Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests, 25575-25577 [E6-6526]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 2006 / Notices
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Submission for OMB Review;
Comment Request
Department of Education.
The IC Clearance Official,
Regulatory Information Management
Services, Office of Management invites
comments on the submission for OMB
review as required by the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Interested persons are invited to
submit comments on or before May 31,
2006.
ADDRESSES: Written comments should
be addressed to the Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs,
Attention: Rachel Potter, Desk Officer,
Department of Education, Office of
Management and Budget, 725 17th
Street, NW., Room 10222, New
Executive Office Building, Washington,
DC 20503 or faxed to (202) 395–6974.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires
that the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) provide interested
Federal agencies and the public an early
opportunity to comment on information
collection requests. OMB may amend or
waive the requirement for public
consultation to the extent that public
participation in the approval process
would defeat the purpose of the
information collection, violate State or
Federal law, or substantially interfere
with any agency’s ability to perform its
statutory obligations. The IC Clearance
Official, Regulatory Information
Management Services, Office of
Management, publishes that notice
containing proposed information
collection requests prior to submission
of these requests to OMB. Each
proposed information collection,
grouped by office, contains the
following: (1) Type of review requested,
e.g. new, revision, extension, existing or
reinstatement; (2) Title; (3) Summary of
the collection; (4) Description of the
need for, and proposed use of, the
information; (5) Respondents and
frequency of collection; and (6)
Reporting and/or Recordkeeping
burden. OMB invites public comment.
AGENCY:
SUMMARY:
cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
Dated: April 25, 2006.
Angela C. Arrington,
IC Clearance Official, Regulatory Information
Management Services, Office of Management.
Office of Postsecondary Education
Type of Review: Revision.
Title: Higher Education Act (HEA)
Title II Reporting Forms on Teacher
Quality and Preparation.
Frequency: Annually.
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:38 Apr 28, 2006
Jkt 208001
Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal
Gov’t, SEAs or LEAs; not-for-profit
institutions.
Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour
Burden:
Responses: 1,309.
Burden Hours: 121,632.
Abstract: The Higher Education Act of
1998 calls for annual reports from states
and institutions of higher education
(IHE) on the quality of teacher education
and related matters (Pub. L. 105–244,
section 207:20 U.S.C. 1027). The
purpose of the reports is to provide
greater accountability in the preparation
of America’s teaching forces and to
provide information and incentives for
its improvement. Most IHEs that have
teacher preparation programs must
report annually to their states on the
performance of their program
completers on teacher certification tests.
States, in turn, must report test
performance information, institution by
institution, to the Secretary of
Education, along with institution
rankings. They must also report on their
requirements for licensing teachers,
state standards, alternative routes to
certifications, waivers, and related
items.
Requests for copies of the information
collection submission for OMB review
may be accessed from https://
edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the
‘‘Browse Pending Collections’’ link and
by clicking on link number 2975. When
you access the information collection,
click on ‘‘Download Attachments’’ to
view. Written requests for information
should be addressed to U.S. Department
of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue,
SW., Potomac Center, 9th Floor,
Washington, DC 20202–4700. Requests
may also be electronically mailed to IC
DocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202–245–
6623. Please specify the complete title
of the information collection when
making your request.
Comments regarding burden and/or
the collection activity requirements
should be electronically mailed to IC
DocketMgr@ed.gov. Individuals who use
a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–
800–877–8339.
[FR Doc. E6–6522 Filed 4–28–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Notice of Proposed Information
Collection Requests
Department of Education.
The Director, Regulatory
Information Management Services,
AGENCY:
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
25575
Office of Management, invites
comments on the proposed information
collection requests as required by the
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Interested persons are invited to
submit comments on or before June 30,
2006.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section
3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act of
1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires
that the Office of Management and
Budget (OMB) provide interested
Federal agencies and the public an early
opportunity to comment on information
collection requests. OMB may amend or
waive the requirement for public
consultation to the extent that public
participation in the approval process
would defeat the purpose of the
information collection, violate State or
Federal law, or substantially interfere
with any agency’s ability to perform its
statutory obligations. The Director,
Regulatory Information Management
Services, Office of Management,
publishes that notice containing
proposed information collection
requests prior to submission of these
requests to OMB. Each proposed
information collection, grouped by
office, contains the following: (1) Type
of review requested, e.g. new, revision,
extension, existing or reinstatement; (2)
Title; (3) Summary of the collection; (4)
Description of the need for, and
proposed use of, the information; (5)
Respondents and frequency of
collection; and (6) Reporting and/or
Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites
public comment.
