[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 4, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53819-53826]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21814]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Subtitle A
[DOCKET ID ED-2012-OII-0013]
RIN 1855-AA08
Proposed Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection
Criteria--Supporting Effective Educator Development
[CFDA Number: 84.367D.]
AGENCY: Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.
ACTION: Proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement
proposes priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria
under the Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED) Grant
program. We may use these priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria for competitions of the SEED Grant program for
fiscal year (FY) 2012 and later years. We intend for the priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria to help national not-
for-profit organizations to build evidence on how best to recruit,
train, and support effective teachers and school leaders; recruit and
prepare effective science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
teachers; and invest in efforts that enhance the teaching and school
leadership professions.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before October 4, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not
accept comments by fax or by email. To ensure that we do not receive
duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition,
please include the Docket ID and the phrase ``Supporting Effective
Educator Development'' at the top of your comments.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to www.regulations.gov to
submit your comments electronically. Information on using
Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency documents,
submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on the site
under ``How To Use This Site.'' A direct link to the docket page is
also available at www.ed.gov/programs/innovation/index.html.
Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery. If you
mail or deliver your comments about these proposed
[[Page 53820]]
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, address
them to Office of Innovation and Improvement (Attention: Supporting
Effective Educator Development Comments), U.S. Department of Education,
400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 4C131, Washington, DC 20202.
Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all
comments received from members of the public available for public
viewing in their entirety on the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters should be careful to include
in their comments only information that they wish to make publicly
available.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Wilson Telephone: (202) 453-
6709 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, toll free, at 1-800-
877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding
this notice. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in
developing the notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions,
and selection criteria, we urge you to identify clearly the specific
proposed priority, requirement, definition, or selection criterion that
each comment addresses.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall
requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from the
proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.
Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs
or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and
efficient administration of the Department's programs and activities.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about this notice by accessing Regulations.gov. You may also
inspect the comments in person, in room 4W335, 400 Maryland Avenue SW.,
Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,
Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal
holidays.
Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the
public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in the
SUMMARY section of this notice.
Purpose of Program: The SEED Grant program provides funding for
grants to national not-for-profit organizations for projects that
support teacher or principal training or professional enhancement
activities and are supported by at least moderate evidence of
effectiveness (as defined in this notice).
Program Authority: Department of Education Appropriations Act,
2012 (Pub. L. 112-74, Title III, Division F).
Proposed Priorities
This notice contains seven proposed priorities.
Background
The Statutory Context
The Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2012, requires the
Secretary to reserve up to 1.5 percent of the funds for the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act's (ESEA) Title II, Part A programs for
competitive awards to national not-for-profit organizations for teacher
or principal training or professional enhancement activities.
Overview of the SEED Grant program
Reforming and improving schools with high concentrations of high-
need students is a key priority for the Department. Strengthening
teacher and principal leadership is an essential part of any strategy
to make a difference in these schools. Research shows that teachers are
a critical element in improving student learning.\1\ Additionally,
there is compelling evidence that strong principals have positive,
although indirect, effects on student learning.\2\ The Department is
using the SEED Grant program as a mechanism to identify and support
projects that will strengthen teaching and school leadership
specifically for high-need schools. As proposed in this notice,
applicants must demonstrate how they will build evidence on how best to
recruit, prepare, and support effective teachers and principals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Lee S. Shulman, Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the
New Reform, Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 57, No. 1 (February
1987), pages 1-22; Eric A. Hanushek, John F. Kain, & Steven G.
Rivkin. Teachers, Schools, and Academic Achievement (NBER Working
Paper No. 6691) (1998), National Bureau of Economic Research,
Retrieved April 25, 2012, from http://www.nber.org/papers/w6691.pdf;
Thomas J. Kane & Douglas O. Staiger, Gathering Feedback for
Teaching: Combining High-Quality Observations with Student Surveys
and Achievement Gains, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (January,
2012).
\2\ Kyla L. Wahlstom, Karen Seashore-Louis, Kenneth Leithwood, &
Stephen E. Anderson, Learning from Leadership: Investigating the
Links to Improved Student Learning, Center for Applied Research and
Educational Improvement, University of Minnesota, Ontario Institute
for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto, sponsored by
the Wallace Foundation (July, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following priorities focus on this goal.
