Teacher Incentive Fund Program, 8854-8871 [2010-3963]
Download as PDF
8854
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
each account (in the currency of that
account) during the calendar year being
reported. The maximum value of an account
is a reasonable approximation of the greatest
value of currency or nonmonetary assets in
the account during the calendar year.
Periodic account statements may be relied on
to determine the maximum value of the
account provided that the statements fairly
reflect the maximum account value during
the calendar year. For Item 15, if the filer had
a financial interest in more than one account,
each account is to be valued separately.
Step 2. In the case of non-United States
currency, convert the maximum account
value for each account into United States
dollars. Convert foreign currency by using
the Treasury’s Financial Management Service
rate (this rate may be found at
www.fms.treas.gov) from the last day of the
calendar year. If no Treasury Financial
Management Service rate is available, use
another verifiable exchange rate and provide
the source of that rate. In valuing currency
of a country that uses multiple exchange
rates, use the rate that would apply if the
currency in the account were converted into
United States dollars on the last day of the
calendar year.
If the aggregate of the maximum account
values exceeds $10,000, an FBAR must be
filed. An FBAR is not required to be filed if
the person did not have $10,000 of aggregate
value in foreign financial accounts at any
time during the calendar year.
For persons with a financial interest in or
signature authority over fewer than 25
accounts that are unable to determine if the
aggregate maximum account values of the
accounts exceeded $10,000 at any time
during the calendar year, complete Part II, III,
IV, or V, as appropriate, for each of these
accounts and enter ‘‘value unknown’’ in Item
15.
If a foreign financial account is jointly
owned by two or more persons, each person
must report the entire value of the account.
Item 16. Indicate the type of account.
Check only one box. If ‘‘Other’’ is selected,
describe the account.
Item 17. Provide the name of the financial
institution with which the account is held.
Item 18. Provide the account number that
the financial institution uses to designate the
account.
Items 19–23. Provide the complete mailing
address of the financial institution where the
account is located.
If the foreign address does not include a
state (e.g., province) or postal code, leave the
box(es) blank.
Part III
Enter information in the applicable parts of
the form only. If there is not enough space
to provide all account information, copy and
complete additional pages of the required
Part as necessary. Do not use any
attachments unless otherwise specified in the
instructions.
For Items 15–23, see Part II.
Item 24. Enter the number of joint owners
for the account. If the exact number is not
known, provide an estimate. Do not count the
filer when determining the number of joint
owners.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:27 Feb 25, 2010
Jkt 220001
Items 25–33. Use the identity information
of the principal joint owner (excluding the
filer) to complete Items 25–33. Leave blank
items for which no information is available.
A spouse having an interest in a jointly
owned account with the filing spouse is the
principal joint owner. Enter the term
‘‘(spouse)’’ on Line 26 after the last name of
the joint spousal owner.
If the filer’s spouse is required to report
only jointly owned financial accounts that
are reported on the filer’s FBAR, the filer’s
spouse need not file a separate FBAR but
must also sign the filer spouse’s FBAR to
fulfill his or her reporting obligation. See
Items 44–46 on page one. If the filer’s spouse
is required to file an FBAR for any account
that is not jointly owned with the filer, the
filer’s spouse must file a separate FBAR for
all of the accounts, including those owned
jointly with the other spouse.
Part IV—Signature Authority
Enter information in the applicable parts of
the form only. If there is not enough space
to provide all account information, copy and
complete additional pages of the required
Part as necessary. Do not use any
attachments unless otherwise specified in the
instructions.
25 or More Foreign Financial Accounts.
Filers with signature authority over 25 or
more financial accounts must complete only
Items 34–43 for each person on whose behalf
the filer has signature authority.
For Items 15–23, see Part II.
Items 34–42. Provide the name, address,
and identifying number of the owner of a
foreign financial account for which the
individual has signature authority but no
financial interest. If there is more than one
owner of the account for which the
individual has signature authority, provide
the information in Items 34–42 for the
principal joint owner (excluding the filer). If
account information is completed for more
than one account of the same owner, identify
the owner only once and write ‘‘Same
Owner’’ in Item 34 for the succeeding
accounts of the same owner.
Item 43. Enter filer’s title for the position
that provides signature authority (e.g.,
treasurer).
A United States person who is employed
in a foreign country and who has signature
authority over a foreign financial account
that is owned or maintained by the
individual’s employer should only complete
Part 1 and Part IV, Items 34–43 of the FBAR.
Part IV, Items 34–43 should only be
completed one time with information about
the individual’s employer.
Part V—Consolidated FBAR
Enter information in the applicable parts of
the form only. If there is not enough space
to provide all account information, copy and
complete additional pages of the required
Part as necessary. Do not use any
attachments.
Who Can File a Consolidated FBAR. An
entity that owns directly or indirectly more
than a 50 percent interest in a legal entity
that is required to file an FBAR is permitted
to file a consolidated FBAR on behalf of itself
and such other legal entity. Check box ‘‘d’’ in
PO 00000
Frm 00012
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Part I, Item 2 and complete Part V. If filing
a consolidated FBAR and reporting 25 or
more financial accounts, complete only Items
34–42 for each person included in the
consolidated FBAR.
For Items 15–23, see Part II.
Items 34–42. Provide the name, taxpayer
identification number, and address of the
owner of the foreign financial account as
shown on the books of the financial
institution. If account information is
completed for more than one account of the
same owner, identify the owner only once
and write ‘‘Same Owner’’ in Item 34 for the
succeeding accounts of the same owner.
Signatures
Items 44–46. The FBAR must be signed by
the filer named in Part I. If the FBAR is being
filed on behalf of a partnership, corporation,
limited liability company, trust, estate, or
other legal entity, it must be signed by an
authorized individual. The authorized
individual’s title is entered in Item 45. An
authorized official of the person filing the
consolidated FBAR must sign the FBAR.
An individual must leave ‘‘Filer’s Title’’
blank, unless the individual is filing an
FBAR due to the individual’s signature
authority. If an individual is filing because
the individual has signature authority over a
foreign financial account, the individual
should enter the title upon which his or her
authority is based in Item 45.
A spouse included as a joint owner, who
does not file a separate FBAR in accordance
with the instructions in Part III, must also
sign the FBAR (in Item 44) for the jointly
owned accounts. See the instructions for Part
III.
Penalties
A person who is required to file an FBAR
and fails to properly file may be subject to
a civil penalty not to exceed $10,000. If there
is reasonable cause for the failure and the
balance in the account is properly reported,
no penalty will be imposed. A person who
willfully fails to report an account or account
identifying information may be subject to a
civil monetary penalty equal to the greater of
$100,000 or 50 percent of the balance in the
account at the time of the violation. See 31
U.S.C. § 5321(a)(5). Willful violations may
also be subject to criminal penalties under 31
U.S.C. § 5322(a), 31 U.S.C. § 5322(b), or 18
U.S.C. § 1001.
[FR Doc. 2010–4042 Filed 2–25–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4810–02–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Subtitle B, Chapter II
[Docket ID ED–2010–OESE–0001]
RIN 1810–AB08
Teacher Incentive Fund Program
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
E:\FR\FM\26FEP1.SGM
26FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
ACTION: Proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria.
Catalog of Federal Domestic
Assistance (CFDA) Numbers: 84.385 and
84.374.
SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education
(Secretary) proposes priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria under the Teacher Incentive
Fund (TIF) program. These proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria are designed to be used
in two separate and distinct TIF grant
competitions: The Main TIF
competition, which will provide TIF
funding to eligible entities to support
their implementation of performancebased compensation systems (PBCSs) in
accordance with the priorities, the Main
TIF requirements, the definitions, and
the selection criteria proposed in this
document, and the TIF Evaluation
competition, which will provide, in
accordance with the priorities, the Main
TIF requirements, the definitions, and
the selection criteria as well as the
Evaluation requirements proposed in
this document, TIF funding to help pay
for the costs of implementing these
eligible entities’ PBCS in exchange for
an agreement to participate in the
national evaluation. The Secretary may
use these proposed TIF priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria in fiscal year (FY) 2010 and
subsequent years. We intend the
proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria to
improve student achievement in highneed schools by creating incentives for
effective teachers and principals in
these schools.
DATES: We must receive your comments
on or before March 29, 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 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 and the term
‘‘Teacher Incentive Fund’’ 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.’’ A direct link to the docket
page is also available at https://
www.ed.gov/programs/teacherincentive.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:27 Feb 25, 2010
Jkt 220001
• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery,
or Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver
your comments about these proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria, address them to:
Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education (Attention: Teacher Incentive
Fund Comments), U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW.,
Room 3E120, 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:
April Lee. Telephone: (202) 205–5224,
or by e-mail: TIF@ed.gov. Note that we
will not accept comments by e-mail.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD), call the
Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at
1–800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation to Comment: We invite you
to submit comments regarding this
notice. To ensure that your comments
have maximum effect in developing the
notice of final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria, we
urge you to identify clearly the specific
proposed priority, requirement,
definition, or selection criterion that
each comment addresses.
We invite you to assist us in
complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866
and its overall requirement of reducing
regulatory burden that might result from
the proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria. Please
let us know of any further ways we
could reduce potential costs or increase
potential benefits while preserving the
effective and efficient administration of
the program.
During and after the comment period,
you may inspect all public comments
about this notice by accessing
Regulations.gov. You may also inspect
the comments in person, in Room
3E120, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW.,
Washington, DC, between the hours of
8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Washington, DC
time, Monday through Friday of each
week except Federal holidays.
Assistance to Individuals with
Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request we will
provide an appropriate accommodation
or auxiliary aid to an individual with a
disability who needs assistance to
PO 00000
Frm 00013
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
8855
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.
Purpose of Program: The purpose of
the TIF program is to support projects
that develop and implement PBCSs for
teachers and principals in order to
increase educator effectiveness and
student achievement in high-need
schools.
Program Authority: The Departments of
Labor, Health and Human Services, and
Education, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2008, Division G, Title
III, Pub. L. 110–161; Departments of Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education,
and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2010, Division D, Title III, Pub. L. 111–117;
and the American Recovery and
Reinvestment Act of 2009, Division A, Title
VIII, Pub. L. 111–5 (the ARRA).
Background
The Statutory Requirements
Statutory provisions that govern the
use of TIF funds are contained in the
Department’s annual congressional
appropriations and in the ARRA. In this
regard, Public Law 111–117, which
contains the Department’s fiscal year
(FY) 2010 appropriation, authorizes the
Department to use TIF funds to make
competitive grants to eligible entities to
develop and implement PBCSs in highneed schools. Eligible entities for these
funds are:
(a) Local educational agencies (LEAs),
including charter schools that are LEAs.
(b) States.
(c) Partnerships of—
(1) An LEA, a State, or both; and
(2) At least one non-profit
organization.
Under Public Law 111–117, eligible
entities must use TIF funds to develop
and implement in high-need schools
PBCSs that—
(a) Consider gains in student
academic achievement as well as
classroom evaluations conducted
multiple times during each school year
among other factors, and
(b) Provide educators with incentives
to take on additional responsibilities
and leadership roles.
Public Law 111–117 further provides
that grant recipients (1) must
demonstrate that their PBCSs are
developed with the input of teachers
and school leaders in the schools and
LEAs the grants will serve, and (2) may
use TIF funds to develop or improve
systems and tools (which may be
developed and used either for the entire
LEA or only for schools served under
E:\FR\FM\26FEP1.SGM
26FEP1
8856
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules
the grant) that would enhance the
quality and success of the PBCS, such
as high-quality teacher evaluations and
tools to measure growth in student
achievement. In addition, Public Law
111–117 provides that applications for
TIF grants must include a plan for the
financial sustainability of the activities
conducted and systems developed
under the grant once the grant period
has expired.