The Department of Education is
especially interested in public comment
addressing the following issues: (1) Is
this collection necessary to the proper
functions of the Department; (2) will
this information be processed and used
in a timely manner; (3) is the estimate
of burden accurate; (4) how might the
Department enhance the quality, utility,
and clarity of the information to be
collected; and (5) how might the
Department minimize the burden of this
collection on the respondents, including
through the use of information
technology.
Dated: April 25, 2006.
Jeanne Van Vlandren,
Director, Regulatory Information
Management Services, Office of Management.
Office of Planning, Evaluation, and
Policy Development.
Type of Review: Regular.
Title: Annual Mandatory Collection of
Elementary and Secondary Education
Data for the Education Data Exchange
Network (EDEN).
Frequency: Annually.
E:\FR\FM\01MYN1.SGM
01MYN1
cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
25576
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 2006 / Notices
Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal
Gov’t, SEAs or LEAs.
Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour
Burden:
Responses: 6,052.
Burden Hours: 476,234.
Abstract: The Education Data
Exchange Network (EDEN) is in the
implementation phase of a multiple year
effort to consolidate the collection of
education information about States,
Districts, and Schools in a way that
improves data quality and reduces
paperwork burden for all of the national
education partners. To minimize the
burden on the data providers, EDEN
seeks the transfer of the proposed data
as soon as it has been processed for
State, District, and School use. These
data will then be stored in EDEN and
accessed by federal education program
managers and analysts as needed to
make program management decisions.
This process will eliminate redundant
data collections while providing for the
timeliness of data submission and use.
Additional Information: The
Department of Education (ED) is
specifically requesting the data
providers in each the State Education
Agency (SEA) to review the proposed
data elements to determine which of
these data can be provided for the
upcoming 2006–2007 school year and
which data would be available in later
years (2007–2008 or 2008–2009) and
which data, if any, is never expected to
be available from the SEA. If
information for a data group is not
available, please provide information
beyond the fact that it is not available.
Are there specific impediments to
providing this data that you can
describe? Is the definition for the data
group unclear or ambiguous? Do the
requested code sets not align with the
way your state collects the data? This is
very important information because ED
intends to make the collection of these
data mandatory. ED also seeks to know
if the SEA data definitions are
consistent and compatible with the
EDEN definitions and accurately reflect
the way data is stored and used for
education by the States, Districts, and
Schools. The answers to these questions
by the data providers will influence the
timing and content of the final EDEN
proposal for the collection of this
elementary and secondary data. In
addition to overall public comments, ED
would also like state education data
providers to consider and respond to a
number of specific questions that were
developed during the recent data
definition cycle for EDEN 2006–07 data.
While most of these questions address
the ability of states to provide
information, some speak to the potential
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:38 Apr 28, 2006
Jkt 208001
burden on states associated with overall
changes in EDEN. When responding to
these questions, please include the
question number in your response.
1. Some of the EDEN data groups
require additional information in order
to interpret it properly; this is loosely
described as metadata. For example,
state proficiency levels and the levels
that make up proficient and higher
differ from one state to the next.
Similarly, there are numerous data
groups that collect information on statedefined items such as truants,
persistently dangerous schools, and
definition of school year. For all of these
examples, additional information is
needed in order to fully understand the
reported data as well as to understand
whether comparisons across the state
are (or are not) appropriate. We are
currently considering several ways to
collect this information including webbased forms and a separate state-level
submission file. What would be the
most convenient way for your state to
initially provide and subsequently
update this information?
2. As EDEN matures, we are weighing
the costs/benefits of standardizing the
naming conventions of the data groups
in order to align them more closely with
the Federal Enterprise Architecture. We
anticipate this effort would result in
changes to approximately 1⁄3 of data
group names and we would provide a
crosswalk between the old name and the
new name of each data group. The
numbers assigned to the data groups
would not change. What impact would
data group name changes have on the
burden associated with producing and
submitting EDEN data files in your
state? If we do elect to make these
changes, what tools can ED provide to
you to lessen your paperwork burden?