Proposed Priority 1: Teacher or Principal Recruitment, Selection, and
Preparation
Background
This proposed priority would support projects that will recruit,
select, and prepare teachers, principals, or both who are able to
increase student achievement and student learning, particularly in
high-need schools. Although we included a similar priority in our
September 8, 2011, notice inviting applications (76 FR 55658-55664)
(2012 SEED NIA), that priority focused only on teachers. The Department
of Education Appropriations Act, 2012, provides that projects may serve
principals, teachers, or both and, therefore, we are modifying this
priority accordingly. Additionally, we propose to include a more
explicit focus on schools with high concentrations of high-need
students (as defined in this notice) and to provide more direction on
required project activities.
Proposed Priority 1
Under this proposed priority, the Secretary would fund projects
that will create or expand practices and strategies that increase the
number of highly effective teachers (as defined in this notice) or
highly effective principals (as defined in this notice) by recruiting,
selecting, and preparing talented individuals to work in schools with
high concentrations of high-need students (as defined in this notice).
Projects would include activities that focus on creating or expanding
high-performing teacher preparation programs, principal preparation
programs, or both. Activities may include but are not limited to
expanding clinical experiences, re-designing and implementing program
coursework to align with State standards and district requirements for
their P-12 teachers, providing induction and other support for program
participants in their classrooms and schools, and developing strategies
for tracking the effect of program graduates on the achievement of
their students or their schools.
In addition, an applicant would need to propose a plan
demonstrating a
[[Page 53821]]
rigorous, competitive selection process to determine which aspiring
teachers or principals participate in the applicant's proposed
activities.
Proposed Priority 2: Professional Development for Teachers of English
Language Arts With a Specific Focus on Writing
Background
This proposed priority is based on Absolute Priority 2 published in
the 2012 SEED NIA. We propose changing the priority by requiring that
the professional development be aligned with State standards. We also
propose to require that the professional development align with
district needs and include a rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness
of teachers who participate in the professional development.
Proposed Priority 2
Under this proposed priority, the Secretary would fund projects
designed to improve student literacy and writing skills by creating or
expanding practices and strategies that increase the number of highly
effective teachers (as defined in this notice) of English language arts
by improving their knowledge, understanding, and teaching of English
language arts, with a specific focus on teaching writing. Projects
would focus on increasing student achievement (as defined in this
notice) in English language arts by providing high-quality professional
development to teachers in schools with high concentrations of high-
need students (as defined in this notice).
An applicant would be required to describe the need of the proposed
districts to be served for teacher professional development in English
language arts and demonstrate alignment of its proposed project with
State standards.
In addition, applicants would have to describe how they plan to
measure the impact the professional development has on the
effectiveness of teachers served by the project. Applicants would need
to determine teacher effectiveness through a rigorous, transparent, and
fair evaluation in which performance is differentiated using multiple
measures of effectiveness and based in significant part on student
growth (as defined in this notice).
Proposed Priority 3: Advanced Certification and Advanced Credentialing
Background
This proposed priority would support projects that will develop or
enhance systems to develop and recognize teachers, principals, or both
who will serve as models, coaches, and mentors from whom other
teachers, principals, or both can learn and strengthen their practices.
We propose changing this priority from Absolute Priority 3 in the 2012
SEED NIA by encouraging applicants to target services to teachers,
principals, or both who are working or agree to work in schools with
high concentrations of high-need students (as defined in this notice).
We also propose adding requirements for the selection of participants
and the evaluation of outcomes or effectiveness of participants.
Proposed Priority 3
Under this proposed priority, the Secretary would fund projects
that will create or expand practices and strategies that increase the
number of highly effective teachers (as defined in this notice), highly
effective principals (as defined in this notice), or both, who work in
schools with high concentrations of high-need students (as defined in
this notice).
Applicants would be required to focus their proposed projects on
encouraging and supporting teachers, principals, or both, who seek a
nationally recognized, standards-based advanced certificate or advanced
credential through high-quality professional enhancement projects
designed to improve teaching and learning for teachers who would take
on career ladder positions (as defined in this notice), principals, or
both who would serve as models, mentors, and coaches for other
teachers, principals, or both working in schools with high
concentrations of high-need students (as defined in this notice).