Funds for this program, including
funds for a required national evaluation,
were also appropriated as part of the
ARRA. Recipients of awards made with
ARRA funds must meet specific
reporting requirements established by
the ARRA. The following link provides
guidance on these reporting
requirements: https://
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/
memoranda_fy2009/m09-21.pdf.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Note: Provisions of the ARRA that govern
use of TIF funds require use of funds
consistent with substantive requirements in
the Department’s FY 2008 appropriations act,
Public Law 110–161. The Department’s FY
2009 and FY 2010 appropriations acts
contain comparable provisions governing
eligible grantees and the need to use TIF
funds to develop and implement PBCSs in
high-need schools. Although Public Law
110–161 and Public Law 111–115 provide
that Federal TIF funds may support PBCSs
only for teachers and principals, grantees
may extend their PBCSs to all school
personnel by using non-TIF funds to pay for
additional compensation for noninstructional personnel.
Under the program, grantees may only
use TIF funds for expenses related to the
development and implementation of
their PBCS in high-need schools
identified in the applicant’s proposal.
However, in addition to the financial
incentives given to teachers and
principals based on their effectiveness
and their assumption of additional
responsibilities or leadership roles (as
defined in this notice), TIF funds also
may be used to support a variety of
activities either for the entire LEA or
only for high-need schools served under
the grant, that are related to the PCBS.
These activities include professional
development activities, evaluation and
research analysis, costs of developing or
improving systems and tools that would
enhance the quality and success of the
PBCS, such as high-quality teacher
evaluations and tools to measure growth
in student achievement, reasonable
travel expenses related to the TIF
program, data system enhancement or
development, and other reasonable and
necessary costs.
With regard to payments for financial
incentives, while the Department is not
proposing to establish a minimum
percentage that grantees would need to
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:27 Feb 25, 2010
Jkt 220001
expend, it would expect that as an
LEA’s PBCS becomes institutionalized,
the percentage of its budget that is used
for incentive payments would increase
throughout the five-year grant period. In
addition, while the salaries of certain
staff outside of the PBCS (such as
salaries of a school’s master, mentor or
lead teacher) could conceivably be
legitimate costs of a TIF project, given
the purpose of the program the
Department expects to continue to limit
its approval of the number of such staff
whose salaries may be paid with TIF
funds. Grantees, however, would be able
to use TIF funds towards the costs of
bonuses paid to any number of these
staff if they assume additional
responsibilities under the PBCS.
Background: Signed into law by
President Obama on February 17, 2009,
the ARRA constitutes an unprecedented
effort to revive the Nation’s economy,
create or save millions of jobs, and
address long-neglected challenges so the
Nation can thrive in the 21st century.
In addition to measures that
modernize the Nation’s infrastructure,
enhance energy independence, preserve
and improve affordable health care,
provide tax relief, and protect those in
greatest need, the ARRA provides an
unprecedented sum—approximately
$100 billion dollars—to fundamentally
transform our public education system.
Section 14005(d) of the ARRA requires
that this funding be used to promote
effective school reform in four assurance
areas: (1) Adopting internationally
benchmarked standards and
assessments that prepare students for
success in college and the workplace;
(2) Building data systems that measure
student success and inform teachers and
principals in how they can improve
their practices; (3) Increasing teacher
effectiveness and achieving equity in
teacher distribution; and (4) Turning
around our lowest achieving schools.
The ARRA’s second and third
assurances are based upon evidence that
teachers are the single most critical
factor in improving student
achievement. However, too many
students, particularly those attending
high-need schools, are provided
instruction by ineffective teachers.
Accordingly, the ARRA requires the
Department to promote efforts that
ensure equitable distribution of effective
teachers between high and low poverty
schools so that economically
disadvantaged students have the same
access to effective teachers as other
students.
TIF is one such effort. By requiring its
grantees to draw distinctions in how
teachers are retained, promoted and
rewarded, TIF, as implemented by the
PO 00000
Frm 00014
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Department, advances the ARRA’s third
assurance of recruiting, developing and
retaining effective teachers. To
accomplish these goals, the ARRA
provides TIF with an additional $200
million dollars of funding.
The Department proposes, to the
extent feasible and appropriate, to align
TIF with the requirements contained in
the other ARRA programs, including the
State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, Race to
the Top, and the Title I School
Improvement Grants. The Department’s
intention in doing so is to encourage
applicants to develop plans for
evaluating educator effectiveness and
for providing educators the professional
development needed to improve
classroom practice and student
achievement that complement, and are
consistent with, plans developed across
these other ARRA programs.
Along with authorizing TIF funds to
be used to support projects that
implement PBCSs, the ARRA also
requires the Department to use the
appropriated funds to conduct a
‘‘rigorous national evaluation * * *
utilizing randomized controlled
methodology to the extent feasible, that
assess the impact of performance-based
teacher and principal compensation
systems supported by the funds
provided in this Act on teacher and
principal recruitment and retention in
high-need schools and subjects.’’ The
ARRA thus requires the Department to
award funds in a way that will ensure
adequate participation of both a
treatment group and control group in
the national evaluation. Our proposal
for the TIF Evaluation Competition, and
the questions on which we specifically
request public comment, are designed to
permit the Department to meet this
responsibility, and at the same time to
seek answers to research questions
about the effect of PBCSs on student
achievement in high-need schools that
are of great importance to those who
would implement such systems.
Proposed Priorities
This notice contains five proposed
priorities. The Secretary intends to use
all five proposed priorities for the Main
TIF competition and the TIF Evaluation
competition.
Types of Priorities
The Secretary proposes five priorities
for the Main TIF competition and the
TIF Evaluation competition. Proposed
Priority 1 through 3 are absolute
priorities. Proposed Priorities 4 and 5
are proposed as competitive preference
priorities and are aligned with other key
education reform goals of the
Department.
E:\FR\FM\26FEP1.SGM
26FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules
We may choose, in the notice of final
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria, to change the
designation of any of these priorities to
absolute, competitive preference, or
invitational priorities, or to include the
substance of these priorities in the
requirements or the selection criteria.
We may also decide to include the
substance of the requirements or the
selection criteria in the priorities.
With an invitational priority, we
would signal our interest in receiving
applications that meet the priority;
however, consistent with 34 CFR
75.105(c)(1), we would not give an
application that meets an invitational
priority preference over other
applications.
Under an absolute priority, as
specified by 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we
would consider only applications that
meet the priority. Under a competitive
preference priority, we would give
competitive preference to an application
by (1) awarding additional points,
depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an
application that meets the priority over
an application of comparable merit that
does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Proposed Priority 1 (Absolute)—
Differentiated Levels of Compensation
for Effective Teachers and Principals
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Background
The quality of classroom teachers is
the most important factor under a
school’s control that affects student
achievement.1 Studies using valueadded assessments indicate that
individual teachers make a significant
difference in student achievement and
that teacher effectiveness varies
considerably, even after adjusting for
student characteristics such as prior
performance, race or income.2
Yet one of the greatest obstacles to
achieving the President’s ambitious goal
of providing a high-quality education
for all children is that too few students,
particularly low-income, minority, and
low-achieving students, are provided
instruction by effective teachers. And
because LEAs typically do not pay
teachers and principals based on their
effectiveness, but instead on a single
1 Goldhaber, D. (2007). Thoughts on Teacher Pay
Reform. Washington, DC: National Comprehensive
Center on Teacher Quality.
2 Sanders, W. (2006, November). Cumulative and
Residual Effects of Teachers on Future Student
Academic Achievement. Knoxville, TN: University
of Tennessee; and Rivkin, S., Hanushek, E., and
Kain, J. (2005, March). ‘‘Teachers, Schools, and
Academic Achievement.’’ Econometrica, 73, 417–
458.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:27 Feb 25, 2010
Jkt 220001
salary schedule that pays all teachers
and principals the same based on
experience and level of education, LEAs
rarely provide highly effective teachers
and principals in public school systems
compensation that differs from what
they provide to less effective teachers
and principals.
Moreover, LEAs typically provide no
additional incentive for the most
effective teachers or principals to enter
or remain in high-need schools. On the
contrary, by providing the same amount
of compensation based on credential
and years of experience, and offering
more experienced educators a priority
in transfer options, LEA personnel
systems often create at least implicit
incentives for teachers and principals to
move into schools and classrooms that
present the fewest challenges. The
failure to reward good performance by
teachers and principals and to
encourage effective teachers and
principals to work in the most
challenging schools makes it difficult to
create a culture in high-need schools
that focuses on continued excellence
and results.
The Secretary believes that LEAs with
high-need schools that implement a
PBCS that (1) rewards teachers and
principals who demonstrate their
effectiveness by improving student
achievement and (2) provides
opportunities for highly effective
teachers to take on additional roles and
responsibilities, will increase overall
teacher and principal quality and will
attract outstanding educators to these
schools. The Secretary also believes that
these PBCSs will foster the creation of
schools that use evidence of student
achievement and of effective teacher
practice to continuously improve
teaching and learning.
Assuming that all funded projects are
of sufficient quality, the Department
intends to fund a variety of approaches
to implement a PBCS including
individual-based, school- or groupbased awards, and a combination of the
two. Each applicant should propose a
method or methods that best meet the
needs of its principals, teachers and
students in its high-need schools.
Proposed Absolute Priority
To meet this proposed absolute
priority, an applicant must demonstrate,
in its application, that it will develop
and implement a PBCS that rewards, at
differentiated levels, teachers and
principals who demonstrate their
effectiveness by improving student
achievement (as defined in this notice)
as part of the LEA’s coherent and
integrated approach to strengthening the
educator workforce.
PO 00000
Frm 00015
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
8857
In determining teacher and principal
effectiveness as part of the PBCS, the
LEA—
(a) Must give significant weight to
student growth (as defined in this
notice) based on objective data on
student performance;
(b) Must include observation-based
assessments of teacher performance at
multiple points in the year, carried out
by evaluators trained in using objective
evidence-based rubrics for observation,
aligned with professional teaching
standards; and, if applicable, as part of
the LEA’s coherent and integrated
approach to strengthening the educator
workforce; and
(c) May include other measures such
as evidence of leadership roles that
increase the effectiveness of other
teachers in the school or LEA.
In determining principal effectiveness
as part of a PBCS, the LEA must give
significant weight to student growth and
may include supplemental measures
such as high school graduation and
college enrollment rates.
In addition, the applicant must
demonstrate that the differentiated
effectiveness incentive payments will
provide incentive amounts that are
substantial and provide justification for
the level of incentive amounts chosen.
While the Department does not propose
a minimum incentive amount, the
Department encourages applicants to be
thorough in their explanation of why
the selected incentive amounts are
likely high enough to create change in
the behavior of current and prospective
teachers and principals.
Proposed Priority 2 (Absolute)—Fiscal
Sustainability of the PerformanceBased Compensation System (PBCS)
Background
One of the most important steps that
LEAs and States must take when
developing and implementing a PBCS is
to accurately project program costs and
to plan for fiscal sustainability.3
Accurate cost projections at the
development stage of a PBCS are
critical, especially if an LEA or State
plans to expand a PBCS from just a few
schools to all schools in the LEA or to
all LEAs in the State.4 Ample evidence
suggests that States and LEAs frequently
underestimate both the overall costs of
3 Guthrie, J.W., and Prince, C.D. (2008). Paying for
and Sustaining a Performance-based Compensation
System. Washington, DC: Center for Educator
Compensation Reform. U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education.
4 Hassel, B. (2002, May). Better pay for better
teaching: Making teacher compensation pay off in
the age of accountability. Washington, DC:
Progressive Policy Institute.
E:\FR\FM\26FEP1.SGM
26FEP1
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
8858
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules
PBCSs for teachers and principals and
the number of teachers and principals
that will qualify for awards under the
chosen PBCS.5
Public Law 111–117 requires that
applicants must ‘‘include a plan to
sustain financially the activities
conducted and systems developed
under the grant once the grant period
has expired.’’ This absolute priority is
intended to ensure that applicants
effectively estimate the future costs of
the particular PBCS they plan to
implement, and that they are prepared
to pay financial awards to everyone who
earns them under the system. In
addition to the direct costs of
performance-based payments made as
part of the PBCS that applicants should
expect, there can be extra costs
associated with administering a PBCS.
These costs include both (1) employee
benefits, such as premiums toward
employee retirement, State taxes, and
Federal withholdings, and (2) the costs
of measuring employee effectiveness,
such as costs associated with
developing measures of teacher
effectiveness, effective teacher and
principal evaluation systems, incentives
for career development, and
longitudinal data systems capable of
linking individual educators with
student outcomes.