3. For the 2006–07 EDEN data set, we
added a new topic area: Finance. This
change was based on an understanding
that in many states, data for files that
include financial information come
from a source that is separate from the
rest of the EDEN data files. So far, we
have moved the following data groups
to this new topic area: 574—Federal
Funding Allocation Table, 614—REAP
Alternative Funding Indicator, 615—
RLIS Program Table, 616—Transfer
Funds Indicator, plus the two new data
groups: Funds Spent on Supplemental
Services and Funds Spent on School
Choice. Is this conceptual change
helpful in your state? Are there other
data groups that you recommend that
we move to this new topic area?
4. As part of the merge between
NCES’ Common Core of Data (CCD) and
EDEN, we would like to modify the way
the CCD ID code for schools and
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
districts are submitted in EDEN data
files. The CCD ID code is made up of 3
components (a 2 digit FIPS code, a 5
digit district ID code, and a 5 digit
school ID code). CCD collects all 3 of
these components separately meaning
that for schools, there are 3 ID codes
that, together, make a unique identifier.
EDEN collects a single 7 digit CCD
District ID (FIPS thru District) and a
single 12 digit CCD school ID (FIPS thru
District thru School). What impact
would there be on your state’s ability to
provide EDEN data files if EDEN
changed to the CCD methodology for
NCES IDs?
5. For Magnet School Status (at the
school level) CCD collects only (1) Yes
and (2) No. EDEN is set up to collect 4
categories of information regarding
Magnet Schools: (1) Magnet All
Students, (2) Magnet Not All Students,
(3) Not Magnet, and (4) Not Collected by
State. At what level of detail does your
state collect information on Magnet
Schools? What is the burden to your
state to provide the data EDEN is
requesting?
6. OSEP has historically collected
placement information for school age
children by age ranges (6–11, 12–17,
and 18–21). For 2006–07, USED is
proposing to collect this information
using discrete ages (instead of the
previously used age ranges). This
change would take place in EDEN data
group #74, Children with Disabilities
(IDEA), in the category set that now
contains Educational Environment
(IDEA), Disability Category (IDEA), and
Age Group (Placement). The comparable
data group for early childhood (Data
Group #613) already collects placement
information by discrete age. How does
this change affect your state’s reporting
ability and burden?
7. How do states track dropouts
within each state? Would states be able
to report dropout data by age or is this
information only available by grade?
8. EDEN currently collects dropout
data by grade for students in grades 7–
12 but will be adding ungraded as an
option for the 2006–07 reporting year.
Does your state have a significant
number of dropouts in grades other than
7–12 (e.g., a student in grade 6 who
reaches the age where dropping out is
an option)? Can you report this count as
a single number (e.g., total dropouts
below 7th grade)?
9. Please examine the two new data
groups—Funds Spent on Supplemental
Services and Funds Spent on School
Choice. What information does your
state ask LEAs to report on this subject?
Can you provide the information
requested? If you cannot provide data
for these new data groups for 2006–07,
E:\FR\FM\01MYN1.SGM
01MYN1
Federal Register / Vol. 71, No. 83 / Monday, May 1, 2006 / Notices
when will you be able to provide this
data?
Requests for copies of the proposed
information collection request may be
accessed from https://edicsweb.ed.gov,
by selecting the ‘‘Browse Pending
Collections’’ link and by clicking on
link number 03017. When you access
the information collection, click on
‘‘Download Attachments’’ to view.
Written requests for information should
be addressed to U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW.,
Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington,
DC 20202–4700. Requests may also be
electronically mailed to
IC_DocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202–
245–6623. Please specify the complete
title of the information collection when
making your request.
Comments regarding burden and/or
the collection activity requirements
should be electronically mailed to
IC_DocketMgr@ed.gov. Individuals who
use a telecommunications device for the
deaf (TDD) may call the Federal
Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1–
800–877–8339.
[FR Doc. E6–6526 Filed 4–28–06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education, Overview Information;
Enhanced Assessment Instruments;
Notice Inviting Applications for New
Awards for Fiscal Year (FY) 2005
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance
(CFDA) Number: 84.368.
Dates:
Applications Available: May 1, 2006.
Deadline for Transmittal of
Applications: June 15, 2006.
Eligible Applicants: State educational
agencies (SEAs); consortia of SEAs.
Estimated Available Funds:
$11,680,000 in FY 2005 funds.
Estimated Range of Awards: $500,000
to $2,000,000.
Estimated Average Size of Awards:
$1,460,000.
