[Federal Register Volume 80, Number 26 (Monday, February 9, 2015)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 7224-7251]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2015-02570]
[[Page 7223]]
Vol. 80
Monday,
No. 26
February 9, 2015
Part IV
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
34 CFR Ch. II
Final Requirements--School Improvement Grants--Title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965; Final Rule
Federal Register / Vol. 80 , No. 26 / Monday, February 9, 2015 /
Rules and Regulations
[[Page 7224]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Chapter II
[Docket ID ED-2014-OESE-0079; CFDA Number: 84.377A]
RIN 1810-AB22
Final Requirements--School Improvement Grants--Title I of the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education (Department).
ACTION: Final requirements.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education
adopts final requirements for the School Improvement Grants (SIG)
program, authorized under section 1003(g) of title I of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). These final
requirements make changes to the current SIG program requirements and
implement language in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, that
allows local educational agencies (LEAs) to implement additional
interventions, provides flexibility for rural LEAs, and extends the
grant period from three to five years. Additionally, the final
requirements make changes that reflect lessons learned from four years
of SIG implementation.
DATES: These requirements are effective March 11, 2015.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Elizabeth Ross, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3C116, Washington, DC 20202.
Telephone: (202) 260-8961 or by email: [email protected].
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Executive Summary
Purpose of This Regulatory Action: These final requirements
implement language in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, to
allow LEAs to implement evidence-based, whole-school reform strategies
and State-determined school improvement intervention models, to provide
flexibility for rural LEAs implementing a SIG intervention, and to
extend the allowable grant period from three to five years.
Additionally, the final requirements make changes that reflect lessons
learned from four years of SIG implementation. This regulatory action
is authorized by the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, and 20
U.S.C. 6303(g).
Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action: As
discussed in more depth in the notice of proposed requirements (NPR)
published in the Federal Register on September 8, 2014 (79 FR 53254),
the Department makes the following revisions to the current SIG
requirements to implement language in the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2014: Allowing five-year SIG awards; adding State-determined
school improvement intervention models; adding evidence-based, whole-
school reform models; and allowing rural LEAs to modify one SIG
intervention model element.
The Department also revises the current SIG requirements to
strengthen program implementation based on lessons learned and input
from stakeholders by: Adding an intervention model that focuses on
improving educational outcomes in preschool and early grades; adding an
LEA requirement to demonstrate the appropriateness of the chosen
intervention model and to take into consideration family and community
input in the selection of the model; adding an LEA requirement to
continuously engage families and the community throughout
implementation; adding an LEA requirement to monitor and support
intervention implementation; adding an LEA requirement to regularly
review external providers' performance and hold external providers
accountable; eliminating the ``rule of nine''; and revising reporting
requirements.
The Department also made revisions to clarify the current SIG
requirements: Modifying the teacher and principal evaluation and
support system requirements under the transformation model; clarifying
the rigorous review process under the restart model; clarifying renewal
criteria; defining ``greatest need'' to include priority and focus
schools for SEAs with approved ESEA flexibility requests; clarifying
the timeline under which previously implemented interventions (in whole
or in part) may continue as part of a SIG intervention; and clarifying
requirements related to the posting of LEAs' SIG applications.
Additionally, the Department has removed references to fiscal year
2009 and fiscal year 2010 funds and the differentiated accountability
pilot because those references are no longer necessary.
Finally, and as described in more detail in the Analysis of
Comments and Changes section of this notice, the Department has made
three additional changes to the proposed requirements in these final
requirements in response to comments. First, the Department has
clarified the name of the evidence-based, whole-school reform model.
Second, the Department has clarified that an SEA may take into account,
in awarding SIG funds, the extent to which an LEA demonstrates that it
will implement one or more evidence-based strategies as part of the
intervention model. Third, the Department has modified the definition
of ``whole-school reform model developer'' to eliminate the provision
that allowed an entity or individual to serve as a whole-school reform
model developer if it had a high-quality plan for implementation and to
require a developer to have a record of success implementing a whole-
school reform model in a low-performing school and to be selected
through a rigorous review process that includes a determination that
the entity or individual is likely to produce strong results for the
school.
Finally, and as described in more detail in the Analysis of
Comments and Changes section of this notice, the Department has made
two other changes to the proposed requirements based on the
Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, which
Congress enacted after the publication of the NPR. First, the
Department has aligned the requirement for evidence of effectiveness in
the evidence-based, whole-school reform model with the definition of
``moderate level of evidence'' in the Education Department General
Administrative Regulations, specifically by requiring that evidence of
effectiveness include at least one study, rather than two studies, that
meets the What Works Clearinghouse evidence standards. Second, the
Department has modified the State-determined model to require that an
SEA's proposed model meet the definition of ``whole-school reform
model.''
Costs and Benefits: The Department believes that the benefits of
this regulatory action outweigh any associated costs to SEAs and LEAs,
which would be financed with grant funds. The benefits of this action
will be more effective State and local actions, using Federal funds, to
turn around their lowest-performing schools and achieve significant
improvement in educational outcomes for the students attending those
schools. Please refer to the Regulatory Impact Analysis in this
document for a more detailed discussion of costs and benefits.
[[Page 7225]]
Consistent with Executive Order 12866, the Secretary has determined
that this action is economically significant and, thus, is subject to
review by the Office of Management and Budget under the order.
Purpose of Program: In conjunction with title I funds for school
improvement reserved under section 1003(a) of the ESEA, SIG funds under
section 1003(g) of the ESEA are used to improve student achievement in
title I schools identified for improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring so as to enable those schools to make adequate yearly
progress (AYP) and exit improvement status.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6303(g); Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub. L. 113-76).
We published a notice of proposed requirements for this program in
the Federal Register on September 8, 2014 (79 FR 53254). That notice
contained background information and our reasons for the revisions to
the existing SIG requirements.
There are differences between the proposed requirements and these
final requirements as discussed in the Analysis of Comments and Changes
section elsewhere in this notice.
Public Comment: In response to our invitation in the NPR, 235
parties submitted comments on the proposed requirements.
Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes, or
suggested changes the law does not authorize us to make under the
applicable statutory authority. In addition we do not address general
comments that raised concerns not directly related to the proposed
requirements.
Analysis of Comments and Changes: An analysis of the comments and
of any changes in the requirements since publication of the notice of
proposed requirements follows.
Allowing Five-Year Grant Awards
Comment: Many commenters supported the proposal to allow an SEA to
make a SIG award to an LEA for up to five years, including the
Department's proposal to permit an LEA to use one year for planning and
other pre-implementation activities. Many of these commenters stated
that they believed a planning year would provide LEAs with needed
additional time and resources to prepare for school turnaround efforts
and would lead to increased sustainability of reforms among schools
receiving SIG funds. One commenter recommended allowing an LEA to use
SIG funds for two years of planning and pre-implementation activities,
rather than one year.
Discussion: We appreciate the strong support for the proposal to
allow grant awards of up to five years, consistent with the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, and agree with the commenters
that planning is imperative to successful implementation of turnaround
strategies. We believe one year of funding is sufficient for planning
purposes under the SIG program, which is intended not to serve as a
long-term funding stream but, rather, to provide a short-term infusion
of funds for comprehensive and rapid school turnaround. We note,
however, that an LEA may also use SIG funds for the planning or other
pre-implementation activities it undertakes between the time it
receives a SIG award and the beginning of the first grant year.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters requested that we allow an LEA to use SIG
funds during the planning period for activities that involve assessing
and addressing issues with the schools that feed students into an
eligible school.
Discussion: Under section 1003(g) of the ESEA and section I.A.1 of
these final requirements, an LEA may use SIG funds only in a SIG-
eligible school. It may not use SIG funds to serve a school not
receiving a SIG grant that feeds students into a SIG eligible school.
Of course, if a school that feeds students into a SIG-eligible school
is itself eligible for SIG funds, an LEA may separately seek SIG funds
to support interventions in that school.
Changes: None.
Comment: A number of commenters recommended that the Department
require LEAs to undertake needs analyses during a planning year. One
such commenter suggested that if an LEA chooses to use the first year
of its SIG award for planning, that LEA should require all SIG schools
to conduct both comprehensive diagnostic needs and capacity assessments
to serve as the basis for targeting student supports. Another commenter
recommended that the Department require LEAs to provide evidence that
they conducted an asset analysis prior to implementation, in order to
identify the skills, people, and organizations in the community that
can contribute resources and expertise in the design of the selected
intervention. Another commenter suggested including, as part of the
needs analysis, an analysis of the health needs of the community.
Another commenter recommended requiring an SEA, either before or during
the planning year, to assess the school's and LEA's performance and
capacity to implement a SIG model in order to determine whether the LEA
is able to make changes to support implementation. That commenter asked
the Department to provide specific tools or criteria to support an
SEA's assessment of district readiness. Finally, one commenter
recommended strengthening the monitoring of both LEAs and of schools,
including an assessment of LEA capacity during a planning year or pre-
implementation period to ensure that the LEA is making the changes
needed to support full and effective implementation of the selected
model.
Discussion: We agree that an LEA should identify the needs of the
individual schools it proposes to serve with SIG funds. Under section
I.A.4(a)(1), each LEA applying to implement a SIG model in a school
must use a needs analysis to ensure that the intervention to be
implemented in the school will meet the specific needs of the school,
which may include needs for academic and non-academic support. We do
not believe it is necessary to require additional needs analyses,
capacity assessments, or corresponding monitoring because the needs
assessment requirement in section I.A.4(a)(1) is sufficient to ensure
that each LEA reviews the particular needs in its schools.
Although the needs analysis required under section I.A.4(a)(1) must
be conducted as part of the application process and prior to receipt of
SIG funds, an LEA may use the SIG funds it receives to conduct
additional needs assessment activities, including, for example, more
comprehensive diagnostic analyses, capacity and asset assessments, and
assessments of students' health needs, so long as those activities are
a part of the LEA's approved SIG application, are related to the
implementation of the SIG model, and are reasonable and necessary.
Additionally, an SEA may use its section 1003(a) funds or the SIG funds
it reserves for administration, evaluation, and technical assistance
expenses to support the costs of needs analyses by its LEAs with SIG
schools. Because not all LEAs will benefit from each of these
activities, we decline to require them.
We also agree that an SEA should continue to monitor and work with
its LEAs and schools to ensure they possess the capacity to implement a
SIG model prior to awarding funds, including by providing specific
tools that an LEA can use in assessing and building capacity. To that
end, we note that, under section I.A.4(b), an SEA must consider the
LEA's capacity to implement the chosen
[[Page 7226]]
intervention and may only fund an LEA that it determines can implement
fully and effectively the chosen intervention.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters requested that the Department clarify the
deadline by which an LEA implementing the turnaround or transformation
model must replace the principal if the LEA receives funds for a
planning year.
Discussion: Under section I.A.4(a)(3), an LEA implementing the
turnaround or transformation model in a school must replace the
principal prior to the start of the first year of full implementation
of the chosen SIG model. Accordingly, an LEA receiving a SIG award that
includes a year of planning must replace the principal prior to the
start of the first year of full implementation (i.e., prior to the
start of the second grant year). That said, we strongly encourage an
LEA implementing the turnaround or transformation model to replace the
school's principal as early as possible (consistent with applicable
State and local laws and requirements) so that the incoming principal
can prepare to lead the full and effective implementation of the model
in the school.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked if an LEA may use the planning year to
identify the model it will implement in a school.
Discussion: An LEA must identify the SIG model it intends to
implement in a school in its application to the SEA. The planning year
is intended to provide the LEA with time and resources to prepare to
fully implement that specific model.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters recommended that the Department
clarify, in light of the authority for SEAs to make SIG awards for up
to five years, the maximum amount of SIG funds an LEA may receive per
year per school; and several commenters requested that the Department
clarify whether the annual per-school cap of $2 million allows an LEA
to receive up to $10 million for a school implementing a model over
five years. One commenter also recommended that the Department specify
the maximum amount of funds that an LEA may use for both a year of
planning and pre-implementation activities and for a year of activities
to sustain reforms following full implementation.
Discussion: Section II.B.8 permits an LEA to receive up to $2
million per year per each school implementing an intervention model.
Accordingly, an LEA may receive up to $10 million total for such a
school over five years.
We do not believe it is worthwhile to place a limit on the amount
of SIG funds an LEA may use for a year of planning and pre-
implementation activities or for a year of activities to sustain
reforms following full implementation, and would expect that in either
case the amount needed by an LEA is significantly less than the $2
million per year that it is eligible to receive. We remind SEAs and
LEAs that an LEA may receive funds only for activities that are a part
of the LEA's approved SIG application, are related to the
implementation of the SIG model, and are reasonable and necessary.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked whether the Department will require
SEAs to frontload SIG awards to LEAs or whether SEAs could provide the
first year of funding from fiscal year 2014 SIG funds and make annual
continuation awards thereafter.
Discussion: The Department does not require an SEA to frontload SIG
awards.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters suggested that the Department allow SEAs
to provide more than five years of SIG funding to an LEA for a school.
Another commenter suggested allowing two one-year renewal periods in
addition to the five-year award permitted under the proposed
requirements. Another commenter recommended that, for purposes of
sustainability, an SEA should be permitted to renew an LEA's SIG award
for each school for up to four additional one-year periods after at
least three years of full intervention implementation. This commenter
also recommended reducing the level of funding for each subsequent,
additional one-year period, in order to support sustainability.
Discussion: Through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014,
Congress allows SEAs to make SIG awards to LEAs for up to five years
per school, notwithstanding section 1003(g)(5)(C) of the ESEA, which
allows LEAs to receive two years of SIG funds, in addition to the
currently allowable three years, for a school if the school is meeting
improvement goals. Therefore, the Department cannot allow an SEA to
make SIG awards beyond a five-year period, which includes any renewal
years. Moreover, the goal of the SIG program is to support rigorous
interventions aimed at turning around our Nation's persistently lowest-
achieving schools, such that these schools will be able to sustain the
reforms beyond five years without SIG funding, and not to provide
continuous support.
Changes: None.
Adding State-Determined School Improvement Intervention Models
Comment: Numerous commenters expressed support for the addition of
a State-determined intervention model and for the alignment between the
requirements of the State-determined model and the ESEA flexibility
turnaround principles. A number of commenters suggested general
modifications to the State-determined model requirement. These
suggestions included: Allowing State-determined models that are already
approved under ESEA flexibility; allowing State-determined models to
address school performance in schools that are a part of the same
feeder pattern; allowing an SEA without ESEA flexibility to implement a
State-determined model based on the turnaround principles; allowing
LEAs to propose State-determined models to their SEA; allowing an SEA
to submit a State-determined model that includes a menu of strategies
from which LEAs may select, in partnership with the SEA, based on need;
requiring a State-determined model to be based on substantial evidence;
allowing an SEA to add requirements to the State-determined model; and
requiring alignment between the proposed State-determined model and the
statewide systems of differentiated recognition, accountability, and
support that SEAs are implementing under ESEA flexibility. Numerous
commenters also recommended that the Department add specific
requirements to the turnaround principles required under the State-
determined model, including a requirement: To focus on physical
fitness, health education, and nutrition; to conduct a school and
community assets and needs assessment to identify students' social,
emotional, and health needs; if principal replacement is necessary, to
appoint a new principal based on a track record of success with similar
schools and an ability to demonstrate the necessary leadership
competencies; and that school safety and discipline interventions
included in State-determined models be evidence-based.
We also received several comments asking for changes to the
turnaround principles and to the requirement that a State-determined
model include increased learning time (ILT). Several commenters
suggested it is too restrictive to require ILT in all State-determined
models and requested that the ILT requirement be eliminated or modified
to be less restrictive.
Several commenters expressed concern that the requirements for the
[[Page 7227]]
State-determined model are too numerous and too rigid, and may cause
undue burden to SEAs, LEAs, and schools, particularly SEAs that are
currently pursuing turnaround strategies with emphases different from
those required under the State-determined model.
Discussion: We appreciate the comments on the State-determined
model but do not address the comments specifically, as we are revising
the model consistent with applicable legal requirements. Since the
publication of the NPR, Congress enacted the Consolidated and Further
Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015. In the explanatory statement
accompanying the Act, which functions as a conference report under
section 4 of the Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations
Act, 2015, the House Committee on Appropriations states that the
language in the NPR implementing the State-determined model did not
meet congressional intent, which was to provide flexibility from the
existing SIG requirements to allow LEAs to implement alternative
strategies. The explanatory statement further states that the
Department must ensure that the final requirements strictly adhere to
the language in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014. Accordingly,
we are modifying the State-determined model requirements to allow an
SEA to submit to the Secretary for consideration one State-determined
model that meets the definition of a ``whole-school reform model'' in
section I.A.3 of the final requirements and that includes, at the SEA's
discretion, any other elements or strategies that the SEA determines
will help improve student achievement, consistent with the explanatory
statement accompanying the Consolidated and Further Continuing
Appropriations Act, 2015. We note that the requirement that a State-
determined model meet the definition of a ``whole-school reform model''
and include, at the SEA's discretion, any other element or strategy
that an SEA determines will help improve student achievement is also
consistent with language in the report that accompanied the fiscal year
2014 appropriations bill for the Department (Senate Report 113-71), in
which the Senate Appropriations Committee stated that it expects that
any approach taken with SIG funds will address schoolwide factors,
including, for example, curriculum and instruction, social and
emotional support services for students, and training and support for
teachers and school leaders. We further note that an SEA that
demonstrates that its proposed State-determined model meets the
requirements of the evidence-based, whole-school reform model in
section I.A.2(e) will not be required to make any additional
demonstration for approval.