The Secretary seeks to promote the
fiscal sustainability of effective PBCSs
by focusing applicants on the need to
find additional and alternative sources
of funding in order to provide an
increasing share of matching funds
(non-TIF funds) in those project years
when differentiated compensation is
paid to teachers and principals. The
various strategies that States and LEAs
might consider for securing sustainable
funding for their PBCSs include:
(a) Redeploying current State, LEA, or
school resources, including resources
that currently contribute to salary
increments based on the accumulation
of graduate credits and degrees.
(b) Redirecting expected future
resources.
(c) Redirecting State and Federal
categorical program assistance so State
or Federal program funds, where
authorized, are used to assist in paying
for the expenses of the chosen PBCS.
(d) Seeking additional public funding.
(e) Seeking philanthropic or corporate
support.
In this proposed priority, we are
asking that applicants (1) demonstrate
that they have projected costs associated
with the development and
implementation of the PBCS, and (2)
provide evidence that they will be able
to sustain a financial commitment to
their PBCS through the commitment of
funds other than those provided under
the TIF grant, during and beyond the
life of the TIF project.
5 Odden, A., and Wallace, M. (2007, February).
Rewarding Teacher Excellence: A Teacher
Compensation Handbook for State and Local Policy
Makers. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for
Education Research, University of WisconsinMadison.
6 Guthrie, J.W., & Prince, C.D. (2008). Paying for
and sustaining a performance-based compensation
system. Washington, DC: Center for Educator
Compensation Reform. U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:27 Feb 25, 2010
Jkt 220001
Proposed Absolute Priority
To meet this proposed absolute
priority, the applicant must provide, in
its application, evidence that:
(a) The applicant has projected costs
associated with the development and
implementation of the PBCS, during the
project period and beyond, and the LEA
has accepted responsibilities to provide
such performance-based compensation
to teachers and principals who earn
them under the system; and
(b) The applicant will provide from
non-TIF funds over the course of the
five-year project period an increasing
share of performance-based
compensation paid to teachers and
principals in those project years in
which the LEA provides such payments
as part of its PBCS.
Proposed Priority 3 (Absolute)—
Programmatic Sustainability of the
Performance-Based Compensation
System (PBCS)
Background
The Secretary seeks to focus
applicants on the need to plan for the
programmatic sustainability of the
chosen PBCS. Evidence suggests that
programmatic sustainability can best be
accomplished when the PBCS is aligned
with the LEA’s or State’s strategies for
increasing teachers’ and principals’
effectiveness in high-need schools.
Ideally, a PBCS supports and reinforces
a coherent and integrated approach to
strengthening the educator workforce,
including teacher and principal
recruitment, induction, professional
development, evaluation, retention, and
advancement into instructional
leadership roles. When the PBCS’s
implementation becomes embedded
into the core of a LEA’s larger
improvement strategy and operations, it
will have a much greater likelihood of
financial sustainability over the long
term.6
Thus, through this proposed priority,
we are asking that applicants
demonstrate that the proposed PBCS is
PO 00000
Frm 00016
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
aligned with a coherent strategy for
strengthening the educator workforce in
the LEA(s) participating in the project.
Proposed Absolute Priority
To meet this proposed absolute
priority, the applicant must provide, in
its application, evidence that the
proposed PBCS is aligned with a
coherent and integrated strategy,
including the use of data and
evaluations for professional
development, retention and tenure
decisions, for continuing to strengthen
the educator workforce in the LEA(s)
participating in the project after the end
of the TIF project period.
Proposed Priority 4 (Competitive
Preference)—Use of Value-Added
Measures of Student Achievement
Background
The Secretary supports the use of
‘‘value-added’’ measures of teacher and
principal effectiveness for purposes of
determining differentiated levels of
compensation in a PBCS. Value-added
measures seek to statistically isolate the
contribution of teachers and principals
to growth in student achievement
between two or more points in time
from other factors contributing to
student achievement growth, including
prior student achievement and student
and family characteristics. Research
indicates that value-added measures are
a promising means of assessing the
contributions of a school, teacher, or
principal, while filtering out the nonschool factors that may also contribute
to growth in student achievement.7
Through this priority, the Secretary
seeks to promote the use of value-added
measures in PBCSs for teachers and
principals. Value-added measures of
educational performance can provide a
useful, objective measure of teacher and
principal effectiveness. The use of a
value-added measure under this priority
would need to be implemented
consistent with the requirements in
Proposed Absolute Priority 1
(Differentiated Levels of Compensation
for Effective Teachers and Principals),
which would require observation-based
assessments of teacher performance at
least twice a year.
Given the complexity of models that
use value-added measures, the Secretary
seeks to ensure that applicants have a
plan for (1) ensuring that they have the
capacity to implement the value-added
model effectively (e.g., that they have
appropriate data systems and measures
7 Goe, L. (May 2008). Key issue: Using valueadded models to identify and support highly
effective teachers. National Comprehensive Center
for Teacher Quality.
E:\FR\FM\26FEP1.SGM
26FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules
to ensure data quality), and (2) clearly
explaining the chosen value-added
model to teachers to enable them to use
the data generated through the models
to improve classroom practices.
Proposed Competitive Preference
Priority
To meet this proposed competitive
preference priority, the applicant must
demonstrate, in its application, that the
proposed PBCS for teachers and
principals will use a value-added
measure of the impact on student
growth as a significant factor in
calculating differentiated levels of
compensation provided to teachers and
principals.
Under this proposed priority, the
applicant must also demonstrate that it
has a plan to ensure that, as part of the
PBCS, it has the capacity to (1)
implement the proposed value-added
model (e.g., through robust data systems
that collect the necessary data and
ensure data quality), and (2) educate
teachers and principals on the chosen
value-added model and how it would be
implemented.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Proposed Priority 5 (Competitive
Preference)—Increased Recruitment
and Retention of Teachers in Hard-toStaff Subjects and Specialty Areas in
High-Need Schools
Background
This proposed competitive preference
priority is intended to ensure that LEAs
focus on recruiting and retaining
effective teachers of hard-to-staff
subjects and specialty areas in highneed schools. High-need schools are
likely to have a higher proportion of
vacancies, novice teachers, out-of-field
teachers, and ineffective teachers than
other schools in the LEA or State
educational agency.8 In many LEAs,
recruiting and retaining effective
secondary mathematics and science
teachers and teachers with the
knowledge and skills to effectively
accelerate the learning of English
language learners and students with
disabilities is particularly challenging.
Providing incentives to hire and retain
teachers who are effective, or likely to
be effective, in teaching hard-to-staff
subjects and specialty areas in highneed schools can be a valuable tool for
ensuring that students in those schools
are taught by effective teachers.
The availability of such incentives
should be communicated broadly to
8 Imazeki, J. and Goe, L. (2009). The Distribution
of Highly Qualified, Experienced Teachers:
Challenges and Opportunities. Washington, DC:
National Comprehensive Center on Teacher
Quality.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:27 Feb 25, 2010
Jkt 220001
current teachers in the LEA, as well as
to potential recruits, to increase the
likelihood that effective teachers within
the LEA, as well as new teachers with
relevant backgrounds, will apply for
hard-to-staff subjects and specialty areas
in high-need schools.
Proposed Competitive Preference
Priority
To meet this proposed competitive
preference priority, the applicant must
demonstrate in its application that its
proposed PBCS is designed to assist
high-need schools to (1) Serve highneed students (as defined in this notice),
(2) retain effective teachers in teaching
positions in hard-to-staff subjects and
specialty areas, such as mathematics,
science, special education, and English
language acquisition, and (3) fill
vacancies with teachers of those
subjects or specialty areas who are
effective or likely to be effective.
Applicants would be required to
provide an explanation for how they
will determine a teacher filling a
vacancy is effective or likely to be
effective. In addition, applicants would
be required to demonstrate, in their
applications, the extent to which the
subject areas or specialty areas they
propose to target are hard-to-staff.
Lastly, applicants would need to
demonstrate, in their applications, that
they will implement a process for
effectively communicating to teachers
which of the LEA’s schools are highneed and which subjects and specialty
areas are considered hard-to-staff.
Requirements
The following sections provide
requirements for both the Main TIF and
Evaluation TIF competitions.
Proposed Requirements for the Main
TIF Competition
Background
In order to promote successful
projects that meet the objectives
Congress has established for the TIF
program, the Secretary proposes to
establish the following requirements for
the Main TIF competition:
(a) A requirement that an applicant
may submit an application for the Main
TIF competition or the Evaluation
competition. Applicants not funded
under the Evaluation competition are
automatically eligible under the Main
TIF competition, and thus need not
apply to both.
(b) A requirement that each applicant
describe in its application how its
proposed PBCS will provide educators
with incentives to take on additional
responsibilities and leadership roles, as
defined in this notice.
PO 00000
Frm 00017
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
8859
(c) A requirement that every applicant
have five core elements (as described
below) of its PBCS in place or it must
implement a planning period.
(d) A requirement that the proposed
PBCS provide participating teachers and
principals high quality professional
development which is targeted to needs
identified through the evaluation
process and shown to be effective.
(e) A requirement that the applicant
document that all participating schools
are high-need schools.
(f) A requirement that limits eligibility
for both competitions to applicants that
propose to serve schools not already
served (or to be served) by current TIF
grants.
The following describes the
Department’s rationale for proposing
these requirements:
Selection of Competition. To ensure
that there is a sufficient sample for the
national evaluation, we propose to
select applicants from the Evaluation
competition before selecting applicants
from the Main TIF competition. In order
to not disadvantage the Evaluation
competition applicants, we further
propose that any Evaluation
competition applicants not funded in
the Evaluation competition would be
automatically eligible for the Main TIF
competition.
Application Requirement. Public Law
111–8 requires that any PBCS funded
under the TIF program provide
educators with incentives to take on
additional responsibilities and
leadership roles.
The Secretary views this requirement
as a critical component for successful
PBCSs and wants to ensure that each
applicant has a plan in place that details
how its proposed PBCS will provide
these incentives.
Core Elements of a PBCS and a
Potential Planning Period. The Secretary
has identified five core elements that he
believes are essential to the success of
any effective PBCS. We, therefore,
propose to require each TIF grantee to
have:
(a) A plan for effectively
communicating to teachers,
administrators, other school personnel,
and the community at-large about the
components of the PBCS.
(b) The involvement and support of
teachers, principals, and other certified
personnel (including input from
teachers and principals in the schools
and LEAs to be served by the grant) and
the involvement and support of unions
in participating LEAs where they are the
designated exclusive representatives for
the purpose of collective bargaining that
is needed to carry out the grant.
E:\FR\FM\26FEP1.SGM
26FEP1
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
8860
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(c) Rigorous, transparent, and fair
evaluation systems for teachers and
principals that differentiate
effectiveness using multiple rating
categories that take into account student
achievement growth as a significant
factor, as well as classroom observations
conducted at least twice during the
school year. The classroom observation
process must: (1) Use an objective,
evidence-based rubric aligned with
professional teaching standards and the
LEA’S coherent and integrated approach
to strengthening the educator workforce;
(2) provide for observations of each
teacher or principal multiple times
during the school year by individuals
(who may include peer reviewers), who
are provided specialized training; (3)
incorporate the collection and
evaluation of additional forms of
evidence; and (4) ensure a high degree
of inter-rater reliability (i.e., agreement
among two or more raters who score
approximately the same) across the
evaluators.
(d) A data-management system,
consistent with the LEA’s proposed
PBCS, that can link student
achievement data to teacher and
principal payroll and human resources
systems.
(e) A plan for ensuring that teachers
and principals understand the specific
measures of teacher and principal
effectiveness included in the PBCS, and
receive professional development that
enables them to use data generated by
these measures to improve their
practice.
The Secretary recognizes that not
every applicant will be able to
demonstrate in its application that it has
in place all five core elements necessary
to ensure effective implementation of its
PBCS. Based on the Department’s
experience with current TIF grantees,
however, we believe that having these
required core elements in place before
beginning to build a PBCS leads to a
much more efficient and successful
implementation of that system.
