School Improvement Grants; American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA); Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as Amended (ESEA), 3375-3383 [2010-1048]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 13 / Thursday, January 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Pub. L. 107–295, 116 Stat. 2064; Department
of Homeland Security Delegation No. 0170.1.
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Subtitle B, Chapter II
2. Add § 165.T01–1072 to read as
follows:
■
[Docket ID ED–2009–OESE–0010]
RIN 1810–AB06
§ 165.T01–1072 Safety Zone: Congress
Street Bridge, Pequonnock River,
Bridgeport, Connecticut.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
(a) Location. The following area is a
safety zone: All navigable waters of the
Pequonnock River in Bridgeport,
Connecticut, from surface to bottom,
within 100 yards to either side of the
Congress Street Bridge.
(b) Definitions. The following
definitions apply to this section:
Designated on-scene patrol personnel,
means any commissioned, warrant, and
petty officers of the Coast Guard on
board Coast Guard, Coast Guard
Auxiliary, and local, State, and Federal
law enforcement vessels who have been
authorized to act on the behalf of the
Captain of the Port, Long Island Sound.
(c) Regulations. (1) The general
regulations contained in 33 CFR 165.23
apply.
(2) In accordance with the general
regulations in § 165.23 of this part, entry
into or movement within this zone is
prohibited unless authorized by the
Captain of the Port (COTP), Long Island
Sound.
(3) All persons and vessels must
comply with the Coast Guard Captain of
the Port or designated on-scene patrol
personnel.
(4) Upon being hailed by siren, radio,
flashing light or other means from a U.S.
Coast Guard vessel or other vessel with
on-scene patrol personnel aboard, the
operator of the vessel shall proceed as
directed.
(5) Persons and vessels may request
permission to enter the zone on VHF–
16 or via phone at (203) 468–4401.
(d) Effective dates. The safety zone is
being established from 11:59 p.m. on
January 31, 2010, to 11:59 p.m. on April
16, 2010. Marine traffic may continue to
transit the area during the January 1 to
January 31 and April 17 to May 15
portions of the project. While the
channel is open and the safety zone is
not in place, mariners are still advised
to transit the area with extreme caution.
Dated: December 29, 2009.
D.A. Ronan,
Captain, U.S. Coast Guard, Captain of the
Port Long Island Sound.
[FR Doc. 2010–1003 Filed 1–20–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 9110–04–P
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:28 Jan 20, 2010
Jkt 220001
School Improvement Grants; American
Recovery and Reinvestment Act of
2009 (ARRA); Title I of the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act of 1965,
as Amended (ESEA)
ACTION: Interim final requirements for
School Improvement Grants authorized
under section 1003(g) of Title I of the
ESEA; request for comments.
SUMMARY: The U.S. Secretary of
Education (Secretary) amends the final
requirements for School Improvement
Grants (SIG) authorized under section
1003(g) of Title I of the ESEA and
funded through both the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2009 (Pub. L. 111–
8) and the ARRA to incorporate new
authority included in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2010 (Pub. L. 111–
117) applicable to fiscal year (FY) 2010
SIG funds and FY 2009 ARRA SIG
funds. Specifically, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2010 expands the
group of schools that are eligible to
receive SIG funds. In addition, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010
raises the maximum amount of SIG
funds that a State educational agency
(SEA) may award to a local educational
agency (LEA) for each participating
school from $500,000 to $2,000,000.
This notice incorporates these changes
into the final SIG requirements that the
Department published on December 10,
2009.
DATES: These requirements are effective
February 8, 2010. We must receive your
comments by February 22, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or via postal mail, commercial delivery,
or hand delivery. We will not accept
comments by fax or by e-mail. Please
submit your comments only one time, in
order to ensure that we do not receive
duplicate copies. In addition, please
include the Docket ID at the top of your
comments.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
https://www.regulations.gov to submit
your comments electronically.
Information on using Regulations.gov,
including instructions for accessing
agency documents, submitting
comments, and viewing the docket, is
available on the site under ‘‘How To Use
This Site.’’
• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery,
or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver
your comments about these interim final
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
3375
requirements, address them to Dr. Zollie
Stevenson, Jr., U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW.,
room 3W320, Washington, DC 20202.
Privacy Note: The Department’s
policy for comments received from
members of the public (including those
comments submitted by mail,
commercial delivery, or hand delivery)
is to make these submissions available
for public viewing in their entirety on
the Federal eRulemaking Portal at
https://www.regulations.gov. Therefore,
commenters should be careful to
include in their comments only
information that they wish to make
publicly available on the Internet.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr.
Zollie Stevenson, Jr. Telephone: 202–
260–0826 or by e-mail:
Zollie.Stevenson@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD), call the
Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at
1–800–877–8339.
Individuals with disabilities can
obtain this document in an accessible
format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or computer diskette) on
request to the contact person listed
under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation to Comment:
We invite you to submit comments
regarding these interim final
requirements. To ensure that your
comments have maximum effect in
developing the final requirements, we
urge you to identify clearly the specific
section or sections of the interim final
requirements that each of your
comments addresses and to arrange your
comments in the same order as the
interim final requirements.
We invite you to assist us in
complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866
and its overall requirement of reducing
regulatory burden that might result from
these interim final requirements. Please
let us know of any further opportunities
we should take to reduce potential costs
or increase potential benefits while
preserving the effective and efficient
administration of the SIG program.
During and after the comment period
you may inspect all public comments
about these interim final requirements
by accessing Regulations.gov. You may
also inspect the comments, in person, in
room 3W100, 400 Maryland Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC, between the
hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m.,
Washington, DC time, Monday through
Friday of each week except Federal
holidays.
E:\FR\FM\21JAR1.SGM
21JAR1
3376
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 13 / Thursday, January 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Assistance to Individuals with
Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request, we will
provide an appropriate accommodation
or auxiliary aid to an individual with a
disability who needs assistance to
review the comments or other
documents in the public rulemaking
record for this notice. If you want to
schedule an appointment for this type of
accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Background: The Secretary published
final requirements for the SIG program
in the Federal Register on December 10,
2009 (74 FR 65618). Subsequently, on
December 16, 2009, the President signed
into law the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2010, which
contains FY 2010 appropriations for the
Department, and which also includes
two provisions applicable to the use of
both FY 2010 SIG funds and FY 2009
ARRA SIG funds. First, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010
expands eligibility for participation in
the SIG program by permitting an SEA
to award SIG funds for, and for an LEA
to use those funds to serve, any school
that is eligible to receive assistance
under Title I, Part A and that: (1) Has
not made adequate yearly progress
(AYP) for at least two years; or (2) is in
the State’s lowest quintile of
performance based on proficiency rates.
With respect to secondary schools, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010
gives priority to high schools with
graduation rates below 60 percent.
Second, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2010 raises the
maximum subgrant size for a
participating school from $500,000 to
$2,000,000.1
These interim final requirements
incorporate this new authority into the
final SIG requirements that were
1 These two provisions apply only to FY 2009
ARRA SIG funds and FY 2010 SIG funds; they do
not apply to SIG funds made available through the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2009 (i.e., the
regular FY 2009 SIG funds). Therefore, prior to
October 1, 2010, regular FY 2009 SIG funds cannot
be spent pursuant to the flexibility in these
provisions. Regular FY 2009 SIG funds, however,
become subject to the requirements applicable to
FY 2010 SIG funds on October 1, 2010 when they
become carryover funds. See section 421(b)(2)(A) of
the General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C.
1225(b)(2)(A)). Accordingly, in order to ensure
compliance with the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2010, we will consider LEAs’ obligations of
SIG funds in the State as a whole prior to October
1, 2010 to come from the State’s allocation of FY
2009 ARRA SIG funds, which we believe in every
State will be more than sufficient to cover those
obligations. Beginning October 1, 2010, LEAs may
use all SIG funds, including regular FY 2009 SIG
funds, pursuant to the flexibility in these
provisions, consistent with the final requirements
as amended.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:28 Jan 20, 2010
Jkt 220001
published on December 10, 2009.
Although the interim final requirements
give an SEA discretion to expand the
group of schools that are eligible to
receive SIG funds, the purpose of the
SIG program remains the same: to
provide funds to LEAs that demonstrate
the greatest need for the funds and the
strongest commitment to use the funds
to turn around their persistently lowestachieving schools and significantly raise
student achievement in those schools.
Waiver of Rulemaking and Delayed
Effective Date: Under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5
U.S.C. 553), the Department is generally
required to publish a notice of proposed
rulemaking and provide the public with
an opportunity to comment on proposed
regulations prior to establishing a final
rule. However, we are waiving the
notice-and-comment rulemaking
requirements under the APA. Section
553(b) of the APA provides that an
agency is not required to conduct
notice-and-comment rulemaking when
the agency for good cause finds that
notice and public procedure thereon are
impracticable, unnecessary, or contrary
to the public interest. Although these
requirements are subject to the APA’s
notice-and-comment requirements, the
Secretary has determined that it would
be impracticable, unnecessary, and
contrary to the public interest to
conduct notice-and-comment
rulemaking.
As noted above, these interim final
requirements are needed to incorporate
the new SIG authority provided by the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010
into the final SIG requirements
published on December 10, 2009. Those
final requirements take effect on
February 8, 2010, also the date by which
State applications for SIG funds are due
to the Department. The Department
must award FY 2009 SIG funds to SEAs
by September 30, 2010 or the funds will
lapse. Even on an extremely expedited
timeline, it is impracticable for the
Department to conduct notice-andcomment rulemaking and then
promulgate final requirements in time to
make grant awards to States by the
September 30 deadline. Publishing a
notice of proposed rulemaking,
reviewing the public comments, and
issuing final regulations normally takes
at least six months. We are concerned
that, when added to the time the
Department will need to receive, review,
and approve State applications for SIG
funds, the Department may not be able
to allocate FY 2009, including ARRA,
SIG funds to all States by September 30,
2010. With $3.5 billion at stake, it
would be impracticable and contrary to
the public interest for the Department to
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
take this risk. Issuing these interim final
requirements permits the Department to
maintain the current State application
timeline.
Additionally, the Department has
recently concluded notice-and-comment
rulemaking on the final SIG
requirements. These interim final
requirements incorporate the new
authority in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2010 into the
existing final SIG requirements with
only minimal, necessary changes.
Accordingly, and in order to make
timely grant awards for FY 2009, the
Secretary is issuing these interim final
requirements without first publishing
proposed requirements for public
comment.
Although the Department is adopting
these requirements on an interim final
basis, the Department requests public
comment on these requirements. After
consideration of public comments, the
Secretary will publish final
requirements.
The APA also requires that a
substantive rule be published at least 30
days before its effective date, except as
otherwise provided for good cause (5
U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). For the reasons
outlined in the preceding paragraphs,
the Secretary has determined that a
delayed effective date for these interim
final requirements would be
unnecessary and contrary to the public
interest, and that good cause exists to
waive the requirement for a delayed
effective date.
Summary of the Interim Final
Requirements:
We discuss substantive changes to the
final SIG requirements published on
December 10, 2009 under the sections of
the interim final requirements to which
they pertain.