Changes: We have modified the requirements in section II.B.1(b) to
permit an SEA to submit to the Secretary for approval a State-
determined model that meets the definition of ``whole-school reform
model'' in section I.A.3 of the final requirements and that includes,
at the SEA's discretion, any other elements or strategies that the SEA
determines will help improve student achievement.
Comment: A few commenters asked that the Department clarify whether
an SEA could elect to make the State-determined model available to only
specific schools in the State. We received a few other comments asking
the same question about other models under the SIG program. Several
other commenters requested flexibility to allow SEAs to give priority
to selected SIG intervention models, rather than making all SIG models
available to SIG applicants.
Discussion: As noted in question I-4 of the March 1, 2012, SIG
Guidance, available at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/sigguidance03012012.doc, an SEA may not require an LEA to implement a
particular SIG model in one or more schools. Each LEA has the
discretion to determine which model to implement for each school it
elects to serve with SIG funds. The only exception to this is if,
consistent with State law, the SEA takes over the LEA or school.
Nothing in the requirements changes this rule. However, SEAs are not
required to submit a State-determined model for approval by the
Secretary. Under section I.A.2(g), if an SEA does not submit such a
model for approval by the Secretary, an LEA in that State cannot use a
State-determined model.
We also note that, as described in question I-9 of the March 1,
2012, SIG Guidance, available at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/sigguidance03012012.doc, an SEA may give priority to an LEA for SIG
funding based on a variety of factors including, for example, the
intervention an LEA is implementing in its SIG schools.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters encouraged the Department to consider two
specific frameworks in reviewing State-determined models: Multi-tiered
Systems of Support and A Framework for Safe and Successful Schools.
Discussion: In order to encourage an SEA to submit for
consideration a State-determined model that best addresses the needs of
that SEA without imposing additional requirements beyond those in
section II.B.1(b), we decline to include in the requirements a specific
framework that we will use in reviewing State-determined models.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested clarification as to whether an
eligible online school would be able to meet the requirements of the
State-determined model.
Discussion: An eligible online school would be able to meet the
requirements of the State-determined model provided the LEA
implementing the model in an eligible school can demonstrate that the
school has met the requirements of the approved State-determined model.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters recommended revising section II.B.1(b)
to permit SEAs to implement more than one State-determined model,
citing concerns that limiting each SEA to one State-determined model
may not sufficiently account for the complexity of school turnaround
and for the diversity of LEAs and schools within a State. Several
commenters also suggested that limiting SEAs to one State-determined
intervention model may not faithfully reflect congressional intent.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' concern that given the
diversity of LEAs and schools within a State, an SEA may wish to make
more than one State-determined model available to its LEAs and schools.
We also appreciate the commenters' interest in ensuring that we are
correctly interpreting congressional intent. Nevertheless, our reading
of the pertinent language included in the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2014, and 20 U.S.C. 6303(g), ``[t]hat funds available for school
improvement grants may be used by a local educational agency to
implement an alternative State-determined school improvement strategy .
. .'' (emphasis added), directs us to authorize each State to implement
one State-determined model.
Changes: None.
Adding Evidence-Based, Whole-School Reform Strategies
Comment: Two commenters suggested that the Department clarify that
an LEA may implement an evidence-based, whole-school reform model
independently of the other SIG intervention models. The commenters
intimated that this clarification is needed because the Department
referred in the NPR to this type of SIG intervention as a strategy but
referred to
[[Page 7228]]
the other types of interventions as models.
Discussion: Consistent with the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2014, an LEA may use SIG funds to implement an evidence-based, whole-
school reform model in partnership with a whole-school reform model
developer and is not required to implement such a model within or
together with another SIG intervention model. We are making technical
changes to provide the suggested clarification.
Changes: As needed throughout the final requirements, we have
replaced references to ``whole-school reform strategy'' with ``whole-
school reform model'' and references to ``strategy developer'' with
``whole-school reform model developer.''
Comment: A number of commenters expressed support for the inclusion
in the SIG program of evidence-based, whole-school reform models;
however, several of the commenters recommended that the Department
lower or eliminate the evidence requirements for these models,
asserting that the requirements are more stringent than intended by
Congress or would result in too few whole-school reform models
available to LEAs. Some of these commenters recommended that the
Department allow LEAs to implement whole-school reform models supported
by only a single study that meets What Works Clearinghouse evidence
standards with or without reservations (i.e., a qualifying experimental
or quasi-experimental study) and found a statistically significant
favorable impact on a student academic achievement or attainment
outcome, instead of at least two such studies. Some commenters also
recommended that we allow or require SEAs to prioritize funding for
whole-school reform models supported by more than one such study over
those with only a single study. In a similar vein, other commenters
recommended that the Department allow an exception to the evidence
requirements for a whole-school reform model that is supported by a
single study that found extraordinarily large impacts of the model on
academic achievement or attainment, for which a second study is
underway that would potentially meet the requirements, or that is
otherwise promising.
Discussion: Since the publication of the NPR, Congress enacted the
Consolidated and Further Continuing Appropriations Act, 2015, which
modifies the language in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, by
requiring that the evidence-based, whole-school reform model be based
on evidence of effectiveness that includes at least one study instead
of two studies. Based on this change, we are modifying the final
requirements to align the requirement for evidence of effectiveness
required under the evidence-based, whole-school reform model with the
definition of ``moderate level of evidence'' in 34 CFR 77.1.\1\ We note
that, as described in question I-9 of the March 1, 2012, SIG Guidance,
available at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/sigguidance03012012.doc,
an SEA may create priorities within its application process to, for
example, prioritize applications for whole-school reform models that
are supported by more than one study.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ The Department previously invited strategy developers and
other entities to submit prospective strategies and research studies
of the effectiveness of those strategies for review against the
requirements for the evidence-based, whole-school reform strategy in
the NPR. Based on the revisions to the evidence requirements
described in this paragraph, we are re-opening the submission and
review process. Accordingly, we invite model developers and other
entities to submit prospective models and research studies of the
effectiveness of those models for review against the revised
evidence requirements in section I.A.2(e)(1) and the requirements of
the definition of ``whole-school reform model'' in section I.A.3. If
a model developer or other entity previously submitted a strategy
based on the requirements set forth in the NPR, we will consider
that strategy against the revised requirements. The previously
submitted strategy should not be resubmitted.
We intend to identify, from among the models submitted for
review, those that meet the requirements in advance of the
competition for fiscal year 2014 SIG funds. An LEA seeking to use
SIG funds to implement, in partnership with a model developer, an
evidence-based, whole-school reform model would be permitted to
choose from among the models so identified by the Department.
We will provide information regarding the submission and review
of prospective models on our Web site at www.ed.gov/programs/sif/npr-wholeschlreform.html.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: We have modified the requirements for evidence of
effectiveness for the evidence-based, whole-school reform model under
section I.A.2(e)(1) to require that evidence of effectiveness include
at least one study, rather than two studies, that meets the What Works
Clearinghouse evidence standards and by requiring that if the study
meets the What Works Clearinghouse evidence standards with
reservations, it include a large sample and a multi-site sample as
defined in 34 CFR 77.1.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department allow, as
evidence-based, whole-school reform models, combinations of discrete
practices or interventions that individually meet the evidence
requirements for these models (and that together would potentially meet
requirements in the definition of ``whole-school reform model'') but do
not have evidence of effectiveness when implemented together.
Discussion: We believe that, in allowing an LEA to implement, in
partnership with a model developer, a whole-school reform model that is
based on at least a moderate level of evidence that the model will have
a statistically significant effect on student outcomes, Congress
intended to require evidence of effectiveness for a model as
implemented as a whole, not for the individual practices or
interventions that may comprise a model as implemented separately.
Accordingly, we do not believe it is appropriate to consider such
``bundles'' of evidence-based practices or interventions as evidence-
based, whole-school reform models. We note, however, that an LEA is not
prohibited from implementing one or more evidence-based practices or
interventions under another SIG intervention model, and in fact, we
encourage SEAs to prioritize LEAs that do so when making SIG awards.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that, to ensure whole-school
reform models are supported by evidence that conforms to current
research standards, the Department specify that the evidence for these
models must be consistent with the principles of scientific research as
defined in the Strengthening Education through Research Act (H.R.
4366), a bill to reauthorize the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002,
currently under consideration by Congress.
Discussion: The evidence requirements for the whole-school reform
model in these final requirements incorporate evidence standards used
by the Department's What Works Clearinghouse to assess the quality of
research on policies and practices across the educational spectrum. We
believe that these existing standards are sufficient to ensure that the
evidence supporting whole-school reform models under SIG is rigorous
and reflects current standards of practice in educational research. We
note that the standards recommended by the commenter are found in
pending legislation and there is no guarantee that Congress will adopt
them.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters expressed concerns that requirements in the
definition of ``whole-school reform model'' are unnecessarily
restrictive. Specifically, the commenters opposed, or recommended
changes to, the requirement that a whole-school reform model be
designed to be implemented for all students in a school, on the grounds
that it would exclude models
[[Page 7229]]
designed to be implemented for students only in a single grade or
subset of grades. One of these commenters also questioned the
requirement that a whole-school reform model be designed to address, at
a minimum and in a comprehensive and coordinated manner: School
leadership; teaching and learning in at least one full academic content
area (including professional learning for educators); student non-
academic support; and family and community engagement. This commenter
argued that the evidence of effectiveness of a reform model should be
sufficient to warrant implementation of the model in a SIG school,
regardless of the model's content. The commenter also asserted that the
definition of ``whole-school reform model'' is not supported by the
language in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, which allows
LEAs to use SIG funds to implement evidence-based, whole-school reform
models.
Conversely, several commenters expressed concerns that the
requirements for whole-school reform models are not sufficiently
specific or stringent. One of these commenters recommended that the
Department consider incorporating required elements of other SIG models
into the definition of ``whole-school reform model,'' which the
commenter asserted would result in increased rigor. Another commenter
suggested that the Department require whole-school reform models to
include student health and wellness programs, while another commenter
recommended specifying that the models include professional learning
for instructional support staff in addition to teachers. Lastly, one
commenter suggested that an SEA would have difficulty in monitoring an
LEA implementing a whole-school reform model, due to a perceived lack
of specific requirements for this model.
Discussion: As stated in Senate Report 113-71 accompanying the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, the Senate Appropriations
Committee expects that any approach taken with SIG funds will address
schoolwide factors, including, for example, curriculum and instruction,
social and emotional support services for students, and training and
support for teachers and school leaders. We believe that the
requirements in the definition of ``whole-school reform model,''
including the requirement that a model be designed to be implemented
for all students in a school (i.e., in a schoolwide manner), are
consistent with congressional intent as described in the Senate
Committee report. In addition, we believe these requirements capture,
at an appropriate level of specificity, the aspects of school operation
that are most likely to affect student achievement and attainment.
Accordingly, we do not believe it is necessary to incorporate into the
definition of ``whole-school reform model'' specific required elements
of other SIG models or other specific elements recommended by the
commenters. Finally, we note that an SEA may require its LEAs to
describe in their applications--which the SEA should generally use as a
basis for LEA monitoring--the specific contents of selected whole-
school reform models, if the SEA deems it necessary for monitoring
purposes.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department clarify, in
the definition of ``whole-school reform model developer,'' what
constitutes a demonstrated record of success in implementing the model.
The commenter also opposed allowing the definition to be met by a
developer with a high-quality plan to implement the model together with
the LEA, absent a demonstrated record of success implementing the
model. This commenter claimed that such a definition would allow any
entity or individual to qualify as a developer, regardless of
experience.
Discussion: We agree that the proposed definition of ``whole-school
reform model developer'' was overly broad in that it permitted an
entity or individual to qualify as a developer, regardless of
experience. Accordingly, we are eliminating the option to meet the
definition through a high-quality plan to implement a model.
We decline, however, to specify what constitutes a ``record of
success'' because we believe the current requirement strikes the
appropriate balance between requiring a demonstration of some
improvement while allowing the SEA the discretion to assess the
sufficiency of the individual's or entity's record. To ensure that the
SEA uses a rigorous process to make this determination, however, we are
clarifying in paragraph (b)(2) of the definition that the SEA must use
a rigorous review process to select the individual or entity and that
the process must include a determination that the individual or entity
is likely to produce strong results for the school. To prevent the
definition from becoming too restrictive, however, we are eliminating
the requirement that the whole-school reform model developer have a
record of success implementing the model that the LEA seeks to
implement in a school and replacing it with a requirement that the
developer have a record of success in implementing any whole-school
reform model.
Changes: We have removed paragraph (b)(2) of the definition of
``whole-school reform model developer'' and adding language to final
paragraph (b) of the definition to clarify the process by which an SEA
must determine that a whole-school reform model developer has a
demonstrated record of success. We also have changed the proposed
requirement that the individual or entity have a record of success in
implementing the chosen strategy to allow the individual or entity to
demonstrate a record of success in implementing any whole-school reform
model.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department require an
LEA to conduct a review of the whole-school reform model developer with
whom it proposes to partner to ensure that the developer meets the
requirements in the definition of ``whole-school reform model
developer.''
Discussion: Section II.A.2(c) requires an LEA to provide evidence
of its strong commitment to implement an evidence-based, whole-school
reform model through, among other things, a demonstration that it has
partnered with a whole-school reform model developer as defined in
section I.A(3). Additionally, section I.A.4 requires an SEA to consider
the extent to which an LEA has provided such a demonstration in making
an award. We believe these requirements are sufficient to ensure that
an LEA's partner meets the definition of a ``whole-school reform model
developer.''
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department add
requirements to ensure that developers build effective relationships
with the schools and communities they serve, including by building the
capacity of school staff to implement the model's reforms.
Discussion: The definition of ``whole-school reform model''
includes requirements that the model be designed to address teaching
and learning in at least one full academic content area (including
professional learning for educators) and to address family and
community engagement. We believe these requirements are adequate to
ensure that an evidence-based, whole-school reform model implemented by
an LEA in partnership with a developer can meaningfully involve, and be
responsive to the needs of, the school's educators and the broader
community and to ensure that
[[Page 7230]]
staff have the capacity to implement the model.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that, by allowing evidence-based,
whole-school reform models, the Department intends to direct SIG funds
toward established whole-school reform model developers. Another
commenter suggested that the Department add requirements to ensure that
whole-school reform model developers are not unduly compensated for
services provided.
Discussion: An LEA seeking SIG funds may choose from among several
intervention models and is not required to select and implement an
evidence-based, whole-school reform model in partnership with a whole-
school reform model developer. Moreover, as with any LEA receiving SIG
funds, and consistent with question I-30 of the March 1, 2012, SIG
Guidance, available at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/sigguidance03012012.doc, an LEA implementing an evidence-based, whole-
school reform model in partnership with a developer may use funds to
cover only costs that are reasonable and necessary for implementation
of the selected model.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed support for the requirement for an
SEA to evaluate, when considering the strength of an LEA's commitment,
the extent to which the LEA demonstrates in its application that the
evidence for its selected whole-school reform model includes a sample
population or setting similar to the population or setting of the
school to be served. However, this commenter expressed concern that the
requirement might prevent certain LEAs from implementing an evidence-
based, whole-school reform model. Specifically, the commenter suggested
that a rural LEA would be prevented from implementing a whole-school
reform model if the evidence for the model did not include a rural
setting. Another commenter likewise expressed support for the
requirement, but cautioned that the demonstrations required of LEAs
might be unduly burdensome and, therefore, deter LEAs from selecting an
evidence-based, whole-school reform model.
Discussion: We believe that the commenters' concerns are
unwarranted. Insofar as whole-school reform models are designed to be
implemented in low-performing schools, we expect that an LEA should
generally be able to demonstrate successfully a similarity between the
SIG school it proposes to serve, including a SIG school in a rural LEA,
and the schools in the samples of the research supporting the evidence-
based, whole-school reform model. Of course, an LEA should be careful
to ensure that a prospective whole-school reform model is appropriate
for a school in light of its characteristics. It would likely be
inappropriate, for instance, to implement a secondary school whole-
school reform model in an elementary school, or a whole-school reform
model for schools with high concentrations of English learners in a
school with few such students.
In addition, we believe that any additional burden associated with
the demonstration required would be outweighed by the benefits of
implementing reforms that have been shown through rigorous research to
be effective in improving student achievement and attainment.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that we permit an LEA seeking to
implement an evidence-based, whole-school reform model to use SIG funds
to partner with a community-based organization to implement out-of-
school programming that complements and reinforces the selected whole-
school reform model.
Discussion: An LEA implementing an evidence-based, whole-school
reform model in partnership with a whole-school reform model developer
is not prohibited under the requirements from using SIG funds also to
partner with another organization to provide out-of-school programming,
provided the LEA has received sufficient funds to do so.
Changes: None.