Therefore, the Secretary proposes to
require any applicant that cannot
demonstrate in its application that it has
in place each of these five core elements
to agree, as part of its application, to
implement a planning period of up to
one year, during which it would use its
TIF funds to develop the core element
or elements it lacks. Because of the
importance of the core elements, a
grantee would be prohibited from using
TIF program funds to provide incentive
payments to teachers or principals until
the Secretary is satisfied that it has
implemented all five elements (as
demonstrated in the grantee’s reports to
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:27 Feb 25, 2010
Jkt 220001
the Department during the project
period).
Professional Development. The
Secretary believes that high-quality
professional development, tied to the
evaluation systems described above, is a
key component of any successful and
enduring PBCS for teachers and
principals. Among other things,
professional development enables all
teachers and principals in high-need
schools to learn how to generate,
examine, and use student growth data to
improve their practices in the classroom
and in their schools, and thereby raise
student achievement. For this reason,
the Secretary proposes to require each
applicant to demonstrate, in its
application, that it has a system in
place, or a specific plan for developing
one, to (1) provide high-quality
professional development that is aligned
with the PBCS for teachers and
principals consistent with the definition
of the term professional development in
section 9101(34) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
amended (ESEA) and targeted to needs
identified in the evaluation process; and
(2) regularly assess the effectiveness of
this professional development in
improving teacher practice and student
achievement and make modifications
necessary to improve its effectiveness.
High-Need Schools Documentation.
Consistent with the requirement that all
schools served through the TIF program
be ‘‘high-need,’’ the Secretary proposes
to require that each applicant
demonstrate, in its application, that it
will implement the proposed PBCS in
high-need schools (as defined in this
notice). The Secretary proposes this
requirement to enable the Department to
ensure that all applicants are eligible to
receive funding under this program.
This requirement would specify that
applicants must identify the schools in
which the PBCS would be implemented,
and provide school-level data that
demonstrate that each school to be
served is a high-need school. We would
require school-level data as opposed to
LEA or State-level data because the TIF
authorizing statute requires poverty data
be identified at the school level.
Additional Eligibility Requirement.
Finally, the Secretary proposes to limit
eligibility for the Main TIF competition
and the Evaluation competition to
applicants that are serving schools not
already served (or to be served) by
current TIF grants. We propose to
establish this eligibility requirement (1)
in order to expand the number of LEAs
and schools that are able to take
advantage of PBCSs funded under the
TIF program; and (2) because we believe
that the projects currently funded under
PO 00000
Frm 00018
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
the TIF program should successfully
complete the activities described in
their approved application before
seeking additional TIF funds to enhance
their current projects in schools already
served. Nothing in this proposed
eligibility requirement would preclude
current TIF grantees from applying for
a new award to expand their TIFsupported PBCS into other high-need
schools in the participating LEA.
Proposed Requirements for Main TIF
Competition
For the reasons outlined in the
preceding Background section, the
Secretary proposes the following
requirements for the Main TIF
competition.
Selection of Competition. An
applicant may submit an application for
either the Main TIF competition or the
Evaluation competition. Each applicant
must identify in its application the
competition for which it is applying.
The Evaluation competition will be
funded prior to the Main TIF
competition. Any Evaluation applicants
not funded in the Evaluation
competition will be automatically
eligible for the Main TIF competition.
Application Requirement. Each
applicant must describe in its
application how its proposed PBCS will
provide educators with incentives to
take on additional responsibilities and
leadership roles, as defined in this
notice.
Core Elements of a PBCS and a
Potential Planning Period. Each
applicant must either—
(a) Demonstrate in its application that
it has in place each of the following five
core elements; or
(b) If the applicant cannot
demonstrate in its application that it has
in place each of these five core
elements—
(1) Agree, as part of its application, to
implement a planning period of up to
one year, during which it will use its
TIF funds to develop the core element
or elements it lacks; and
(2) Include a plan for how it will
implement the core element or elements
it lacks during the planning period.
Core Elements.
(a) A plan for effectively
communicating to teachers,
administrators, other school personnel,
and the community at-large the
components of the PBCS;
(b) The involvement and support of
teachers, principals, and other certified
personnel (including input from
teachers and principals in the schools
and LEAs to be served by the grant) and
the involvement and support of unions
in participating LEAs where they are the
E:\FR\FM\26FEP1.SGM
26FEP1
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules
designated exclusive representatives for
the purpose of collective bargaining that
is needed to carry out the grant;
(c) Rigorous, transparent, and fair
evaluation systems for teachers and
principals that differentiate
effectiveness using multiple rating
categories that take into account student
achievement growth as a significant
factor, as well as classroom observations
conducted at least twice during the
school year. The evaluation process
must: (1) Use an objective, evidencebased rubric aligned with professional
teaching standards and the LEA’s
coherent and integrated approach to
strengthening the educator workforce;
(2) provide for observations of each
teacher or principal multiple times
during the school year by individuals
(who may include peer reviewers), who
are provided specialized training; (3)
incorporate the collection and
evaluation of additional forms of
evidence; and (4) ensure a high degree
of inter-rater reliability (i.e., agreement
among two or more raters who score
approximately the same);
(d) A data-management system that
can link student achievement data to
teacher and principal payroll and
human resources systems; and
(e) A plan for ensuring that teachers
and principals understand the specific
measures of teacher and principal
effectiveness included in the PBCS, and
receive professional development that
enables them to use data generated by
these measures to improve their
practice.
Planning Period Requirements. Each
grantee that implements a planning
period to develop the core element or
elements it lacks, would be—
(a) Required to demonstrate in its
annual performance report or other
interim performance report that it has
implemented any of the five core
elements it had lacked; and
(b) Prohibited from using TIF program
funds to provide incentive payments to
teachers or principals until it has
implemented a PBCS that, to the
Secretary’s satisfaction, has all five core
elements.
Professional Development. Each
applicant must demonstrate, in its
application, that its proposed PBCS will
include a high-quality professional
development component for teachers
and principals consistent with the
definition of the term professional
development in section 9101(34) of the
ESEA.
The applicant must demonstrate that
its PBCS has a professional
development component in place, or a
specific plan for developing one that is
directly linked to the specific measures
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:27 Feb 25, 2010
Jkt 220001
of teacher and principal effectiveness
included in the PBCS. The professional
development component of the PBCS
must—
(1) Be based on needs assessed either
at the high-need schools participating in
the applicant’s proposed PBCS or LEAwide;
(2) Be targeted to individual teachers’
and principals’ needs as identified in
the evaluation process;
(3) Provide—
(a) Those teachers and principals who
do not receive differentiated
compensation based on effectiveness
under the PBCS with the tools and skills
they need to improve their effectiveness
in the classroom or school and be able
to raise student achievement; and
(b) Those teachers and principals who
are deemed to be effective and who,
therefore, receive differentiated
compensation under the PBCS, with the
tools and skills they need to (1)
continue effective practices in the
classroom or school and raise student
achievement, and (2) successfully
assume additional responsibilities and
leadership roles; and
(4) Include helping teachers and
principals to better understand and use
the measures of effectiveness in the
PBCS to improve practice and student
achievement.
(5) Include a process for regularly
assessing the effectiveness of this
professional development in improving
teacher practice and student
achievement and making modifications
necessary to improve its effectiveness.
High-Need Schools Documentation.
Each applicant must demonstrate, in its
application, that the schools to be
served by the proposed PBCS are highneed schools, as defined in this notice.
Each applicant must provide, in its
application, a list of schools in which
the proposed PBCS will be implemented
as well as the most current data on the
percentage of each identified school’s
students who are eligible for free or
reduced-price lunch subsidies under the
Richard B. Russell National School
Lunch Act, or other poverty measures
that the LEA uses (see section 1113(a)(5)
of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6313(a)(5))). Data
provided to demonstrate eligibility as a
high-need school must be school-level
data; the Department will not accept
LEA- or State-level data for purposes of
documenting whether a school is a highneed school.
Additional Eligibility Requirement.
An applicant must demonstrate, in its
application, that it will implement the
proposed PBCS only in schools that are
not being served (or are not to be served)
by current TIF grants.
PO 00000
Frm 00019
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
8861
Proposed Requirements for the TIF
Evaluation Competition
Background
The ARRA requires the Department’s
Institute of Education Sciences (IES) to
conduct a rigorous national evaluation,
utilizing randomized controlled
methodology to the extent feasible, to
assess the impact that PBCSs for
teachers and principals that are
supported by program funds have on
teacher and principal recruitment and
retention in high-need schools and
subjects. IES intends to implement this
requirement, as well as to conduct
related research on important issues that
concern the effect of PBCSs on
increased student achievement, by
conducting a national randomassignment impact evaluation of TIF
grantees (the Evaluation) that will
provide researchers, policy-makers,
school administrators, and teachers with
important information about the teacher
and principal differentiated
effectiveness incentives component of
the PBCS. Moreover, to meet its
statutory responsibility to conduct this
evaluation, the Department needs to be
able to ensure it is able to assess the
impact of differentiated effectiveness
incentives component PBCSs using a
sufficient number of high-need schools
in comparison to high-need schools in
which differentiated effectiveness
incentives component PCBSs are not
being implemented.
In order to select both appropriate
grantees (consistent with the objectives
of the evaluation) and a sufficient
number of participating LEAs and
schools for the evaluation, the
Department proposes to hold a separate
competition under the TIF program—
the TIF Evaluation competition—and to
select applicants for an award under the
Evaluation competition prior to
selecting any applicants for an award
under the Main competition. Under the
TIF Evaluation competition, applicants
must address all of the requirements
and absolute priorities in the Main TIF
competition, as well as additional
requirements that are specific to the TIF
Evaluation competition. The following
describes the Evaluation that IES would
conduct as well as the competition the
Secretary would hold to select
participants in the Evaluation.
Description of the Evaluation
Through the Evaluation, IES would
study a select group of PBCSs
implemented in one or more LEAs, in
which the PBCS—
(a) Determines the amount of teacher
incentives for differentiated
E:\FR\FM\26FEP1.SGM
26FEP1
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
8862
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules
effectiveness using one of the following
two models:
(1) An individual-based incentive pay
model, defined as a PBCS that uses
individual performance criteria for
determining differentiated effectiveness
incentive payments.
(2) A mixed-group incentive model,
defined as a PBCS that determines
differentiated effectiveness incentive
payments using performance criteria to
evaluate a group, such as a grade-level
team of teachers or an entire school
group, or using a mixture of individual
and group performance criteria;
(b) Determines the amount of
principal differentiated effectiveness
incentive payments using any incentive
model determined appropriate by the
applicant and proposed in the
applicant’s application; and
(c) Requires an LEA to make
substantial and differentiated
effectiveness incentive payments at the
following levels—
(1) For differentiated effectiveness
incentive payments provided to
principals, (i) the average principal
payout (defined as the total amount of
principal payments divided by the total
number of principals in the schools
participating in the differentiated
effectiveness incentive payment
component of the PBCS) is substantial
(e.g., 5% of the average principal
salary), (ii) the criteria for determining
whether a principal is eligible for
payment are challenging (e.g., payments
are only made to those who perform
significantly better than the current
average performance among study
schools within the district), and (iii)
there is an expectation of meaningful
differences in resulting principal pay
(e.g., at least some principals could
reasonably expect to receive an
incentive payment of three times the
average principal payout) and the
applicant’s documentation of cost
projections is consistent with this
expectation; and
(2) For differentiated effectiveness
incentive payments provided to
teachers, (i) The average teacher payout
(defined as the total amount of teacher
payments divided by the total number
of teachers in the schools participating
in the differentiated effectiveness
incentive payment component of the
PBCS) is substantial (e.g., 5% of the
average teacher salary), (ii) the criteria
for determining whether a teacher is
eligible for payment are challenging
(e.g., payments are only made to those
who perform significantly better than
the current average performance among
study schools within the district), and
(iii) there is an expectation of
meaningful differences in resulting
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:27 Feb 25, 2010
Jkt 220001
teacher pay (e.g., at least some teachers
could reasonably expect to receive an
incentive payment of three times the
average teacher payout) and the
applicant’s documentation of cost
projections is consistent with this
expectation.