Section I.A.1—defining ‘‘greatest
need’’:
Statute: Section 1003(g) of the ESEA
limits eligibility for school improvement
funds to Title I schools in improvement,
corrective action, or restructuring. The
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010
expands the group of schools eligible to
be served with SIG funds to include any
school that is eligible to receive Title I,
Part A funds (including schools that
receive Title I, Part A funds and those
that do not) and that (1) has not made
AYP for at least two years, or (2) is in
the State’s lowest quintile of
performance based on proficiency rates.
In the case of secondary schools, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010
requires that priority be given to those
schools with graduation rates below 60
percent.
Current final requirements: Section
I.A.1 defines three tiers of schools. A
E:\FR\FM\21JAR1.SGM
21JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 13 / Thursday, January 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Tier I school is any Title I school in
improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring that is identified by the
SEA as a ‘‘persistently lowest-achieving
school.’’ As such, the school is among
the lowest-achieving five percent of
Title I schools in improvement,
corrective action, or restructuring in the
State (or the lowest-achieving five such
schools) or is a Title I high school that
has had a graduation rate that is less
than 60 percent over a number of years.
A Tier II school is any secondary
school that is eligible for, but does not
receive, Title I, Part A funds and that is
identified by the SEA as a ‘‘persistently
lowest-achieving school.’’ As such, the
school is among the lowest-achieving
five percent of such secondary schools
in the State (or the lowest-achieving five
such secondary schools) or is a high
school that has had a graduation rate
that is less than 60 percent over a
number of years.
A Tier III school is any Title I school
in improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring that is not a Tier I school.
Interim final requirements: The
interim final requirements amend the
definitions of Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III
schools to incorporate the expanded
eligibility provided for in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010.
The interim final requirements do not
change the definition of ‘‘persistently
lowest-achieving schools’’ as that
definition is used to define Tier I and
Tier II schools. An SEA must use this
definition to identify the persistently
lowest-achieving schools in the State,
which will comprise at least part of the
schools in Tier I and Tier II. The SEA
must also identify the schools in Tier
III—i.e., the Title I schools in
improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring that are not in Tier I. The
interim final requirements permit an
SEA, at its option, to identify additional
schools in each tier.
With respect to Tier I, in addition to
the Title I schools in improvement,
corrective action, or restructuring that
an SEA has identified as persistently
lowest-achieving schools, the SEA may
identify any elementary school that (1)
is eligible to receive Title I, Part A funds
(including schools that receive Title I,
Part A funds and those that do not); (2)
either has not made AYP for at least two
consecutive years or 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 (3) is no
higher achieving on the State’s
assessments combined than the highestachieving Tier I school that the SEA has
identified under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of
the definition of ‘‘persistently lowestachieving schools.’’ These newly eligible
schools may be Title I schools that are
not identified for improvement,
corrective action, or restructuring or
schools eligible for, but not receiving,
Title I, Part A funds, provided they meet
the criteria in section I.A.1(a)(ii) of the
interim final requirements.
With respect to Tier II, in addition to
the secondary schools that are eligible
for, but do not receive, Title I, Part A
funds and that an SEA has identified as
persistently lowest-achieving schools,
the SEA may identify any secondary
school that (1) is eligible to receive Title
I, Part A funds (including schools that
receive Title I, Part A funds and those
that do not); (2) either has not made
AYP for at least two consecutive years
or 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 (3) either is no higher
achieving on the State’s assessments
combined than the highest-achieving
Tier II school that the SEA has
identified under paragraph (a)(2)(i) of
the definition of ‘‘persistently lowestachieving schools’’ or is a high school
that has had a graduation rate that is
less than 60 percent over a number of
years. Tier II secondary schools that an
3377
SEA has identified as persistently
lowest-achieving schools—i.e.,
secondary schools that are eligible for,
but do not receive, Title I, Part A
funds—are eligible without the need for
an SEA or LEA to obtain a waiver of
section 1003(g)’s limitation on serving
only Title I schools in improvement,
corrective action, or restructuring. Tier
II also may now include Title I
secondary schools that are or are not in
improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring if those schools meet the
criteria in section I.A.1(b)(ii) of the
interim final requirements and are not
already captured in Tier I.
With respect to Tier III, in addition to
any Title I school in improvement,
corrective action, or restructuring that is
not a Tier I school, an SEA may identify
any school that (1) is eligible for Title
I, Part A funds (including schools that
receive Title I, Part A funds and those
that do not); (2) has not made AYP for
at least two years or 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 (3) does not
meet the requirements to be a Tier I or
Tier II school. Thus, a Tier III school
may be a Title I school in improvement,
corrective action, or restructuring, a
school that receives Title I, Part A funds
that is not in improvement, or a school
that is eligible for, but does not receive,
Title I, Part A funds, provided the
school meets one of the two criteria in
section I.A.1(c)(ii)(A).
To illustrate further the changes we
are making with respect to how an SEA
identifies a newly eligible school as a
Tier I, Tier II, or Tier III school, we are
providing the following chart. The left
column represents the schools an SEA
must identify in each of Tiers I, II, and
III; the right column represents the
newly eligible schools based on the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010
that an SEA may, but is not required to,
identify in Tiers I, II, and III.
Newly eligible schools an SEA MAY identify in each tier
Tier I ..............................
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Schools an SEA MUST
identify in each tier
Schools that meet the criteria in paragraph
(a)(1) in the definition of ‘‘persistently lowest-achieving schools.’’ 1
Title I eligible 2 elementary schools that are no higher achieving than
the highest-achieving school that meets the criteria in paragraph
(a)(1)(i) in the definition of ‘‘persistently lowest-achieving schools’’
and that are:
• In the bottom 20% of all schools in the State based on proficiency rates; or
• Have not made AYP for two consecutive years.
Tier II .............................
Schools that meet the criteria in paragraph
(a)(2) in the definition of ‘‘persistently lowest-achieving schools.’’
Title I eligible secondary schools that are (1) no higher achieving
than the highest-achieving school that meets the criteria in paragraph (a)(2)(i) in the definition of ‘‘persistently lowest-achieving
schools’’ or (2) high schools that have had a graduation rate of
less than 60 percent over a number of years and that are:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:28 Jan 20, 2010
Jkt 220001
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
E:\FR\FM\21JAR1.SGM
21JAR1
3378
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 13 / Thursday, January 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
Schools an SEA MUST
identify in each tier
Newly eligible schools an SEA MAY identify in each tier
• In the bottom 20% of all schools in the State based on proficiency rates; or
• Have not made AYP for two consecutive years.
Tier III ............................
Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that are not in Tier I.3
Title I eligible schools that do not meet the requirements to be in Tier
I or Tier II and that are:
• In the bottom 20% of all schools in the State based on proficiency rates; or
• Have not made AYP for two years.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Notes to Chart:
1 ‘‘Persistently lowest-achieving schools’’ means, as determined by the State—
(a)(1) Any Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that—
(i) 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
(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; and
(2) Any secondary school that is eligible for, but does not receive, Title I funds that—
(i) 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
(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.
2 For the purposes of schools that may be added to Tier I, Tier II, or Tier III, ‘‘Title I eligible’’ schools may be schools that are eligible for, but
do not receive, Title I, Part A funds or schools that are Title I participating (i.e., schools that are eligible for and do receive Title I, Part A funds).
3 Certain Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that are not in Tier I may be in Tier II rather than Tier III. In particular, Title I secondary schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that are not in Tier I may be in Tier II if they meet the criteria
in section I.A.1(b)(ii)(A)(2) and (B) and an SEA chooses to include them in Tier II.
Reasons: These changes are needed to
incorporate into the final SIG
requirements the expanded authority in
the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2010 with respect to eligible schools. It
is important to note that an SEA has the
option to add these newly eligible
schools to its lists of Tier I, Tier II, and
Tier III schools in accordance with these
interim final requirements, but the SEA
is not required to do so. Moreover, if an
SEA chooses to add newly eligible
schools at all, it has the flexibility to
add only a subset of those schools to its
lists of Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III
schools. For example, an SEA might
choose to add newly eligible schools to
Tier I and Tier II but not to Tier III, or
it might add to Tier III only newly
eligible schools that are in the lowest
decile (rather than quintile) of schools
in the State based on proficiency rates.
An LEA may apply to serve only
schools that are included in an SEA’s
definition of Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III
schools.
We note that the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2010 also requires
that, ‘‘in the case of secondary schools,
priority shall be given to those schools
with graduation rates below 60 percent.’’
This priority is accounted for in the
definition of ‘‘persistently lowestachieving schools,’’ which requires an
SEA to identify any Title I high school
in improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring and any secondary school
that is eligible for, but does not receive,
Title I, Part A funds that has a
graduation rate of less than a 60 percent
over a number of years.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:28 Jan 20, 2010
Jkt 220001
Sections I.B.2 and I.B.3—waivers for
Tier I and Tier II Title I participating
schools:
Statute: Section 1116(b) of the ESEA
prescribes a school improvement
timeline for a Title I school that misses
AYP for at least two consecutive years.
Section 1114(a) of the ESEA authorizes
a Title I school with a poverty
percentage of at least 40 percent to
operate a schoolwide program; a school
that does not meet that poverty
threshold may provide Title I services
only to identified students who are
failing, or most at risk of failing, to meet
State standards.
Current final requirements: Section
I.B.2 permits an SEA to seek a waiver
of the school improvement timeline in
section 1116(b) of the ESEA for any Tier
I school—i.e., a Title I school in
improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring—that implements a
turnaround or restart model as defined
in section I.A.2(a) and (b). Section I.B.3
permits an SEA to seek a waiver of the
poverty threshold in section 1114(a) for
any Tier I school below that threshold
in order that the school may implement
one of the school intervention models
defined in section I.A.2 through a
schoolwide program.
Interim final requirements: The
interim final requirements amend
section I.B.2 to clarify that an SEA may
seek a waiver of the school
improvement timeline in section
1116(b) with respect to a Tier I or Tier
II Title I participating school that
implements a turnaround or restart
model. The interim final requirements
also amend section I.B.3 to clarify that
an SEA may seek a waiver of the
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
schoolwide program poverty threshold
in section 1114(a) with respect to a Tier
I or Tier II Title I participating school
below that threshold in order that the
school may implement one of the school
intervention models through a
schoolwide program.
Reasons: In expanding eligibility, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010
created the possibility of identifying as
Tier II schools secondary schools that
receive Title I, Part A funds. It also
created the possibility of identifying as
Tier I schools elementary schools that
are eligible for, but do not receive, Title
I, Part A funds. Accordingly, we are
clarifying in sections I.B.2 and I.B.3 that
waivers of sections 1116(b) and 1114(a)
of the ESEA would be appropriate for
Tier II schools that receive Title I, Part
A funds as well as for Tier I schools that
receive Title I, Part A funds. The phrase
‘‘Title I participating school’’—i.e., a
school that receives Title I, Part A
funds—has been added in both sections;
waivers are not necessary for non-Title
I schools in either Tier I or Tier II
because the requirements in sections
1116 and 1114 do not apply to those
schools.