In addition, effectiveness of teachers or principals who receive
advanced certification or credentialing would need to be determined
through a rigorous, transparent, and fair evaluation in which
performance is differentiated using multiple measures of effectiveness
and based in significant part on student growth (as defined in this
notice).
Finally, an applicant would need to propose a plan demonstrating a
rigorous, competitive selection process to determine which teachers or
principals participate in the applicant's proposed activities.
Proposed Priority 4: Promoting Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) Education
Background
This proposed priority would support projects that will improve
professional development for STEM teachers and increase the number of
STEM teachers from traditionally underrepresented groups. Improving
STEM education is critical in developing a globally competitive
workforce.
This priority was not used in the 2012 SEED NIA. We propose adding
this priority because it would respond to the high demand for highly
effective STEM teachers, particularly in high-need schools. We also
note that this proposed priority is based on the notice of final
supplemental priorities and definitions for discretionary grant
programs, published in the Federal Register on December 15, 2010 (75 FR
78486-78511), and corrected on May 12, 2011 (76 FR 27637-27641)
(Supplemental Priorities). However, in both subsections (a) and (b) of
this proposed priority, we removed the term ``other educators'' because
the appropriations language for the SEED Grant program allows projects
that provide services only to teachers, principals, or both.
Proposed Priority 4
Under this proposed priority, the Secretary would fund projects
that address one or both of the following priority areas:
(a) Increasing the opportunities for high-quality preparation of,
or professional development for, teachers of STEM subjects.
(b) Increasing the number of individuals from groups traditionally
underrepresented in STEM, including minorities, individuals with
disabilities, and women, who are teachers of STEM subjects and have
increased opportunities for high-quality preparation or professional
development.
In addition, applicants would have to describe how they plan to
measure the impact the proposed project activities have on teacher
effectiveness. Applicants would need to determine teacher effectiveness
through a rigorous, transparent, and fair evaluation in which
performance is differentiated using multiple measures of effectiveness
and based in significant part on student growth (as defined in this
notice).
Proposed Priority 5: Professional Development for Teachers of Core
Academic Subjects
Background
This proposed priority would support projects that will provide
professional development to teachers of core academic subjects,
including special education teachers, to help them continue to improve
their pedagogy, increase their knowledge of core subjects, and become
highly effective
[[Page 53822]]
teachers in schools with high concentrations of high-need students (as
defined in this notice). We propose adding this priority to support the
creation and expansion of high-quality professional development
projects that strengthen instruction and raise student achievement
across core academic subjects. The priority would require that the
professional development be aligned with State standards. We also
propose to include requirements for the selection of participants that
align with district needs and for the evaluation of the effectiveness
of participants.
Proposed Priority 5
Under this proposed priority, the Secretary would fund projects
that will create or expand practices and strategies that increase the
number of highly effective teachers (as defined in this notice) by
providing professional development opportunities to teachers, including
special education teachers, in schools with high concentrations of
high-need students (as defined in this notice). Projects would focus on
increasing student achievement (as defined in this notice) in core
academic subjects by providing high-quality professional development to
teachers. The academic subjects that may be addressed through
professional development under this priority include foreign languages,
civics and government, economics, arts, history, physical education,
geography, environmental education, and financial literacy.
Applicants would be required to describe the need of the proposed
districts to be served for teacher professional development in the
selected high-need core academic subjects and to demonstrate alignment
of its proposed project with State standards.
In addition, applicants would have to describe how they plan to
measure the impact the professional development has on teacher
effectiveness. Applicants would need to determine teacher effectiveness
through a rigorous, transparent, and fair evaluation in which
performance is differentiated using multiple measures of effectiveness
and based in significant part on student growth (as defined in this
notice).
Proposed Priority 6: Improving Efficiency
Background
This proposed priority would support projects that identify cost-
effective strategies to improve project outcomes. In order to meet this
priority, applicants would be required to demonstrate how they will
efficiently improve educational outcomes, including student
achievement. We propose changing the language in this priority from the
Competitive Preference Priority 2 in the 2012 SEED NIA in order to
emphasize the use of cost-effective strategies.