The Department intends to assess the
performance component of a PBCS
described in paragraph (c) in relation to
a comparison group. This notice
describes two possible options for a
comparison group. A decision about
whether to use either of these
comparison designs, or a different
approach, will be made after review of
public comment on this notice.
Accordingly, we specifically request
comment on these proposed designs as
well as alternatives.
The two comparison designs are as
follows:
(a) Comparison design 1: The
differentiated effectiveness incentive
component of the PBCS would be
compared to a PBCS with no
differentiated effectiveness incentive
component. Thus, under this design, all
non-performance pay components of the
PBCS (e.g., the professional
development component, incentives for
leadership roles component, and
incentives for taking on additional
responsibilities) would be implemented
in all schools participating in the
evaluation and the performance pay
component of the PBCS would be
implemented only in those schools
designated by the evaluation contractor;
(b) Comparison design 2: The
differentiated effectiveness incentive
component of the PBCS would be
compared to a PBCS with an across-theboard salary increase of an amount
equivalent to the expected average
payout in the differentiated
effectiveness incentive payment (e.g., if
the expected average teacher payout is
5% of the average teacher salary, then
one-half of the schools participating in
the evaluation, as designated by the
evaluation contractor, would implement
the applicant’s proposed performance
component of the PBCS while the other
half of the schools participating in the
evaluation would implement an acrossthe-board salary increase equivalent to
the proposed applicant’s expected
average payout, 5% in this example).
In evaluating the selected PBCSs, the
Evaluation would address the following
research questions:
(a) Under comparison design 1: What
is the effect on student achievement of
an LEA’s PBCS that includes a
performance component of a PBCS that
includes differentiated pay and in
which the incentive has a substantive
average payout (e.g., 5% of the average
PO 00000
Frm 00020
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
teacher salary for teachers)? What is the
effect of such a PBCS component on the
composition and effectiveness of
teachers and principals eligible for the
incentive payments? What is the effect
on recruitment and retention of eligible
teachers and principals?
(b) Under comparison design 2: What
is the effect on student achievement of
a performance based increase in wages
compared to an across-the-board
increase in teacher and principal salary
in which the expected payouts are
equivalent? Are there differences in the
composition and effectiveness of
teachers and principals between these
two methods of increasing wages? Are
there any differential effects on
recruitment and retention of teachers
and principals?
(c) What is the relationship between
the effect on student achievement of
individual-based and mixed-group
incentive pay models (i.e., is the
differentiated effectiveness incentive of
an individual-based incentive pay
model more likely to be associated with
an effect on student achievement)?
(d) What features of PBCSs (e.g.,
relative emphasis on student
achievement or teacher/principal
observations incentives based on
absolute versus relative standards; and
the extent of staff eligibility) are
associated with improved teacher and
principal effectiveness and student
achievement?
(e) What are the implementation
challenges associated with PBCSs, and
what strategies do grantees use to
overcome them?
TIF Evaluation Competition
Grantees funded under the TIF
Evaluation competition would be
awarded at least an additional $1
million over the 5-year grant period
(above the amount of funding awarded
to them to implement the PBCS
proposed in its application) to help pay
for any additional costs of implementing
activities associated with their TIF
project. These costs might include those
associated with developing value-added
measures of student achievement, and
professional development and expenses
related to release time for teachers to
attend professional development that is
designed to support or complement the
PBCS, and available to staff working on
the grant or district-wide. In addition,
while under the Main TIF competition
the Department would continue its
practice of permitting TIF funding to be
used to pay the salary of only one
Master, Mentor, or Lead Teacher or
academic coach per school, recipients of
awards under the Evaluation
competition would be permitted to use
E:\FR\FM\26FEP1.SGM
26FEP1
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules
the additional $1 million for salaries of
other academic coaches such as math
and reading coaches, and of other
Master, Mentor, or Lead Teachers.
Finally, TIF Evaluation grantees could
also use the additional $1 million award
to pay for costs of securing data,
including data linked to student
achievement, needed by the evaluation
contractor.
In order to be eligible to receive this
additional funding, applicants seeking
awards under the TIF Evaluation
competition must agree to certain
additional requirements. The following
describes the Department’s rationale for
proposing these additional requirements
for applicants under the TIF Evaluation
competition:
Budget Information. The Secretary
proposes to require each applicant
under the TIF Evaluation competition to
include the additional $1 million funds
available in its proposed budget
accompanying the application for
funding, and indicate the activities it
plans to implement using these
additional funds. This application
requirement would assist the
Department in conducting the necessary
budget analysis before grant funding is
awarded and ensure the Department has
adequate budget information to fiscally
manage the grant throughout the fiveyear project period.
Two Incentive Models for Determining
Teacher Incentive Payments. Each TIF
Evaluation competition grantee would
be required to implement, in at least one
LEA, a PBCS that determines teacher
differentiated effectiveness incentive
payments using either an individualbased incentive pay model or a mixedgroup incentive pay model.
The two proposed models would
allow the Evaluation to separately test
two prominent models of incentive pay
and allow for analyses that will provide
information about core aspects of
differentiated effectiveness incentive
pay to inform policy. An individualbased incentive pay model, which we
would define as a PBCS that uses
individual performance criteria for
determining incentive payments, would
provide the most direct incentive to
teachers to improve their own
effectiveness, and thus the student
achievement of the students they teach.
Under this model, the amount of a
teacher’s incentive payment would be
directly linked to the teacher’s
individual performance, as measured
against the criteria established for the
PBCS. One possible downside of using
an individual-based incentive model is
that, given its focus on the individual,
it may undermine collaboration among
teachers.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:27 Feb 25, 2010
Jkt 220001
A mixed-group incentive pay model,
which we would define as a PBCS that
determines differentiated effectiveness
incentive payments using performance
criteria to evaluate a group, such as a
grade-level team of teachers or an entire
school group, or using a mixture of
individual and group performance
criteria, acknowledges the importance of
collaboration but may weaken the
incentive for individual teachers to
perform better, because the performance
criteria are, at least in part, based on the
performance of others. The use of
individual teacher performance criteria
in addition to group performance
criteria in a mixed-group incentive pay
model allows the grantee to use
individual performance criteria, which
could lead to individual teacher
differentiated effectiveness incentive
payments that differ by individuals
within the group. (If the PBCS only used
group performance criteria, then
teachers within a group meeting the
group performance criteria all receive
the same incentive payments. If, on the
other hand, the PBCS uses a mix of
group and individual performance
criteria, then incentive payments for
individual teachers within the group
can differ from teacher to teacher.)
Including in the Evaluation some
LEAs with PBCSs that use an
individual-based incentive pay model
and some LEAs with PBCSs that use a
mixed-group incentive pay model to
determine teacher differentiated
effectiveness incentive payments would
allow IES to analyze separately each
model. It also would allow the
Evaluation to focus on the relationship
between various PBCS features (e.g.,
relative emphasis on student
achievement or teacher/principal
observations as a performance criterion;
incentives based on absolute versus
relative performance criteria standards;
and the extent of staff eligibility) and
their effect on teacher and student
outcomes.
There is no analogous proposed
choice of models for the principal
differentiated effectiveness incentive
pay because, by its nature, principal
performance is a group performance
measure related to the performance of
each principal’s school.
Incentive Amounts. Evaluation
grantees would be required to
implement a PBCS through which an
LEA makes substantial incentive awards
at the following levels:
(a) For differentiated effectiveness
incentive payments provided to
principals, (i) the average principal
payout (defined as the total amount of
principal payments divided by the total
number of principals in the schools
PO 00000
Frm 00021
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
8863
participating in the differentiated
effectiveness incentive payment
component of the PBCS) is substantial
(e.g., 5% of the average principal
salary), (ii) the criteria for determining
whether a principal is eligible for
payment are challenging (e.g., payments
are only made to those who perform
significantly better than the current
average performance among study
schools within the district), and (iii)
there is an expectation of meaningful
differences in resulting principal pay
(e.g., at least some principals could
reasonably expect to receive an
incentive payment of three times the
average principal payout) and the
applicant’s documentation of cost
projections is consistent with this
expectation); and
(b) For differentiated effectiveness
incentive payments provided to
teachers, (i) the average teacher payout
(defined as the total amount of teacher
payments divided by the total number
of teachers in the schools participating
in the differentiated effectiveness
incentive payment component of the
PBCS) is substantial (e.g., 5% of the
average teacher salary), (ii) the criteria
for determining whether a teacher is
eligible for payment are challenging
(e.g., payments are only made to those
who perform significantly better than
the current average performance among
study schools within the district), and
(iii) there is an expectation of
meaningful differences in resulting
teacher pay (e.g., at least some teachers
could reasonably expect to receive an
incentive payment of three times the
average teacher payout) and the
applicant’s documentation of cost
projections is consistent with this
expectation).
Each Evaluation grantee would be
required to agree to implement in at
least one LEA a PBCS with these
characteristics to ensure that the
Evaluation can focus on the
effectiveness of the differentiated
effectiveness incentive component of
the PBCS. In designing the Evaluation,
IES determined that these differentiated
effectiveness incentive amounts, based
on current evidence in the research
literature, are the minimal amounts
needed to alter teacher and principal
behavior and recruitment in high-need
schools consistent with the effect the
Evaluation is designed to detect.
Implementation of Evaluation. Each
applicant under the TIF Evaluation
competition would be required to agree,
in its application, to implement its
differentiated effectiveness incentive
component of the PBCS in at least one
LEA in accordance with the
implementation plan developed by the
E:\FR\FM\26FEP1.SGM
26FEP1
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
8864
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules
IES evaluator, Mathematica Policy
Research. The applicant also would be
required to identify in its application
the schools that would participate in the
evaluation. For each LEA participating
in the Evaluation, the IES evaluator
would, by lottery, place eligible schools
equally within one of two groups (i.e.,
‘‘Group 1’’ or ‘‘Group 2’’).
For each participating LEA, the
grantee would be required to implement
its PBCS in the LEA’s Group 1 schools
in either school year 2010–2011 or
school year 2011–2012, depending on
whether the LEA has the 5 core
elements of the PBCS in place at the
time of award.
The following describes
implementation for each of the two
comparison designs the Department is
considering:
(a) Comparison design 1: With the
same timing as Group 1, Group 2 would
be required to implement all nondifferentiated effectiveness incentive
components of the PBCS. (Participating
LEAs that have the 5 core elements in
place at the time of the grant award
would be required to begin the first
PBCS implementation in Group 1
schools and non-differentiated
effectiveness incentive components of
the PBCS in Group 2 schools at the
beginning of the 2010–2011 school year.
Participating LEAs that do not have in
place the 5 core elements and that
therefore would implement a planning
period would be required to begin the
first PBCS implementation in Group 1
schools and non-differentiated
effectiveness incentive components of
the PBCS in Group 2 schools at the
beginning of the 2011–2012 school
year.) All Group 2 schools would be
prohibited from implementing a
differentiated effectiveness incentive
component for the duration of the TIF
grant.
(b) Comparison design 2: With the
same timing as Group 1, Group 2 would
be required to implement all nondifferentiated effectiveness incentive
components of the PBCS and a salary
increase for teachers and principals
equivalent to the expected average
payout in Group 1. (Participating LEAs
that have the 5 core elements in place
at the time of the grant award would be
required to begin the PBCS
implementation in Group 1 schools and
non-differentiated effectiveness
incentive components of the PBCS and
the across the board salary increase in
Group 2 schools at the beginning of the
2010–2011 school year. Participating
LEAs that do not have in place the 5
core elements and that therefore would
implement a planning period would be
required to begin the PBCS
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:27 Feb 25, 2010
Jkt 220001
implementation in Group 1 schools and
non-differentiated effectiveness
incentive components of the PBCS and
the across the board salary increase in
Group 2 schools at the beginning of the
2011–2012 school year.) All Group 2
schools would be prohibited from
implementing a differentiated
effectiveness incentive component for
the duration of the TIF grant.
