as paragraphs (i) through (vii), respectively;
0
iv. Adding in alphabetical order definitions of ``High-quality teacher 
preparation program not provided through distance education'' and 
``High-quality teacher preparation program provided through distance 
education'';
0
v. Redesignating paragraphs (1) through (3) in the definition of 
``Institutional Student Information Record (ISIR)'' as paragraphs (i) 
through (iii), respectively;
0
vi. Redesignating paragraphs (1) and (2) as paragraphs (i) and (ii) and 
paragraphs (2)(i) and (ii) as paragraphs (ii)(A) and (B), respectively, 
in the definition of ``Numeric equivalent'';
0
vii. Redesignating paragraphs (1) through (3) in the definition of 
``Post-baccalaureate program'' as paragraphs (i) through (iii), 
respectively;

[[Page 75620]]

0
viii. Adding in alphabetical order a definition for ``School or 
educational service agency serving low-income students (low-income 
school)'';
0
ix. Removing the definition of ``School serving low-income students 
(low-income school)'';
0
x. Revising the definitions of ``TEACH Grant-eligible institution'' and 
``TEACH Grant-eligible program''; and
0
xi. Revising the definition of ``Teacher preparation program.''
    The additions and revisions read as follows:


Sec.  686.2  Definitions.

* * * * *
    (d) A definition for the following term used in this part is in 
Title II Reporting System, 34 CFR part 612:
    Effective teacher preparation program.
    (e) * * *
    Educational service agency: A regional public multiservice agency 
authorized by State statute to develop, manage, and provide services or 
programs to LEAs, as defined in section 8101 of the Elementary and 
Secondary Education Act of l965, as amended (ESEA).
* * * * *
    High-quality teacher preparation program not provided through 
distance education: A teacher preparation program at which less than 50 
percent of the program's required coursework is offered through 
distance education; and
    (i) Beginning with the 2021-2022 award year, is not classified by 
the State to be less than an effective teacher preparation program 
based on 34 CFR 612.4(b) in two of the previous three years; or
    (ii) Meets the exception from State reporting of teacher 
preparation program performance under 34 CFR 612.4(b)(3)(ii)(D) or 34 
CFR 612.4(b)(5).
    High-quality teacher preparation program provided through distance 
education: A teacher preparation program at which at least 50 percent 
of the program's required coursework is offered through distance 
education; and
    (i) Beginning with the 2021-2022 award year, is not classified by 
the same State to be less than an effective teacher preparation program 
based on 34 CFR 612.4(b); in two of the previous three years; or
    (ii) Meets the exception from State reporting of teacher 
preparation program performance under 34 CFR 612.4(b)(3)(ii)(D) or (E).
* * * * *
    School or educational service agency serving low-income students 
(low-income school): An elementary or secondary school or educational 
service agency that--
    (i) Is located within the area served by the LEA that is eligible 
for assistance pursuant to title I of the ESEA;
    (ii) Has been determined by the Secretary to be a school or 
educational service agency in which more than 30 percent of the 
school's or educational service agency's total enrollment is made up of 
children who qualify for services provided under title I of the ESEA; 
and
    (iii) Is listed in the Department's Annual Directory of Designated 
Low-Income Schools for Teacher Cancellation Benefits. The Secretary 
considers all elementary and secondary schools and educational service 
agencies operated by the Bureau of Indian Education (BIE) in the 
Department of the Interior or operated on Indian reservations by Indian 
tribal groups under contract or grant with the BIE to qualify as 
schools or educational service agencies serving low-income students.
* * * * *
    TEACH Grant-eligible institution: An eligible institution as 
defined in 34 CFR part 600 that meets financial responsibility 
standards established in 34 CFR part 668, subpart L, or that qualifies 
under an alternative standard in 34 CFR 668.175 and--
    (i) Provides at least one high-quality teacher preparation program 
not provided through distance education or one high-quality teacher 
preparation program provided through distance education at the 
baccalaureate or master's degree level that also provides supervision 
and support services to teachers, or assists in the provision of 
services to teachers, such as--
    (A) Identifying and making available information on effective 
teaching skills or strategies;
    (B) Identifying and making available information on effective 
practices in the supervision and coaching of novice teachers; and
    (C) Mentoring focused on developing effective teaching skills and 
strategies;
    (ii) Provides a two-year program that is acceptable for full credit 
in a TEACH Grant-eligible program offered by an institution described 
in paragraph (i) of this definition, as demonstrated by the institution 
that provides the two-year program, or provides a program that is the 
equivalent of an associate degree, as defined in Sec.  668.8(b)(1), 
that is acceptable for full credit toward a baccalaureate degree in a 
TEACH Grant-eligible program;
    (iii) Provides a high-quality teacher preparation program not 
provided through distance education or a high-quality teacher 
preparation program provided through distance education that is a post-
baccalaureate program of study; or
    (iv) Provides a master's degree program that does not meet the 
definition of terms ``high-quality teacher preparation program not 
provided through distance education'' or ``high-quality teacher 
preparation program that is provided through distance education'' 
because it is not subject to reporting under 34 CFR part 612, but that 
prepares:
    (A) A teacher or a retiree from another occupation with expertise 
in a field in which there is a shortage of teachers, such as 
mathematics, science, special education, English language acquisition, 
or another high-need field; or
    (B) A teacher who is using high-quality alternative certification 
routes to become certified.
    TEACH Grant-eligible program: (i) An eligible program, as defined 
in 34 CFR 668.8, that meets the definition of a ``high-quality teacher 
preparation program not provided through distance education'' or 
``high-quality teacher preparation program provided through distance 
education'' and that is designed to prepare an individual to teach as a 
highly-qualified teacher in a high-need field and leads to a 
baccalaureate or master's degree, or is a post-baccalaureate program of 
study;
    (ii) A program that is a two-year program or is the equivalent of 
an associate degree, as defined in 34 CFR 668.8(b)(1), that is 
acceptable for full credit toward a baccalaureate degree in a TEACH 
Grant-eligible program; or;
    (iii) A master's degree program that does not meet the definition 
of the terms ``high-quality teacher preparation not provided through 
distance education'' or ``high-quality teacher preparation program that 
is provided through distance education'' because it is not subject to 
reporting under 34 CFR part 612, but that prepares:
    (A) A teacher or a retiree from another occupation with expertise 
in a field in which there is a shortage of teachers, such as 
mathematics, science, special education, English language acquisition, 
or another high-need field; or
    (B) A teacher who is using high-quality alternative certification 
routes to become certified.
* * * * *
    Teacher preparation program: A course of study, provided by an 
institution of higher education, the completion of which signifies that 
an enrollee has met all of the State's educational or training 
requirements for initial certification or licensure to teach in the 
State's elementary or secondary