Rural LEAs' Modification of One SIG Intervention Model Element
Comment: Many commenters supported the proposal to permit an LEA
that is eligible for services under subpart 1 or 2 of part B of title
VI of the ESEA (rural LEA) to modify one element of the turnaround or
transformation model and the proposal to collect data on the number of
rural LEAs that implement SIG models with modified elements. Several
commenters recommended extending the proposed flexibility for rural
LEAs to the early learning model, in addition to the turnaround and
transformation models. These commenters stated that for the same
reasons that schools in rural LEAs need flexibility in implementing the
transformation and turnaround models, these schools need flexibility in
implementing the early learning model.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support for the rural
flexibility, which is consistent with language in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2014. We believe that this rural flexibility should
apply to the existing turnaround and transformation models to ensure
that a rural LEA is able to implement successfully existing SIG models,
despite potential capacity issues and other challenges. Through the
rural flexibility, we recognize that a rural LEA may not be in a
position to implement each element of the turnaround or transformation
model because, for example, it lacks a pool of high-quality school
leaders from which it can choose a principal replacement. The rural
flexibility provides a rural LEA with an alternate method to meet the
leadership requirements of the turnaround and transformation models.
In designing the new models, we built in sufficient flexibility
such that the rural flexibility is not necessary to make these models
available to rural LEAs. The new models offer a broader array of
intervention strategies among which a rural LEA may select the one that
best fits the unique context and needs of its schools, based in part on
the district's capacity to implement the model. The addition of these
new models, along with the rural flexibility provided in the turnaround
and transformation models, should offer enough options such that a
rural LEA is able to select and successfully implement an appropriate
SIG model.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department allow a
rural LEA to modify more than one SIG intervention model element.
Discussion: The requirements allowing a rural LEA to modify just
one element of a model are consistent with the language in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, which states that a rural LEA
may modify ``not more than one'' element of a SIG intervention model.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter expressed concern that a non-rural LEA may
perceive the element that a rural LEA chooses to modify as less
essential to the intervention model as a whole. Another commenter
recommended that an LEA only be permitted to modify an element based on
the LEA's specific needs and context, rather than any element that the
LEA fears is too difficult or controversial to implement.
Discussion: We appreciate that allowing rural LEAs to modify an
element of the turnaround or transformation model could create the
perception that those elements are not necessary to successfully turn
around a school. We believe, however, that rural LEAs face unique
challenges and that increased flexibility will help those
[[Page 7231]]
LEAs successfully turn around low-achieving schools. By requiring rural
LEAs to demonstrate that they will meet the intent and purpose of the
original element, we believe that they will maintain the integrity of
the turnaround and transformation models.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended providing flexibility for rural
schools in non-rural LEAs.
Discussion: The proposed requirement permitting a rural LEA to
modify one SIG intervention model element is consistent with the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014, which requires that this
flexibility apply to an LEA that is eligible under subpart 1 or 2 of
part B of title VI of the ESEA.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested that the Department help build
State and local capacity for supporting sustained rural school
improvement.
Discussion: We understand that some rural areas face unique
challenges in turning around low-achieving schools, but we believe that
the significant amount of funding available to implement the SIG
models, as well as the new flexibility extended to rural LEAs, will
help these LEAs and schools to overcome the resource limitations and
capacity issues that have hindered successful rural school reform. We
intend to continue to provide technical assistance to rural LEAs and
schools on successful SIG implementation.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested that the Department provide a
rationale for requiring SEAs to report on the number of schools
implementing models with a modified element. Another commenter asked
that the Department require SEAs to make publicly available on the
SEA's Web site information about schools in rural LEAs implementing SIG
models with modified elements.
Discussion: Under section III.A(3) of the requirements, an SEA must
report data on the number of rural schools implementing models with a
modified element. We believe that these reporting requirements are
necessary to ensure that the public and the Department have sufficient
information to understand how the rural flexibility is being applied,
and that they do not impose an unjustified or significant burden on
SEAs.
An SEA is required to post on its Web site, within 30 days of
awarding SIG funds, all approved LEA applications. Because a rural LEA
requesting to modify an element of a SIG model must demonstrate in its
application how it will meet the intent and purpose of the original
element, information about rural LEAs and any modifications to the
models they are implementing will be available as part of the LEA's
application on the SEA's Web site.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested that the Department provide
additional examples of elements that a rural LEA may request to modify,
beyond replacing the principal.
Discussion: We intend to issue guidance to assist SEAs and LEAs in
implementing the rural flexibility. We encourage each rural LEA to take
into account local context and need in making the decision regarding
which element, if any, to modify.
Changes: None.
Adding Early Learning Model
Comment: Several commenters supported the addition of the early
learning model. One commenter believed that research in this area is
undeniable and that the challenge in implementing high-quality
preschool programs has been a lack of funding, which the early learning
model can address for LEAs that choose this model. Other commenters
noted that research shows the achievement gap begins before
kindergarten and that investments in high-quality early learning
programs help children from low-income families prepare for success in
kindergarten. Another commenter particularly applauded the emphasis on
all domains of development, not just academic, in the early learning
model.
Discussion: We appreciate the commenters' support. We believe the
early learning model can lead to both short- and long-term positive
outcomes for all children in a SIG school implementing this model,
including, but not limited to, improved academic achievement, social
development, lower rates of grade retention and placement in special
education, and improved graduation rates. Educational improvement
strategies that focus on preschool and the early grades can address the
persistent and large achievement gaps by race and income that are
evident upon kindergarten entry, often well entrenched by third grade,
and that negatively affect both individual student outcomes in later
grades and overall school performance.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many of the commenters offering support for the addition
of the early learning model submitted substantially identical requests
to add a new requirement to section I.A.2(f) of the proposed
requirements that would require an LEA implementing the proposed early
learning model to provide a high-quality, evidence-based literacy
intervention (that has at least two pieces of evidence of
effectiveness) for students who, after one year in school, are
identified as being at risk of literacy failure (using a reliable and
valid screener).
Discussion: We believe that there are a number of important
activities that would be appropriate to address in an early learning
model. We agree that early literacy interventions, particularly those
that are evidence-based, can be an effective component of a broader
strategy to turn around low-performing schools along with strategies
that address social and emotional development, early math and science,
and other domains of early development. Nothing in the proposed
requirements would prevent an LEA from implementing such an
intervention under any of the models. However, to permit LEAs
flexibility to select those interventions that best address their local
needs, we decline to require LEAs to implement an evidence-based
literacy intervention under this model.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked for clarification about how the
preschool requirements proposed for the early learning model are
similar to or different from current guidelines for title I schools.
Discussion: The Department's non-regulatory guidance, Serving
Preschool Children Through Title I Part A of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as Amended,\2\ is primarily focused on
helping SEAs and LEAs understand how they may use ESEA title I, part A
funds to support preschool programs consistent with all applicable
statutory and regulatory requirements. Like all non-regulatory
guidance, it does not impose any additional requirements on SEAs or
LEAs beyond those of existing law and regulations. For example, the
title I preschool non-regulatory guidance describes how title I funds
may be used to support preschool programs and services for eligible
children in the context of title I schoolwide programs, targeted
assistance programs, and districtwide preschool programs. It also
clarifies such issues as which children are eligible to participate in
title I-funded preschool programs, the qualifications of teachers and
paraprofessionals working in such programs, requirements for parental
involvement in title I preschool programs, and the applicability of
supplement-not-supplant provisions. In other words, the
[[Page 7232]]
title I preschool non-regulatory guidance mainly addresses compliance
with applicable requirements of title I, part A of the ESEA, rather
than the implementation of high-quality preschool programs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\2\ Available at: http://www2.ed.gov/policy/elsec/guid/preschoolguidance2012.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The requirements of the new early learning model in the SIG program
relating to high-quality preschool programs are based closely on the
related requirements in the Department's Preschool Development Grants
program, which defines ``high-quality preschool program'' to include
elements that research suggests are most effective in promoting school
readiness and improving long-term educational and life outcomes,
especially for children from low-income families. More information on
the Preschool Development Grants program may be found at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/preschooldevelopmentgrants/index.html.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters suggested that the Department add
requirements within the early learning model to ensure adequate family
and community engagement. One commenter suggested the Department
require that professional development for all staff under this model
include high-impact strategies for family engagement. Another commenter
encouraged the Department to add a requirement in the early learning
intervention model that the grantee design and implement initiatives
and strategies that build the capacity of school staff and families to
engage in effective partnerships that support student achievement and
healthy development. A few commenters requested that the definition of
a ``high-quality preschool program'' be modified to include continuous
and meaningful family and community engagement and proposed definitions
for this term.
Discussion: The Department agrees that family and community
engagement, both on an ongoing basis and in selection of the
appropriate SIG model, is an essential component to ensure successful
turnaround of the lowest performing schools. As such, under sections
I.A.4(a)(1) and I.A.4(a)(8), an SEA must consider the extent to which
an LEA has demonstrated that it engaged families and the community in
the selection of the SIG model and how the LEA will meaningfully engage
families and the community on a continuous basis throughout
implementation. These requirements apply across all models, including
the early learning model. While we agree that family and community
engagement may be one valuable area of professional development, we
decline to add a specific requirement for professional development or
capacity building regarding family and community engagement so that
LEAs may determine which types of professional development and capacity
building activities to offer based on the particular needs of their
schools and communities.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters requested that the Department clarify
that a high-quality, community-based provider may provide preschool
services as part of the early learning model, either at the SIG school
or through an existing high-quality child care or Head Start program
within the LEA or nearby community. Many of these commenters argued
that clarifying this aspect of implementation of the early learning
model would help align SIG with other Department programs, such as the
Preschool Development Grants and title I programs, through which the
Department has encouraged mixed-delivery models for preschool services.
Some commenters noted that allowing a community-based provider to
provide preschool services as part of an early learning model is
consistent with many LEAs' provision of preschool services, including
services that are supported with title I funds, and that existing
providers may be better equipped to rapidly expand capacity and serve
additional children, particularly because of their working knowledge of
the community. One commenter hypothesized that explicitly allowing LEAs
to partner with those existing programs to provide preschool services
could help make the early learning model more attractive to LEAs.
A couple of commenters recommended that if a SIG elementary school
contracts with a child care or Head Start program to deliver preschool
services, it should be required to describe how it will work to
coordinate with the school on appropriate and effective transitions to
build continuity of high-quality early learning. One commenter
specifically suggested that libraries be listed as an eligible entity
and allowable partner under the proposed early learning model. One
commenter requested that the Department add a new element to the early
learning model, requiring partnerships with external providers, such as
community-based organizations and community-based media outlets, in
order to increase the quality of the early learning program and its
connections to the larger community.
Discussion: As part of its implementation of the early learning
model, an LEA may contract with a community-based provider to provide
high-quality preschool programs for students enrolled in an elementary
school implementing the model. This is consistent with the SIG program
in general, which allows the use of external providers and other
community-based organizations under any of the SIG models. Any SIG
school working with a community-based provider should ensure
coordination across all grades in the elementary school, including
preschool, to ensure continuity of high-quality early learning and
appropriateness of transitions. The Department will provide additional
guidance to help LEAs and schools work with community-based providers
to provide high-quality preschool programs as part of the comprehensive
early learning model. LEAs may choose to use an external provider in
implementing their early learning models, or enter into a partnership
with various entities, such as school libraries. However, the
Department's intent is to provide sufficient flexibility for LEAs, so
that they may take into account the local context and needs of the
community to the greatest extent possible and, therefore, the
Department declines to revise the proposed requirements based on these
comments.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested that we require curricula in the
early learning model that employ high-quality multiplatform digital
content and services.
Discussion: The Department is prohibited from mandating State, LEA,
or school curriculum under 20 U.S.C. 7907. We therefore decline to make
the commenter's suggested change.
Changes: None.
Comment: A few commenters asked if a preschool must be physically
located in the eligible elementary school and whether the preschool
could be a feeder preschool for several schools, including the SIG-
eligible school.
Discussion: A preschool is not required to be physically located in
the eligible elementary school. However, students must be enrolled in
the SIG school that is implementing the early learning model to receive
preschool services funded through the SIG program.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that we require an LEA to describe
in its SIG application how the impact of high-quality early learning
experiences will be sustained over time.
Discussion: Under section I.A.4(a)(12), an SEA must evaluate the
extent to which an LEA demonstrates in its application for a SIG award
that it
[[Page 7233]]
will sustain the reforms after the funding period ends. We believe this
existing requirement is responsive to the commenter's suggestion.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters noted concerns about relying on early
learning as the sole focus of a school's turnaround strategy. One
commenter recommended adopting the early learning model as a turnaround
strategy only in conjunction with at least one other strategy. Another
commenter recommended that the Department require LEAs to demonstrate
how an early learning model will complement and be linked to a school's
other reform strategies, particularly efforts to ensure that children
read at grade level by the third grade. One commenter noted that it is
unclear which requirements in the model apply across the whole school
as opposed to just the early grades being added to the school.
Specifically, the commenter thought it was unclear if the requirement
to implement staff retention strategies, such as the provision of
financial incentives and increased opportunities for promotion and
career growth, applied to all grades or only the early grades. This
commenter was concerned that the SEA may not be able to allocate enough
funds to an LEA to implement the many requirements with fidelity in all
grades while adding new early learning services to the school.
Discussion: We recognize that early learning is only one strategy
to turn around the persistently lowest-performing schools. As such, the
early learning model includes requirements similar to those of the
current transformation model to ensure all students across all grades
in the elementary school are receiving services. For example, the model
requires an LEA to implement rigorous, transparent, and equitable
evaluation and support systems for teachers and principals; implement
such strategies as financial incentives, increased opportunities for
promotion and career growth, and more flexible work conditions; and use
data to identify and implement an instructional program that is
research-based, developmentally appropriate, and vertically aligned
from one grade to the next. In this way, the early learning model is
analogous to the other SIG models in that it is a comprehensive whole-
school reform model. The early learning model requirements in section
I.A.2(f)(1)(C) and sections I.A.2(f)(2)-(9) apply across the whole
school, and we encourage each LEA implementing the early learning model
to coordinate services across all grades in the school. An LEA may
receive up to $2 million per year per school implementing the early
learning model, which we believe is sufficient to implement the early
learning model requirements with fidelity.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters encouraged the Department to include
evidence-based home visiting services, either directly or through
partnerships and contracts, as either an allowable or required activity
under the early learning model. Commenters contended that well-designed
home visiting systems improve child and family outcomes and increase
parents' ability to support their children's development and success. A
few of those commenters noted that adding this requirement would align
SIG with other Department efforts and that some LEAs already use title
I funds to provide home visiting services prior to school entry.
Another commenter suggested that evidence-based home visiting should be
an allowable activity under the definition of ILT and that this
activity would be less costly than other activities required under ILT.
Discussion: We agree that evidence-based home visiting services can
be a valuable component of any school turnaround model. As such, home
visiting is an allowable activity under all of the SIG models, although
it does not meet the definition of ILT. To ensure continued flexibility
regarding allowable uses of funds under the SIG program, we decline to
reduce State and local discretion by adding a requirement that an LEA
implementing the early learning model must provide home visiting
services.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters opposed the requirement to replace the
principal in the early learning model. Some of these commenters urged
the Department to require applicants using the early learning model to
provide support and professional development for principals as well as
teachers, and base firing decisions only on fair and objective
evaluations of the principal after the principal has been allowed time
to implement the model. One commenter noted that an LEA's needs
analysis may reveal that the root cause for low student achievement is
a lack of access to early learning and, as such, replacing the
principal may not be necessary. This commenter also noted that, as
currently written, the transformation model allows for the expansion of
the school program to offer full-day kindergarten or pre-kindergarten
to a school without many of the restrictions detailed in the newly
proposed early learning model. One commenter also suggested that the
Department clarify that the principal replacement requirement in
section I.A.2(f)(2) refers to the leader of the SIG-eligible school,
not to the leader of the preschool.
Discussion: We understand that replacing a school principal is one
of the most challenging aspects of the early learning model; however,
we also know that many of our lowest-achieving schools have failed to
improve without leadership changes. We continue to believe that
dramatic and wholesale changes in leadership are an appropriate
intervention for creating an entirely new and improved school culture.
We acknowledge that it can be difficult to identify, train, and retain
qualified school leaders for the lowest-performing schools, but other
Federal programs, including the Turnaround School Leaders program
funded with SIG national activities funds, are helping to create
incentives and supports to attract, train, and reward effective
principals and improve strategies for recruitment, retention, and
professional development. Additionally, flexibility within section
I.B.1 of the requirements permits an LEA to retain a school principal
who has held the position for two years or less prior to the
implementation of the SIG model. We recognize that an LEA may expand
the school day to offer full-day kindergarten or pre-kindergarten in a
school implementing one of the other SIG models. The addition of the
early learning model, however, provides another option for LEAs to
consider in determining which interventions are necessary to turn
around low-performing schools. To clarify, any of the requirements of
the early learning model, including the requirement to replace the
principal, apply to the elementary school implementing the model, not
to the leader of the preschool if the preschool is provided through a
community-based provider with which the school contracts.
Changes: None.
Comment: Several commenters stated that the proposed requirements
for the early learning model are too prescriptive and establish
requirements that are not feasible for LEAs to implement, particularly
those LEAs that do not currently offer full-day kindergarten or
preschool programs. One commenter suggested removing requirements not
directly related to high-quality early learning to reduce the
challenges of implementation. Another commenter recommended that the
Department allow SEAs to make subgrants for early learning to LEAs that
do not necessarily
[[Page 7234]]
meet all the criteria in the requirements, so long as the SEA can
demonstrate that the LEAs will meet the State's own requirements for
high-quality preschool programs or meet other recognized standards of
quality, to allow LEAs to phase in early learning interventions. Other
commenters suggested that the model should allow for phase in of new
slots for preschool students due to the challenges in, and disruption
that can be caused by, implementing many reforms at the same time.