Section I.B.4—waiver to serve a Tier
II school:
Statute: Section 1003(g) of the ESEA
requires an SEA to award SIG funds
only to LEAs with one or more Title I
schools in improvement, corrective
action, or restructuring. The
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010
expands the group of schools eligible to
be served with SIG funds to include any
school that is eligible to receive Title I,
Part A funds, including Tier II
E:\FR\FM\21JAR1.SGM
21JAR1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 13 / Thursday, January 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
secondary schools that are eligible for,
but do not receive, those funds.
Current final requirements: Section
I.B.4 permits an SEA to seek a waiver
from the Secretary to enable an LEA to
use SIG funds to serve a Tier II
secondary school that is eligible for, but
does not receive, Title I, Part A funds.
Interim final requirements: The
interim final requirements remove
section I.B.4.
Reasons: Section I.B.4 is no longer
needed. Because the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2010 authorizes an
SEA and LEA to use SIG funds to serve
secondary schools that are eligible for,
but do not receive, Title I, Part A funds,
an SEA no longer needs a waiver to do
so.
Section II.A.1—LEA eligibility:
Statute: Section 1003(g) of the ESEA
requires an SEA to award SIG funds
only to LEAs with Title I schools in
improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring. The Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2010 expands this
eligibility to permit an SEA to award
SIG funds to LEAs that have a school
eligible to receive assistance under Title
I, Part A that has not made AYP for at
least two years or is in the State’s lowest
quintile of performance based on
proficiency rates.
Current final requirements: Section
II.A.1 makes clear that, to apply for a
SIG grant, an LEA must have one or
more schools in Tier I or Tier III. In
other words, the current requirements
provide that, to be eligible for SIG
funds, an LEA must have one or more
Title I schools in improvement,
corrective action, or restructuring.
Interim final requirements: The
interim final requirements amend
section II.A.1 to make clear that an LEA
may apply for a SIG grant if the LEA
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,
or Tier III school.
Reasons: Based on the expanded
eligibility authorized by the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010,
an LEA may apply for a SIG grant even
if it does not have any Title I schools in
improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring, provided the LEA has one
or more schools that are eligible for Title
I, Part A funds and meet the criteria in
section I.A.1(a) (definition of Tier I
schools), (b) (definition of Tier II
schools), or (c) (definition of Tier III
schools) as defined by the SEA.
Accordingly, to be eligible, an LEA must
have one or more schools that meet the
SEA’s definition of a Tier I, Tier II, or
Tier III school.
Sections II.A.4 and II.A.5—LEA’s
budget:
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:28 Jan 20, 2010
Jkt 220001
Statute: Section 1003(g)(5) of the
ESEA requires an SEA to allocate to an
LEA ‘‘not less than $50,000 and not
more than $500,000 for each
participating school.’’ The Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2010 raises the
maximum amount per participating
school from $500,000 to $2,000,000.
Current final requirements: Sections
II.A.4 and II.A.5 recognize that an LEA’s
budget will likely need to exceed the
statutory maximum of $500,000 for most
Tier I and Tier II schools in order for the
LEA to implement fully and effectively
three of the four school intervention
models. Under the current final SIG
requirements, additional funds needed
to implement school intervention
models in Tier I and Tier II schools
would be generated by Tier III schools.
Section II.A.5 provides that services for
a Tier III school do not need to be
commensurate with the funds an SEA
allocates to the LEA for the school.
Interim final requirements: The
interim final requirements remove
language that is no longer necessary
from sections II.A.4 and II.A.5 regarding
an LEA’s budget. In section II.A.4, we
are removing the last two sentences. We
are amending section II.A.5 to read ‘‘The
LEA’s budget for each Tier III school it
commits to serve must include the
services it will provide the school,
particularly if the school meets
additional criteria established by the
SEA.’’
Reasons: Because the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2010 raises the
maximum amount for each participating
school from $500,000 to $2,000,000, an
LEA’s budget can reflect more
accurately the actual amount needed to
implement one of the four school
intervention models in each Tier I and
Tier II school the LEA commits to serve.
Moreover, the LEA may budget more
accurately for its Tier III schools
without concern that they generate
funds for the LEA’s Tier I and Tier II
schools.
Section II.A.6—SIG funds are
supplemental:
Statute: Section 1114(a)(2)(B) of the
ESEA requires an LEA to allocate to a
Title I school operating a schoolwide
program ‘‘the amount of funds that
would, in the absence of [Title I, Part A
funds], be made available from nonFederal sources for the school,
including funds needed to provide
services that are required by law for
children with disabilities and children
with limited English proficiency.’’
Current final requirements: None.
Interim final requirements: The
interim final requirements add section
II.A.6, which requires an LEA that
commits to serve one or more Tier I,
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
3379
Tier II, or Tier III schools that do not
receive Title I, Part A funds to ensure
that each of those schools receives all of
the State and local funds it would have
received in the absence of the SIG
funds.
Reasons: Under the current final SIG
requirements, a Tier I school must be a
Title I school operating a schoolwide
program in order to implement one of
the school intervention models.
Accordingly, under section
1114(a)(2)(B) of the ESEA, the LEA must
provide the school all of the nonFederal funds that would have been
available to the school in the absence of
Title I, Part A funds. Thus, both Title I,
Part A funds and SIG funds are
supplemental to the State and local
funds the school receives. To ensure
that SIG funds are also supplemental in
Tier II schools, which are not Title I
schools under the final SIG
requirements and, thus, are not covered
by section 1114(a)(2)(B), we intended to
condition a waiver permitting an LEA to
serve Tier II schools on the LEA’s
providing all State and local funds to
those schools that they otherwise would
have received. Now that the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010
has made non-Title I schools eligible as
Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III schools
without need for a waiver, we cannot
ensure that SIG funds will be
supplemental to State and local funds
without establishing the requirement in
section II.A.6.
Sections II.B.4 and II.B.7—priority for
funding Tier I and Tier II schools:
Statute: Section 1003(g)(6) of the
ESEA requires an SEA to give priority,
in awarding SIG grants, to LEAs that
demonstrate the greatest need for the
funds and the strongest commitment to
ensuring that the funds are used to
provide adequate resources to enable
the lowest-achieving schools to raise
student achievement.
Current final requirements: Section
II.B.4 requires an SEA to give priority to
LEAs that apply to serve both Tier I and
Tier II schools and then give priority to
LEAs that apply to serve Tier I, but not
Tier II, schools. Section II.B.7 requires
an SEA to award funds to LEAs that
apply to serve only Tier III schools only
after it funds all LEAs that apply to
serve Tier I or Tier II schools.
Interim final requirements: The
interim final requirements amend
sections II.B.4 and II.B.7 (as well as
various other sections—e.g., sections
I.A.4(a), II.A.1, II.A.3) to give equal
status to Tier I and Tier II schools.
Accordingly, sections II.B.4 and II.B.7
make clear that an LEA that applies to
serve either Tier I or Tier II schools
receives priority before an LEA that
E:\FR\FM\21JAR1.SGM
21JAR1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
3380
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 13 / Thursday, January 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
applies to serve only Tier III schools.
Moreover, as section II.B.7 makes clear,
an SEA must award SIG funds to each
LEA to serve the Tier I and Tier II
schools that the SEA has approved the
LEA to serve before awarding any funds
to an LEA to serve a Tier III school. In
other words, an SEA must ensure that
all Tier I and Tier II schools are funded
before it funds the Tier III schools
identified in its LEAs’ applications.
Reasons: These provisions
incorporate the expanded eligibility
provisions in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2010 to best carry
out the statutory priority in the ESEA
requiring an SEA to award SIG funds to
LEAs with the lowest-achieving schools
that demonstrate the greatest need for
the funds and the strongest commitment
to use the funds to raise student
achievement substantially.
Section II.B.9—2010 SIG
appropriations:
Statute: The Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2010 appropriated
$546 million for SIG grants in FY 2010.
Current final requirements: Section
II.B.9 requires certain SEAs and permits
other SEAs to carry over 25 percent of
their FY 2009 SIG funds and to combine
those funds with FY 2010 funds
‘‘(depending on the availability of
appropriations).’’
Interim final requirements: The
interim final requirements remove the
phrase ‘‘(depending on the availability
of appropriations)’’ in section II.B.9(a)
and (b).
Reasons: Because the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2010 appropriated
SIG funds for FY 2010, this language is
no longer necessary.
Section II.C—renewal for additional
one-year periods:
Statute: Section 1003(g)(5)(C) of the
ESEA permits an SEA to renew an
LEA’s SIG grant if schools are meeting
the goals under section 1116 of the
ESEA.
Current final requirements: Section
II.C requires an SEA to renew the SIG
grant for each LEA for one-year periods
if the LEA demonstrates that its Tier I
and Tier II schools are meeting the
requirements in section II.A.7 of the
final SIG requirements and that its Tier
III schools are meeting their goals under
section 1116.
Interim final requirements: The
interim final requirements amend
section II.C(a)(i) to require Tier III
schools that receive SIG funds to meet
‘‘goals established by the LEA and
approved by the SEA.’’
Reasons: Under the expanded
eligibility authority in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2010, non-Title I
schools may now be served as Tier III
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:28 Jan 20, 2010
Jkt 220001
schools if they have missed AYP for at
least two years or are in the lowest
quintile in the State in terms of
proficiency on a State’s reading/
language arts and mathematics
assessments combined. Because those
schools are not subject to meeting goals
under section 1116 of the ESEA, the
interim final requirements include a
provision addressing accountability for
those schools. This provision in the
interim final requirements, therefore,
treats all Tier III schools the same;
however, to the extent they apply, an
LEA may use as the goals for a Tier III
school the goals in its school
improvement plan under section 1116
of the ESEA.
Interim Final Requirements:
For the reasons discussed previously,
the Secretary amends the final SIG
requirements published in the Federal
Register on December 10, 2009 (74 FR
65618) as follows:
1. Section I.A.1 is amended to read 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 following tiers:
(a) Tier I schools: (i) 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.’’
(ii) 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)(1) Has not made adequate yearly
progress for at least two consecutive
years; or
(2) 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)(i) of the
definition of ‘‘persistently lowestachieving schools.’’
(b) Tier II schools: (i) 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.’’
(ii) 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)(1) Has not made adequate yearly
progress for at least two consecutive
years; or
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
(2) 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)(1) Is no higher achieving than the
highest-achieving school identified by
the SEA under paragraph (a)(2)(i) of the
definition of ‘‘persistently lowestachieving schools;’’ or
(2) 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: (i) A Tier III school
is a Title I school in improvement,
corrective action, or restructuring that is
not a Tier I school.
(ii) 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)(1) Has not made adequate yearly
progress for at least two years; or
(2) 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.
(iii) 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 funds.