Estimated Number of Awards: 8.
Note: The Department is not bound by any
estimates in this notice.
Project period: Up to 18 months.
Full Text of Announcement
cchase on PROD1PC60 with NOTICES
I. Funding Opportunity Description
Purpose of Program: To enhance the
quality of assessment instruments and
systems used by States for measuring
the achievement of all students.
Priorities: This application includes
four absolute and three competitive
VerDate Aug<31>2005
17:38 Apr 28, 2006
Jkt 208001
preference priorities. In accordance with
34 CFR 75.105(b)(2)(iv), the absolute
priorities are from section 6112 of the
Elementary and Secondary Education
Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA). The
competitive preference priorities are
from Appendix E to the notice of final
requirements for optional State
consolidated applications submitted
under section 9302 of the ESEA,
published in the Federal Register on
May 22, 2002 (67 FR 35967).
Absolute Priorities: For FY 2005, these
priorities are absolute priorities. Under
34 CFR 75.105(c)(3) we consider only
applications that address one or more of
these priorities.
These priorities are:
a. Collaborate with institutions of
higher education, other research
institutions, or other organizations to
improve the quality, validity, and
reliability of State academic assessments
beyond the requirements for these
assessments described in section
1111(b)(3) of the ESEA;
b. Measure student academic
achievement using multiple measures of
student academic achievement from
multiple sources;
c. Chart student progress over time;
and
d. Evaluate student academic
achievement through the development
of comprehensive academic assessment
instruments, such as performance and
technology-based academic
assessments.
Competitive Preference Priorities: For
FY 2005, these priorities are competitive
preference priorities. Under 34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(i) we will award up to an
additional 35 points to an application,
depending on the extent to which the
application meets these priorities.
These priorities are: Test
accommodations and alternate
assessments (up to 15 points),
collaborative efforts (up to 10 points),
and dissemination (up to 10 points).
Note: The full text of these priorities is
included in the notice of final requirements
published in the Federal Register on May 22,
2002 (67 FR 35967) and in the application
package.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7842
and 7301a.
Applicable Regulations: (a) The
Education Department General
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in
34 CFR parts 74, 75, 77, 80, 81, 82, 84,
85, 86, 97, 98, and 99.
(b) The notice of final requirements
published in the Federal Register on
May 22, 2002 (67 FR 35967).
II. Award Information
PO 00000
Type of Award: Discretionary grants.
Frm 00018
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
25577
Estimated Available Funds:
$11,680,000 in FY 2005 funds.
Estimated Range of Awards: $500,000
to $2,000,000.
Estimated Average Size of Awards:
$1,460,000.
Estimated Number of Awards: 8.
Note: The Department is not bound by any
estimates in this notice.
Project period: Up to 18 months.
III. Eligibility Information
1. Eligible Applicants: SEAs; consortia
of SEAs.
2. Cost Sharing or Matching: This
competition does not involve cost
sharing or matching.
3. Other: An application from a
consortium of SEAs must designate one
SEA as the fiscal agent.
IV. Application and Submission
Information
1. Address to Request Application
Package: Zollie Stevenson, Jr., Student
Achievement and School Accountability
Program, U.S. Department of Education,
400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Room
3W226, Washington, DC 20202–6132.
Telephone: (202) 260–1824 or by e-mail:
Zollie.Stevenson@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD), you may call
the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1–
800–877–8339.
Individuals with disabilities may
obtain a copy of the application package
in an alternative format (e.g., Braille,
large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) by contacting the program
contact person listed in this section.
2. Content and Form of Application
Submission: Requirements concerning
the content of an application, together
with the forms you must submit, are in
the application package for this
competition.
Page Limit: The application narrative
(Part III of the application) is where you,
the applicant, address the selection
criteria that reviewers use to evaluate
your application. You must limit Part III
to the equivalent of no more than 40
pages, using the following standards:
• A ‘‘page’’ is 8.5″ x 11″, on one side
only with 1″ margins at the top, bottom,
and both sides.
• Double space (no more than three
lines per vertical inch) all text in the
application narrative, including titles,
headings, footnotes, quotations, and
captions as well as all text in charts,
tables, figures, and graphs.
• Use a font that is either 12 point or
larger or no smaller than 10 pitch
(characters per inch).