Discussion: We believe that all of the components of the early
learning model, including the requirements relating to expanding high-
quality preschool programs and addressing the needs of all students in
the elementary school, are necessary to help ensure successful school
turnaround and are feasible to implement. As with all of the SIG
models, full implementation of all of the elements of the model must
begin on the first day of the school year when the LEA begins full
implementation. We note, however, that under section II.A.3 of the
requirements, LEAs have up to one full school year for planning and
pre-implementation activities, during which they could begin phasing in
various components of the early learning model. We believe that this
one-year period is sufficient for an LEA to prepare to implement in a
high-quality manner an early learning model in a school at the start of
the next school year. We also note that an LEA may choose one of the
other SIG models to implement if it does not have the capacity to fully
implement the early learning model.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters were pleased that full-day kindergarten
was included in the proposed early learning model. Several commenters
proposed that the Department further define ``full-day'' kindergarten
to align with the definition in the Department's Preschool Development
Grants. One commenter noted that there is no standard definition of
``full-day kindergarten'' and requested that the Department adopt a
definition to help ensure programs are comparable for evaluation and
funding purposes and that students are receiving equitable
opportunities. Another commenter recommended that we incorporate into
the SIG requirements several additional definitions from the
Department's Preschool Development Grant program, including the
definitions of ``Early Learning Development Standards'' and ``Essential
Domains of School Readiness.'' Another commenter recommended adding
language to require kindergarten and early grades to meet the
requirements under the definition of ``high-quality preschool,''
including the requirements that schools assign teachers with
certifications and endorsements in early childhood education to the
early grades. This commenter also suggested that teachers in the early
grades should have credentials and professional development that
recognize the specialized knowledge and skills needed to work with
preschool through third-grade students.
Discussion: Unlike the Preschool Development Grants program, the
early learning model under the SIG program is a comprehensive approach
to whole-school turnaround. For that reason, the requirements reflect a
balance between the Department's interest in encouraging the
implementation of a rigorous early learning intervention, as well as
coordinated services for all students in the school, and our interest
in allowing LEAs the flexibility to tailor their activities to fit
local needs and context. For that reason, we decline to adopt the
definition of ``full-day'' kindergarten or other definitions in the
Preschool Development Grants program or to otherwise expand the
requirements as suggested. We also decline to expand the requirements
of a high-quality preschool program to apply to kindergarten or the
early grades because the requirements in section I.A.2(f)(1)(C) and
sections I.A.2(f)(2)-(9) are sufficient to ensure that all students in
the school, regardless of grade, will benefit from the model.
Changes: None.
Comment: Some commenters expressed support for the proposed
requirement within the early learning model to provide joint planning
time for educators across grades. One commenter encouraged the
Department to require that the joint planning time include
collaboration and professional development to ensure that educators
serving in SIG schools have the capacity to serve children across the
range of developmental domains. One commenter noted that it is unclear
whether teachers in all grades in the elementary school are required to
engage in joint planning and recommended requiring cross-grade planning
for teachers teaching kindergarten through third grade.
Discussion: We agree that joint planning across grades is an
essential component of any school turnaround strategy, and that this
component is particularly important in models that include the
provision of high-quality preschool. We confirm that, to ensure
continuity across grades, cross-grade planning across all grades is
required under section I.A.2(f)(1)(C). Accordingly, we decline to limit
this requirement to apply only to teachers of students in kindergarten
to third grade. We also note that professional development, which we
expect often includes collaboration, is required under section
I.A.2(f)(8) and must be designed to ensure that staff have the capacity
to implement successfully the school reform strategies.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter encouraged the Department to study the
potential impact of investing in early learning, particularly because
most current turnaround metrics focus on third grade and beyond. This
commenter also suggested that the current SIG metrics provide a
disincentive for LEAs to choose the early learning implementation model
as assessment results in grades three and up are used as the primary
determinant of a turnaround model's success. The commenter suggested
shifting the focus from standardized test scores to measures of
professional practice, which could be used in combination with child
outcome metrics. The commenter recommended that the SIG requirements
explicitly authorize SEAs to adopt metrics of this kind for at least
their elementary schools.
Discussion: We agree that it is important to evaluate the impact of
school turnaround efforts, which is why the Department will require
SEAs and schools to collect and report data on the implementation of
their chosen model, including the early learning model. Standardized
test scores are not the primary metric that schools and SEAs must
report. Rather, they are one of a number of measures that will be used
to assess whether an LEA's implementation of the chosen SIG model in a
school is effective. Other measures include the absenteeism rate and
number of discipline incidents. Although we do not require SEAs to
report professional practice data, they are required to report on the
distribution of teachers by performance level based on the LEA's
teacher evaluation system, which generally includes measures of
professional practice. We encourage SEAs, LEAs, and schools to collect
additional data, such as professional practice data, which can help
provide a more holistic picture of whether a SIG model has been
effectively implemented.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that it is unclear from the proposed
requirements whether the early learning model would apply to any LEA
that receives SIG funding to implement any
[[Page 7235]]
SIG model in an elementary school, or if it constitutes a new model for
which an LEA may apply for SIG funds based on the early learning needs
of its elementary schools.
Discussion: To clarify, the early learning model is a new model
under the SIG requirements. An LEA implementing another model is not
required to meet the requirements of the early learning model.
Likewise, although current grantees may add early learning strategies,
such as high-quality preschool programs or full-day kindergarten, they
are not required to do so.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the services of school social
workers, school psychologists, and other school-employed support
personnel should meet the requirements for on-site accessible
comprehensive services.
Discussion: Nothing in the requirements would preclude a school
from fulfilling the requirements for on-site accessible comprehensive
services by using support staff employed by the school to provide such
services.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter contended that building a preschool program
in a persistently low-performing school does not address the overall
academic weaknesses that were responsible for the school's
identification by the State and recommended removing the early learning
model and the definition of ``high-quality preschool.'' The commenter
argued that the early learning strategy incorrectly places an emphasis
on a new cohort of young children, rather than focusing on the current
students whose underperformance is the statutory target of the SIG
program.
Discussion: Consistent evidence demonstrates that participation in
high-quality early learning programs can lead to both short- and long-
term positive outcomes for all students.\3\ We believe that, if a
school focuses on improving or adding a high-quality preschool program,
the positive effects will continue well into students' educational
future, thus improving the overall academic weaknesses that were
responsible for the school's identification by the State. By focusing
on improving educational opportunities for students in the early years,
schools can break the cycle of poor academic achievement before it even
begins, which will then give these students a better chance at success
throughout their academic careers. Further, although the early learning
model's primary focus is on early learners, the model also requires
interventions designed to address the needs of all students at the
school. Moreover, we note that under all of the SIG models, new
students enroll in the school after the school has been identified as
eligible.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See ``Investing in our Future: The Evidence Base on
Preschool Education'' (available at http://fcd-us.org/sites/default/files/Evidence%20Base%20on%20Preschool%20Education%20FINAL.pdf).
Society for Research in Child Development and the Foundation for
Child Development, October 2013.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested that the Department require LEAs
to provide early screenings for learning issues and delays in early
literacy and math skill development, and provide appropriate
interventions based on screening outcomes.
Discussion: We agree that providing early screenings to identify
students with disabilities is a meaningful activity, and is an
allowable use of SIG funds under any of the SIG models. However, to
ensure schools have the flexibility to tailor their interventions to
local needs, we decline to require this activity under the early
learning model.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department require that
the early learning model be coordinated and integrated fully with any
existing State preschool program.
Discussion: While we strongly believe that any efforts undertaken
with SIG funding should closely align with turnaround work across the
State and that there may be positive results from coordinating with a
State's preschool program, we decline to require that the early
learning model be coordinated and fully integrated with the State
preschool program. Given the disparity in State requirements regarding
high-quality preschool programs, such a requirement may be unduly
burdensome and too difficult to ensure consistency in implementation.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the Department encourage
approaches and partnerships that utilize technology for personalized
learning by explicitly supporting the use of digital learning in the
early learning model. The commenter believed this could be especially
beneficial to schools in rural areas, which, the commenter suggested,
should receive priority for SIG funding.
Discussion: We agree that technology can be used to enhance
personalized learning, particularly in rural areas, and digital
learning is a permitted activity under the early learning model.
However, we decline to specifically require digital learning. There are
many valuable strategies that schools should consider in implementing a
comprehensive school turnaround strategy and, therefore, we designed
the models to identify general performance objectives while also
maximizing an LEA's discretion to choose the strategies that meet both
these general objectives and the school's particular needs. We also
note that, as described in question I-9 of the March 1, 2012, SIG
Guidance, available at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/sigguidance03012012.doc, an SEA may give priority to an LEA for SIG
funding based on a variety of factors including, for example, the rural
status of the school or LEA.
Changes: None.
Modifying the Teacher and Principal Evaluation and Support System
Requirements Under the Transformation Model.
Comment: A number of commenters expressed support for the proposed
requirement in section I.A.2(d)(1)(A)(ii) revising the transformation
model requirement for teacher and principal evaluation and support
systems, with some noting that they supported the alignment between the
proposed requirements for these systems and the requirements under ESEA
flexibility. Other commenters supported the proposed requirement that
teacher and principal evaluation and support systems use multiple
measures. One commenter, however, recommended revising the requirement
related to the use of data on student growth to allow, but not require,
the use of multiple measures for the evaluation of teachers of tested
grades and subjects (but to continue to require the use of data on
student growth based on State assessments for teachers of tested grades
and subjects) and to allow, but not require, alternate measures of
student growth for the evaluation of teachers of non-tested grades and
subjects. Another commenter recommended that the results of
standardized tests should comprise only a small percentage of a
teacher's evaluation. One commenter noted that the link between
children's test scores and teacher and principal evaluations is not
appropriate, especially for teachers of early grades.
Discussion: We appreciate the comments supporting the alignment of
the requirements for educator evaluation systems under the
transformation model with the requirements for these systems under ESEA
flexibility. We agree that this change will reduce the burden on LEAs
in SEAs with approved ESEA flexibility requests because they will not
have to implement separate evaluation systems. However, to ensure that
such systems are both fair to educators and contribute
[[Page 7236]]
to improved instruction for all students, we believe it is essential to
maintain the proposed requirements for the use of multiple measures,
including student growth for teachers of non-tested grades and
subjects. We also believe that student growth based on State
assessments should be a significant factor in evaluations of teachers
of all tested grades and subjects because State assessments offer
objective measures that are consistent across LEAs; while the
Department has been flexible about defining what constitutes a
``significant factor,'' requiring student growth data to comprise only
a small percentage of evaluations would not be consistent with this
longstanding position.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended extending the requirement for
teacher and principal evaluation and support systems to the turnaround
model and requiring that the systems be used for decisions about
financial incentives. The commenter also recommended that the
Department revise the transformation model requirements to state
specifically that the use of educator evaluation and support systems in
decisions about retaining staff and selecting new staff is permissible.
Finally, the commenter recommended requiring an LEA implementing the
early learning model in a school to use the evaluation and support
system to select new staff and prevent ineffective staff from
transferring to the school.
Discussion: We agree that it would be beneficial for all schools to
implement teacher and principal evaluation and support systems that
meet the requirements in section I.A.2(d)(1)(A)(ii) and to use the
results of those systems in making personnel decisions generally,
including in making decisions regarding the payment of financial
incentives. We also note that implementing such an evaluation and
support system is allowable under any SIG model, including the
turnaround model. However, such systems generally are not designed to
support the rigorous requirement for staffing changes under the
turnaround model, which calls for screening and rehiring no more than
50 percent of existing staff and hiring new staff. This is why the
turnaround model instead requires the use of locally adopted
competencies for this purpose. However, an LEA implementing the
turnaround model in a school may use the results of a teacher and
principal evaluation and support system in making personnel decisions,
including hiring decisions, in addition to locally adopted
competencies.
We also note that an LEA implementing the transformation model
already must use the results of the evaluations for personnel
decisions, in accordance with section I.A.2(d)(1)(A)(ii)(6), and that
an LEA implementing the early learning model already must use the
results of the evaluations for personnel decisions, in accordance with
section I.A.2(f)(3).
Changes: None.
Eliminating the ``Rule of Nine''
Comment: Four commenters supported eliminating the ``rule of
nine,'' while one commenter disagreed with the elimination of this
rule, based on the original premise that it promoted the selection of
the most rigorous SIG interventions (i.e., turnaround and restart),
which the commenter believed are more likely to result in improved
student performance.
Discussion: We appreciate the support for the elimination of the
``rule of nine,'' and note that, as stated in the NPR, it had limited
impact. In addition, we believe that a rule limiting the specific
interventions that an LEA may implement is inconsistent with the intent
of Congress as demonstrated by the increased flexibility in the
selection and implementation of SIG-funded intervention models provided
in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2014.
Changes: None.
Adding LEA Requirement To Demonstrate Appropriateness of Chosen
Intervention Model and Take Into Consideration Family and Community
Input
Comment: Many commenters supported proposed section I.A.4(a)(1),
requiring an LEA to demonstrate the appropriateness of the chosen
intervention model and to take into consideration family and community
input in model selection. One commenter suggested that the Department
require an LEA to demonstrate that it sought ``broad-based'' input from
families and the community. Other commenters recommended requiring an
LEA to engage and solicit input from all relevant stakeholders.
However, one commenter opposed requiring an LEA to demonstrate in
its application how it will meaningfully engage families and the
community in the implementation of its chosen intervention, warning
that the need to provide evidence of parent investment up front could
prevent successful alternative operators (which we interpret to mean
external providers) from working with SIG schools.
Discussion: We appreciate the support for the requirements to
demonstrate the appropriateness of the chosen intervention model and to
take into consideration family and community input in the selection of
the SIG model. However, we decline to set forth specific criteria that
an LEA must meet to demonstrate family and community engagement,
because the precise nature of such engagement may vary widely across
different types of communities. However, we intend to provide guidance
encouraging SEAs, in their review of the evidence of family and
community engagement in an LEA's SIG application, to examine whether
the LEA sought input from all relevant stakeholders, including, for
example, those representing English learners and students with
disabilities.
We do not agree that requiring a demonstration of parental
involvement will prevent high-quality external providers from working
with an LEA in SIG schools. In fact, we believe that the requirement
that an LEA engage families and the community early in the process of
planning its SIG intervention will result in increased transparency and
accountability related to the selection of, and subsequent
implementation by, external providers, which will help with
implementing the model successfully.
Changes: None.
Adding LEA Requirement to Continuously Engage Families and the
Community Throughout Implementation
Comment: Many commenters supported proposed section I.A.4(a)(8),
requiring an LEA to demonstrate in its SIG application how the LEA will
meaningfully engage families and the community in the implementation of
its selected intervention. Several commenters recommended that the
Department provide additional technical assistance and guidance on what
constitutes meaningful family and community engagement. One commenter
requested that we require that schools enter into joint use agreements
with the community, for example with regard to sharing space. Another
commenter recommended that the Department clarify that the purpose of
engaging families and the community is to improve student achievement
and healthy development. The commenter also recommended adding language
throughout the requirements to emphasize that family and community
engagement would be an element of each of the intervention models. One
commenter recommended expanding the family and community engagement
requirements to promote the role of
[[Page 7237]]
community partners and intermediary organizations in school
turnarounds, stating that such entities can provide expertise and
capacity-building support essential to turning around low-performing
schools.
Discussion: We agree that it is important that an LEA engage in
meaningful family and community engagement, reach appropriate
stakeholders, and ensure that the input the LEA receives is relevant
and useful throughout the period of SIG implementation. We believe,
however, that section I.A.4(a)(8) of the requirements, along with
guidance that the Department will provide on this issue, will be
sufficient to help ensure that an LEA engages in an ongoing and
meaningful way with families and the community throughout the
implementation of each SIG-funded intervention model. We also note that
both the current and proposed requirements, including the requirements
for each of the intervention models, provide ample flexibility for SIG
grantees to partner with the broadest possible range of entities to
obtain the support needed for successful implementation of their
selected intervention models permitting, for example, specific
interventions focused on improving student performance and encouraging
healthy development of students. For these reasons, we decline to make
the changes recommended by the commenters.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended requiring an SEA to report on
how a SIG grantee obtains and uses family input during the
implementation of its intervention model.
Discussion: We believe that adding new reporting requirements
related to family and community engagement would be unnecessarily
burdensome because the data on family and community engagement lacks
uniformity. We also believe that such an addition would be unnecessary
because the new application requirements in section I.A.4(a)(1) related
to family and community engagement are sufficient to ensure that LEAs
meaningfully seek and incorporate this input into the selection and
implementation of SIG-funded intervention models.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested clarification regarding whether
the family and community engagement requirement in section
I.A.2(d)(3)(A)(ii) under the transformation model differs from the
family and community engagement requirement in section I.A.4(a)(8),
which applies to all models.
Discussion: The provisions are the same. We elected to retain the
separate requirement in the transformation model out of concern that
removing it could leave the impression that the Department is no longer
requiring family and community engagement under the transformation
model.
Changes: None.
Adding LEA Requirement To Monitor and Support Intervention and
Implementation
Comment: Several commenters supported proposed section I.A.4(a)(7),
requiring an LEA to demonstrate how it will provide effective oversight
and support for implementation of interventions in its schools. Some of
these commenters requested guidance regarding the definition of
``monitoring'' in order to clarify what is required of LEAs, and one
commenter questioned whether the requirement would be different for a
charter LEA versus a traditional LEA. However, one commenter cautioned
the Department not to specify how the monitoring and support should be
conducted, stating that the approach will necessarily differ based on
the context and capabilities of the LEA.