The selection and placement of the
LEA’s participating schools into Groups
1 and 2 by lottery would enable the IES
evaluator to examine what happens to
student, teacher, and principal
outcomes in comparable schools: (i)
With and without a differentiated
effectiveness incentive component of
the PBCS under comparison design 1; or
(ii) with a differentiated effectiveness
incentive component of the PBCS and
with an across-the-board salary increase
under comparison design 2. Both of
these evaluation designs would enable
IES to compare outcomes in these
schools for up to 5 years after the PBCS
is implemented. It is important for the
Evaluation to include multiple years
because principal and teacher behavior
may take time to respond to the
differentiated effectiveness incentive
payments. For teachers and principals
who transfer to the PBCS schools, it may
also take time for them to be effective
in their new setting.
Under comparison design 2, in
addition to the non-differentiated
effectiveness incentive components of
its PBCS, the Group 2 schools would
also implement an across-the-board
salary increase for teachers and
principals equivalent to the respective
expected average payouts for teachers
and principals in Group 1. This
requirement, in combination with the
random assignment study design, would
ensure that when the Evaluation
compares schools in the study that have
implemented the differentiated
effectiveness incentive component of
the PBCS with schools that have
implemented an across-the-board salary
increase, differences in outcomes can be
attributed to the differentiated
effectiveness incentive component of
the PBCS.
Matching Requirement Under
Comparison Group 2. (Funds provided
to meet this match requirement may
address the element of Absolute
Proposed Priority 2 in which applicants
would be required to provide from nonTIF funds an increasing share of
performance-based compensation paid
to teachers and principals.)
Each applicant under the TIF
Evaluation competition would be
required to provide from non-TIF funds
50% of the proposed across-the-board
PO 00000
Frm 00022
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
salary increase to be implemented in
half of the participating Evaluation
schools. While an across-the-board
salary increase for staff in high-need
schools reflects what may be, for some,
a seemingly attractive alternative to
differentiated payments based on
performance, funds used to pay these
increases are not supporting a PBCS.
TIF funds therefore could not support
such an across-the-board salary increase
except for the fact that ARRA and the
Department’s FY 2010 appropriation
permit the use of TIF funds for
evaluation.
We recognize that if comparison
design 2 is adopted, IES will be able to
secure important research results about
the impact of PBCSs relative to an
across-the-board salary increase. On the
other hand, the teachers and principals
in schools that benefit from such salary
increases will obtain significant benefits
from use of TIF funds. Balancing these
competing factors, if comparative design
2 is adopted, we believe that it is
reasonable to require that grantees pay
50 percent of the costs of across-theboard salary increases for staff in the
group of schools selected to be in Group
2. The Department will also consider
alternative possibilities for design,
including a hybrid of the two
approaches above.
Advance Notice. To ensure that
teachers and principals are aware of the
implementation of the PBCS in their
schools, applicants would be required to
agree to work with the IES evaluator to
notify all eligible school staff in schools
participating in the Evaluation at least
two months prior to the assigned Group
1 implementation schedule. Advance
notification and dissemination about the
PBCS differentiated effectiveness
incentive component features and
performance criteria two months prior
to the beginning of the school year in
which it is implemented is important so
that teachers and principals within and
outside of the LEA would have time to
learn about the differentiated
effectiveness incentive component of
the PBCS, and be informed enough
about it to change their behavior in
response. (e.g., for those in a PBCS
school with a differentiated
effectiveness incentive component, this
might entail altering their teaching
strategy to be more effective; for those
not in a PBCS school with a
differentiated effectiveness incentive
component, this might entail
transferring to a PBCS school with a
differentiated effectiveness component.)
Implementation of all Nondifferentiated Effectiveness Incentive
Components. In order to isolate the
effects of the differentiated effectiveness
E:\FR\FM\26FEP1.SGM
26FEP1
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules
incentive component of the PBCS, the
Department would require every
applicant to agree to implement the
non-differentiated effectiveness
incentive components (e.g., the
professional development component,
the incentives for leadership roles
component, and the incentives for
taking on additional responsibilities) of
its PBCS in all of an LEA’s Group 1 and
Group 2 schools at the same time the
applicant implements the differentiated
effectiveness incentive component of
the PBCS in Group 1 schools. This
requirement, in combination with the
random assignment study design, would
ensure that when the Evaluation
compares schools in the study with and
without the differentiated effectiveness
incentive component of the PBCS,
differences in outcomes can be
attributed to the differentiated
effectiveness incentive component of
the PBCS. The LEA’s schools in Group
2 would not be permitted to fully
implement the differentiated
effectiveness incentive component of
the PBCS for the duration of the grant.
Scope of Schools. In order that funds
reserved for the TIF Evaluation
competition are used as efficiently as
possible, each applicant would be
required to demonstrate, in its
application, that, for each LEA in which
it implements the PBCS, it will
implement the differentiated
effectiveness incentive component of
the PBCS—
(a) In eight or more high-need schools,
within that LEA, that have students in
tested subjects (i.e., students in grades
three through eight); and
(b) In at least two schools among
those eight or more high-need schools
that are of the same grade configuration
(e.g., in at least two elementary schools
or at least two middle schools).
It would be important that each
applicant provide the IES evaluator with
at least two schools with the same grade
configuration among the LEA’s schools
proposed to participate in the
Evaluation so that the IES evaluator’s
group assignments made by lottery can
result with at least one school of the
same grade configuration in each of the
two Groups (i.e., at least one elementary
school in Group 1 and at least one in
Group 2). It would also be important for
the eight schools to be within the same
LEA so that the random assignment can
be conducted within the same local
context (e.g., the schools have in
common the same labor market issues,
the same union issues, the same LEA
policies etc.).
Commitment to Evaluation. Because
each participating LEA and school will
need to work with the IES evaluator, it
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:27 Feb 25, 2010
Jkt 220001
is critical that both the LEA and
principals of the schools participating in
the Evaluation are aware of, and agree
to, the requirements of the Evaluation
(i.e., adhering to the implementation
plan and cooperating with datacollection efforts, such as providing
math and reading State assessment
student test scores). Therefore, we
propose to require applicants to
demonstrate, in their applications, that
each participating LEA and school is
willing and able to participate in the
Evaluation. To demonstrate this
willingness and ability to participate,
each applicant would be required to
include, in its application, a letter from
the superintendent of each participating
LEA, and a letter from the LEA’s
research office or board, and principals
of the participating schools stating that
these officials agree to comply with the
Evaluation requirements.
Proposed Requirements for the TIF
Evaluation Competition
In addition to the requirements and
priorities for the Main competition,
which applicants for the TIF Evaluation
competition would also be required to
address, the Secretary proposes the
following requirements for the TIF
Evaluation competition only:
Budget Information. An applicant for
the TIF Evaluation competition must
provide, in its application, a proposed
budget that indicates how it plans to use
the additional $1 million in funding
received for participating in the
Evaluation. The following activities are
the only permissible uses for these
additional funds: costs associated with
developing value-added measures of
student achievement; professional
development and expenses related to
release time for teachers to attend
professional development; and salaries
of academic coaches such as math and
reading coaches, and Master, Mentor, or
Lead Teacher salaries.
Two Incentive Models for Determining
Teacher Incentive Payments. An
applicant for the TIF Evaluation
competition must demonstrate, in its
application, that it will implement a
PBCS that provides incentive payments
to both teachers and principals:
(a) Teacher Incentive Payments. To be
eligible to receive a grant under the TIF
Evaluation competition, an applicant’s
teacher differentiated effectiveness
incentive component of the PBCS must
use one of the following two models:
(1) An individual-based incentive pay
model, which awards differentiated
effectiveness incentive payments to
teachers based on individual teachers’
performance (e.g., student achievement
results, teacher observations, etc.) based
PO 00000
Frm 00023
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
8865
on criteria proposed by the applicant in
its application.
(2) A mixed-group incentive pay
model which awards differentiated
effectiveness incentive payments to
teachers using group performance
criteria at the grade, team, or school
level, or using a mixture of group and
individual teacher performance criteria.
Note: Under the mixed-group incentive pay
model, how much emphasis is placed on
individual performance relative to group
performance is up to the applicant to specify;
however, in order to be a mixed-group
model, the PBCS must use group
performance criteria to determine the
differentiated effectiveness incentive
component of the incentive amounts and
may, but is not required to, use individual
performance criteria.
Each applicant must specify, in its
application, which of these two
incentive models it will use for the
teacher compensation component of its
PBCS.
(b) Principal Incentive Payments. To
be eligible to receive a grant under the
TIF Evaluation competition, the
applicant must describe, in its
application, the incentive model it will
use for the principal differentiated
effectiveness incentive component of its
PBCS. (There are no specific model
requirements for an applicant’s
principal compensation component of
the PBCS.)
Incentive Amounts. An applicant for
the TIF Evaluation competition must
demonstrate, in its application, that it
will implement a PBCS that uses: (1)
principal differentiated effectiveness
incentive payments in which (i) the
average principal payout (defined as the
total amount of principal payments
divided by the total number of
principals in the schools participating
in the differentiated effectiveness
incentive payment component of the
PBCS) is substantial (e.g., 5% of the
average principal salary), (ii) the criteria
for determining whether a principal is
eligible for payment are challenging
(e.g., payments are only made to those
who perform significantly better than
the current average performance among
study schools within the district), and
(iii) there is an expectation of
meaningful differences in resulting
principal pay (e.g., at least some
principals could reasonably expect to
receive an incentive payment of three
times the average principal payout) and
the applicant’s documentation of cost
projections is consistent with this
expectation); and
(2) Teacher differentiated
effectiveness incentive payments in
which (i) the average teacher payout
(defined as the total amount of teacher
E:\FR\FM\26FEP1.SGM
26FEP1
8866
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules
Implementation of Evaluation. Each
applicant under the TIF Evaluation
competition must agree, in its
application, to implement its
differentiated effectiveness incentive
component of the PBCS in at least one
LEA in accordance with the
implementation plan developed by the
IES evaluator. The applicant would be
required to identify in its application
the schools that would participate in the
evaluation.
In its application, an applicant also
must acknowledge that the IES
evaluator will select, by lottery, from
among the schools participating in the
evaluation, those schools that will
implement the differentiated
effectiveness incentive component of
the PBCS and must agree to implement
the Evaluation design and its
implementation plan within at least one
LEA.
In participating LEAs that have the
five core elements in place at the time
of grant award, the first group of schools
in that LEA (Group 1 schools) must
begin implementation of all components
of the PBCS at the beginning of the
2010–2011 school year. In a
participating LEA that does not yet have
in place the 5 core elements necessary
to implement a successful PBCS at the
time of award, the first group of schools
in that LEA (Group 1 schools) must
begin implementation of all components
of the PBCS no later than the 2011–2012
school year.
The following table illustrates the
Evaluation random assignment plan,
depending on the amount of planning
time an applicant would need:
Random assignment a
payments divided by the total number
of teachers in the schools participating
in the differentiated effectiveness
incentive payment component of the
PBCS) is substantial (e.g., 5% of the
average teacher salary), (ii) the criteria
for determining whether a teacher is
eligible for payment are challenging
(e.g., payments are only made to those
who perform significantly better than
the current average performance among
study schools within the district), and
(iii) there is an expectation of
meaningful differences in resulting
teacher pay (e.g., at least some teachers
could reasonably expect to receive an
incentive payment of three times the
average teacher payout) and the
applicant’s documentation of cost
projections is consistent with this
expectation).
Pay component of PBCS b
Design 1
LEAs Ready for 2010–11 Implementation.
Differentiated pay implemented starting in 2010–11.
Group 2 .......................................
No differentiated pay component until 2015–16.
Group 1 .......................................
Differentiated pay implemented starting in 2011–12.
Group 2 .......................................
LEAs Ready for 2011–12 Implementation.
Group 1 .......................................
No differentiated pay component until 2015–16.
Design 2
LEAs Ready for 2010–11 Implementation.
Differentiated pay implemented starting in 2010–11.
Group 2 .......................................
Across the board pay increase implemented starting in 2010–11
through 2014–15.
Group 1 .......................................
Differentiated pay implemented starting in 2011–12.
Group 2 .......................................