Proposed Priority 6
Under this proposed priority, the Secretary would fund projects
that will identify strategies for providing cost-effective, high-
quality services at the State, regional, or local level by making
better use of available resources. Such projects may include innovative
and sustainable uses of technology, modification of school schedules
and teacher compensation systems, use of open educational resources (as
defined in this notice), or other strategies.
Proposed Priority 7: Supporting Practices and Strategies for Which
There Is Strong Evidence of Effectiveness
Background
This proposed priority would support projects that are supported by
strong evidence. The Department firmly believes that the strongest
available evidence should inform educational funding and policy
decisions. Creating a larger pool of evidence-supported implementation
sites will provide more opportunities to scale up projects that have a
history of success and to improve educational outcomes for more
students. We propose to leave this priority unchanged from the 2012
SEED NIA; however, we propose a slightly different definition of
``strong evidence of effectiveness'', as explained in the Definitions
section of this notice.
Proposed Priority 7
Under this proposed priority, the Secretary would fund projects
that are supported by strong evidence of effectiveness (as defined in
this notice).
Types of Priorities
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, as specified by 34
CFR 75.105(c)(3), we would consider only applications that meet the
priority.
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Proposed Requirements
The Secretary proposes the following requirements for the SEED
Grant program. We may apply these requirements in any year in which
this program is in effect.
Eligible applicants: To be eligible for a SEED Grant program grant,
an entity must be a national not-for-profit organization (as defined in
this notice). Each applicant must provide in its application
documentation that it is a national not-for-profit organization (as
defined in this notice).
Evidence of effectiveness: To be eligible for funding, an applicant
must demonstrate that its proposed project is supported by at least
moderate evidence of effectiveness (as defined in this notice).
Each applicant must provide in its application documentation that
its proposed project is supported by at least moderate evidence of
effectiveness. An applicant that applies for Proposed Priority 7 also
must provide documentation that its proposed project is supported by
strong evidence of effectiveness. An applicant must ensure that all
evidence is available to the Department from publically available
sources and provide links, references, or copies of the evidence in the
application. If the Department determines that an applicant has
provided insufficient evidence that its proposed project meets the
definition of ``moderate evidence of effectiveness,'' or ``strong
evidence of effectiveness,'' the applicant will not have an opportunity
to provide additional evidence to support its application.
Evaluations: An applicant receiving funds under this program must
comply with the requirements of any evaluation of the program conducted
by the Department. In addition, an applicant receiving funds under this
program must make broadly available through formal (e.g., peer-reviewed
journals) or informal (e.g., newsletters) mechanisms, and in print or
electronically, the results of any evaluations it conducts of its
funded activities.
[[Page 53823]]
Proposed Definitions
The Secretary proposes the following definitions for this
competition. We propose to modify the definition of ``national not-for-
profit organization'' from the definition used in the 2012 SEED NIA to
add more objective criteria for determining what type of organizations
meet the definition. Additionally, the definitions relating to levels
of evidence have both been changed to align more closely with other
Department definitions of levels of evidence. We may apply one or more
of these definitions in any year in which this program is in effect.
Career ladder positions means school-based instructional leadership
positions designed to improve instructional practice, which teachers
may voluntarily accept, such as positions described as master teacher,
mentor teacher, demonstration or model teacher, or instructional coach,
and for which teachers are selected based on criteria that are
predictive of the ability to lead other teachers.
High-need students means students at risk of educational failure,
such as students who are living in poverty, who are English learners,
who are far below grade level or who are not on track to becoming
college- or career-ready by graduation, who have left school or college
before receiving, respectively, a regular high school diploma or a
college degree or certificate, who are at risk of not graduating with a
diploma on time, who are homeless, who are in foster care, who are
pregnant or parenting teenagers, who have been incarcerated, who are
new immigrants, who are migrant, or who have disabilities.
Highly effective principal means a principal whose students,
overall and for each subgroup as described in section
1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as
amended (ESEA) (i.e., economically disadvantaged students, students
from major racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and
students with limited English proficiency), achieve high rates (e.g.,
one and one-half grade levels in an academic year) of student growth.
Eligible applicants may include multiple measures, provided that
principal effectiveness is evaluated, in significant part, based on
student growth. Supplemental measures may include, for example, high
school graduation rates; college enrollment rates; evidence of
providing supportive teaching and learning conditions, support for
ensuring effective instruction across subject areas for a well-rounded
education, strong instructional leadership, and positive family and
community engagement; or evidence of attracting, developing, and
retaining high numbers of effective teachers.