2. The introductory language in
section I.A.4 is amended to read as
follows:
4. Evidence of strongest commitment.
(a) In determining the strength of an
LEA’s commitment to ensuring that
school improvement funds are used to
provide adequate resources to enable
Tier I and Tier II 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—
*
*
*
*
*
3. Section I.B.2 is amended to read as
follows:
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) or 2(b) 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
E:\FR\FM\21JAR1.SGM
21JAR1
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 13 / Thursday, January 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
action, or restructuring, it may receive
school improvement funds.
4. Section I.B.3 is amended to read as
follows:
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), or 2(d) of these requirements.
5. Section I.B.4 is removed.
6. Sections I.B.5 and 6 are
redesignated as sections I.B.4 and 5,
respectively.
7. Section I.B.5, as redesignated, is
amended to read as follows:
5. If an SEA does not seek a waiver
under section I.B.2, 3, or 4, an LEA may
seek a waiver.
8. Section II.A.1 is amended to read
as follows:
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, or Tier III
school.
9. Section II.A.3 is amended to read
as follows:
3. The LEA must serve 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 these
rigorous interventions 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 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 four
interventions identified in section I.A.2
of these requirements.
10. Section II.A.4 is amended to read
as follows:
4. The LEA’s budget for each Tier I
and Tier II school it commits to serve
must be of sufficient size and scope to
ensure that the LEA can implement one
of the rigorous interventions identified
in section I.A.2 of these requirements.
The LEA’s budget must cover the period
of availability of the school
improvement funds, taking into account
any waivers extending the period of
availability received by the SEA or LEA.
11. Section II.A.5 is amended to read
as follows:
5. The LEA’s budget for each Tier III
school it commits to serve must include
the services it will provide the school,
particularly if the school meets
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:28 Jan 20, 2010
Jkt 220001
additional criteria established by the
SEA.
12. Sections II.A.6, 7, and 8 are
redesignated as sections II.A.7, 8, and 9,
respectively, and a new section II.A.6 is
added to read as follows:
6. An LEA that commits to serve one
or more Tier I, Tier II, or Tier III 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
funds.
13. Section II.B.4 is amended to read
as follows:
4. If an SEA does not have sufficient
school improvement funds to award, for
up to three years, a grant to each LEA
that submits an approvable application,
the SEA must give priority to LEAs that
apply to serve Tier I or Tier II schools.
14. Section II.B.5 is amended to read
as follows:
5. 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 or
more than $2,000,000 per year for each
Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III school that the
LEA commits to serve.
15. Section II.B.6 is removed.
16. Sections II.B.7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12,
and 13 are redesignated as sections
II.B.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12,
respectively.
17. Section II.B.7, as redesignated, is
amended to read as follows:
7. An SEA must award funds to serve
each Tier I and Tier II school that its
LEAs commit to serve, and that the SEA
determines its LEAs have the capacity to
serve, prior to awarding funds to its
LEAs to serve any Tier III schools. If an
SEA has awarded school improvement
funds to its LEAs for each Tier I and
Tier II school that its LEAs commit to
serve in accordance with these
requirements, the SEA may then,
consistent with section II.B.9, award
remaining school improvement funds to
its LEAs for the Tier III schools that its
LEAs commit to serve.
18. Section II.B.9, as redesignated, is
amended to read as follows:
9. (a) If not every Tier I school in a
State is served with FY 2009 school
improvement funds, an SEA must carry
over 25 percent of its FY 2009 funds,
combine those funds with FY 2010
school improvement funds, and award
those funds to eligible LEAs consistent
with these requirements. This
requirement does not apply in a State
that does not have sufficient school
PO 00000
Frm 00049
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
3381
improvement funds to serve all the Tier
I schools in the State.
(b) If each Tier I school in a State is
served with FY 2009 school
improvement funds, an SEA may
reserve up to 25 percent of its FY 2009
allocation and award those funds in
combination with its FY 2010 funds
consistent with these requirements.
19. Section II.C is amended to read as
follows:
C. Renewal for additional one-year
periods.
(a) If an SEA or an individual LEA
requests and receives a waiver of the
period of availability of school
improvement funds, an SEA—
(i) Must renew the School
Improvement Grant for each affected
LEA for additional one-year periods
commensurate with the period of
availability if the LEA demonstrates that
its Tier I and Tier II schools are meeting
the requirements in section II.A.8, and
that its Tier III schools are meeting the
goals established by the LEA and
approved by the SEA; and
(ii) May renew an LEA’s School
Improvement Grant if the SEA
determines that the LEA’s schools are
making progress toward meeting the
requirements in section II.A.8 or the
goals established by the LEA.
(b) If an SEA does not renew an LEA’s
School Improvement Grant because the
LEA’s participating schools are not
meeting the requirements in section
II.A.8 or the goals established by the
LEA, the SEA may reallocate those
funds to other eligible LEAs, consistent
with these requirements.
Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866, the
Secretary must determine whether a
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 local
programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal
E:\FR\FM\21JAR1.SGM
21JAR1
3382
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 13 / Thursday, January 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
mandates, the President’s priorities, or
the principles set forth in the Executive
order. The Secretary has determined
that this regulatory action is significant
under section 3(f) of the Executive
order.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
Potential Costs and Benefits
Under Executive Order 12866, we
have assessed the potential costs and
benefits of this regulatory action and
have determined that this rule will not
impose additional costs to SEA
applicants, SEA grantees, or the Federal
government. The Department is
regulating only to incorporate two new
legislative provisions into the existing
final SIG requirements, both of which
add flexibility to the final requirements.
One provision raises the maximum
subgrant size for a participating school.
The other provision permits an SEA or
LEA, at its discretion, to serve schools
not covered by the final SIG
requirements. However, because this
regulatory action makes additional LEAs
eligible to apply for and receive SIG
funds, it may result in additional costs
to these newly eligible LEAs. As shown
below in the section on the Paperwork
Reduction Act, we estimate that an
additional 500 LEAs may apply for SIG
funds, at a total cost of $750,000 ($1,500
per applicant). We also estimate that
approximately 200 additional successful
applicants would spend a total of
$200,000 ($1,000 per applicant) to meet
SIG reporting requirements. The
Department notes that these estimates
assume that SEAs and LEAs will, in
fact, exercise the discretion provided in
these interim final requirements to serve
additional LEAs and schools and that
these LEAs and schools will qualify for
SIG awards under the requirements and
priorities governing the SIG program. It
is possible that very few of these newly
eligible LEAs will apply for and
compete successfully for SIG funds. For
those that do, the benefits of
participating in the SIG program exceed
the costs by a wide margin, as the
program is specifically designed to
provide sufficient resources (as much as
$2,000,000 annually over a three-year
period) to turn around an LEA’s
persistently lowest-achieving schools.
Similarly, the benefits of this regulatory
action far outweigh any unforeseen
administrative costs to the Federal
government in administering the SIG
program. The Department has also
determined that this regulatory action
does not unduly interfere with State,
local, and tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental
functions.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
17:28 Jan 20, 2010
Jkt 220001
Clarity of the Requirements
Executive Order 12866 and the
Presidential memorandum on ‘‘Plain
Language in Government Writing’’
require each agency to write regulations
that are easy to understand. The
Secretary invites comments on how to
make these interim final requirements
easier to understand, including answers
to questions such as the following:
• Are the interim final requirements
clearly stated?
• Do the interim final requirements
contain technical terms or other
wording that interferes with their
clarity?
• Does the format of the interim final
requirements (grouping and order of
sections, use of heading, paragraphing,
etc.) aid or reduce their clarity?
• Would the interim final
requirements be easier to understand if
we divided them into more (but shorter)
sections?
• Could the description of the interim
final requirements in the
‘‘Supplementary Information’’ section of
this preamble be more helpful in
making the interim final requirements
easier to understand? If so, how?
• What else could we do to make the
interim final requirements easier to
understand?
To send any comments that concern
how the Department could make these
interim final requirements easier to
understand, see the instructions in the
ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that these
interim final requirements will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
Under the U.S. Small Business
Administration’s Size Standards, small
entities include small governmental
jurisdictions such as cities, towns, or
school districts (LEAs) with a
population of less than 50,000.
Approximately 11,900 LEAs that receive
Title I, Part A funds qualify as small
entities under this definition. However,
the small entities that the interim final
requirements will affect are small LEAs
receiving SIG funds under section
1003(g) of the ESEA—i.e., a small LEA
that has one or more schools eligible to
receive SIG funds and that meets the
SEA’s priorities for greatest need for
those funds and demonstrates the
strongest commitment to use the funds
to provide adequate resources to their
lowest-achieving schools to raise
substantially the achievement of their
students.
SEAs will develop their own
definitions for their Tier I, Tier II, and
PO 00000
Frm 00050
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
Tier III schools, consistent with these
interim final requirements, but
preliminary data analyses by the
Department suggest that 15–25 percent
of the lowest-achieving schools in the
Nation are located in rural areas, which
are likely to contain most of the targeted
schools that are operated by small LEAs.
Assuming a maximum of 1,100 Tier I
and Tier II schools nationwide, and that
few if any rural LEAs will contain more
than one of their State’s lowestachieving schools, there would be a
range of 165 to 275 small LEAs affected
by these interim final requirements,
including a limited number of small
suburban and urban LEAs.
These interim final requirements will
not have a significant economic impact
on these small LEAs because (1) the
costs of implementing the required
interventions would be covered by the
grants received by successful applicants,
and (2) the costs of submitting
applications would not be higher than
the costs that would be incurred in
applying for SIG grants under the
existing final SIG requirements.
Successful LEAs will receive up to
three years of funding under section
1003(g) of the ESEA to implement their
proposed interventions, consistent with
the current final SIG requirements that
SEAs ensure that awards are of
sufficient size and duration to turn
around the Nation’s persistently lowestachieving schools.
Small LEAs may incur costs to
develop and submit applications for
turning around their lowest-achieving
schools but, in general, such costs
would be similar to those incurred to
apply for SIG funding under existing
statutory and regulatory requirements.
Moreover, because most of the schools
included in the applications submitted
by small LEAs will be schools that
already are in improvement status, these
LEAs will be able to incorporate existing
data analysis and planning into their
applications at little additional cost.
Also, small LEAs may receive technical
assistance and other support from their
SEAs in developing their applications
for SIG funds.
In addition, the Department believes
the benefits provided under these
interim final requirements will
outweigh the burdens on small LEAs of
complying with the requirements. In
particular, the interim final
requirements potentially make available
to eligible small LEAs significant
resources to make the fundamental
changes needed to turn around their
lowest-achieving schools, resources that
otherwise may not be available to small
and often geographically isolated LEAs.
E:\FR\FM\21JAR1.SGM
21JAR1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 13 / Thursday, January 21, 2010 / Rules and Regulations
The Secretary invites comments from
small LEAs as to whether they believe
these interim final requirements will
have a significant economic impact on
them and, if so, requests evidence to
support that belief.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The interim final requirements
contain information collection
requirements that are subject to review
by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501–
3520). The Department had received
previously emergency approval for the
information collections in the final SIG
requirements published on December
10, 2009, under OMB Control Number
1810–0682. The Department will submit
to OMB a Paperwork Reduction Act
3383
for SEAs remain the same because the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010
changes do not affect the number of
SEAs that can apply.