Discussion: We believe the proposed requirements, which would apply
to regular and charter LEAs alike, sufficiently address an LEA's
monitoring obligations in part because, as noted by the commenter, the
monitoring approach will differ based on the context and capabilities
of the LEA. However, we will work with SEAs to provide guidance and
technical assistance to LEAs related to quality monitoring and the
types of information SEAs and LEAs should consider in determining
whether or not the LEA has adopted or should adopt a new governance
structure.
Changes: None.
Adding LEA Requirements to Regularly Review External Providers'
Performance and Hold External Providers Accountable
Comment: Several commenters supported proposed section I.A.4(a)(4),
requiring an LEA to regularly review external providers' performance
and hold external providers accountable. One commenter also recommended
requiring evidence that the LEA will recruit, screen, select, and
execute contracts with any providers by the start of the school year.
Similarly, another commenter recommended that the Department encourage
LEAs to develop performance metrics with all providers at the onset of
the partnership. One commenter, while supportive of the requirements,
expressed concern about the capacity of smaller LEAs to engage in
appropriate oversight and to identify appropriate providers.
Additionally, one commenter requested more guidance for schools and
LEAs on this issue.
Discussion: We appreciate the support for requiring LEAs to hold
external providers accountable for their performance.
We recognize that an LEA may not have identified the external
provider it will use at the time it applies for a SIG award;
consequently, under section I.A.4(a)(4), the LEA must demonstrate that
it will recruit, screen, and select external providers to ensure their
quality and regularly review and hold the external providers
accountable. We believe this requirement is sufficient to ensure that
an LEA uses external providers effectively. We also believe that most
LEAs will use the pre-implementation or planning period to recruit and
select external providers and develop the performance metrics against
which the external provider will be evaluated. Moreover, under section
I.A.4(a)(3), any external provider that will be used to implement the
chosen SIG model must be in place on the first day of the first school
year of full implementation.
We acknowledge that smaller LEAs may face capacity challenges and
caution LEAs to assess their ability to hold external providers
accountable before committing to use them. We believe, however that the
significant amount of SIG funding available to implement the
intervention models will help these LEAs overcome any such limitations.
We have previously issued guidance on external providers, available
at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/sigfaq-finalversion.doc. We intend
to issue additional guidance to assist SEAs and LEAs in carrying out
the requirements pertaining to external providers.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested clarification about which vendors
the Department is referencing.
Discussion: We understand this comment to ask to which external
providers the requirements apply. All external providers that an LEA
uses to help implement any aspect of a SIG model, regardless of the
model being implemented, are subject to section I.A.4(a)(4).
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter opposed proposed section I.A.4(a)(4)
regarding external providers out of apparent concern that it would
change eligibility and could permit the award of SIG funds to entities
other than school
[[Page 7238]]
districts. This commenter stated that funds should flow from States to
school districts.
Discussion: The commenter misunderstood the proposed requirement,
as only LEAs with schools that meet the definition under I.A.1 are
eligible for an award of SIG funds.
Changes: None.
Clarifying the Rigorous Review Process Under the Restart Model
Comment: Many commenters expressed support for the clarification of
the rigorous review process in the restart model. One of these
commenters asked that we require an LEA applying to implement the
restart model to seek community input prior to choosing a charter
operator. Another commenter recommended that we restrict selection of
charter management organizations (CMOs) or education management
organization (EMOs) further by prohibiting an LEA from contracting with
a CMO or EMO with a track record of operating schools that do not
improve student achievement or with significant compliance issues in
the areas of civil rights, financial management, and student safety.
Discussion: We agree that an LEA implementing the restart model
should seek family and community input prior to implementing the model.
In fact, under section I.A.4(a)(1) of the requirements, an SEA must
evaluate the extent to which an LEA demonstrates in its application for
a SIG award that it took into consideration family and community input
in selecting the intervention for each school. We believe this
provision creates sufficient safeguards to ensure that the community is
involved in the selection of an appropriate intervention in a school.
Additionally, section I.A.2(b)(1) requires an LEA to consider the
extent to which any schools currently operated or managed by the
selected charter school operator, CMO, or EMO have produced strong
results over the prior three years, which creates sufficient safeguards
to ensure that the LEA takes appropriate steps to choose a high-quality
CMO or EMO.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked the Department to clarify whether,
under the rigorous review process, an LEA with eligible schools that is
in corrective action could meet the new rigorous review requirements
and serve as a CMO under the restart model.
Discussion: If an LEA can demonstrate that it has produced strong
results over the past three years, despite being designated for
corrective action, it may meet the requirements of the rigorous review
process and serve as a CMO under the restart model. Such a
demonstration may be possible, for example, for an LEA that has
regularly raised student proficiency rates but still falls short of the
100 percent proficiency requirement under current law in a State that
is not approved for ESEA flexibility.
Changes: None.
Defining ``Greatest Need'' To Include Priority Schools and Focus
Schools for SEAs With Approved ESEA Flexibility Requests
Comment: Four commenters supported aligning the definition of
``greatest need'' with ESEA flexibility. One commenter recommended that
the Department permit SEAs to limit SIG eligibility to priority schools
only, in order to ensure that limited SIG funding is used in a State's
lowest-achieving schools.
Discussion: We appreciate the support for aligning the eligibility
provisions of the SIG requirements with ESEA flexibility for those SEAs
with approved ESEA flexibility requests. As described in question I-9
of the March 1, 2012, SIG Guidance, available at http://www2.ed.gov/programs/sif/sigguidance03012012.doc, an SEA may create priorities
within its application process to, for example, ensure an even
distribution of urban and rural schools, incentivize evidence-based
strategies, and encourage applications from LEAs without prior
compliance issues.
With regard to the comment that we should permit an SEA to provide
SIG funds to priority schools only, we note that under section II.B.7,
an SEA must, in making funding decisions, give priority to LEAs with
priority schools, and that under section II.A.7 an LEA must apply to
serve all of its priority schools before it may apply to serve one or
more focus schools. Accordingly, a focus school may be served under SIG
only if the LEA in which it is located is already serving all of its
priority schools (or the LEA has no priority schools) and the SEA has
already funded all LEAs with priority schools that submit approvable
SIG applications.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested clarification as to whether a
priority school implementing a SIG intervention model may exit priority
status while receiving SIG funds. Another commenter asked whether
receipt of a SIG award releases the school from the State's priority
school requirements and allows it to instead implement a SIG model.
Discussion: In general, a school receiving a SIG grant would be
deemed to be meeting the priority school requirements of ESEA
flexibility and would not have to begin or continue separate
implementation of a priority school intervention under the State's
approved ESEA flexibility request, unless the SEA has imposed
additional requirements. A priority school that has begun implementing
either a priority intervention or a SIG intervention may exit priority
status but must continue to implement the intervention fully and
effectively for the required three years, consistent with section
II.A.4 of the requirements.
Changes: None.
Revising Reporting Requirements
Comment: Several commenters supported the proposal to replace the
truancy data reporting requirement with a requirement to report data on
``chronic absenteeism.'' One commenter recommended that the Department
hold LEAs and schools implementing SIG models accountable for
addressing chronic absenteeism, such as by requiring LEAs to use the
data to trigger action when students reach a certain threshold of
absences.
Discussion: We appreciate the support for the change from truancy
data to data on chronic absenteeism. We note that an LEA implementing a
SIG model in a school may choose to use chronic absenteeism data to
trigger specific interventions; for example, analyzing attendance data
and using the results of the analysis to target interventions would be
consistent with the expectation that each LEA implementing a SIG model
in a school take steps to improve attendance rates at that school. We
decline, however, to add this requirement to any of the models because
we believe that each model offers a comprehensive approach to school
turnaround, including through non-academic supports, and that therefore
a separate requirement regarding attendance is not necessary.
Changes: None.
Comment: Many commenters recommended changing the chronic
absenteeism measure from a certain number of days to a percentage of
days enrolled, specifically from 15 days to 10 percent of days
enrolled.
Discussion: We recognize that when absenteeism is being used for
early intervention purposes, many authorities recommend that it is best
measured as a percentage, comparing the days missed to the days of
school already held. However, we have also determined that many LEAs
can collect and report data on the number of days
[[Page 7239]]
missed by each individual student more accurately than they can
calculate percentages due to the nature of the data collection, and
thus decline to change the proposed measure at this time. Nonetheless,
the Department is continuing outreach and analysis to determine the
most reliable, valid, and least burdensome chronic absenteeism metric
and may modify the current measure in the future if it determines
another measure, such as a percentage based measure, is more
appropriate.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department require LEAs
to report school-level data by subgroup on the following metrics: (1)
Graduation and dropout rates; (2) advanced course work participation
rates; (3) college enrollment rates; (4) discipline incidents; and (5)
chronic absenteeism rates. This commenter also recommended adding a
metric for college persistence rates, as well as the number and
percentage of students participating in advanced course work. Lastly,
the commenter recommended that the metric for the distribution of
teachers by performance level on an LEA's teacher evaluation system
also include the distribution of teachers (1) in their first or second
year of teaching; (2) for whom there is insufficient data to receive a
rating within the LEA's teacher evaluation system; and (3) teaching
outside of their certification area.
Discussion: We agree that disaggregated reporting of key
participation, attainment, and outcome measures, along with information
on the distribution of effective teachers, is a useful and important
method for identifying disparities in educational opportunities and
outcomes. However, we decline to require LEAs to report on the measures
recommended by the commenter due to a combination of (1) concerns over
the validity and reliability of reporting data on small populations,
such as subgroups within a school or even a district; (2) the
availability of data on postsecondary outcomes; and (3) a longstanding
emphasis on minimizing data collection and reporting burdens on
schools, LEAs, and SEAs.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended that the Department use the
Civil Rights Data Collection (CRDC) as the data source for discipline
incidents rather than EDFacts. The commenter stated that using the CRDC
data would reveal disparities in discipline rates among students of
color and students with disabilities compared to their peers and
provide more actionable data for schools in their school improvement
efforts.
Discussion: We recognize the value of the detailed data collected
and reported via the CRDC, including discipline data. However, because
the CRDC is collected biannually, using CRDC data instead of EDFacts
data would support less frequent analysis and use of data by schools
implementing school improvement models.
Changes: None.
Requests To Add Additional Models
Comment: Many commenters submitted substantially similar requests
to add a new ``community schools'' model to the list of models eligible
for funding under the SIG program. Commenters generally defined this
model as the leveraging of community resources to provide culturally
relevant and rigorous curricula; extended-day instruction; wrap-around
supports addressing the physical health, mental health, and social and
emotional needs of students; effective professional development for all
teachers and staff; positive discipline and social development
practices; and strong family and community engagement. More than half
of these commenters also recommended making community schools the only
turnaround model eligible for SIG funding.
Discussion: We agree that the community schools concept can be an
effective strategy for building broad support for comprehensive,
community-based efforts to turn around low-performing schools. This is
why, as noted by one commenter, the 2009 SIG requirements included the
similar ``community-oriented schools'' strategy as a permissible
element of the transformation model. Another commenter also recognized
the integration of the community schools strategy into the
transformation model, observing that the most frequently adopted model
(the transformation model) is the one that most closely resembles the
community schools concept. Moreover, we believe that the community
schools approach is not only fully consistent with the transformation
model, but also provides a framework for successful implementation of
other existing SIG models, including the turnaround and restart models,
as well as the new State-determined model. This is a key reason for the
new requirement in section I.A.4(a)(8) that SEAs consider the extent to
which an LEA's application for SIG funds, regardless of the model
selected, demonstrates how the LEA will meaningfully engage families
and the community throughout implementation.
We do not believe, however, that the community schools strategy, by
itself, would be sufficient to ensure that communities and schools
undertake the kind of rigorous, transformational changes required to
break the cycle of failure in our lowest-performing schools and
maximize the effective use of taxpayer dollars under the SIG program.
SIG performance data suggest that the schools adopting the most
rigorous interventions, such as changes in leadership and staffing
under the turnaround model and new school management under the restart
model, generate the highest gains in student achievement. For these
reasons, we decline to make ``community schools'' a new model eligible
for funding under the SIG program or to make it the sole model eligible
for new SIG funds.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter recommended adding a new high school
intervention model because, in the commenter's words, a high school
diploma is the gateway to success and the ultimate goal of a K-12
education. This commenter reasoned that the proposed high school
intervention model would ensure that high schools implement the
strategies that are unique to them and necessary to address the
misalignment between student outcomes and the needs of the twenty-
first-century workforce. The commenter envisioned the high school
intervention model requiring the alignment of reform between low-
performing high schools and their feeder middle schools. Many of the
requirements in the commenter's suggested model were similar to those
in the current and newly proposed SIG models, such as: Job-embedded
professional development; evaluation and support systems for teachers
and principals that meet the requirements described in section
I.A.2(d)(1)(A)(ii); and ILT, among others.
Discussion: We agree that graduating high school is a key to a
successful career in the twenty-first century. We believe, however,
that offering the commenter's proposed model would overlap with
existing SIG models. In particular, there would be overlap with the
transformation model, which has many of the same elements as the
commenter's suggested high school intervention model. If an SEA wanted
to implement a model based on the commenter's high school intervention
model, it could do so under the transformation model.
Changes: None.
[[Page 7240]]
Request To Add New Evidence of ``Strongest Commitment''
Comment: One commenter recommended revising the evidence of
strongest commitment requirement in section I.A.4(a) to include a focus
on school leadership. More specifically, the commenter suggested
requiring LEAs to describe the steps they will take to review the
capacity of the school leader, as well as activities designed to build
capacity, to lead a successful turnaround prior to full implementation
of the selected intervention model. Another commenter requested
clarification that the turnaround leader may be someone other than the
principal.
Discussion: The requirements regarding school leadership vary among
the intervention models eligible for funding under the SIG program. The
turnaround and transformation models require principal replacement in
recognition of the key role played by principals in leading instruction
and creating a positive school culture. The restart model relies on
dramatic changes in school management and leadership by a high-quality
charter school operator, CMO, or EMO. The new evidence-based model may
not necessarily involve changes in school leadership. With the limited
exception of the State-determined model, the emphasis is on identifying
a new school leader who already has demonstrated capacity to lead a
school turnaround, and not on building such capacity during the
planning or pre-implementation phase of a SIG grant. For this reason,
we decline to make the change to section I.A.4(a) recommended by the
commenter. We also note that there is nothing in the final requirements
that prevents someone other than the principal from serving as the
turnaround leader in a SIG school.
Changes: None.
Promoting Evidence-Based Strategies
Comment: One commenter recommended requiring that an SEA give
priority in making SIG awards to applicants proposing to implement
strategies proven to be effective. Other commenters recommended that
the Department require LEAs to demonstrate that their proposed
strategies are supported by evidence of effectiveness.
Discussion: We agree that SEAs should take into account the extent
to which LEA applications for SIG funds include one or more strategies
supported by evidence of effectiveness. Accordingly, we are revising
section I.A.4(a) of the final requirements to require SEAs to consider
such evidence in determining which LEAs have ``the strongest
commitment'' to the effective use of SIG funds and section II.B to
allow SEAs to prioritize LEAs that have demonstrated the greatest
evidence base for their proposed strategies if funding is not
sufficient to permit awards to all LEAs with approvable applications.
Changes: We have made three changes in the final requirements to
address this comment. First, we added in section I.A.4(a)(13) (Evidence
of strongest commitment) a requirement that the SEA, when considering
the strength of the LEA's commitment, evaluate the extent to which an
LEA demonstrates that it will implement, to the extent practicable, one
or more evidence-based strategies (as defined in this notice). We have
also added in section II.B.9(b) a requirement that, if an SEA does not
have sufficient SIG funds to make awards to each LEA with eligible
schools, the SEA may take into account the extent to which an LEA
applying for a SIG award demonstrates in its application that it will
implement one or more evidence-based strategies (as defined in this
notice). Finally, in section I.A.3 we defined ``evidence-based
strategy'' to mean a strategy supported by at least ``moderate evidence
of effectiveness'' as defined in 34 CFR 77.1.
New Specific Improvement Strategies
Comment: Multiple commenters recommended the use of specific
improvement strategies as part of the SIG program, including: offering
a comprehensive summer program to students in the bottom quintile of
academic performance; promoting the acquisition of 21st century skills;
partnering with community-based organizations to provide additional
resources and support, including before- and after-school and summer
learning programs; aggregating performance data across models to
support the identification of best practices, as well as the
calculation of the return on investment for each model; providing
additional supports to principals; purchasing technology to support a
blended learning environment; providing job-embedded professional
development; expanding support for charter schools; allowing magnet
schools; promoting student health and school climate; strengthening
current leadership and staff in turnaround schools; district-level
direction in supporting the implementation of the transformation model;
expanding the list of partnerships permitted under the transformation
model to include behavioral and mental health agencies and providers;
references to high-quality digital content and services and community-
based public media outlets; greater attention to meeting students'
emotional and behavioral needs; requiring data systems that track a
broad range of student outcomes; and specific requirements related to a
comprehensive needs assessment by LEA applicants for SIG funds.
Discussion: Nearly all of the activities and approaches recommended
by the commenters are already either required or permitted under one or
more of the intervention models eligible for funding under the SIG
program. For example, an LEA could convert a SIG school into a magnet
school, which may promote college and career readiness as well as more
diverse and integrated classrooms, while still meeting all other SIG
model requirements. The Department continues to endeavor to strike the
right balance between rigor and flexibility in the SIG program, viewing
each as equally important to the development and implementation of
successful school turnaround plans. For this reason, we decline to
reduce State and local discretion by adding specific requirements in
the areas suggested by the commenters. We intend, however, to issue
guidance that will assist SEAs and LEAs in better understanding the
broad spectrum of allowable activities and uses of SIG funds.