Highly effective teacher means a teacher whose students achieve
high rates (e.g., one and one-half grade levels in an academic year) of
student growth. Eligible applicants may include multiple measures,
provided that teacher effectiveness is evaluated, in significant part,
based on student growth. Supplemental measures may include, for
example, multiple observation-based assessments of teacher performance
or evidence of leadership roles (which may include mentoring or leading
professional development learning communities) that increase
effectiveness of other teachers in the school or local educational
agency (LEA).
Large sample means a sample of 350 or more students (or other
single analysis units) who were randomly assigned to a treatment or
control group, or 50 or more groups (such as classrooms or schools)
that contain 10 or more students (or other single analysis units) and
that were randomly assigned to a treatment or control group.
Moderate evidence of effectiveness means one of the following
conditions is met:
(1) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the
process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that meets the
What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations; \3\
found a statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant
outcome (as defined in this notice) (with no statistically significant
unfavorable impacts on that outcome for relevant populations in the
study or in other studies of the intervention reviewed by and reported
on by the What Works Clearinghouse); and includes a sample that
overlaps with the populations or settings proposed to receive the
process, product, strategy, or practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards
Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), which can currently be found
at the following link: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the
process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that meets the
What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations,\4\ found
a statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant outcome (as
defined in this notice) (with no statistically significant unfavorable
impacts on that outcome for relevant populations in the study or in
other studies of the intervention reviewed by and reported on by the
What Works Clearinghouse), includes a sample that overlaps with the
populations or settings proposed to receive the process, product,
strategy, or practice, and includes a large sample (as defined in this
notice) and a multi-site sample (as defined in this notice) (Note:
multiple studies can cumulatively meet the large and multi-site sample
requirements as long as each study meets the other requirements in this
paragraph).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards
Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), which can currently be found
at the following link: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multi-site sample means more than one site, where site can be
defined as an LEA, locality, or State.
National level describes the level of scope or effectiveness of a
process, product, strategy, or practice that is able to be effective in
a wide variety of communities, including rural and urban areas, as well
as with different groups (e.g., economically disadvantaged, racial and
ethnic groups, migrant populations, individuals with disabilities,
English learners, and individuals of each gender).
National not-for-profit organization means an entity that meets the
definition of ``nonprofit'' under 34 CFR 77.1(c) and is of national
scope, meaning that the entity provides services in multiple States to
a significant number or percentage of recipients and is supported by
staff or affiliates in multiple States.
Open educational resources means teaching, learning, and research
resources that reside in the public domain or have been released under
an intellectual property license that permits their free use or
repurposing by others.
Relevant outcome means the student outcome or outcomes (or the
ultimate outcome if not related to students) that the proposed project
is designed to improve, consistent with the specific goals of a
program.
Strong evidence of effectiveness means that one of the following
conditions is met:
(1) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the
process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that meets the
What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations; \5\
found a statistically
[[Page 53824]]
significant favorable impact on a relevant outcome (as defined in this
notice) (with no statistically significant unfavorable impacts on that
outcome for relevant populations in the study or in other studies of
the intervention reviewed by and reported on by the What Works
Clearinghouse); includes a sample that overlaps with the populations
and settings proposed to receive the process, product, strategy, or
practice; and includes a large sample (as defined in this notice) and a
multi-site sample (as defined in this notice) (Note: multiple studies
can cumulatively meet the large and multi-site sample requirements as
long as each study meets the other requirements in this paragraph).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards
Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), which can currently be found
at the following link: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) There are at least two studies of the effectiveness of the
process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed, each of which
meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with
reservations,\6\ found a statistically significant favorable impact on
a relevant outcome (as defined in this notice) (with no statistically
significant unfavorable impacts on that outcome for relevant
populations in the studies or in other studies of the intervention
reviewed by and reported on by the What Works Clearinghouse), includes
a sample that overlaps with the populations and settings proposed to
receive the process, product, strategy, or practice, and includes a
large sample (as defined in this notice) and a multi-site sample (as
defined in this notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards
Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), which can currently be found
at the following link: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Student achievement means--
(a) For tested grades and subjects: (1) A student's score on the
State's assessments under the ESEA; and, as appropriate, (2) other
measures of student learning, such as those described in paragraph (b)
of this definition, provided they are rigorous and comparable across
schools.