[[Page 75621]]

schools. A teacher preparation program may be a traditional program or 
an alternative route to certification or licensure, as defined by the 
State.
* * * * *

0
5. Section 686.3 is amended by adding paragraph (c) to read as follows:


Sec.  686.3  Duration of student eligibility.

* * * * *
    (c) An otherwise eligible student who received a TEACH Grant for 
enrollment in a TEACH Grant-eligible program is eligible to receive 
additional TEACH Grants to complete that program, even if that program 
is no longer considered a TEACH Grant-eligible program, not to exceed 
four Scheduled Awards for an undergraduate or post-baccalaureate 
student and up to two Scheduled Awards for a graduate student.

0
6. Section 686.11 is amended by:
0
A. Revising paragraph (a)(1)(iii).
0
B. Adding paragraph (d).
    The revision and addition read as follows:


Sec.  686.11  Eligibility to receive a grant.

    (a) * * *
    (1) * * *
    (iii) Is enrolled in a TEACH Grant-eligible institution in a TEACH 
Grant-eligible program or is an otherwise eligible student who received 
a TEACH Grant and who is completing a program under Sec.  686.3(c);
* * * * *
    (d) Students who received a total and permanent disability 
discharge of a TEACH Grant agreement to serve or a title IV, HEA loan. 
If a student's previous TEACH Grant agreement to serve or title IV, HEA 
loan was discharged based on total and permanent disability, the 
student is eligible to receive a TEACH Grant if the student--
    (1) Obtains a certification from a physician that the student is 
able to engage in substantial gainful activity as defined in 34 CFR 
685.102(b);
    (2) Signs a statement acknowledging that neither the new agreement 
to serve for the TEACH Grant the student receives nor any previously 
discharged agreement to serve which the grant recipient is required to 
fulfill in accordance with paragraph (d)(3) of this section can be 
discharged in the future on the basis of any impairment present when 
the new grant is awarded, unless that impairment substantially 
deteriorates and the grant recipient applies for and meets the 
eligibility requirements for a discharge in accordance with 34 CFR 
685.213; and
    (3) In the case of a student who receives a new TEACH Grant within 
three years of the date that any previous TEACH Grant service 
obligation or title IV loan was discharged due to a total and permanent 
disability in accordance with Sec.  686.42(b), 34 CFR 
685.213(b)(4)(iii), 34 CFR 674.61(b)(3)(v), or 34 CFR 
682.402(c)(3)(iv), acknowledges that he or she is once again subject to 
the terms of the previously discharged TEACH Grant agreement to serve 
or resumes repayment on the previously discharged loan in accordance 
with 34 CFR 685.213(b)(7), 674.61(b)(6), or 682.402(c)(6) before 
receiving the new grant.

0
7. Section 686.12 is amended by:
0
A. In paragraph (b)(2), adding the words ``low-income'' before the word 
``school''; and
0
B. Revising paragraph (d).
    The revision reads as follows:


Sec.  686.12  Agreement to serve.