Changes: None.
Impact of Regulatory Changes on Existing Grantees
Comment: One commenter requested that the Department clarify the
impact of these requirements on existing grantees, including the use of
new models.
Discussion: We intend to clarify the impact of these final
requirements on existing grantees through new non-regulatory guidance.
In general, we anticipate that most new requirements, including the
availability of new intervention models, will apply to new SIG awards
made by States with FY 2014 SIG funds. Such application of the new
requirements is consistent with the fact that key changes in this
notice were required in large part by the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2014. One exception to the general rule that the new requirements
will apply only to new SIG subgrantees would be that current SIG
subgrantees may under certain circumstances be able to avail themselves
of continued implementation and sustainability awards under the
expanded five-year award period authorized by the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2014,
[[Page 7241]]
and implemented through these final requirements.
Changes: None.
Excessive Regulation
Comment: Two commenters expressed general concerns about the
complexity and potential administrative burden of the proposed
requirements, stating that they would inhibit locally driven innovation
and that the Department should regulate only where absolutely
necessary.
Discussion: The Secretary agrees with the commenters on the
importance of ensuring that the Department regulate only where
necessary, in the least burdensome manner possible, and that special
care be taken to avoid potential barriers to State and local creativity
and innovation in the use of SIG funds to turn around the Nation's
lowest-performing schools. The regulatory action was undertaken only in
response to new legislation in the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2014, establishing a number of new requirements for the SIG program.
After careful review of the new requirements, the Department determined
that new regulations were required to ensure that the requirements
would be implemented in the least burdensome and most effective manner
possible, consistent with congressional intent. We also made other
minor changes to existing SIG regulations aimed at clarifying State and
local responsibilities in the administration of the SIG program, while
also eliminating certain provisions determined to be outdated or
obsolete. In the case of each new requirement, the Department
considered whether the desired outcome could be achieved through
regulation or non-regulatory guidance, choosing to add regulatory
language only where necessary.
Changes: None.
Requested Changes to Requirements Outside the Scope of the NPR
Comments: Several commenters asked the Department to change
existing requirements that we did not propose to change in the NPR.
Discussion: These commenters requested that the Department make
changes to SIG program requirements that were not proposed for change
in the NPR. However, we stated in the NPR that we were requesting
comments on the proposed revisions rather than all of the SIG program
requirements. We therefore will not respond to comments on requirements
that were unchanged by the NPR, as they are outside the scope of this
rulemaking.
Changes: None.
Final Requirements
The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education
establishes the following requirements for the SIG program. The
Assistant Secretary may use these requirements for any year in which
funds are appropriated for SIG authorized under 1003(g) of the ESEA:
I. SEA Priorities in Awarding School Improvement Grants
A. Defining key terms. To award School Improvement Grants to its
LEAs, consistent with section 1003(g)(6) of the ESEA, an SEA must
select those LEAs with the greatest need for such funds, in accordance
with the requirements in paragraph I.A.1. From among the LEAs in
greatest need, the SEA must select, in accordance with paragraph I.A.2,
those LEAs that demonstrate the strongest commitment to ensuring that
the funds are used to provide adequate resources to enable the lowest-
achieving schools to improve academic achievement. Key terms are
defined as follows:
1. Greatest need. An LEA with the greatest need for a School
Improvement Grant must have one or more schools in at least one of the
categories described in section I.A.1(a)-(c), except that an LEA with
the greatest need for a School Improvement Grant in a State with an
approved ESEA flexibility request must have one or more schools in at
least one of the categories described in section I.A.1(d)-(e):
(a) Tier I schools:
(1) A Tier I school is a title I school in improvement, corrective
action, or restructuring that is identified by the SEA under paragraph
(a)(1) of the definition of ``persistently lowest-achieving schools.''
(2) At its option, an SEA may also identify as a Tier I school an
elementary school that is eligible for title I, Part A funds that--
(A)(i) Has not made adequate yearly progress for at least two
consecutive years; or
(ii) Is in the State's lowest quintile of performance based on
proficiency rates on the State's assessments under section 1111(b)(3)
of the ESEA in reading/language arts and mathematics combined; and
(B) Is no higher achieving than the highest-achieving school
identified by the SEA under paragraph (a)(1)(A) of the definition of
``persistently lowest-achieving schools.''
(b) Tier II schools:
(1) A Tier II school is a secondary school that is eligible for,
but does not receive, title I, Part A funds and is identified by the
SEA under paragraph (a)(2) of the definition of ``persistently lowest-
achieving schools.''
(2) At its option, an SEA may also identify as a Tier II school a
secondary school that is eligible for title I, Part A funds that--
(A)(i) Has not made adequate yearly progress for at least two
consecutive years; or
(ii) Is in the State's lowest quintile of performance based on
proficiency rates on the State's assessments under section 1111(b)(3)
of the ESEA in reading/language arts and mathematics combined; and
(B)(i) Is no higher achieving than the highest-achieving school
identified by the SEA under paragraph (a)(2)(A) of the definition of
``persistently lowest-achieving schools''; or
(ii) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in
34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent over a number of years.
(c) Tier III schools:
(1) A Tier III school is a title I school in improvement,
corrective action, or restructuring that is not a Tier I or a Tier II
school.
(2) At its option, an SEA may also identify as a Tier III school a
school that is eligible for title I, Part A funds that--
(A)(i) Has not made adequate yearly progress for at least two
years; or
(ii) Is in the State's lowest quintile of performance based on
proficiency rates on the State's assessments under section 1111(b)(3)
of the ESEA in reading/language arts and mathematics combined; and
(B) Does not meet the requirements to be a Tier I or Tier II
school.
(3) An SEA may establish additional criteria to use in setting
priorities among LEA applications for funding and to encourage LEAs to
differentiate among Tier III schools in their use of School Improvement
Grants funds.
(d) Priority schools: A priority school is a school identified as a
priority school pursuant to an SEA's approved ESEA flexibility request
and consistent with the ESEA flexibility definition of ``priority
school.'' \4\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ A ``priority school'' is defined as a school that, based on
the most recent data available, has been identified as among the
lowest-performing schools in the State. The total number of priority
schools in a State must be at least five percent of the title I
schools in the State. A priority school is--
A school among the lowest five percent of title I schools in the
State based on the achievement of the ``all students'' group in
terms of proficiency on the statewide assessments that are part of
the SEA's differentiated recognition, accountability, and support
system, combined, and has demonstrated a lack of progress on those
assessments over a number of years in the ``all students'' group;
A title I-participating or title I-eligible high school with a
graduation rate less than 60 percent over a number of years; or
A Tier I or Tier II school under the SIG program that is using
SIG funds to implement a school intervention model.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
[[Page 7242]]
(e) Focus schools: A focus school is a school identified as a focus
school pursuant to an SEA's approved ESEA flexibility request and
consistent with the ESEA flexibility definition of ``focus school.''
\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ A ``focus school'' is defined as a title I school in the
State that, based on the most recent data available, is contributing
to the achievement gap in the State. The total number of focus
schools in a State must equal at least 10 percent of the title I
schools in the State. A focus school is--
A school that has the largest within-school gaps between the
highest-achieving subgroup or subgroups and the lowest-achieving
subgroup or subgroups or, at the high school level, has the largest
within-school gaps in graduation rates; or
A school that has a subgroup or subgroups with low achievement
or, at the high school level, low graduation rates.
An SEA must also identify as a focus school a title I high
school with a graduation rate less than 60 percent over a number of
years that is not identified as a priority school.
These determinations must be based on the achievement and lack
of progress over a number of years of one or more subgroups of
students identified under ESEA section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) in terms
of proficiency on the statewide assessments that are part of the
SEA's differentiated recognition, accountability, and support
system, combined, or, at the high school level, graduation rates for
one or more subgroups.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
2. Strongest commitment. An LEA with the strongest commitment is an
LEA that agrees to implement, and demonstrates the capacity to
implement fully and effectively, one of the following rigorous
interventions in each Tier I and Tier II school or, for an SEA with an
approved ESEA flexibility request, each priority and focus school, that
the LEA commits to serve:
(a) Turnaround model:
(1) A turnaround model is one in which an LEA must implement each
of the following elements:
(A) Replace the principal and grant the principal sufficient
operational flexibility (including in staffing, calendars/time, and
budgeting) to implement fully each element of the turnaround model.
(B) Using locally adopted competencies to measure the effectiveness
of staff who can work within the turnaround environment to meet the
needs of students--
(i) Screen all existing staff and rehire no more than 50 percent;
and
(ii) Select new staff.
(C) Implement such strategies as financial incentives, increased
opportunities for promotion and career growth, and more flexible work
conditions that are designed to recruit, place, and retain staff with
the skills necessary to meet the needs of the students in the
turnaround school.
(D) Provide staff ongoing, high-quality, job-embedded professional
development that is aligned with the school's comprehensive
instructional program and designed with school staff to ensure that
they are equipped to facilitate effective teaching and learning and
have the capacity to successfully implement school reform strategies.
(E) Adopt a new governance structure, which may include, but is not
limited to, requiring the school to report to a new ``turnaround
office'' in the LEA or SEA, hire a ``turnaround leader'' who reports
directly to the Superintendent or Chief Academic Officer, or enter into
a multi-year contract with the LEA or SEA to obtain added flexibility
in exchange for greater accountability.
(F) Use data to identify and implement an instructional program
that is research-based and vertically aligned from one grade to the
next as well as aligned with State academic standards.
(G) Promote the continuous use of student data (such as from
formative, interim, and summative assessments) to inform and
differentiate instruction in order to meet the academic needs of
individual students.
(H) Establish schedules and implement strategies that provide
increased learning time (as defined in these requirements).
(I) Provide appropriate social-emotional and community-oriented
services and supports for students.
(2) A turnaround model may also implement other strategies such
as--
(A) Any of the required and permissible activities under the
transformation model; or
(B) A new school model (e.g., themed, dual language academy).
(b) Restart model:
(1) A restart model is one in which an LEA converts a school or
closes and reopens a school under a charter school operator, a charter
management organization (CMO), or an education management organization
(EMO) that has been selected through a rigorous review process. (A CMO
is a non-profit organization that operates or manages charter schools
by centralizing or sharing certain functions and resources among
schools. An EMO is a for-profit or non-profit organization that
provides ``whole-school operation'' services to an LEA.) The rigorous
review process must include a determination by the LEA that the
selected charter school operator, CMO, or EMO is likely to produce
strong results for the school. In making this determination, the LEA
must consider the extent to which the schools currently operated or
managed by the selected charter school operator, CMO, or EMO, if any,
have produced strong results over the past three years (or over the
life of the school, if the school has been open for fewer than three
years), including--
(A) Significant improvement in academic achievement for all of the
groups of students described in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the ESEA;
(B) Success in closing achievement gaps, either within schools or
relative to all public elementary school and secondary school students
statewide, for all of the groups of students described in section
1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the ESEA;
(C) High school graduation rates, where applicable, that are above
the average rates in the State for the groups of students described in
section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the ESEA; and
(D) No significant compliance issues, including in the areas of
civil rights, financial management, and student safety;
(2) A restart model must enroll, within the grades it serves, any
former student who wishes to attend the school.
(c) School closure: School closure occurs when an LEA closes a
school and enrolls the students who attended that school in other
schools in the LEA that are higher achieving. These other schools
should be within reasonable proximity to the closed school and may
include, but are not limited to, charter schools or new schools for
which achievement data are not yet available.
(d) Transformation model: A transformation model is one in which an
LEA implements each of the following elements:
(1) Developing and increasing teacher and school leader
effectiveness.
(A) Required activities. The LEA must--
(i) Replace the principal who led the school prior to commencement
of the transformation model;
(ii) Implement rigorous, transparent, and equitable evaluation and
support systems for teachers and principals, designed and developed
with teacher and principal involvement, that--
(1) Will be used for continual improvement of instruction;
(2) Meaningfully differentiate performance using at least three
performance levels;
(3) Use multiple valid measures in determining performance levels,
including as a significant factor data on student growth (as defined in
these requirements) for all students (including English learners and
students with disabilities), and other measures of professional
practice (which may be gathered through multiple formats and sources),
such as observations based on rigorous teacher performance standards,
[[Page 7243]]
teacher portfolios, and student and parent surveys;
(4) Evaluate teachers and principals on a regular basis;
(5) Provide clear, timely, and useful feedback, including feedback
that identifies needs and guides professional development; and
(6) Will be used to inform personnel decisions.
(iii) Use the teacher and principal evaluation and support system
described in section I.A.2(d)(1)(A)(ii) of these requirements to
identify and reward school leaders, teachers, and other staff who, in
implementing this model, have increased student achievement and high
school graduation rates and identify and remove those who, after ample
opportunities have been provided for them to improve their professional
practice, have not done so; and
(iv) Implement such strategies as financial incentives, increased
opportunities for promotion and career growth, and more flexible work
conditions that are designed to recruit, place, and retain staff with
the skills necessary to meet the needs of students in the school,
taking into consideration the results from the teacher and principal
evaluation and support system described in section I.A.2(d)(1)(A)(ii)
of these requirements, if applicable.
(B) Permissible activities. An LEA may also implement other
strategies to develop teachers' and school leaders' effectiveness, such
as--
(i) Providing additional compensation to attract and retain staff
with the skills necessary to meet the needs of the students in a
transformation school;
(ii) Instituting a system for measuring changes in instructional
practices resulting from professional development; or
(iii) Ensuring that the school is not required to accept a teacher
without the mutual consent of the teacher and principal, regardless of
the teacher's seniority.
(2) Comprehensive instructional reform strategies.
(A) Required activities. The LEA must--
(i) Use data to identify and implement an instructional program
that is research-based and vertically aligned from one grade to the
next as well as aligned with State academic standards;
(ii) Promote the continuous use of student data (such as from
formative, interim, and summative assessments) to inform and
differentiate instruction in order to meet the academic needs of
individual students; and
(iii) Provide staff ongoing, high-quality, job-embedded
professional development (e.g., regarding subject-specific pedagogy,
instruction that reflects a deeper understanding of the community
served by the school, or differentiated instruction) that is aligned
with the school's comprehensive instructional program and designed with
school staff to ensure they are equipped to facilitate effective
teaching and learning and have the capacity to implement successfully
school reform strategies.
(B) Permissible activities. An LEA may also implement comprehensive
instructional reform strategies, such as--
(i) Conducting periodic reviews to ensure that the instruction is
implemented with fidelity to the selected curriculum, is having the
intended impact on student achievement, and is modified if ineffective;
(ii) Implementing a schoolwide ``response-to-intervention'' model;
(iii) Providing additional supports and professional development to
teachers and principals in order to implement effective strategies to
support students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment
and to ensure that English learners acquire language skills to master
academic content;
(iv) Using and integrating technology-based supports and
interventions as part of the instructional program; and
(v) In secondary schools--
(1) Increasing rigor by offering opportunities for students to
enroll in advanced coursework (such as Advanced Placement;
International Baccalaureate; or science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics courses, especially those that incorporate rigorous and
relevant project-, inquiry-, or design-based contextual learning
opportunities), early-college high schools, dual enrollment programs,
or thematic learning academies that prepare students for college and
careers, including by providing appropriate supports designed to ensure
that low-achieving students can take advantage of these programs and
coursework;
(2) Improving student transition from middle to high school through
summer transition programs or freshman academies;
(3) Increasing graduation rates through, for example, credit-
recovery programs, re-engagement strategies, smaller learning
communities, competency-based instruction and performance-based
assessments, and acceleration of basic reading and mathematics skills;
or
(4) Establishing early-warning systems to identify students who may
be at risk of failing to achieve to high standards or graduate.
(3) Increasing learning time and creating community-oriented
schools.
(A) Required activities. The LEA must--
(i) Establish schedules and strategies that provide increased
learning time (as defined in these requirements); and
(ii) Provide ongoing mechanisms for family and community
engagement.
(B) Permissible activities. An LEA may also implement other
strategies that extend learning time and create community-oriented
schools, such as--
(i) Partnering with parents and parent organizations, faith- and
community-based organizations, health clinics, other State or local
agencies, and others to create safe school environments that meet
students' social, emotional, and health needs;
(ii) Extending or restructuring the school day so as to add time
for such strategies as advisory periods that build relationships
between students, faculty, and other school staff;
(iii) Implementing approaches to improve school climate and
discipline, such as implementing a system of positive behavioral
supports or taking steps to eliminate bullying and student harassment;
or
(iv) Expanding the school program to offer full-day kindergarten or
pre-kindergarten.
(4) Providing operational flexibility and sustained support.
(A) Required activities. The LEA must--
(i) Give the school sufficient operational flexibility (such as
staffing, calendars/time, and budgeting) to implement fully each
element of the transformation model to substantially improve student
achievement outcomes and increase high school graduation rates; and
(ii) Ensure that the school receives ongoing, intensive technical
assistance and related support from the LEA, the SEA, or a designated
external lead partner organization (such as a school turnaround
organization or an EMO).
(B) Permissible activities. The LEA may also implement other
strategies for providing operational flexibility and intensive support,
such as--
(i) Allowing the school to be run under a new governance
arrangement, such as a turnaround division within the LEA or SEA; or
(ii) Implementing a per-pupil, school-based budget formula that is
weighted based on student needs.