LEAs Ready for 2011–12 Implementation.
Group 1 .......................................
Across the board pay increase implemented starting in 2011–12
through 2014–15.
a For
each LEA, the IES evaluator will randomly assign the schools participating in the Evaluation into 2 groups (Groups 1 and 2).
school year listed is the first year in which the differentiated effectiveness incentive component of the PBCS will be implemented in the
LEA’s schools participating in the designated group.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
b The
Matching Requirement. (Funds
provided to meet this match
requirement may address the element of
Proposed Absolute Priority 2 in which
applicants are required to provide from
non-TIF funds an increasing share of
performance-based compensation paid
to teachers and principals.) If
Comparison Design 2 is selected, an
applicant for the TIF Evaluation
competition must provide from non-TIF
funds 50% of the proposed across-theboard salary increase to be implemented
in Group 2 schools.
Advance Notice. Each applicant must
agree, in its application to work with the
IES evaluator to notify all eligible
schools participating in the Evaluation
at least 2 months prior to the assigned
Group 1 implementation schedule.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:27 Feb 25, 2010
Jkt 220001
Implementation of all Nondifferentiated Effectiveness Incentive
Components. Each applicant must agree,
in its application, to implement the nondifferentiated effectiveness incentive
components of its PBCS in all of the
LEA’s participating schools (those in
Groups 1 and 2) starting at the same
time as the differentiated effectiveness
incentive component of its PBCS is
implemented in the Group 1 schools.
The schools in Group 2 must not
implement the differentiated
effectiveness incentive component of its
PBCS for the duration of the TIF grant.
Scope of Schools. An applicant for the
TIF Evaluation competition must
demonstrate, in its application, that it
will implement a PBCS in eight or more
high-need schools, within an LEA, that
have students in tested subjects (i.e.,
PO 00000
Frm 00024
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
students in grades three through eight),
from which there are at least two
schools proposed to participate in the
Evaluation within the same LEA within
each grade configuration (i.e., if
elementary schools are proposed there
are at least two elementary schools
among the minimum of eight schools all
within the same LEA; if middle schools
are proposed there are at least two
middle schools among the minimum of
eight schools all within the same LEA).
Applicants that include multiple LEAs
must meet the scope of schools
requirement in at least one LEA.
Commitment to Evaluation. An
applicant for the TIF Evaluation
competition must provide, in its
application, documentation that
demonstrates the willingness of each
participating LEA and school to
E:\FR\FM\26FEP1.SGM
26FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules
participate in the Evaluation. Such
documentation must include for each
participating LEA:
(a) A letter from the LEA
superintendent and the principals of the
participating schools stating that those
officials agree to meet the TIF
Evaluation competition requirements,
including adhering to the
implementation plan of the IES
evaluator which involves selection
through a lottery of those schools to
implement the differentiated
effectiveness component among the
schools participating in the evaluation.
(b) A letter from the research office or
research board of the participating LEA
that expresses an agreement to comply
with the Evaluation requirements (if
such research office approval is
needed).
Proposed Definitions
Background
The Department proposes definitions
for five terms not defined in the
authorizing legislation for TIF that the
Department has determined are
necessary for the proper implementation
of the TIF program: High-need school,
student achievement, student growth,
high-need students, and additional
responsibilities and leadership roles.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
High-Need School
Public Law 110–161 and Public Law
111–117 require an eligible entity to use
TIF funds to develop and implement a
PBCS in a high-need school, but they
does not define the term ‘‘high-need
school.’’ Because the meaning of this
term is critical to implementing the
purpose of the TIF program, we propose
to define it. Specifically, we propose to
define a high-need school as a school
with 50 percent or more of its
enrollment from low-income families,
based on eligibility for free or reducedprice lunch subsidies under the Richard
B. Russell National School Lunch Act,
or other poverty measures that LEAs use
(see section 1113(a)(5) of the ESEA (20
U.S.C. 6313(a)(5))). Because it is widely
known that students attending middle
and high schools submit applications
for free or reduced-price lunch subsidies
much less frequently than do students
enrolled in elementary schools, we
propose to clarify in the definition that
LEAs may establish eligibility of a
middle school or a high school as a
high-need school based on comparable
data from its feeder schools. We are
proposing to define the term high-need
school in terms of 50 percent eligibility
for free- and reduced-lunch subsidies
because the Administration is focusing
on turning around struggling schools in
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:27 Feb 25, 2010
Jkt 220001
high-poverty areas. We are targeting our
efforts to help the schools and students
most in need.
Student Achievement and Student
Growth
The Department believes that there is
sufficient research demonstrating that
teacher effectiveness is a critical
contributor to student learning, where
student learning is measured by student
growth over time—that is, the change in
student achievement between two or
more points in time. We believe that
student achievement should be
measured, in significant part, by a
student’s standardized test scores.
On the other hand, we recognize that
teacher effectiveness should not be
determined solely on the basis of
standardized test scores, which is why
we are proposing, consistent with the
Race to the Top program, that the use
of student growth as a significant factor
in teacher evaluations must include
multiple measures.
The Department believes that student
achievement and student growth data
are meaningful predictive measures of
teacher and principal effectiveness, and,
therefore, should be considered as a part
of a rigorous, transparent, and fair
evaluation system.
High-Need Students
Through the Proposed Priority 5, the
Department is encouraging applicants to
develop and implement a PBCS that
serves the needs of high-need students.
The Department would like to take this
opportunity to define this term for the
purpose of each applicant’s
understanding of the competitive
priority. It was important to the
Department for this definition to be
consistent with the definition of highneed students in the Race to the Top
final notice of priorities. Thus, the
Department has used the same
definition (identified below).
Additional Responsibilities and
Leadership Roles
Public Law–161 and Public Law 111–
117 require an eligible entity to use TIF
funds to develop and implement a PBCS
in a high-need school that provides
educators incentives to take on
additional responsibilities and
leadership roles, but it does not define
the terms ‘‘additional responsibilities
and leadership roles.’’ Because the
meaning of these terms is critical to
implementing the purpose of the TIF
program, we propose to define it.
Specifically, we propose to define
additional responsibilities and
leadership roles as duties teachers may
voluntarily accept such as roles as
PO 00000
Frm 00025
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
8867
master or mentor teachers who are
chosen through a performance-based
selection process including assessment
of their teaching effectiveness and the
ability to work effectively with other
adults and students, with
responsibilities to assess and improve
the teaching effectiveness of other
teachers in the school; roles in
induction and mentoring of novice
teachers or high-need students; roles in
tutoring students; or in establishing and
developing learning communities
designed to continually improve the
capacity of all teachers in a school to
advance student learning, using a
shared set of practices, instructional
principles or teaching strategies. This
list is not exhaustive and the
Department would encourage applicants
to come up with other additional
responsibility and leadership role
opportunities for its teachers and
principals that best meets the needs of
its high-need schools.
Proposed Definitions
The Secretary proposes the following
definitions of the terms high-need
school, student achievement and
student growth, high-need students, and
additional responsibilities and
leadership roles for use in the TIF
program. We would apply these
definitions for any Main TIF
competition or TIF Evaluation
competition in any year in which TIF is
funded.
High-need school means a school with
50 percent or more of its enrollment
from low-income families, based on
eligibility for free or reduced-price
lunch subsidies under the Richard B.
Russell National School Lunch Act, or
other poverty measures that LEAs use
(see section 1113(a)(5) of the ESEA (20
U.S.C. 6313(a)(5)). For middle and high
schools, eligibility may be calculated on
the basis of comparable data from feeder
schools. Eligibility as a high-need
school under this definition is
determined on the basis of the most
currently available data.
Student achievement means—
(a) For tested grades and subjects—
(1) A student’s score on the State’s
assessments under the ESEA; and
(2) As appropriate, other measures of
student learning, such as those
described in paragraph (b) of this
definition, provided that they are
rigorous and comparable across schools.
(b) For non-tested grades and subjects,
alternative measures of student learning
and performance such as student scores
on pre-tests and end-of-course tests;
student performance on English
language proficiency assessments, and
other measures of student achievement
E:\FR\FM\26FEP1.SGM
26FEP1
8868
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules
that are rigorous and comparable across
schools.
Student growth means the change in
student achievement (as defined in this
notice) for an individual student
between two or more points in time. A
State or LEA may also include other
measures that are rigorous and
comparable across schools.
High-need students means students at
risk of educational failure or otherwise
in need of special assistance and
support, such as students who are living
in poverty, who attend high-minority
schools, who are far below grade level,
who have left school before receiving a
regular high school diploma, who are at
risk of not graduating with a diploma on
time, who are homeless, who are in
foster care, who have been incarcerated,
who have disabilities, or who are
English language learners.
Additional responsibilities and
leadership roles means duties teachers
may voluntarily accept such as roles as
master or mentor teachers who are
chosen through a performance-based
selection process including assessment
of their teaching effectiveness and the
ability to work effectively with other
adults and students, with
responsibilities to assess and improve
the teaching effectiveness of other
teachers in the school; roles in
induction and mentoring of novice
teachers or high-need students; roles in
tutoring students; or in establishing and
developing learning communities
designed to continually improve the
capacity of all teachers in a school to
advance student learning, using a
shared set of practices, instructional
principles or teaching strategies.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Proposed Selection Criteria
The following selection criteria apply
to both the Main competition and the
TIF Evaluation competition.
Background
The Secretary proposes these
selection criteria to be used to review an
applicant’s proposal for funding under
either the Main TIF competition or the
TIF Evaluation competition. The
Department believes that these proposed
selection criteria are needed to ensure
that each applicant demonstrates, in its
application, that it: (1) Proposes to
implement a PBCS that will address a
significant need of the LEA(s) to be
served by the project, through the types
of awards to be given to teachers and
principals based on student
achievement and other required factors;
(2) has or will have a personnel and
management structure capable of
overseeing the development and
implementation of the proposed PBCS;
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:27 Feb 25, 2010
Jkt 220001
and (3) commits to sustaining the
proposed PBCS after TIF funding has
ended.
Proposed Selection Criteria
The Secretary proposes the following
selection criteria for evaluating an
application under this program. We may
apply one or more of these criteria in
any year in which there is a Main TIF
competition or TIF Evaluation
competition for this program. In the
notice inviting applications, or the
application package, or both we will
announce the maximum possible points
assigned to each criterion.
(a) Need for the project. In
determining the need for the proposed
project, the Secretary will consider the
extent to which the applicant
establishes that—
(1) The high-need schools whose
educators would be part of the PBCS
have difficulty—
(i) Recruiting highly qualified or
effective teachers, particularly in hardto-staff subject areas or specialty areas,
such as mathematics, science, English
Language Acquisition, and special
education; and
(ii) Retaining highly qualified or
effective teachers and principals; and
(2) Student achievement in each of
the schools whose educators would be
part of the PBCS is lower than in what
the applicant determines are
comparable schools of the LEA, or
another LEA within its State, in terms
of key factors such as size, grade levels,
and poverty levels.
(3) A definition of what it considers
a ‘‘comparable’’ school for the purposes
of paragraph (2) of this selection
criterion.
(b) Project design. The Secretary
considers the quality of the design of the
proposed project. In determining the
quality of the design of the proposed
project, the Secretary considers the
extent to which the proposed PBCS—
(1) Is part of a proposed LEA or
Statewide strategy, as appropriate, for
improving the process by which each
participating LEA rewards teachers and
principals in high-need schools based
upon their effectiveness as determined
in significant part by student growth.