The page limit does not apply to the
cover sheet, budget section (chart and
E:\FR\FM\01MYN1.SGM
01MYN1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 71, Number 83 (Monday, May 1, 2006)]
[Notices]
[Pages 25575-25577]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: E6-6526]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Notice of Proposed Information Collection Requests
AGENCY: Department of Education.
SUMMARY: The Director, Regulatory Information Management Services,
Office of Management, invites comments on the proposed information
collection requests as required by the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995.
DATES: Interested persons are invited to submit comments on or before
June 30, 2006.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: Section 3506 of the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. Chapter 35) requires that the Office of Management
and Budget (OMB) provide interested Federal agencies and the public an
early opportunity to comment on information collection requests. OMB
may amend or waive the requirement for public consultation to the
extent that public participation in the approval process would defeat
the purpose of the information collection, violate State or Federal
law, or substantially interfere with any agency's ability to perform
its statutory obligations. The Director, Regulatory Information
Management Services, Office of Management, publishes that notice
containing proposed information collection requests prior to submission
of these requests to OMB. Each proposed information collection, grouped
by office, contains the following: (1) Type of review requested, e.g.
new, revision, extension, existing or reinstatement; (2) Title; (3)
Summary of the collection; (4) Description of the need for, and
proposed use of, the information; (5) Respondents and frequency of
collection; and (6) Reporting and/or Recordkeeping burden. OMB invites
public comment.
The Department of Education is especially interested in public
comment addressing the following issues: (1) Is this collection
necessary to the proper functions of the Department; (2) will this
information be processed and used in a timely manner; (3) is the
estimate of burden accurate; (4) how might the Department enhance the
quality, utility, and clarity of the information to be collected; and
(5) how might the Department minimize the burden of this collection on
the respondents, including through the use of information technology.
Dated: April 25, 2006.
Jeanne Van Vlandren,
Director, Regulatory Information Management Services, Office of
Management.
Office of Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development.
Type of Review: Regular.
Title: Annual Mandatory Collection of Elementary and Secondary
Education Data for the Education Data Exchange Network (EDEN).
Frequency: Annually.
[[Page 25576]]
Affected Public: State, Local, or Tribal Gov't, SEAs or LEAs.
Reporting and Recordkeeping Hour Burden:
Responses: 6,052.
Burden Hours: 476,234.
Abstract: The Education Data Exchange Network (EDEN) is in the
implementation phase of a multiple year effort to consolidate the
collection of education information about States, Districts, and
Schools in a way that improves data quality and reduces paperwork
burden for all of the national education partners. To minimize the
burden on the data providers, EDEN seeks the transfer of the proposed
data as soon as it has been processed for State, District, and School
use. These data will then be stored in EDEN and accessed by federal
education program managers and analysts as needed to make program
management decisions. This process will eliminate redundant data
collections while providing for the timeliness of data submission and
use.
Additional Information: The Department of Education (ED) is
specifically requesting the data providers in each the State Education
Agency (SEA) to review the proposed data elements to determine which of
these data can be provided for the upcoming 2006-2007 school year and
which data would be available in later years (2007-2008 or 2008-2009)
and which data, if any, is never expected to be available from the SEA.
If information for a data group is not available, please provide
information beyond the fact that it is not available. Are there
specific impediments to providing this data that you can describe? Is
the definition for the data group unclear or ambiguous? Do the
requested code sets not align with the way your state collects the
data? This is very important information because ED intends to make the
collection of these data mandatory. ED also seeks to know if the SEA
data definitions are consistent and compatible with the EDEN
definitions and accurately reflect the way data is stored and used for
education by the States, Districts, and Schools. The answers to these
questions by the data providers will influence the timing and content
of the final EDEN proposal for the collection of this elementary and
secondary data. In addition to overall public comments, ED would also
like state education data providers to consider and respond to a number
of specific questions that were developed during the recent data
definition cycle for EDEN 2006-07 data. While most of these questions
address the ability of states to provide information, some speak to the
potential burden on states associated with overall changes in EDEN.
When responding to these questions, please include the question number
in your response.
1. Some of the EDEN data groups require additional information in
order to interpret it properly; this is loosely described as metadata.
For example, state proficiency levels and the levels that make up
proficient and higher differ from one state to the next. Similarly,
there are numerous data groups that collect information on state-
defined items such as truants, persistently dangerous schools, and
definition of school year. For all of these examples, additional
information is needed in order to fully understand the reported data as
well as to understand whether comparisons across the state are (or are
not) appropriate. We are currently considering several ways to collect
this information including web-based forms and a separate state-level
submission file. What would be the most convenient way for your state
to initially provide and subsequently update this information?