(b) For non-tested grades and subjects: alternative measures of
student learning and performance, such as student scores on pre-tests
and end-of-course tests; student performance on English language
proficiency assessments; and other measures of student achievement that
are rigorous and comparable across schools.
Student growth means the change in student achievement (as defined
in this notice) for an individual student between two or more points in
time. An applicant may also include other measures that are rigorous
and comparable across classrooms.
Proposed Selection Criteria
Background
The proposed selection criteria are intended to ensure that
applicants can demonstrate that they have the experience and capacity
to expand or develop practices and strategies to recruit, select, and
prepare or provide professional enhancement activities for teachers,
principals, or both.
In the absence of specific selection criteria for the SEED Grant
program, the Department would use the general selection criteria in 34
CFR 75.210 of the Education Department General Administrative
Regulations (EDGAR) in selecting grant recipients. While many of the
selection criteria subfactors are taken directly from EDGAR at 34 CFR
75.210, they have been combined in some cases or organized under
different criteria in other cases. In addition, some subfactors have
been edited to focus on that which would affect the ability of the
applicant to implement an effective project that meets the SEED Grant
program's purposes.
Under the proposed selection criteria, the Secretary would assess
the extent to which an applicant would be able to sustain a project
once Federal funding through the SEED Grant program is no longer
available. Thus, eligible applicants should propose activities that
they will be able to sustain without funding from the program and
should include in their management plan the specific steps they will
take for sustained implementation of the proposed project.
Proposed Selection Criteria
The Secretary proposes the following selection criteria for
evaluating an application under the SEED Grant program. We may apply
one or more of these criteria, as well as other criteria or factors
established in 34 CFR 75.210, in any year in which this program is in
effect. In the notice inviting applications or the application package,
or both, we will announce the maximum possible points assigned to each
criterion.
(a) Significance. The Secretary considers the significance of the
proposed project. In determining the significance of the proposed
project, the Secretary considers:
(1) The significance of the proposed project on a national level
(as defined in this notice).
(2) The potential contribution of the proposed project to the
development and advancement of teacher and school leadership theory,
knowledge, and practices.
(3) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely
to be attained by the proposed project, especially improvements in
teaching and student achievement.
(b) Quality of the Project Design and Services. The Secretary
considers the quality of the design and services of the proposed
project. In determining the quality of the design and services of the
proposed project, the Secretary considers:
(1) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be
achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified, aligned, and
measurable.
(2) The extent to which the proposed project is part of a
comprehensive effort to improve teaching and learning and support
rigorous academic standards for students.
(3) The extent to which the training or professional development
services to be provided by the proposed project will be of sufficient
quality, intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practice
among the recipients of those services.
(c) Quality of the Management Plan and Personnel. The Secretary
considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project
and of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project. In
determining the quality of the management plan and the project
personnel, the Secretary considers:
(1) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience,
of the project director, key project personnel, and project consultants
or subcontractors.
(2) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives
of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly
defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing
project tasks.
(3) The extent to which the time commitments of the project
director and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate
to meet the objectives of the proposed project.
(4) The extent to which the proposed management plan includes
sufficient and reasonable resources to effectively carry out the
proposed project, including the project evaluation.
(d) Sustainability. The Secretary considers the adequacy of
resources to continue the proposed project after the grant period ends.
In determining the adequacy of resources and the potential for utility
of the proposed project's activities and products by other
organizations, the Secretary considers:
(1) The extent to which the proposed project is designed to build
capacity and yield results that will extend beyond the period of
Federal financial assistance.
[[Page 53825]]
(2) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to yield
findings and products (such as information, materials, processes, or
techniques) that may be used by other agencies and organizations.
(3) The extent to which the applicant will disseminate information
about results and outcomes of the proposed project in ways that will
enable others, including the public, to use the information or
strategies.
(e) Quality of the Project Evaluation. The Secretary considers the
quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project. In
determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers one
or more of the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough,
feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the
proposed project.