A description of the specific
information collection requirements is
provided in the following tables along
with estimates of the annual
recordkeeping burden for these
requirements. The estimates include
time for an SEA and an LEA to prepare
their respective applications (including
requests for waivers), an SEA to review
an LEA’s application, and an LEA to
report data to an SEA and the SEA to
report those data to the Department. The
first table shows the estimated burden
for SEAs and the second table shows the
estimated burden for LEAs.
Change Worksheet for this collection
that will include the changes described
below.
In the interim final requirements, the
Department is increasing its estimates of
the number of LEAs that will apply for
and have to report on using SIG funds
from the estimates included in the
December 10, 2009, final SIG
requirements. This change factors in the
provision in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2010 regarding
which schools are eligible to receive SIG
funds, which will likely increase the
number of LEAs that apply to their SEA
for these funds. The Department used its
data on the number of LEAs receiving
Title I, Part A funds and the proportion
of LEAs with identified schools to
estimate the new figures. The estimates
STATE EDUCATIONAL AGENCY ESTIMATES*
Number of
SEAs
SIG activity
Hours/
activity
Hours
Cost/hour
Cost
Complete SEA application (including requests for waivers) ...................
Review and post LEA applications ..........................................................
Collect and report school-level data to the Department ** ......................
52
52
52
100
800
80
5,200
41,600
4,160
$30
30
30
$156,000
1,248,000
124,800
Total ..................................................................................................
....................
....................
50,960
30
1,528,800
* The SEA estimates remain the same from the December 10, 2009, final SIG requirements.
** These are data the Department does not currently collect through EDFacts.
LOCAL EDUCATIONAL AGENCY ESTIMATES
Number
of LEAs
SIG activity
Hours/
activity
Hours
Cost/hour
Cost
Complete LEA application (including requests for waivers if the SEA
does not so request) ............................................................................
Report data to SEA* ................................................................................
3,050
1,200
60
40
183,000
48,000
$25
25
$4,575,000
1,200,000
Total ..................................................................................................
....................
....................
231,000
25
5,775,000
* These are data the Department does not currently collect through EDFacts.
Dated: January 13, 2010.
Arne Duncan,
Secretary of Education.
This program is not subject to
Executive Order 12372 and the
regulations in 34 CFR 79.
srobinson on DSKHWCL6B1PROD with RULES
You may 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) on the Internet
at the following site: https://www.ed.gov/
news/fedregister.
To use PDF, you must have Adobe
Acrobat Reader, which is available free
at this site.
Note: 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 on GPO
Access at: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/
index.html.
17:28 Jan 20, 2010
Jkt 220001
DATES: Effective January 21, 2010 and is
applicable beginning December 15,
2009.
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
Electronic Access to This Document
VerDate Nov<24>2008
dominant and competitive products is
also consistent with statutory
requirements.
[FR Doc. 2010–1048 Filed 1–20–10; 8:45 am]
Intergovernmental Review
POSTAL REGULATORY COMMISSION
39 CFR Part 3020
[Docket Nos. MC2010–7 and CP2010–7;
Order No. 361]
New Postal Product
Postal Regulatory Commission.
Final rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
SUMMARY: The Commission is adding
Express Mail Contract 7 to the
Competitive Product List. This action is
consistent with a postal reform law.
Republication of the lists of market
PO 00000
Frm 00051
Fmt 4700
Sfmt 4700
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Stephen L. Sharfman, General Counsel,
202–789–6820 or
stephen.sharfman@prc.gov.
Regulatory
History, 74 FR 57538 (November 6,
2009).
I. Introduction
II. Background
III. Comments
IV. Commission Analysis
V. Ordering Paragraphs
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
I. Introduction
The Postal Service seeks to add a new
product identified as Express Mail
E:\FR\FM\21JAR1.SGM
21JAR1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 13 (Thursday, January 21, 2010)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 3375-3383]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-1048]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Subtitle B, Chapter II
[Docket ID ED-2009-OESE-0010]
RIN 1810-AB06
School Improvement Grants; American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
of 2009 (ARRA); Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act
of 1965, as Amended (ESEA)
ACTION: Interim final requirements for School Improvement Grants
authorized under section 1003(g) of Title I of the ESEA; request for
comments.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Secretary of Education (Secretary) amends the final
requirements for School Improvement Grants (SIG) authorized under
section 1003(g) of Title I of the ESEA and funded through both the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2009 (Pub. L. 111-8) and the ARRA to
incorporate new authority included in the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2010 (Pub. L. 111-117) applicable to fiscal year (FY) 2010 SIG
funds and FY 2009 ARRA SIG funds. Specifically, the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2010 expands the group of schools that are eligible
to receive SIG funds. In addition, the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2010 raises the maximum amount of SIG funds that a State educational
agency (SEA) may award to a local educational agency (LEA) for each
participating school from $500,000 to $2,000,000. This notice
incorporates these changes into the final SIG requirements that the
Department published on December 10, 2009.
DATES: These requirements are effective February 8, 2010. We must
receive your comments by February 22, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not
accept comments by fax or by e-mail. Please submit your comments only
one time, in order to ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies.
In addition, please include the Docket ID at the top of your comments.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov to submit your comments electronically. Information
on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency
documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on
the site under ``How To Use This Site.''
Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you
mail or deliver your comments about these interim final requirements,
address them to Dr. Zollie Stevenson, Jr., U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3W320, Washington, DC 20202.
Privacy Note: The Department's policy for comments received from
members of the public (including those comments submitted by mail,
commercial delivery, or hand delivery) is to make these submissions
available for public viewing in their entirety on the Federal
eRulemaking Portal at https://www.regulations.gov. Therefore, commenters
should be careful to include in their comments only information that
they wish to make publicly available on the Internet.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Dr. Zollie Stevenson, Jr. Telephone:
202-260-0826 or by e-mail: Zollie.Stevenson@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the
Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an
accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation to Comment:
We invite you to submit comments regarding these interim final
requirements. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in
developing the final requirements, we urge you to identify clearly the
specific section or sections of the interim final requirements that
each of your comments addresses and to arrange your comments in the
same order as the interim final requirements.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of
reducing regulatory burden that might result from these interim final
requirements. Please let us know of any further opportunities we should
take to reduce potential costs or increase potential benefits while
preserving the effective and efficient administration of the SIG
program.
During and after the comment period you may inspect all public
comments about these interim final requirements by accessing
Regulations.gov. You may also inspect the comments, in person, in room
3W100, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of
8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of
each week except Federal holidays.
[[Page 3376]]
Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request, we will provide an appropriate
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the
public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Background: The Secretary published final requirements for the SIG
program in the Federal Register on December 10, 2009 (74 FR 65618).
Subsequently, on December 16, 2009, the President signed into law the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, which contains FY 2010
appropriations for the Department, and which also includes two
provisions applicable to the use of both FY 2010 SIG funds and FY 2009
ARRA SIG funds. First, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010
expands eligibility for participation in the SIG program by permitting
an SEA to award SIG funds for, and for an LEA to use those funds to
serve, any school that is eligible to receive assistance under Title I,
Part A and that: (1) Has not made adequate yearly progress (AYP) for at
least two years; or (2) is in the State's lowest quintile of
performance based on proficiency rates. With respect to secondary
schools, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 gives priority to
high schools with graduation rates below 60 percent. Second, the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 raises the maximum subgrant size
for a participating school from $500,000 to $2,000,000.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ These two provisions apply only to FY 2009 ARRA SIG funds
and FY 2010 SIG funds; they do not apply to SIG funds made available
through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2009 (i.e., the regular
FY 2009 SIG funds). Therefore, prior to October 1, 2010, regular FY
2009 SIG funds cannot be spent pursuant to the flexibility in these
provisions. Regular FY 2009 SIG funds, however, become subject to
the requirements applicable to FY 2010 SIG funds on October 1, 2010
when they become carryover funds. See section 421(b)(2)(A) of the
General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2)(A)).
Accordingly, in order to ensure compliance with the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2010, we will consider LEAs' obligations of SIG
funds in the State as a whole prior to October 1, 2010 to come from
the State's allocation of FY 2009 ARRA SIG funds, which we believe
in every State will be more than sufficient to cover those
obligations. Beginning October 1, 2010, LEAs may use all SIG funds,
including regular FY 2009 SIG funds, pursuant to the flexibility in
these provisions, consistent with the final requirements as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
These interim final requirements incorporate this new authority
into the final SIG requirements that were published on December 10,
2009. Although the interim final requirements give an SEA discretion to
expand the group of schools that are eligible to receive SIG funds, the
purpose of the SIG program remains the same: to provide funds to LEAs
that demonstrate the greatest need for the funds and the strongest
commitment to use the funds to turn around their persistently lowest-
achieving schools and significantly raise student achievement in those
schools.
Waiver of Rulemaking and Delayed Effective Date: Under the
Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553), the Department is
generally required to publish a notice of proposed rulemaking and
provide the public with an opportunity to comment on proposed
regulations prior to establishing a final rule. However, we are waiving
the notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the APA. Section
553(b) of the APA provides that an agency is not required to conduct
notice-and-comment rulemaking when the agency for good cause finds that
notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or
contrary to the public interest. Although these requirements are
subject to the APA's notice-and-comment requirements, the Secretary has
determined that it would be impracticable, unnecessary, and contrary to
the public interest to conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking.
As noted above, these interim final requirements are needed to
incorporate the new SIG authority provided by the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2010 into the final SIG requirements published on
December 10, 2009. Those final requirements take effect on February 8,
2010, also the date by which State applications for SIG funds are due
to the Department. The Department must award FY 2009 SIG funds to SEAs
by September 30, 2010 or the funds will lapse. Even on an extremely
expedited timeline, it is impracticable for the Department to conduct
notice-and-comment rulemaking and then promulgate final requirements in
time to make grant awards to States by the September 30 deadline.
Publishing a notice of proposed rulemaking, reviewing the public
comments, and issuing final regulations normally takes at least six
months. We are concerned that, when added to the time the Department
will need to receive, review, and approve State applications for SIG
funds, the Department may not be able to allocate FY 2009, including
ARRA, SIG funds to all States by September 30, 2010. With $3.5 billion
at stake, it would be impracticable and contrary to the public interest
for the Department to take this risk. Issuing these interim final
requirements permits the Department to maintain the current State
application timeline.
Additionally, the Department has recently concluded notice-and-
comment rulemaking on the final SIG requirements. These interim final
requirements incorporate the new authority in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2010 into the existing final SIG requirements with
only minimal, necessary changes. Accordingly, and in order to make
timely grant awards for FY 2009, the Secretary is issuing these interim
final requirements without first publishing proposed requirements for
public comment.
Although the Department is adopting these requirements on an
interim final basis, the Department requests public comment on these
requirements. After consideration of public comments, the Secretary
will publish final requirements.
The APA also requires that a substantive rule be published at least
30 days before its effective date, except as otherwise provided for
good cause (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(3)). For the reasons outlined in the
preceding paragraphs, the Secretary has determined that a delayed
effective date for these interim final requirements would be
unnecessary and contrary to the public interest, and that good cause
exists to waive the requirement for a delayed effective date.