(e) Evidence-based, whole-school reform model: An evidence-based,
whole-school reform model--
[[Page 7244]]
(1) Is supported by evidence of effectiveness, which must include
at least one study of the model that--
(A) Meets What Works Clearinghouse evidence standards with or
without reservations; \6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards Handbook
(Version 3.0), which can currently be found at the following link:
http://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/pdf/reference_resources/wwc_procedures_v3_0_standards_handbook.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(B) Found a statistically significant favorable impact on a student
academic achievement or attainment outcome, with no statistically
significant and overriding unfavorable impacts on that outcome for
relevant populations in the study or in other studies of the
intervention reviewed by and reported on by the What Works
Clearinghouse; and
(C) If meeting What Works Clearinghouse evidence standards with
reservations, includes a large sample and a multi-site sample as
defined in 34 CFR 77.1 (Note: multiple studies can cumulatively meet
the large and multi-site sample requirements so long as each study
meets the other requirements in this section);
(2) Is a whole-school reform model as defined in these
requirements; and
(3) Is implemented by the LEA in partnership with a whole-school
reform model developer as defined in these requirements.
(f) Early learning model: An LEA implementing the early learning
model in an elementary school must--
(1) Implement each of the following early learning strategies--
(A) Offer full-day kindergarten;
(B) Establish or expand a high-quality preschool program (as
defined in these requirements);
(2) Provide educators, including preschool teachers, with time for
joint planning across grades to facilitate effective teaching and
learning and positive teacher-student interactions;
(3) Replace the principal who led the school prior to commencement
of the early learning model;
(4) Implement rigorous, transparent, and equitable evaluation and
support systems for teachers and principals, designed and developed
with teacher and principal involvement, that meet the requirements
described in section I.A.2(d)(1)(A)(ii);
(5) Use the teacher and principal evaluation and support system
described in section I.A.2(d)(1)(A)(ii) of these requirements to
identify and reward school leaders, teachers, and other staff who, in
implementing this model, have increased student achievement and
identify and remove those who, after ample opportunities have been
provided for them to improve their professional practice, have not done
so;
(6) Implement such strategies as financial incentives, increased
opportunities for promotion and career growth, and more flexible work
conditions that are designed to recruit, place, and retain staff with
the skills necessary to meet the needs of students in the school,
taking into consideration the results from the teacher and principal
evaluation and support system described in section I.A.2(d)(1)(A)(ii)
of these requirements, if applicable;
(7) Use data to identify and implement an instructional program
that--
(A) Is research-based, developmentally appropriate, and vertically
aligned from one grade to the next as well as aligned with State early
learning and development standards and State academic standards; and
(B) In the early grades, promotes the full range of academic
content across domains of development, including math and science,
language and literacy, socio-emotional skills, self-regulation, and
executive functions;
(8) Promote the continuous use of student data (such as from
formative, interim, and summative assessments) to inform and
differentiate instruction in order to meet the educational and
developmental needs of individual students; and
(9) Provide staff ongoing, high-quality, job-embedded professional
development such as coaching and mentoring (e.g., regarding subject-
specific pedagogy, instruction that reflects a deeper understanding of
the community served by the school, or differentiated instruction) that
is aligned with the school's comprehensive instructional program and
designed with school staff to ensure they are equipped to facilitate
effective teaching and learning and have the capacity to implement
successfully school reform strategies.
(g) Approved State-determined model: An LEA may implement an
intervention developed or adopted by its SEA that has been approved by
the Secretary, consistent with section II.B.1(b).
3. Definitions.
Evidence-based strategy means a strategy supported by at least
moderate evidence of effectiveness as defined in 34 CFR 77.1.
High-quality preschool program means an early learning program that
includes structural elements that are evidence-based and nationally
recognized as important for ensuring program quality, including at a
minimum--
(a) High staff qualifications, including a teacher with a
bachelor's degree in early childhood education or a bachelor's degree
in any field with a State-approved alternate pathway, which may include
coursework, clinical practice, and evidence of knowledge of content and
pedagogy relating to early childhood, and teaching assistants with
appropriate credentials;
(b) High-quality professional development for all staff;
(c) A child-to-instructional staff ratio of no more than 10 to 1;
(d) A class size of no more than 20 with, at a minimum, one teacher
with high staff qualifications as outlined in paragraph (a) of this
definition;
(e) A full-day program;
(f) Inclusion of children with disabilities to ensure access to and
full participation in all opportunities;
(g) Developmentally appropriate, culturally and linguistically
responsive instruction and evidence-based curricula, and learning
environments that are aligned with the State early learning and
development standards, for at least the year prior to kindergarten
entry;
(h) Individualized accommodations and supports so that all children
can access and participate fully in learning activities;
(i) Instructional staff salaries that are comparable to the
salaries of local K-12 instructional staff;
(j) Program evaluation to ensure continuous improvement;
(k) On-site or accessible comprehensive services for children and
community partnerships that promote families' access to services that
support their children's learning and development; and
(l) Evidence-based health and safety standards.
Increased learning time means using a longer school day, week, or
year schedule to significantly increase the total number of school
hours to include additional time for--
(a) Instruction in one or more core academic subjects, including
English, reading or language arts, mathematics, science, foreign
languages, civics and government, economics, arts, history, and
geography;
(b) Instruction in other subjects and enrichment activities that
contribute to a well-rounded education, including, for example,
physical education, service learning, and experiential and work-based
learning opportunities that are provided by partnering, as appropriate,
with other organizations; and
[[Page 7245]]
(c) Teachers to collaborate, plan, and engage in professional
development within and across grades and subjects.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Evidence from the field shows that increasing learning time
in a strategic, high-quality manner is often a key element of
successful school turnaround. See ``The Case for Improving and
Expanding Time in School: A Review of Key Research and Practice,
available at www.timeandlearning.org/files/CaseforMoreTime_1.pdf.''
National Center on Time and Learning, April 2012.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Persistently lowest-achieving schools means, as determined by the
State--
(a)(1) Any title I school in improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring that--
(A) Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of title I schools
in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring or the lowest-
achieving five title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring in the State, whichever number of schools is greater; or
(B) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in
34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent over a number of years;
and
(2) Any secondary school that is eligible for, but does not
receive, title I funds that--
(A) Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of secondary schools
or the lowest-achieving five secondary schools in the State that are
eligible for, but do not receive, title I funds, whichever number of
schools is greater; or
(B) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in
34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent over a number of years.
(b) To identify the lowest-achieving schools, a State must take
into account both--
(1) The academic achievement of the ``all students'' group in a
school in terms of proficiency on the State's assessments under section
1111(b)(3) of the ESEA in reading/language arts and mathematics
combined; and
(2) The school's lack of progress on those assessments over a
number of years for the ``all students'' group.
Student growth means the change in student achievement for an
individual student between two or more points in time. For the purpose
of this definition, student achievement means--
(a) For grades and subjects in which assessments are required under
section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA, a student's score on such assessments
and may include other measures of student learning, such as those
described in paragraph (b) of this definition, provided they are
rigorous and comparable across schools within an LEA.
(b) For grades and subjects in which assessments are not required
under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA, alternative measures of student
learning and performance, such as student results on pre-tests, end-of-
course tests, and objective performance-based assessments; student
learning objectives; student performance on English language
proficiency assessments; and other measures of student achievement that
are rigorous and comparable across schools within an LEA.
Whole-school reform model means a model that is designed to--
(a) Improve student academic achievement or attainment;
(b) Be implemented for all students in a school; and
(c) Address, at a minimum and in a comprehensive and coordinated
manner, each of the following:
(1) School leadership.
(2) Teaching and learning in at least one full academic content
area (including professional learning for educators).
(3) Student non-academic support.
(4) Family and community engagement.
Whole-school reform model developer means an entity or individual
that--
(a) Maintains proprietary rights for the model; or
(b) If no entity or individual maintains proprietary rights for the
model, has a demonstrated record of success in implementing a whole-
school reform model (as defined in these requirements) and is selected
through a rigorous review process that includes a determination that
the entity or individual is likely to produce strong results for the
school.
4. Evidence of strongest commitment.
(a) In determining the strength of an LEA's commitment to ensuring
that School Improvement Grants funds are used to provide adequate
resources to enable Tier I, Tier II, priority, and focus schools to
improve student achievement substantially, an SEA must consider, at a
minimum, the extent to which the LEA's application demonstrates that
the LEA has taken, or will take, action to--
(1) In selecting the intervention for each eligible school--
(A) Ensure that the selected intervention is designed to meet the
specific needs of the school, based on a needs analysis that, among
other things, analyzes the needs identified by families and the
community; and
(B) Take into consideration family and community input.
(2) Design and implement interventions consistent with these
requirements;
(3) Use the School Improvement Grants funds to provide adequate
resources and related support to each school it commits to serve in
order to implement fully and effectively the selected intervention on
the first day of the first school year of full implementation;
(4) Recruit, screen, and select external providers, if applicable,
to ensure their quality, and regularly review and hold accountable such
providers for their performance;
(5) Align other resources with the selected intervention;
(6) Modify its practices or policies, if necessary, to enable it to
implement the selected intervention fully and effectively;
(7) Provide effective oversight and support for implementation of
the selected intervention for each school it proposes to serve, such as
by creating an LEA turnaround office;
(8) Meaningfully engage families and the community in the
implementation of the selected intervention on an ongoing basis;
(9) For an LEA eligible for services under subpart 1 or 2 of part B
of title VI of the ESEA that chooses to modify one element of the
turnaround or transformation model under section I.B.6 of these
requirements, meet the intent and purpose of that element;
(10) For an LEA that applies to implement an evidence-based, whole-
school reform model in one or more eligible schools--
(A) Implement a model with evidence of effectiveness that includes
a sample population or setting similar to the population or setting of
the school to be served; and
(B) Partner with a whole-school reform model developer, as defined
in these requirements;
(11) For an LEA that applies to implement the restart model in one
or more eligible schools, conduct a rigorous review process, as
described in section I.A.2(b), of the charter school operator, CMO, or
EMO that it has selected to operate or manage the school or schools;
(12) Sustain the reforms after the funding period ends; and
(13) Implement, to the extent practicable, in accordance with its
selected SIG intervention model, one or more evidence-based strategies
(as defined in this notice).
(b) The SEA must consider the LEA's capacity to implement the
interventions and may approve the LEA to serve only those Tier I, Tier
II, priority, and focus schools for which the SEA determines that the
LEA can implement fully and effectively one of the interventions.
B. Providing flexibility.
[[Page 7246]]
1. An SEA may award School Improvement Grants funds to an LEA for a
Tier I, Tier II, priority, or focus school that has implemented, in
whole or in part, an intervention that meets the requirements under
section I.A.2(a), 2(b), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), or 2(g) of these requirements
during the school year in which the LEA applies for School Improvement
Grants funds or during the two school years prior to the school year in
which the LEA applies for School Improvement Grants funds, so that the
LEA and school can continue or complete the intervention being
implemented in that school.
2. An SEA may seek a waiver from the Secretary of the requirements
in section 1116(b) of the ESEA in order to permit a Tier I or Tier II
title I participating school implementing an intervention that meets
the requirements under section I.A.2(a), 2(b), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), or
2(g) of these requirements in an LEA that receives a School Improvement
Grant to ``start over'' in the school improvement timeline. Even though
a school implementing the waiver would no longer be in improvement,
corrective action, or restructuring, it may receive School Improvement
Grants funds.
3. An SEA may seek a waiver from the Secretary to enable a Tier I
or Tier II title I participating school that is ineligible to operate a
title I schoolwide program and is operating a title I targeted
assistance program to operate a schoolwide program in order to
implement an intervention that meets the requirements under section
I.A.2(a), 2(b), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), or 2(g) of these requirements.
4. An SEA may seek a waiver from the Secretary to extend the period
of availability of School Improvement Grants funds so as to make those
funds available to the SEA and its LEAs for up to five years.
5. If an SEA does not seek a waiver under section I.B.2, 3, or 4,
an LEA may seek a waiver.
6. An LEA eligible for services under subpart 1 or 2 of part B of
title VI of the ESEA may modify one element of the turnaround or
transformation model so long as the modification meets the intent and
purpose of the original element, in accordance with section I.A.4(a)(9)
of these requirements.
II. Awarding School Improvement Grants to LEAs
A. LEA requirements.
1. An LEA may apply for a School Improvement Grant if it receives
title I, Part A funds and has one or more schools that qualify under
the State's definition of a ``Tier I,'' ``Tier II,'' ``Tier III,''
``priority,'' or ``focus'' school.
2. In its application, in addition to other information that the
SEA may require, the LEA must--
(a) Identify the schools it commits to serve;
(b) Identify the intervention it will implement in each Tier I,
Tier II, priority, and focus school it commits to serve;
(c) Provide evidence of its strong commitment to use School
Improvement Grants funds to implement the selected intervention by
addressing the factors in section I.A.4(a) of these requirements;
(d) Include a timeline delineating the steps the LEA will take to
implement the selected intervention in each school identified in the
LEA's application; and
(e) Include a budget indicating how it will allocate School
Improvement Grants funds among the schools it commits to serve that is
of sufficient size and scope and that:
(1) For each Tier I, Tier II, priority, and focus school the LEA
commits to serve, ensures that the LEA can implement one of the
interventions identified in sections I.A.2(a)-(b) or sections I.A.2(d)-
(g) of these requirements for a minimum of three years and no more than
five years; and
(2) For each Tier III school the LEA commits to serve, includes the
services it will provide the school, particularly if the school meets
additional criteria established by the SEA, for a minimum of three
years and no more than five years.
3. An LEA that intends to use the first year of its School
Improvement Grants award for planning and other pre-implementation
activities for an eligible school must include in its application to
the SEA a description of the activities, the timeline for implementing
those activities, and a description of how those activities will lead
to successful implementation of the selected intervention.
4. The LEA must serve:
(a) In an SEA with an approved ESEA flexibility request, each
priority school unless the LEA demonstrates that it lacks sufficient
capacity to undertake one of the interventions described in section
I.A.2 of these requirements in each priority school, in which case the
LEA must indicate the priority schools that it can effectively serve.
An LEA may not serve with School Improvement Grants funds awarded under
section 1003(g) of the ESEA a priority or focus school in which it does
not implement one of the interventions identified in section I.A.2 of
these requirements.
(b) In all other SEAs, each Tier I school unless the LEA
demonstrates that it lacks sufficient capacity (which may be due, in
part, to serving Tier II schools) to undertake one of the interventions
described in section I.A.2 of these requirements in each Tier I school,
in which case the LEA must indicate the Tier I schools that it can
effectively serve. An LEA may not serve with School Improvement Grants
funds awarded under section 1003(g) of the ESEA a Tier I or Tier II
school in which it does not implement one of the interventions
identified in section I.A.2 of these requirements.
5. An LEA that commits to serve schools that do not receive title
I, Part A funds must ensure that each such school it serves receives
all of the State and local funds it would have received in the absence
of the School Improvement Grants funds.
6. An LEA in which one or more Tier I schools are located and that
does not apply to serve at least one of these schools may not apply for
a grant to serve only Tier III schools.
7. An LEA in which one or more priority schools are located and
that does not apply to serve all of these schools may not apply for a
grant to serve one or more focus schools.
8. (a) To monitor each Tier I, Tier II, priority, and focus school
that receives School Improvement Grants funds, an LEA must--
(1) Establish annual goals for student achievement on the State's
assessments in both reading/language arts and mathematics; and
(2) Measure progress on the leading indicators in section III of
these requirements.
(b) The LEA must also meet the requirements with respect to
adequate yearly progress in section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA, if
applicable.
9. An LEA must hold the charter school operator, CMO, EMO, or other
external provider accountable for meeting these requirements, if
applicable.
B. SEA requirements.
1. (a) To receive a School Improvement Grant, an SEA must submit an
application to the Department at such time, and containing such
information, as the Secretary shall reasonably require.
(b) In its application to the Department, each SEA may submit one
State-determined intervention model for the Secretary's review and
approval. To be approved, a State-determined model must be a whole-
school reform model as defined in these requirements and, at the SEA's
discretion, may also include any other elements or strategies that the
SEA determines will help improve student achievement.
[[Page 7247]]
2. (a) An SEA must review and approve, consistent with these
requirements, an application for a School Improvement Grant that it
receives from an LEA.
(b) Before approving an LEA's application, the SEA must ensure that
the application meets these requirements, particularly with respect
to--
(1) Whether the LEA has agreed to implement one of the
interventions identified in section I.A.2 of these requirements in each
Tier I and Tier II school or, for an SEA with an approved ESEA
flexibility request, each priority and focus school included in its
application;
(2) The extent to which the LEA's application demonstrates the
LEA's strong commitment to use School Improvement Grants funds to
implement the selected intervention by addressing the factors in
section I.A.4 of these requirements;
(3) Whether the LEA has the capacity to implement the selected
intervention fully and effectively in each school identified in its
application; and
(4) Whether the LEA has submitted a budget that includes sufficient
funds to implement the selected intervention fully and effectively in
each school it identifies in its application.
3. An SEA may, consistent with State law, take over an LEA or
specific Tier I, Tier II, priority, or focus schools in order to
implement the interventions in these requirements.
4. An SEA may not require an LEA to implement a particular
intervention in one or more schools unless the SEA has taken over the
LEA or school.