(2) The extent to which the evaluation includes the use of
objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended
outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative
data.
(3) The extent to which the evaluation will provide performance
feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving
intended outcomes.
(4) The extent to which the proposed project plan includes
sufficient resources to carry out the project evaluation effectively.
Note: We encourage applicants to review the following technical
assistance resources on evaluation: (1) What Works Clearinghouse
Procedures and Standards Handbook: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/references/idocviewer/doc.aspx?docid=19&tocid=1; and (2) IES/NCEE
Technical Methods papers: http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/tech_methods/.
Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria
We will announce the final priorities, requirements, definitions,
and selection criteria in a notice in the Federal Register. We will
determine the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria after considering responses to this notice and other
information available to the Department. This notice does not preclude
us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or
selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking
requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use these priorities, requirements, definitions,
and selection criteria, we invite applications through a notice in
the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory
action subject to review by OMB under section 3 (f) of Executive Order
12866.
We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under
Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review
established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law,
Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only 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 practical--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 behavior
changes.''
We are taking this proposed regulatory action only on a reasoned
determination that the benefits justify the costs. In choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that
maximize net benefits. The Department believes that this proposed
regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order
13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action would not
unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action.
The potential costs associated with this regulatory action are those
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
Summary of Costs and Benefits
The costs of carrying out activities would be paid for with program
funds and with matching funds provided by private-sector partners.
Thus, the costs of implementation would not be a burden for any
eligible applicants, including small entities.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent
burden, the Department conducts a preclearance consultation program to
provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to
comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C.
3506(c)(2)(A)). This helps ensure that: the public understands the
Department's collection instructions, respondents can provide the
requested data in the desired format, reporting burden (time and
financial resources) is minimized, collection instruments are clearly
understood, and the Department can properly assess the impact of
collection requirements on respondents.
We estimate that each applicant would spend approximately 176 hours
of staff time to address the proposed requirements and selection
criteria, prepare the application, and obtain necessary clearances. The
total number of hours for all expected applicants is an estimated 2,640
hours. We estimate the total cost per hour of the applicant-level staff
who will carry out this work to be $57 per hour. The total estimated
cost for all applicants is estimated to be $150,480.
Under the PRA, the Department has submitted to OMB for its review a
copy of the information collection (including the burden estimates) for
the SEED discretionary grant application using the proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. Through this NPP,
OII seeks comment on this information collection. If you want to
comment on the proposed information collection, please send your
comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB,
Attention:
[[Page 53826]]
Desk Officer for U.S. Department of Education. Send these comments by
email to [email protected] or by fax to (202) 395-6974. You may
also send a copy of these comments to the Department contact named in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.
In preparing your comments you may want to review the ICR, which we
maintain in the Education Department Information Collection System
(EDICS) at http://edicsweb.ed.gov. Click on Browse Pending Collections.
This proposed collection is identified as proposed collection (04833)
1855-New. This ICR is also available on OMB's RegInfo Web site at
www.reginfo.gov.
We consider your comments on this proposed collection of
information in--
Deciding whether the proposed collection is necessary for
the proper performance of our functions, including whether the
information will have practical use;
Evaluating the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of
the proposed collection, including the validity of our methodology and
assumptions;
Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the
information we collect; and
Minimizing the burden on those who must respond. This
includes exploring the use of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of
information contained in these proposed priorities, requirements, and
selection criteria between 30 and 60 days after publication of this
document in the Federal Register. Therefore, to ensure that OMB gives
your comments full consideration, it is important that OMB receives
your comments on the proposed collection within 30 days after
publication. This does not affect the deadline for your comments to us
on the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria.
Please note that a Federal agency cannot conduct or sponsor a
collection of information unless OMB approves the collection under the
PRA and the corresponding information collection instrument displays a
currently valid OMB control number. Notwithstanding any other provision
of law, no person is required to comply with, or is subject to penalty
for failure to comply with, a collection of information if the
collection instrument does not display a currently valid OMB control
number. We will provide the OMB control number when we publish the
notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR Part 79. One of the
objectives of the Executive Order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive Order relies
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well
as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the
site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at:
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
Dated: August 30, 2012.
James H. Shelton, III,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement.
[FR Doc. 2012-21814 Filed 8-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P