* * * * *
    (d) Majoring and serving in a high-need field. In order for a grant 
recipient's teaching service in a high-need field listed in the 
Nationwide List to count toward satisfying the recipient's service 
obligation, the high-need field in which he or she prepared to teach 
must be listed in the Nationwide List for the State in which the grant 
recipient teaches--
    (1) At the time the grant recipient begins teaching in that field, 
even if that field subsequently loses its high-need designation for 
that State; or
    (2) For teaching service performed on or after July 1, 2010, at the 
time the grant recipient begins teaching in that field or when the 
grant recipient signed the agreement to serve or received the TEACH 
Grant, even if that field subsequently loses its high-need designation 
for that State before the grant recipient begins teaching.
* * * * *


Sec.  686.32   [Amended]

0
8. Section 686.32 is amended by:
0
A. In paragraph (a)(3)(iii)(B), adding the words ``or when the grant 
recipient signed the agreement to serve or received the TEACH Grant'' 
after the words ``that field''; and
0
B. In paragraph (c)(4)(iv)(B), adding the words ``or when the grant 
recipient signed the agreement to serve or received the TEACH Grant'' 
after the words ``that field''.


Sec.  686.37   [Amended]

0
9. Section 686.37(a)(1) is amended by removing the citation 
``Sec. Sec.  686.11'' and adding in its place the citation ``Sec. Sec.  
686.3(c), 686.11,.''

0
10. Section 686.40 is amended by revising paragraphs (b) and (f) to 
read as follows:


Sec.  686.40  Documenting the service obligation.

* * * * *
    (b) If a grant recipient is performing full-time teaching service 
in accordance with the agreement to serve, or agreements to serve if 
more than one agreement exists, the grant recipient must, upon 
completion of each of the four required elementary or secondary 
academic years of teaching service, provide to the Secretary 
documentation of that teaching service on a form approved by the 
Secretary and certified by the chief administrative officer of the 
school or educational service agency in which the grant recipient is 
teaching. The documentation must show that the grant recipient is 
teaching in a low-income school. If the school or educational service 
agency at which the grant recipient is employed meets the requirements 
of a low-income school in the first year of the grant recipient's four 
elementary or secondary academic years of teaching and the school or 
educational service agency fails to meet those requirements in 
subsequent years, those subsequent years of teaching qualify for 
purposes of this section for that recipient.
* * * * *
    (f) A grant recipient who taught in more than one qualifying school 
or more than one qualifying educational service agency during an 
elementary or secondary academic year and demonstrates that the 
combined teaching service was the equivalent of full-time, as supported 
by the certification of one or more of the chief administrative 
officers of the schools or educational service agencies involved, is 
considered to have completed one elementary or secondary academic year 
of qualifying teaching.

0
11. Section 686.42 is amended by revising paragraph (b) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  686.42  Discharge of agreement to serve.

* * * * *
    (b) Total and permanent disability. (1) A grant recipient's 
agreement to serve is discharged if the recipient becomes totally and 
permanently disabled, as defined in 34 CFR 685.102(b), and the grant 
recipient applies for and satisfies the eligibility requirements for a 
total and permanent disability discharge in accordance with 34 CFR 
685.213.
    (2) If at any time the Secretary determines that the grant 
recipient does not meet the requirements of the three-year period 
following the discharge as described in 34 CFR 685.213(b)(7), the

[[Page 75622]]

Secretary will notify the grant recipient that the grant recipient's 
obligation to satisfy the terms of the agreement to serve is 
reinstated.
    (3) The Secretary's notification under paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section will--
    (i) Include the reason or reasons for reinstatement;
    (ii) Provide information on how the grant recipient may contact the 
Secretary if the grant recipient has questions about the reinstatement 
or believes that the agreement to serve was reinstated based on 
incorrect information; and
    (iii) Inform the TEACH Grant recipient that he or she must satisfy 
the service obligation within the portion of the eight-year period that 
remained after the date of the discharge.
    (4) If the TEACH Grant of a recipient whose TEACH Grant agreement 
to serve is reinstated is later converted to a Direct Unsubsidized 
Loan, the recipient will not be required to pay interest that accrued 
on the TEACH Grant disbursements from the date the agreement to serve 
was discharged until the date the agreement to serve was reinstated.
* * * * *

0
12. Section 686.43 is amended by revising paragraph (a)(1) to read as 
follows:


Sec.  686.43  Obligation to repay the grant.

    (a) * * *
    (1) The grant recipient, regardless of enrollment status, requests 
that the TEACH Grant be converted into a Federal Direct Unsubsidized 
Loan because he or she has decided not to teach in a qualified school 
or educational service agency, or not to teach in a high-need field, or 
for any other reason;
* * * * *
[FR Doc. 2016-24856 Filed 10-28-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4000-01-P