5. To the extent that a school implementing a restart model becomes
a charter school LEA, an SEA must hold the charter school LEA
accountable, or ensure that the charter school authorizer holds it
accountable, for complying with these requirements.
6. An SEA must post on its Web site, within 30 days of awarding
School Improvement Grants to LEAs and within 30 days of approving any
amendments to LEA applications, all approved LEA applications
(including applications to serve Tier I, Tier II, Tier III, priority,
and focus schools and approved amendments) as well as a summary of
those grants that includes the following information:
(a) Name and National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
identification number of each LEA awarded a grant.
(b) Amount of each LEA's grant.
(c) Name and NCES identification number of each school to be
served.
(d) Type of intervention to be implemented in each Tier I, Tier II,
priority, and focus school.
7. If an SEA does not have sufficient School Improvement Grants
funds to award, for at least three years, a grant to each LEA that
submits an approvable application, the SEA must give priority to LEAs
to serve Tier I or Tier II schools or, for an SEA with an approved ESEA
flexibility request, the SEA must give priority to LEAs to serve
priority schools.
8. An SEA must award a School Improvement Grant to an LEA in an
amount that is of sufficient size and scope to support the activities
required under section 1116 of the ESEA and these requirements. The
LEA's total grant may not be less than $50,000 for each school it
commits to serve and, for each school in which the LEA commits to fully
implement an intervention that meets the requirements under section
I.A.2(a), 2(b), 2(d), 2(e), 2(f), or 2(g) of these requirements, may be
up to $2,000,000 per year.
9. If an SEA does not have sufficient School Improvement Grants
funds to allocate to each LEA with a Tier I or Tier II school or, in an
SEA with an approved ESEA flexibility request, to each LEA with a
priority or focus school, an amount sufficient to enable the school to
implement fully and effectively the specified intervention throughout
the period of availability, including any extension afforded through a
waiver, the SEA may take into account--
(a) the distribution of Tier I, Tier II, priority, and focus
schools among such LEAs in the State to ensure that Tier I and Tier II
schools or, in an SEA with an approved ESEA flexibility request,
priority and focus schools throughout the State can be served and
(b) the extent to which an LEA applying for a SIG award
demonstrates in its application that it will implement one or more
evidence-based strategies (as defined in this notice) as part of the
SIG intervention model it implements in a school.
10. In identifying Tier I, Tier II, priority, and focus schools in
a State for purposes of allocating funds appropriated for School
Improvement Grants under section 1003(g) of the ESEA, an SEA must
exclude from consideration any school that was previously identified as
a Tier I, Tier II, priority, or focus school and in which an LEA is
implementing one of the interventions identified in these requirements
using funds made available under section 1003(g) of the ESEA.
11. Before submitting its application for a School Improvement
Grant to the Department, the SEA must consult with its Committee of
Practitioners established under section 1903(b) of the ESEA regarding
the rules and policies contained therein and may consult with other
stakeholders that have an interest in its application.
C. Renewal for additional one-year periods.
1. An SEA must renew the School Improvement Grant for each affected
LEA for additional one-year periods, subject to sections II.C.4-C.6 of
these requirements, if the LEA demonstrates that its Tier I, Tier II,
priority, and focus schools are meeting the annual goals for student
achievement established by the LEA consistent with section II.A.8 of
these requirements, and that its Tier III schools are meeting the goals
established by the LEA and approved by the SEA.
2. An SEA may renew an LEA's School Improvement Grant with respect
to a particular school, subject to the requirements in sections II.C.4-
C.6, if the SEA determines that, with respect to that school--
(a) The school is making progress toward meeting the annual goals
for student achievement established by the LEA consistent with section
II.A.8 of these requirements;
(b) The school is making progress on the leading indicators in
section III of these requirements;
(c) The LEA is implementing interventions in the school with
fidelity to applicable requirements and to the LEA's application; or
(d) The LEA's Tier III school is making progress toward the goals
established by the LEA.
3. If an SEA does not renew an LEA's School Improvement Grant with
respect to a particular school, the SEA may reallocate those funds to
other eligible LEAs, consistent with these requirements.
4. An SEA, prior to renewing the School Improvement Grant of an LEA
that received funds for a full year of planning and other pre-
implementation activities for a particular school, must review the
performance of the LEA in that school during the planning year against
the LEA's approved application and determine that the LEA will be able
to fully implement its chosen intervention for the school on the first
day of the following school year.
5. An SEA may renew an LEA's School Improvement Grant for a
particular school, after three years of continuous intervention
implementation in that school, after the SEA has determined that such
renewal
[[Page 7248]]
is appropriate pursuant to the criteria in sections II.C.1-C.2 of these
requirements, for up to an additional two years for continued full
implementation of the intervention or for activities related to
sustaining reforms in the school. An SEA may not renew an LEA's School
Improvement Grant if doing so would result in more than five years of
continuous School Improvement Grants funding with respect to a
particular school.
6. Nothing in these requirements diminishes an SEA's authority to
take appropriate enforcement action with respect to an LEA that is not
complying with the terms of its grant.
D. State reservation for administration, evaluation, and technical
assistance.
An SEA may reserve from the School Improvement Grants funds it
receives under section 1003(g) of the ESEA in any given year no more
than five percent for administration, evaluation, and technical
assistance expenses. An SEA must describe in its application for a
School Improvement Grant how the SEA will use these funds.
III. Reporting and Evaluation
A. Reporting metrics.
To inform and evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions
identified in these requirements, the Secretary will collect data on
the metrics in the following chart. Accordingly, an SEA must report
only the following new data with respect to School Improvement Grants:
1. A list of the LEAs, including their NCES identification numbers,
that received a School Improvement Grant under section 1003(g) of the
ESEA and the amount of the grant.
2. For each LEA that received a School Improvement Grant, a list of
the schools that were served, their NCES identification numbers, and
the amount of funds or value of services each school received.
3. For any Tier I, Tier II, priority, or focus school, school-level
data on the metrics designated on the following chart as ``SIG''
(School Improvement Grants):
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Achievement Leading
Metric Source indicators indicators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SCHOOL DATA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which intervention the school used (e.g., SIG...........................
turnaround, restart, evidence-based, whole-
school reform model).
Number of schools in rural LEAs implementing SIG...........................
an intervention model with a modified element
pursuant to section I.B.6 of these
requirements.
Which intervention the school in a rural LEA SIG...........................
implementing an intervention model with a
modified element pursuant to section I.B.6 of
these requirements used.
AYP status.................................... EDFacts....................... [check]
Which AYP targets the school met and missed... EDFacts....................... [check]
School improvement status..................... EDFacts....................... [check]
Number of minutes within the school year...... SIG........................... ............... [check]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUDENT OUTCOME/ACADEMIC PROGRESS DATA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of students at or above each EDFacts....................... [check]
proficiency level on State assessments in
reading/language arts and mathematics (e.g.,
Basic, Proficient, Advanced), by grade and by
student subgroup.
Student participation rate on State EDFacts....................... ............... [check]
assessments in reading/language arts and in
mathematics, by student subgroup.
Average scale scores on State assessments in SIG........................... [check]
reading/language arts and in mathematics, by
grade, for the ``all students'' group, for
each achievement quartile, and for each
subgroup.
Percentage of limited English proficient SIG........................... [check]
students who attain English language
proficiency.
Graduation rate............................... EDFacts....................... [check]
Dropout rate.................................. EDFacts....................... ............... [check]
Student attendance rate....................... SIG........................... ............... [check]
Number and percentage of students completing SIG........................... ............... [check]
advanced coursework (e.g., AP/IB), early- HS only.......................
college high schools, or dual enrollment
classes.
College enrollment rates...................... EDFacts....................... [check]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STUDENT CONNECTION AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discipline incidents.......................... EDFacts....................... ............... [check]
Chronic absenteeism rates..................... CRDC.......................... ............... [check]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
TALENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of teachers by performance level SIG........................... ............... [check]
on LEA's teacher evaluation system.
Teacher attendance rate....................... SIG........................... ............... [check]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4. An SEA must report these metrics for the school year prior to
implementing the intervention, if the data exist, to serve as a
baseline, and for each year thereafter for which the SEA allocates
School Improvement Grants funds under section 1003(g) of the ESEA. With
respect to a school that is closed, the SEA need report only the
identity of the school and the intervention taken--i.e., school
closure.
B. Evaluation.
An LEA that receives a School Improvement Grant must participate in
any evaluation of that grant conducted by the Secretary.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use this priority and these definitions, we invite
applications through a notice in the Federal Register.
[[Page 7249]]
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
Regulatory Impact Analysis
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether
this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to
the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the
Office of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely
to result in a rule that may--
(1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more,
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or
tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
(2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an
action taken or planned by another agency;
(3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants,
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients
thereof; or
(4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the
Executive order.
This final regulatory action will have an annual effect on the
economy of more than $100 million because fiscal year 2014
appropriations for the program, which the Department will award to SEAs
in fiscal year 2015, are approximately $506 million. Therefore, this
final action is ``economically significant'' and subject to review by
OMB under section 3(f)(1) of Executive Order 12866. Notwithstanding
this determination, we have assessed the potential costs and benefits,
both quantitative and qualitative, of this regulatory action and have
determined that the benefits justify the costs.
We have also reviewed this regulatory action under Executive Order
13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only upon a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practicable--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety, and other
advantages; distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated
behavioral changes.''
We are issuing these final requirements only on a reasoned
determination that their benefits justify their costs. In choosing
among alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches
that would maximize net benefits. Based on the analysis that follows,
the Department believes that this regulatory action is consistent with
the principles in Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action will not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
In this regulatory impact analysis we discuss the potential costs
and benefits and the regulatory alternatives we considered.
Summary of Potential Costs and Benefits
The Department believes that the final requirements will not impose
significant costs on SEAs and LEAs that receive SIG funds. State and
local costs of implementing the final requirements (including State
costs of applying for grants, distributing grant funds to LEAs,
ensuring compliance with the proposed requirements, and reporting to
the Department; and LEA costs of applying for subgrants and
implementing interventions) will be financed through grant funds. We do
not believe that the final requirements will impose burden that SEAs or
LEAs will need to meet from other sources.
This regulatory action will continue to drive SIG funds to LEAs
that have the lowest-achieving schools in amounts sufficient to turn
those schools around and significantly increase student achievement. It
will also continue to require participating LEAs to adopt the most
effective approaches to turning around low-achieving schools. In short,
we believe that this action will ensure that limited SIG funds continue
to be put to their optimum use--that is, that they are targeted to
where they are most needed and used in the most effective manner
possible. The benefits, then, will be more effective schools serving
children from low-income families and a better education for those
children.
Regulatory Alternatives Considered
As discussed elsewhere, the Department believes that the final
requirements are needed to ensure that the SIG program is implemented
in a manner that, among other things, is consistent with the
programmatic changes made by Congress in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2014. One alternative to promulgation of the final
requirements would be for the Department to allocate fiscal year 2014
SIG funds without establishing any new requirements governing their
use. Under such an alternative, States and LEAs would need to implement
the new provisions in the appropriations language without key
regulatory support from the Department. For instance, each State would
be responsible for ensuring, for its LEAs that seek to use SIG funds to
implement an evidence-based, whole-school reform model in an eligible
school, that the strategy selected by the LEA constitutes whole-school
reform and is supported by at least moderate evidence of effectiveness.
We do not believe that States generally possess the capacity or
expertise needed to meet this responsibility with the amount of rigor
expected by Congress.
Elsewhere in this section under Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995, we
identify and explain burdens specifically associated with information
collection requirements.
Accounting Statement
As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf), in the
following table we have prepared an accounting statement showing the
classification of the expenditures associated with the provisions of
this regulatory action. This table provides our best estimate of the
changes in annual monetized transfers as a result of this regulatory
action.
[[Page 7250]]
Expenditures are classified as transfers from the Federal Government to
SEAs.
Accounting Statement Classification of Estimated Expenditures
[In millions]
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category Transfers
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Annualized Monetized Transfers............ $506.
From Whom To Whom?........................ From the Federal Government
to SEAs.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
Under the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520), we
have assessed the potential information collections in these proposed
regulations that would be subject to review by OMB (School Improvement
Grants OMB Control number 1810-0682). In conducting this analysis, the
Department examined the extent to which the amended regulations would
add information collection requirements for public agencies. Based on
this analysis, the Secretary has concluded that these amendments to the
School Improvement Grants regulations would not impose additional
burden associated with information collection requirements.
Changes to the SEA Applications
Under final requirement section II.B.1(b), each SEA may submit, as
part of the required application it submits to the Department to
receive SIG funds, one State-determined intervention model for review
and approval by the Secretary. These final requirements require an SEA
to submit a State-determined intervention model as part of its
application, if a State chooses to implement this model.
Under the burden estimates currently approved by OMB, 52 SEAs will
complete, review, and post SEA and LEA applications for a total of
46,800 annual burden hours at a cost of $30 per hour, totaling an
annual cost of $1,404,000. These final requirements do not change the
currently approved annual burden for SEAs.
Revising Reporting Requirements
The final requirements make a number of clarifications to the
reporting requirements. First, final requirement section III.A.3
eliminates the metric for ``Truants'' and replaces it with ``Chronic
absenteeism rates.'' Second, final requirement III.A clarifies the
correct source for each of the required metrics and removes references
to the SFSF previously approved under OMB data collection 1810-0695.
Finally, final requirements in section III.A.3 require an SEA to
report, with respect to schools receiving SIG awards, the number of
schools implementing models with a modified element pursuant to section
I.B.6 and which models are being implemented in those schools.
Under the reporting burden estimates, 52 SEAs will report SEA and
LEA requirements for a total of 3,640 annual burden hours at a cost of
$30 per hour totaling an annual cost of $109,200. These final
requirements add burden to the currently approved annual burden for
SEAs.
Changes to the LEA Application
The final requirements also add to the existing requirements in
section I.A.4(a) (Evidence of strongest commitment) information that,
under section II.A.2(c), the LEA must include in the LEA application
related to an evidence-based, whole-school reform strategy (for those
LEAs that propose to implement such a strategy); meaningful family and
community engagement; LEA oversight and support of SIG implementation;
review of, and accountability for, external provider performance;
implementation of an evidence-based strategy or strategies, if
practicable; the review process for selecting a charter school
operator, CMO, or EMO; and implementation of evidence-based strategies.
Under the burden estimates that are currently approved by OMB,
3,050 LEAs will complete an application for a total of 183,000 annual
burden hours at a cost of $25 per hour totaling an annual cost of
$4,575,000. These final requirements do not change the approved annual
burden for LEAs.
Collection of Information
State Educational Agency Estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIG Activity Number of SEAs Hours/Activity Hours Cost/Hour Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complete SEA application 52 100 5,200 $30 $156,000
(including requests for
waivers).......................
Review and post LEA applications 52 800 41,600 $30 $1,248,000
Reporting....................... 52 70 3,640 $30 $109,200
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... .............. .............. 50,440 $30 $1,513,200
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Local Educational Agency Estimate
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SIG Activity Number of LEAs Hours/Activity Hours Cost/Hour Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complete LEA application........ 3,050 60 183,000 $25 $4,575,000
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Total....................... .............. .............. 183,000 $25 $4,575,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Waiver of Congressional Review Act
These regulations have been determined to be major for purposes of
the Congressional Review Act (CRA) (5 U.S.C. 801, et seq.). Generally,
under the CRA, a major rule takes effect 60 days after the date on
which the rule is published in the Federal Register. Section 808(2) of
the CRA, however, provides that any rule which an agency for good cause
finds (and incorporates the finding and a brief statement of reasons
therefor in the rule issued) that notice and public procedure thereon
are impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary to the public interest,
shall take effect at such time as the Federal agency promulgating the
rule determines.
These final requirements implement language in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2014 (Pub L. 113-76), that modifies the SIG program
in substantial ways, described below. The Department must award SIG
funds to State educational agencies (SEAs) in
[[Page 7251]]
enough time that they can conduct competitions for LEAs to apply for
the SIG funds and begin implementation by the start of the 2015-2016
school year. Even on an extremely expedited timeline, it is
impracticable for the Department to adhere to a 60-day delayed
effective date for the final requirements and make grant awards to SEAs
such that there is sufficient time for them to conduct competitions.
When the 60-day delayed effective date is added to the time the
Department will need to receive SEA applications (approximately 30 days
from the date on which these final requirements become effective),
review the applications (approximately 14 days), and finally approve
applications (approximately 30 days), the Department will not be able
to allocate funds authorized under the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2014, and section 1003(g) of title I of the ESEA to all qualified
applicants before June 2015, leaving SEAs almost no time to conduct LEA
competitions before the start of the school year. Therefore, waiting
the full 60 days would cause an undue burden to SEAs and LEAs by giving
them a shorter period of time to plan for and implement the new SIG
requirements. With approximately $506 million at stake, the delayed
effective date would be impracticable and contrary to the public
interest. The Department has therefore determined that, pursuant to
section 808(2) of the CRA, the 60-day delay in the effective date
generally required for congressional review is impracticable, contrary
to the public interest, and waived for good cause.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc) on request to the program contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document: The official version of this
document is the document published in the Federal Register. Free
Internet access to the official edition of the Federal Register and the
Code of Federal Regulations is available via the Federal Digital System
at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you can view this document, as well
as all other documents of this Department published in the Federal
Register, in text or Adobe Portable Document Format (PDF). To use PDF
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available free at the
site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at:
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
Deborah Delisle,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2015-02570 Filed 2-4-15; 4:15 pm]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P