Summary of the Interim Final Requirements:
We discuss substantive changes to the final SIG requirements
published on December 10, 2009 under the sections of the interim final
requirements to which they pertain.
Section I.A.1--defining ``greatest need'':
Statute: Section 1003(g) of the ESEA limits eligibility for school
improvement funds to Title I schools in improvement, corrective action,
or restructuring. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 expands the
group of schools eligible to be served with SIG funds to include any
school that is eligible to receive Title I, Part A funds (including
schools that receive Title I, Part A funds and those that do not) and
that (1) has not made AYP for at least two years, or (2) is in the
State's lowest quintile of performance based on proficiency rates. In
the case of secondary schools, the Consolidated Appropriations Act,
2010 requires that priority be given to those schools with graduation
rates below 60 percent.
Current final requirements: Section I.A.1 defines three tiers of
schools. A
[[Page 3377]]
Tier I school is any Title I school in improvement, corrective action,
or restructuring that is identified by the SEA as a ``persistently
lowest-achieving school.'' As such, the school is among the lowest-
achieving five percent of Title I schools in improvement, corrective
action, or restructuring in the State (or the lowest-achieving five
such schools) or is a Title I high school that has had a graduation
rate that is less than 60 percent over a number of years.
A Tier II school is any secondary school that is eligible for, but
does not receive, Title I, Part A funds and that is identified by the
SEA as a ``persistently lowest-achieving school.'' As such, the school
is among the lowest-achieving five percent of such secondary schools in
the State (or the lowest-achieving five such secondary schools) or is a
high school that has had a graduation rate that is less than 60 percent
over a number of years.
A Tier III school is any Title I school in improvement, corrective
action, or restructuring that is not a Tier I school.
Interim final requirements: The interim final requirements amend
the definitions of Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III schools to incorporate
the expanded eligibility provided for in the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2010. The interim final requirements do not change
the definition of ``persistently lowest-achieving schools'' as that
definition is used to define Tier I and Tier II schools. An SEA must
use this definition to identify the persistently lowest-achieving
schools in the State, which will comprise at least part of the schools
in Tier I and Tier II. The SEA must also identify the schools in Tier
III--i.e., the Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring that are not in Tier I. The interim final requirements
permit an SEA, at its option, to identify additional schools in each
tier.
With respect to Tier I, in addition to the Title I schools in
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that an SEA has
identified as persistently lowest-achieving schools, the SEA may
identify any elementary school that (1) is eligible to receive Title I,
Part A funds (including schools that receive Title I, Part A funds and
those that do not); (2) either has not made AYP for at least two
consecutive years or 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 (3) is no higher achieving on the State's assessments
combined than the highest-achieving Tier I school that the SEA has
identified under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of the definition of
``persistently lowest-achieving schools.'' These newly eligible schools
may be Title I schools that are not identified for improvement,
corrective action, or restructuring or schools eligible for, but not
receiving, Title I, Part A funds, provided they meet the criteria in
section I.A.1(a)(ii) of the interim final requirements.
With respect to Tier II, in addition to the secondary schools that
are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I, Part A funds and that an
SEA has identified as persistently lowest-achieving schools, the SEA
may identify any secondary school that (1) is eligible to receive Title
I, Part A funds (including schools that receive Title I, Part A funds
and those that do not); (2) either has not made AYP for at least two
consecutive years or 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 (3) either is no higher achieving on the State's
assessments combined than the highest-achieving Tier II school that the
SEA has identified under paragraph (a)(2)(i) of the definition of
``persistently lowest-achieving schools'' or is a high school that has
had a graduation rate that is less than 60 percent over a number of
years. Tier II secondary schools that an SEA has identified as
persistently lowest-achieving schools--i.e., secondary schools that are
eligible for, but do not receive, Title I, Part A funds--are eligible
without the need for an SEA or LEA to obtain a waiver of section
1003(g)'s limitation on serving only Title I schools in improvement,
corrective action, or restructuring. Tier II also may now include Title
I secondary schools that are or are not in improvement, corrective
action, or restructuring if those schools meet the criteria in section
I.A.1(b)(ii) of the interim final requirements and are not already
captured in Tier I.
With respect to Tier III, in addition to any Title I school in
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that is not a Tier I
school, an SEA may identify any school that (1) is eligible for Title
I, Part A funds (including schools that receive Title I, Part A funds
and those that do not); (2) has not made AYP for at least two years or
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 (3) does not
meet the requirements to be a Tier I or Tier II school. Thus, a Tier
III school may be a Title I school in improvement, corrective action,
or restructuring, a school that receives Title I, Part A funds that is
not in improvement, or a school that is eligible for, but does not
receive, Title I, Part A funds, provided the school meets one of the
two criteria in section I.A.1(c)(ii)(A).
To illustrate further the changes we are making with respect to how
an SEA identifies a newly eligible school as a Tier I, Tier II, or Tier
III school, we are providing the following chart. The left column
represents the schools an SEA must identify in each of Tiers I, II, and
III; the right column represents the newly eligible schools based on
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 that an SEA may, but is not
required to, identify in Tiers I, II, and III.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Schools an SEA MUST identify Newly eligible schools an SEA MAY
in each tier identify in each tier
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier I................................ Schools that meet the criteria Title I eligible \2\ elementary schools
in paragraph (a)(1) in the that are no higher achieving than the
definition of ``persistently highest-achieving school that meets the
lowest-achieving schools.'' criteria in paragraph (a)(1)(i) in the
\1\ definition of ``persistently lowest-
achieving schools'' and that are:
In the bottom 20% of all
schools in the State based on
proficiency rates; or
Have not made AYP for two
consecutive years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier II............................... Schools that meet the criteria Title I eligible secondary schools that
in paragraph (a)(2) in the are (1) no higher achieving than the
definition of ``persistently highest-achieving school that meets the
lowest-achieving schools.'' criteria in paragraph (a)(2)(i) in the
definition of ``persistently lowest-
achieving schools'' or (2) high schools
that have had a graduation rate of less
than 60 percent over a number of years
and that are:
[[Page 3378]]
In the bottom 20% of all
schools in the State based on
proficiency rates; or
Have not made AYP for two
consecutive years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Tier III.............................. Title I schools in Title I eligible schools that do not
improvement, corrective meet the requirements to be in Tier I
action, or restructuring that or Tier II and that are:
are not in Tier I.\3\
In the bottom 20% of all
schools in the State based on
proficiency rates; or
Have not made AYP for two
years.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Notes to Chart:
\1\ ``Persistently lowest-achieving schools'' means, as determined by the State--
(a)(1) Any Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that--
(i) 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
(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; and
(2) Any secondary school that is eligible for, but does not receive, Title I funds that--
(i) 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
(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.
\2\ For the purposes of schools that may be added to Tier I, Tier II, or Tier III, ``Title I eligible'' schools
may be schools that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I, Part A funds or schools that are Title I
participating (i.e., schools that are eligible for and do receive Title I, Part A funds).
\3\ Certain Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that are not in Tier I may be in
Tier II rather than Tier III. In particular, Title I secondary schools in improvement, corrective action, or
restructuring that are not in Tier I may be in Tier II if they meet the criteria in section I.A.1(b)(ii)(A)(2)
and (B) and an SEA chooses to include them in Tier II.
Reasons: These changes are needed to incorporate into the final SIG
requirements the expanded authority in the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2010 with respect to eligible schools. It is important to note
that an SEA has the option to add these newly eligible schools to its
lists of Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III schools in accordance with these
interim final requirements, but the SEA is not required to do so.
Moreover, if an SEA chooses to add newly eligible schools at all, it
has the flexibility to add only a subset of those schools to its lists
of Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III schools. For example, an SEA might
choose to add newly eligible schools to Tier I and Tier II but not to
Tier III, or it might add to Tier III only newly eligible schools that
are in the lowest decile (rather than quintile) of schools in the State
based on proficiency rates.
An LEA may apply to serve only schools that are included in an
SEA's definition of Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III schools.
We note that the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 also
requires that, ``in the case of secondary schools, priority shall be
given to those schools with graduation rates below 60 percent.'' This
priority is accounted for in the definition of ``persistently lowest-
achieving schools,'' which requires an SEA to identify any Title I high
school in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring and any
secondary school that is eligible for, but does not receive, Title I,
Part A funds that has a graduation rate of less than a 60 percent over
a number of years.
Sections I.B.2 and I.B.3--waivers for Tier I and Tier II Title I
participating schools:
Statute: Section 1116(b) of the ESEA prescribes a school
improvement timeline for a Title I school that misses AYP for at least
two consecutive years. Section 1114(a) of the ESEA authorizes a Title I
school with a poverty percentage of at least 40 percent to operate a
schoolwide program; a school that does not meet that poverty threshold
may provide Title I services only to identified students who are
failing, or most at risk of failing, to meet State standards.
Current final requirements: Section I.B.2 permits an SEA to seek a
waiver of the school improvement timeline in section 1116(b) of the
ESEA for any Tier I school--i.e., a Title I school in improvement,
corrective action, or restructuring--that implements a turnaround or
restart model as defined in section I.A.2(a) and (b). Section I.B.3
permits an SEA to seek a waiver of the poverty threshold in section
1114(a) for any Tier I school below that threshold in order that the
school may implement one of the school intervention models defined in
section I.A.2 through a schoolwide program.
Interim final requirements: The interim final requirements amend
section I.B.2 to clarify that an SEA may seek a waiver of the school
improvement timeline in section 1116(b) with respect to a Tier I or
Tier II Title I participating school that implements a turnaround or
restart model. The interim final requirements also amend section I.B.3
to clarify that an SEA may seek a waiver of the schoolwide program
poverty threshold in section 1114(a) with respect to a Tier I or Tier
II Title I participating school below that threshold in order that the
school may implement one of the school intervention models through a
schoolwide program.
Reasons: In expanding eligibility, the Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2010 created the possibility of identifying as Tier II schools
secondary schools that receive Title I, Part A funds. It also created
the possibility of identifying as Tier I schools elementary schools
that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I, Part A funds.
Accordingly, we are clarifying in sections I.B.2 and I.B.3 that waivers
of sections 1116(b) and 1114(a) of the ESEA would be appropriate for
Tier II schools that receive Title I, Part A funds as well as for Tier
I schools that receive Title I, Part A funds. The phrase ``Title I
participating school''--i.e., a school that receives Title I, Part A
funds--has been added in both sections; waivers are not necessary for
non-Title I schools in either Tier I or Tier II because the
requirements in sections 1116 and 1114 do not apply to those schools.
Section I.B.4--waiver to serve a Tier II school:
Statute: Section 1003(g) of the ESEA requires an SEA to award SIG
funds only to LEAs with one or more Title I schools in improvement,
corrective action, or restructuring. The Consolidated Appropriations
Act, 2010 expands the group of schools eligible to be served with SIG
funds to include any school that is eligible to receive Title I, Part A
funds, including Tier II
[[Page 3379]]
secondary schools that are eligible for, but do not receive, those
funds.