2. As EDEN matures, we are weighing the costs/benefits of
standardizing the naming conventions of the data groups in order to
align them more closely with the Federal Enterprise Architecture. We
anticipate this effort would result in changes to approximately \1/3\
of data group names and we would provide a crosswalk between the old
name and the new name of each data group. The numbers assigned to the
data groups would not change. What impact would data group name changes
have on the burden associated with producing and submitting EDEN data
files in your state? If we do elect to make these changes, what tools
can ED provide to you to lessen your paperwork burden?
3. For the 2006-07 EDEN data set, we added a new topic area:
Finance. This change was based on an understanding that in many states,
data for files that include financial information come from a source
that is separate from the rest of the EDEN data files. So far, we have
moved the following data groups to this new topic area: 574--Federal
Funding Allocation Table, 614--REAP Alternative Funding Indicator,
615--RLIS Program Table, 616--Transfer Funds Indicator, plus the two
new data groups: Funds Spent on Supplemental Services and Funds Spent
on School Choice. Is this conceptual change helpful in your state? Are
there other data groups that you recommend that we move to this new
topic area?
4. As part of the merge between NCES' Common Core of Data (CCD) and
EDEN, we would like to modify the way the CCD ID code for schools and
districts are submitted in EDEN data files. The CCD ID code is made up
of 3 components (a 2 digit FIPS code, a 5 digit district ID code, and a
5 digit school ID code). CCD collects all 3 of these components
separately meaning that for schools, there are 3 ID codes that,
together, make a unique identifier. EDEN collects a single 7 digit CCD
District ID (FIPS thru District) and a single 12 digit CCD school ID
(FIPS thru District thru School). What impact would there be on your
state's ability to provide EDEN data files if EDEN changed to the CCD
methodology for NCES IDs?
5. For Magnet School Status (at the school level) CCD collects only
(1) Yes and (2) No. EDEN is set up to collect 4 categories of
information regarding Magnet Schools: (1) Magnet All Students, (2)
Magnet Not All Students, (3) Not Magnet, and (4) Not Collected by
State. At what level of detail does your state collect information on
Magnet Schools? What is the burden to your state to provide the data
EDEN is requesting?
6. OSEP has historically collected placement information for school
age children by age ranges (6-11, 12-17, and 18-21). For 2006-07, USED
is proposing to collect this information using discrete ages (instead
of the previously used age ranges). This change would take place in
EDEN data group 74, Children with Disabilities (IDEA), in the
category set that now contains Educational Environment (IDEA),
Disability Category (IDEA), and Age Group (Placement). The comparable
data group for early childhood (Data Group 613) already
collects placement information by discrete age. How does this change
affect your state's reporting ability and burden?
7. How do states track dropouts within each state? Would states be
able to report dropout data by age or is this information only
available by grade?
8. EDEN currently collects dropout data by grade for students in
grades 7-12 but will be adding ungraded as an option for the 2006-07
reporting year. Does your state have a significant number of dropouts
in grades other than 7-12 (e.g., a student in grade 6 who reaches the
age where dropping out is an option)? Can you report this count as a
single number (e.g., total dropouts below 7th grade)?
9. Please examine the two new data groups--Funds Spent on
Supplemental Services and Funds Spent on School Choice. What
information does your state ask LEAs to report on this subject? Can you
provide the information requested? If you cannot provide data for these
new data groups for 2006-07,
[[Page 25577]]
when will you be able to provide this data?
Requests for copies of the proposed information collection request
may be accessed from https://edicsweb.ed.gov, by selecting the ``Browse
Pending Collections'' link and by clicking on link number 03017. When
you access the information collection, click on ``Download
Attachments'' to view. Written requests for information should be
addressed to U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW.,
Potomac Center, 9th Floor, Washington, DC 20202-4700. Requests may also
be electronically mailed to IC--DocketMgr@ed.gov or faxed to 202-245-
6623. Please specify the complete title of the information collection
when making your request.
Comments regarding burden and/or the collection activity
requirements should be electronically mailed to IC--DocketMgr@ed.gov.
Individuals who use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) may
call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
[FR Doc. E6-6526 Filed 4-28-06; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P