Current final requirements: Section I.B.4 permits an SEA to seek a
waiver from the Secretary to enable an LEA to use SIG funds to serve a
Tier II secondary school that is eligible for, but does not receive,
Title I, Part A funds.
Interim final requirements: The interim final requirements remove
section I.B.4.
Reasons: Section I.B.4 is no longer needed. Because the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 authorizes an SEA and LEA to use
SIG funds to serve secondary schools that are eligible for, but do not
receive, Title I, Part A funds, an SEA no longer needs a waiver to do
so.
Section II.A.1--LEA eligibility:
Statute: Section 1003(g) of the ESEA requires an SEA to award SIG
funds only to LEAs with Title I schools in improvement, corrective
action, or restructuring. The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010
expands this eligibility to permit an SEA to award SIG funds to LEAs
that have a school eligible to receive assistance under Title I, Part A
that has not made AYP for at least two years or is in the State's
lowest quintile of performance based on proficiency rates.
Current final requirements: Section II.A.1 makes clear that, to
apply for a SIG grant, an LEA must have one or more schools in Tier I
or Tier III. In other words, the current requirements provide that, to
be eligible for SIG funds, an LEA must have one or more Title I schools
in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring.
Interim final requirements: The interim final requirements amend
section II.A.1 to make clear that an LEA may apply for a SIG grant if
the LEA 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, or Tier III
school.
Reasons: Based on the expanded eligibility authorized by the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, an LEA may apply for a SIG grant
even if it does not have any Title I schools in improvement, corrective
action, or restructuring, provided the LEA has one or more schools that
are eligible for Title I, Part A funds and meet the criteria in section
I.A.1(a) (definition of Tier I schools), (b) (definition of Tier II
schools), or (c) (definition of Tier III schools) as defined by the
SEA. Accordingly, to be eligible, an LEA must have one or more schools
that meet the SEA's definition of a Tier I, Tier II, or Tier III
school.
Sections II.A.4 and II.A.5--LEA's budget:
Statute: Section 1003(g)(5) of the ESEA requires an SEA to allocate
to an LEA ``not less than $50,000 and not more than $500,000 for each
participating school.'' The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010
raises the maximum amount per participating school from $500,000 to
$2,000,000.
Current final requirements: Sections II.A.4 and II.A.5 recognize
that an LEA's budget will likely need to exceed the statutory maximum
of $500,000 for most Tier I and Tier II schools in order for the LEA to
implement fully and effectively three of the four school intervention
models. Under the current final SIG requirements, additional funds
needed to implement school intervention models in Tier I and Tier II
schools would be generated by Tier III schools. Section II.A.5 provides
that services for a Tier III school do not need to be commensurate with
the funds an SEA allocates to the LEA for the school.
Interim final requirements: The interim final requirements remove
language that is no longer necessary from sections II.A.4 and II.A.5
regarding an LEA's budget. In section II.A.4, we are removing the last
two sentences. We are amending section II.A.5 to read ``The LEA's
budget for each Tier III school it commits to serve must include the
services it will provide the school, particularly if the school meets
additional criteria established by the SEA.''
Reasons: Because the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 raises
the maximum amount for each participating school from $500,000 to
$2,000,000, an LEA's budget can reflect more accurately the actual
amount needed to implement one of the four school intervention models
in each Tier I and Tier II school the LEA commits to serve. Moreover,
the LEA may budget more accurately for its Tier III schools without
concern that they generate funds for the LEA's Tier I and Tier II
schools.
Section II.A.6--SIG funds are supplemental:
Statute: Section 1114(a)(2)(B) of the ESEA requires an LEA to
allocate to a Title I school operating a schoolwide program ``the
amount of funds that would, in the absence of [Title I, Part A funds],
be made available from non-Federal sources for the school, including
funds needed to provide services that are required by law for children
with disabilities and children with limited English proficiency.''
Current final requirements: None.
Interim final requirements: The interim final requirements add
section II.A.6, which requires an LEA that commits to serve one or more
Tier I, Tier II, or Tier III schools that do not receive Title I, Part
A funds to ensure that each of those schools receives all of the State
and local funds it would have received in the absence of the SIG funds.
Reasons: Under the current final SIG requirements, a Tier I school
must be a Title I school operating a schoolwide program in order to
implement one of the school intervention models. Accordingly, under
section 1114(a)(2)(B) of the ESEA, the LEA must provide the school all
of the non-Federal funds that would have been available to the school
in the absence of Title I, Part A funds. Thus, both Title I, Part A
funds and SIG funds are supplemental to the State and local funds the
school receives. To ensure that SIG funds are also supplemental in Tier
II schools, which are not Title I schools under the final SIG
requirements and, thus, are not covered by section 1114(a)(2)(B), we
intended to condition a waiver permitting an LEA to serve Tier II
schools on the LEA's providing all State and local funds to those
schools that they otherwise would have received. Now that the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 has made non-Title I schools
eligible as Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III schools without need for a
waiver, we cannot ensure that SIG funds will be supplemental to State
and local funds without establishing the requirement in section II.A.6.
Sections II.B.4 and II.B.7--priority for funding Tier I and Tier II
schools:
Statute: Section 1003(g)(6) of the ESEA requires an SEA to give
priority, in awarding SIG grants, to LEAs that demonstrate the greatest
need for the funds and the strongest commitment to ensuring that the
funds are used to provide adequate resources to enable the lowest-
achieving schools to raise student achievement.
Current final requirements: Section II.B.4 requires an SEA to give
priority to LEAs that apply to serve both Tier I and Tier II schools
and then give priority to LEAs that apply to serve Tier I, but not Tier
II, schools. Section II.B.7 requires an SEA to award funds to LEAs that
apply to serve only Tier III schools only after it funds all LEAs that
apply to serve Tier I or Tier II schools.
Interim final requirements: The interim final requirements amend
sections II.B.4 and II.B.7 (as well as various other sections--e.g.,
sections I.A.4(a), II.A.1, II.A.3) to give equal status to Tier I and
Tier II schools. Accordingly, sections II.B.4 and II.B.7 make clear
that an LEA that applies to serve either Tier I or Tier II schools
receives priority before an LEA that
[[Page 3380]]
applies to serve only Tier III schools. Moreover, as section II.B.7
makes clear, an SEA must award SIG funds to each LEA to serve the Tier
I and Tier II schools that the SEA has approved the LEA to serve before
awarding any funds to an LEA to serve a Tier III school. In other
words, an SEA must ensure that all Tier I and Tier II schools are
funded before it funds the Tier III schools identified in its LEAs'
applications.
Reasons: These provisions incorporate the expanded eligibility
provisions in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 to best carry
out the statutory priority in the ESEA requiring an SEA to award SIG
funds to LEAs with the lowest-achieving schools that demonstrate the
greatest need for the funds and the strongest commitment to use the
funds to raise student achievement substantially.
Section II.B.9--2010 SIG appropriations:
Statute: The Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 appropriated
$546 million for SIG grants in FY 2010.
Current final requirements: Section II.B.9 requires certain SEAs
and permits other SEAs to carry over 25 percent of their FY 2009 SIG
funds and to combine those funds with FY 2010 funds ``(depending on the
availability of appropriations).''
Interim final requirements: The interim final requirements remove
the phrase ``(depending on the availability of appropriations)'' in
section II.B.9(a) and (b).
Reasons: Because the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010
appropriated SIG funds for FY 2010, this language is no longer
necessary.
Section II.C--renewal for additional one-year periods:
Statute: Section 1003(g)(5)(C) of the ESEA permits an SEA to renew
an LEA's SIG grant if schools are meeting the goals under section 1116
of the ESEA.
Current final requirements: Section II.C requires an SEA to renew
the SIG grant for each LEA for one-year periods if the LEA demonstrates
that its Tier I and Tier II schools are meeting the requirements in
section II.A.7 of the final SIG requirements and that its Tier III
schools are meeting their goals under section 1116.
Interim final requirements: The interim final requirements amend
section II.C(a)(i) to require Tier III schools that receive SIG funds
to meet ``goals established by the LEA and approved by the SEA.''
Reasons: Under the expanded eligibility authority in the
Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, non-Title I schools may now be
served as Tier III schools if they have missed AYP for at least two
years or are in the lowest quintile in the State in terms of
proficiency on a State's reading/language arts and mathematics
assessments combined. Because those schools are not subject to meeting
goals under section 1116 of the ESEA, the interim final requirements
include a provision addressing accountability for those schools. This
provision in the interim final requirements, therefore, treats all Tier
III schools the same; however, to the extent they apply, an LEA may use
as the goals for a Tier III school the goals in its school improvement
plan under section 1116 of the ESEA.
Interim Final Requirements:
For the reasons discussed previously, the Secretary amends the
final SIG requirements published in the Federal Register on December
10, 2009 (74 FR 65618) as follows:
1. Section I.A.1 is amended to read 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
following tiers:
(a) Tier I schools: (i) 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.''
(ii) 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)(1) Has not made adequate yearly progress for at least two
consecutive years; or
(2) 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)(i) of the definition of
``persistently lowest-achieving schools.''
(b) Tier II schools: (i) 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.''
(ii) 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)(1) Has not made adequate yearly progress for at least two
consecutive years; or
(2) 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)(1) Is no higher achieving than the highest-achieving school
identified by the SEA under paragraph (a)(2)(i) of the definition of
``persistently lowest-achieving schools;'' or
(2) 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: (i) A Tier III school is a Title I school in
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that is not a Tier I
school.
(ii) 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)(1) Has not made adequate yearly progress for at least two
years; or
(2) 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.
(iii) 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
funds.
2. The introductory language in section I.A.4 is amended to read as
follows:
4. Evidence of strongest commitment. (a) In determining the
strength of an LEA's commitment to ensuring that school improvement
funds are used to provide adequate resources to enable Tier I and Tier
II 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--
* * * * *
3. Section I.B.2 is amended to read as follows:
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) or 2(b) 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
[[Page 3381]]
action, or restructuring, it may receive school improvement funds.
4. Section I.B.3 is amended to read as follows:
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), or 2(d) of these requirements.
5. Section I.B.4 is removed.
6. Sections I.B.5 and 6 are redesignated as sections I.B.4 and 5,
respectively.
7. Section I.B.5, as redesignated, is amended to read as follows:
5. If an SEA does not seek a waiver under section I.B.2, 3, or 4,
an LEA may seek a waiver.
8. Section II.A.1 is amended to read as follows:
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, or Tier III school.
9. Section II.A.3 is amended to read as follows:
3. The LEA must serve 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 these rigorous
interventions 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 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 four interventions identified in section I.A.2 of these
requirements.
10. Section II.A.4 is amended to read as follows:
4. The LEA's budget for each Tier I and Tier II school it commits
to serve must be of sufficient size and scope to ensure that the LEA
can implement one of the rigorous interventions identified in section
I.A.2 of these requirements. The LEA's budget must cover the period of
availability of the school improvement funds, taking into account any
waivers extending the period of availability received by the SEA or
LEA.
11. Section II.A.5 is amended to read as follows:
5. The LEA's budget for each Tier III school it commits to serve
must include the services it will provide the school, particularly if
the school meets additional criteria established by the SEA.
12. Sections II.A.6, 7, and 8 are redesignated as sections II.A.7,
8, and 9, respectively, and a new section II.A.6 is added to read as
follows:
6. An LEA that commits to serve one or more Tier I, Tier II, or
Tier III 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
funds.
13. Section II.B.4 is amended to read as follows:
4. If an SEA does not have sufficient school improvement funds to
award, for up to three years, a grant to each LEA that submits an
approvable application, the SEA must give priority to LEAs that apply
to serve Tier I or Tier II schools.
14. Section II.B.5 is amended to read as follows:
5. 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 or more than $2,000,000
per year for each Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III school that the LEA
commits to serve.
15. Section II.B.6 is removed.
16. Sections II.B.7, 8, 9, 10, 11, 12, and 13 are redesignated as
sections II.B.6, 7, 8, 9, 10, 11, and 12, respectively.
17. Section II.B.7, as redesignated, is amended to read as follows:
7. An SEA must award funds to serve each Tier I and Tier II school
that its LEAs commit to serve, and that the SEA determines its LEAs
have the capacity to serve, prior to awarding funds to its LEAs to
serve any Tier III schools. If an SEA has awarded school improvement
funds to its LEAs for each Tier I and Tier II school that its LEAs
commit to serve in accordance with these requirements, the SEA may
then, consistent with section II.B.9, award remaining school
improvement funds to its LEAs for the Tier III schools that its LEAs
commit to serve.
18. Section II.B.9, as redesignated, is amended to read as follows:
9. (a) If not every Tier I school in a State is served with FY 2009
school improvement funds, an SEA must carry over 25 percent of its FY
2009 funds, combine those funds with FY 2010 school improvement funds,
and award those funds to eligible LEAs consistent with these
requirements. This requirement does not apply in a State that does not
have sufficient school improvement funds to serve all the Tier I
schools in the State.
(b) If each Tier I school in a State is served with FY 2009 school
improvement funds, an SEA may reserve up to 25 percent of its FY 2009
allocation and award those funds in combination with its FY 2010 funds
consistent with these requirements.
19. Section II.C is amended to read as follows:
C. Renewal for additional one-year periods.
(a) If an SEA or an individual LEA requests and receives a waiver
of the period of availability of school improvement funds, an SEA--
(i) Must renew the School Improvement Grant for each affected LEA
for additional one-year periods commensurate with the period of
availability if the LEA demonstrates that its Tier I and Tier II
schools are meeting the requirements in section II.A.8, and that its
Tier III schools are meeting the goals established by the LEA and
approved by the SEA; and
(ii) May renew an LEA's School Improvement Grant if the SEA
determines that the LEA's schools are making progress toward meeting
the requirements in section II.A.8 or the goals established by the LEA.
(b) If an SEA does not renew an LEA's School Improvement Grant
because the LEA's participating schools are not meeting the
requirements in section II.A.8 or the goals established by the LEA, the
SEA may reallocate those funds to other eligible LEAs, consistent with
these requirements.
Executive Order 12866
Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether a
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 local programs
or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal
[[Page 3382]]
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles set forth in
the Executive order. The Secretary has determined that this regulatory
action is significant under section 3(f) of the Executive order.
Potential Costs and Benefits
Under Executive Order 12866, we have assessed the potential costs
and benefits of this regulatory action and have determined that this
rule will not impose additional costs to SEA applicants, SEA grantees,
or the Federal government. The Department is regulating only to
incorporate two new legislative provisions into the existing final SIG
requirements, both of which add flexibility to the final requirements.
One provision raises the maximum subgrant size for a participating
school. The other provision permits an SEA or LEA, at its discretion,
to serve schools not covered by the final SIG requirements. However,
because this regulatory action makes additional LEAs eligible to apply
for and receive SIG funds, it may result in additional costs to these
newly eligible LEAs. As shown below in the section on the Paperwork
Reduction Act, we estimate that an additional 500 LEAs may apply for
SIG funds, at a total cost of $750,000 ($1,500 per applicant). We also
estimate that approximately 200 additional successful applicants would
spend a total of $200,000 ($1,000 per applicant) to meet SIG reporting
requirements. The Department notes that these estimates assume that
SEAs and LEAs will, in fact, exercise the discretion provided in these
interim final requirements to serve additional LEAs and schools and
that these LEAs and schools will qualify for SIG awards under the
requirements and priorities governing the SIG program. It is possible
that very few of these newly eligible LEAs will apply for and compete
successfully for SIG funds. For those that do, the benefits of
participating in the SIG program exceed the costs by a wide margin, as
the program is specifically designed to provide sufficient resources
(as much as $2,000,000 annually over a three-year period) to turn
around an LEA's persistently lowest-achieving schools. Similarly, the
benefits of this regulatory action far outweigh any unforeseen
administrative costs to the Federal government in administering the SIG
program. The Department has also determined that this regulatory action
does not unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in
the exercise of their governmental functions.
Clarity of the Requirements
Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum on ``Plain
Language in Government Writing'' require each agency to write
regulations that are easy to understand. The Secretary invites comments
on how to make these interim final requirements easier to understand,
including answers to questions such as the following:
Are the interim final requirements clearly stated?
Do the interim final requirements contain technical terms
or other wording that interferes with their clarity?
Does the format of the interim final requirements
(grouping and order of sections, use of heading, paragraphing, etc.)
aid or reduce their clarity?
Would the interim final requirements be easier to
understand if we divided them into more (but shorter) sections?
Could the description of the interim final requirements in
the ``Supplementary Information'' section of this preamble be more
helpful in making the interim final requirements easier to understand?
If so, how?
What else could we do to make the interim final
requirements easier to understand?
To send any comments that concern how the Department could make
these interim final requirements easier to understand, see the
instructions in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that these interim final requirements will
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. Under the U.S. Small Business Administration's Size
Standards, small entities include small governmental jurisdictions such
as cities, towns, or school districts (LEAs) with a population of less
than 50,000. Approximately 11,900 LEAs that receive Title I, Part A
funds qualify as small entities under this definition. However, the
small entities that the interim final requirements will affect are
small LEAs receiving SIG funds under section 1003(g) of the ESEA--i.e.,
a small LEA that has one or more schools eligible to receive SIG funds
and that meets the SEA's priorities for greatest need for those funds
and demonstrates the strongest commitment to use the funds to provide
adequate resources to their lowest-achieving schools to raise
substantially the achievement of their students.
SEAs will develop their own definitions for their Tier I, Tier II,
and Tier III schools, consistent with these interim final requirements,
but preliminary data analyses by the Department suggest that 15-25
percent of the lowest-achieving schools in the Nation are located in
rural areas, which are likely to contain most of the targeted schools
that are operated by small LEAs. Assuming a maximum of 1,100 Tier I and
Tier II schools nationwide, and that few if any rural LEAs will contain
more than one of their State's lowest-achieving schools, there would be
a range of 165 to 275 small LEAs affected by these interim final
requirements, including a limited number of small suburban and urban
LEAs.
These interim final requirements will not have a significant
economic impact on these small LEAs because (1) the costs of
implementing the required interventions would be covered by the grants
received by successful applicants, and (2) the costs of submitting
applications would not be higher than the costs that would be incurred
in applying for SIG grants under the existing final SIG requirements.
Successful LEAs will receive up to three years of funding under
section 1003(g) of the ESEA to implement their proposed interventions,
consistent with the current final SIG requirements that SEAs ensure
that awards are of sufficient size and duration to turn around the
Nation's persistently lowest-achieving schools.
Small LEAs may incur costs to develop and submit applications for
turning around their lowest-achieving schools but, in general, such
costs would be similar to those incurred to apply for SIG funding under
existing statutory and regulatory requirements. Moreover, because most
of the schools included in the applications submitted by small LEAs
will be schools that already are in improvement status, these LEAs will
be able to incorporate existing data analysis and planning into their
applications at little additional cost. Also, small LEAs may receive
technical assistance and other support from their SEAs in developing
their applications for SIG funds.
In addition, the Department believes the benefits provided under
these interim final requirements will outweigh the burdens on small
LEAs of complying with the requirements. In particular, the interim
final requirements potentially make available to eligible small LEAs
significant resources to make the fundamental changes needed to turn
around their lowest-achieving schools, resources that otherwise may not
be available to small and often geographically isolated LEAs.
[[Page 3383]]
The Secretary invites comments from small LEAs as to whether they
believe these interim final requirements will have a significant
economic impact on them and, if so, requests evidence to support that
belief.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The interim final requirements contain information collection
requirements that are subject to review by OMB under the Paperwork
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The Department had
received previously emergency approval for the information collections
in the final SIG requirements published on December 10, 2009, under OMB
Control Number 1810-0682. The Department will submit to OMB a Paperwork
Reduction Act Change Worksheet for this collection that will include
the changes described below.
In the interim final requirements, the Department is increasing its
estimates of the number of LEAs that will apply for and have to report
on using SIG funds from the estimates included in the December 10,
2009, final SIG requirements. This change factors in the provision in
the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 regarding which schools are
eligible to receive SIG funds, which will likely increase the number of
LEAs that apply to their SEA for these funds. The Department used its
data on the number of LEAs receiving Title I, Part A funds and the
proportion of LEAs with identified schools to estimate the new figures.
The estimates for SEAs remain the same because the Consolidated
Appropriations Act, 2010 changes do not affect the number of SEAs that
can apply.
A description of the specific information collection requirements
is provided in the following tables along with estimates of the annual
recordkeeping burden for these requirements. The estimates include time
for an SEA and an LEA to prepare their respective applications
(including requests for waivers), an SEA to review an LEA's
application, and an LEA to report data to an SEA and the SEA to report
those data to the Department. The first table shows the estimated
burden for SEAs and the second table shows the estimated burden for
LEAs.
State Educational Agency Estimates*
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Hours/
SIG activity SEAs activity Hours Cost/hour Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complete SEA application (including requests 52 100 5,200 $30 $156,000
for waivers)..................................
Review and post LEA applications............... 52 800 41,600 30 1,248,000
Collect and report school-level data to the 52 80 4,160 30 124,800
Department **.................................
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total...................................... ........... ........... 50,960 30 1,528,800
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* The SEA estimates remain the same from the December 10, 2009, final SIG requirements.
** These are data the Department does not currently collect through EDFacts.
Local Educational Agency Estimates
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of Hours/
SIG activity LEAs activity Hours Cost/hour Cost
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Complete LEA application (including requests 3,050 60 183,000 $25 $4,575,000
for waivers if the SEA does not so request)...
Report data to SEA*............................ 1,200 40 48,000 25 1,200,000
----------------------------------------------------------------
Total...................................... ........... ........... 231,000 25 5,775,000
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
* These are data the Department does not currently collect through EDFacts.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the
regulations in 34 CFR 79.
Electronic Access to This Document
You may 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) on the Internet at the following site: https://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.
To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available
free at this site.
Note: 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