With regard to teacher and principal
effectiveness, the Secretary considers
whether—
(i) The methodology the LEA or SEA
proposes to use in its PBCS to determine
the effectiveness of a school’s teachers
and principals includes valid and
reliable measures of student
achievement, including norm- and
criterion-referenced State-wide
assessment scores, as appropriate; and
PO 00000
Frm 00026
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
(ii) The participating LEA would use
the proposed PBCS to provide
performance awards to teachers and
principals that are of sufficient size to
affect teacher and administrator
behaviors, and their decision whether to
go to, or remain working in, the highneed school;
(2) Has the involvement and support
of teachers, principals, and other
certified personnel (including input
from teachers and principals in the
schools and LEAs to be served by the
grant) and the involvement and support
of unions in participating LEAs where
they are the designated exclusive
representatives for the purpose of
collective bargaining that is needed to
carry out the grant;
(3) Includes rigorous, transparent, and
fair evaluation systems for teachers and
principals that differentiate
effectiveness using multiple rating
categories that take into account data on
student growth as a significant factor, as
well as classroom observations
conducted at least twice during the
school year;
(4) Includes a data-management
system, consistent with the LEA’s
proposed PBCS, that can link student
achievement data to teacher and
principal payroll and human resources
systems; and
(5) Incorporates high-quality
professional development activities that
increase the capacity of teachers and
principals to raise student achievement,
and are directly linked to the specific
measures of teacher and principal
effectiveness included in the PBCS.
(c) Adequacy of Support for the
Proposed Project. In determining the
adequacy of the support for the
proposed project, the Secretary
considers the extent to which—
(1) The management plan is likely to
achieve the objectives of the proposed
project on time and within budget, and
includes clearly defined responsibilities
and detailed timelines and milestones
for accomplishing project tasks;
(2) The project director and other key
personnel are qualified to carry out their
responsibilities, and their time
commitments are appropriate and
adequate to implement the project
effectively;
(3) The applicant will support the
proposed project with funds provided
under other Federal or State programs
and local financial or in-kind resources;
and
(4) The requested grant amount and
project costs are sufficient to attain
project goals and reasonable in relation
to the objectives and design of the
project.
E:\FR\FM\26FEP1.SGM
26FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules
(d) Quality of Evaluation. In
determining the quality of the project
evaluation, the Secretary considers the
extent to which the applicant’s
evaluation plan—
(1) Includes the use of strong and
measurable performance objectives (that
are clearly related to the goals of the
project) for raising student achievement,
increasing teacher and principal
effectiveness, and retaining and
recruiting effective teachers and
principals;
(2) Will produce evaluation data that
are quantitative and qualitative; and
(3) Includes adequate evaluation
procedures for ensuring feedback and
continuous improvement in the
operation of the proposed project.
Final Priorities, Requirements,
Definition, and Selection Criteria
We will announce the final priorities,
requirements, definition, and selection
criteria in a notice in the Federal
Register. We will determine the final
priorities, requirements, definition, and
selection criteria after considering
responses to this notice and other
information available to the Department.
This notice does not preclude us from
proposing additional priorities,
requirements, definitions, or selection
criteria, subject to meeting applicable
rulemaking requirements.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Note: This notice does not solicit
applications. In any year in which we choose
to use these proposed priorities,
requirements, definition, and selection
criteria, we invite applications through a
notice in the Federal Register.
Executive Order 12866: Under
Executive Order 12866, the Secretary
must determine whether this regulatory
action is ‘‘significant’’ and therefore
subject to the requirements of the
Executive Order and subject to review
by Office of Management and Budget
(OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order
12866 defines a ‘‘significant regulatory
action’’ as an action likely to result in a
rule that may (1) Have an annual effect
on the economy of $100 million or
more, or adversely affect a sector of the
economy, productivity, competition,
jobs, the environment, public health or
safety, or State, local or Tribal
governments, or communities in a
material way (also referred to as an
‘‘economically significant’’ rule); (2)
create serious inconsistency or
otherwise interfere with an action taken
or planned by another agency; (3)
materially alter the budgetary impacts of
entitlement grants, user fees, or loan
programs or the rights and obligations of
recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel
legal or policy issues arising out of legal
mandates, the President’s priorities, or
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:27 Feb 25, 2010
Jkt 220001
the principles set forth in the Executive
Order. Pursuant to the Executive Order,
it has been determined that this
regulatory action will have an annual
effect on the economy of more than
$100 million because the amount of
government transfers provided through
the TIF program will exceed that
amount. Therefore, this action is
‘‘economically significant’’ and subject
to OMB review under section 3(f)(1) of
the Executive Order.
The potential costs associated with
this proposed regulatory action are
those resulting from statutory
requirements and those we have
determined as necessary for
administering this program effectively
and efficiently.
In assessing the potential costs and
benefits of this proposed regulatory
action, we have determined that the
benefits of the proposed priorities,
requirements, definition, and selection
criteria justify the costs.
We have determined, also, that this
proposed regulatory action does not
unduly interfere with State, local, and
Tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
Need for Federal Regulatory Action
The proposed priorities,
requirements, definition, and selection
criteria are needed to implement the TIF
program. The Secretary does not believe
that the statute, by itself, provides a
sufficient level of detail to ensure that
the program achieves the greatest
national impact in promoting the
development and implementation of
teacher and school leader PBCSs. The
authorizing and appropriations language
is very brief and provides only broad
parameters to govern the program. The
priorities, requirements, definition, and
selection criteria proposed in this notice
would clarify the types of activities the
Department seeks to fund, and permit
the Department to evaluate proposed
projects using selection criteria that are
based on the purpose of the program
and are closely aligned with the
Secretary’s priorities.
In the absence of specific selection
criteria for the TIF program, the
Department would use the general
selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210 of
the Education Department General
Administrative Regulations in selecting
grant recipients. However, the Secretary
does not believe the use of those general
criteria would be appropriate for the
Main TIF grant or TIF Evaluation
competitions, because they do not focus
on the development of PBCSs or
activities most likely to increase the
quality of teaching and school
PO 00000
Frm 00027
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
8869
administration and improve educational
outcomes for students.
Regulatory Alternatives Considered
The Department considered a variety
of possible priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria before
deciding to propose those included in
this notice. For example, the
Department considered—
(1) Allowing applicants to propose to
serve schools already served (or to be
served) by current TIF grants, but chose
to limit eligibility in order to expand the
program to new schools.
(2) A variety of definitions for the
term ‘‘high-need school’’ before
proposing to define this term based on
50 percent eligibility for free- and
reduced-lunch subsidies as the best
means of focusing the program on
turning around struggling schools in
high-poverty areas. We are targeting our
efforts to help the schools and students
most in need.
(3) Restricting the range of approaches
to implementing a PBCS that this
competition would support, to
individual-based, school-based, or
group-based awards. However, we
recognize that a combination of these
approaches may best meet the needs of
an applicant’s high-need school or
schools.
The proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria are those that the Secretary
believes best capture the purpose of the
TIF program while clarifying what he
expects the program to accomplish and
ensuring that program activities are
aligned with other Presidential and
Departmental priorities. The proposals
also would provide eligible applicants
with some flexibility in selecting
activities to carry out the purposes of
program. The Secretary believes that the
proposals reflected in this notice
appropriately balance the need to flesh
out TIF programmatic requirements and
provide the Department with the
necessary tools to evaluate applications
for TIF funding with the goal of
providing applicants with sufficient
flexibility to implement innovative
approaches to PBCSs. We seek public
comment on whether we have achieved
an acceptable balance.
Summary of Costs and Benefits
The Secretary believes that the
proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria would
not impose significant costs on eligible
States, LEAs, or nonprofit organizations
that would receive assistance through
the TIF program. The Secretary also
believes that the benefits of
implementing the proposals contained
E:\FR\FM\26FEP1.SGM
26FEP1
8870
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules
in this notice outweigh any associated
costs.
The Secretary believes that the
proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria would
result in selection of high-quality
applications to implement activities that
are most likely to improve the quality of
teaching and educational
administration. Through the regulatory
action proposed in this notice, the
Secretary seeks to provide clarity as to
the scope of activities he expects to
support with program funds and the
expected burden of work involved in
preparing an application and
implementing a project under the
program. A potential applicant would
need to consider carefully the effort that
would be required to prepare a strong
application and its capacity to
implement a project successfully.
The Secretary believes that the costs
imposed on an applicant by the
proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria would
be largely limited to paperwork burden
related to preparing an application and
that the benefits of implementing these
proposals would outweigh any costs
incurred by the applicant. This is
because, during the project period, the
costs of actually carrying out activities
under a TIF grant would be paid for
with program funds and any matching
funds. Thus, the costs of implementing
a TIF project or evaluation using these
proposed priorities, requirements,
definition, and selection criteria would
not be a burden for any eligible
applicants, including small entities.
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
Accounting Statement
As required by OMB Circular A–4
(available at https://
www.Whitehouse.gov/omb/Circulars/
a004/a-4.pdf), in the following table, we
have prepared an accounting statement
showing the classification of the
expenditures associated with the
provisions of this proposed regulatory
action. This table provides our best
estimate of the Federal payments to be
made to States, LEAs, and nonprofit
organizations under this program as a
result of this proposed regulatory action.
This table is based on funds available
for new awards under this program from
the ARRA supplemental appropriation
and the fiscal year 2010 appropriation.
Expenditures are classified as transfers
to those entities.
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:27 Feb 25, 2010
Jkt 220001
Accounting Statement Classification of
Estimated Expenditures
Category
Annual Monetized
Transfers.
From Whom to Whom
Transfers
(in millions)
$439.0.
Federal Government
to States, LEAs,
and nonprofits.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The requirements and selection
criteria proposed in this notice would
require the collection of information
that is subject to review by the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) under
the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
(44 U.S.C. 3501–3520).
We estimate that each applicant
would spend approximately 248 hours
of staff time to address the requirements
and selection criteria, prepare the
application, and obtain necessary
clearances. Based on the number of
applications the Department received in
the first competition it held (in FY
2006), we expect to receive
approximately 120 applications for
these funds. The total number of hours
for all expected applicants is an
estimated 29,760 hours. We estimate the
total cost per hour of the applicant-level
staff who carry out this work to be $30
per hour. The total estimated cost for all
applicants would be $892,800.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that this
proposed regulatory action will not have
a significant economic impact on a
substantial number of small entities.
The small entities that this proposed
regulatory action may affect are (1)
small LEAs, and (2) nonprofit
organizations applying for and receiving
funds under this program in partnership
with an LEA or SEA. The Secretary
believes that the costs imposed on an
applicant by the proposed priorities,
requirements, definition, and selection
criteria would be limited to paperwork
burden related to preparing an
application and that the benefits of
implementing these proposals would
outweigh any costs incurred by the
applicant.
Participation in the TIF program is
voluntary. For this reason, the proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria would impose no
burden on small entities unless they
applied for funding under a TIF
program using the priorities,
requirements, definition and selection
criteria proposed in this notice. We
expect that in determining whether to
apply for TIF funds, an eligible entity
PO 00000
Frm 00028
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
would evaluate the requirements of
preparing an application and
implementing a TIF project, and any
associated costs, and weigh them
against the benefits likely to be achieved
by implementing the TIF project. An
eligible entity would probably apply
only if it determines that the likely
benefits exceed the costs of preparing an
application and implementing a project.
The likely benefits of applying for a TIF
program grant include the potential
receipt of a grant as well as other
benefits that may accrue to an entity
through its development of an
application, such as the use of its TIF
application to spur development and
implementation of PBCSs without
Federal funding through the TIF
program.
The U.S. Small Business
Administration (SBA) Size Standards
define ‘‘small entities’’ as for-profit or
nonprofit institutions with total annual
revenue below $7,000,000 or, if they are
institutions controlled by small
governmental jurisdictions (that are
comprised of cities, counties, towns,
townships, villages, school districts, or
special districts), with a population of
less than 50,000. The Urban Institute’s
National Center for Charitable Statistics
reported that of 203,635 nonprofit
organizations that had an educational
mission and reported revenue to the
Internal Revenue Service (IRS) by July
2009, 200,342 (over 98 percent) had
revenues of less than $5 million. In
addition, there are 12,484 LEAs in the
country that meet the SBA’s definition
of small entity. While these entities are
eligible to apply for funding under the
TIF program, the Secretary believes that
only a small number of them will be
interested in applying, thus reducing
the likelihood that the priorities,
requirements, definitions and selection
criteria proposed in this notice would
have a significant economic impact on
small entities. In the first TIF
competition that the Department held in
FY 2006, approximately 21 nonprofit
organizations applied for funding in
partnership with an LEA or SEA, and
few of these organizations appeared to
be a small entity. The Secretary has no
reason to believe that a future
competition under this program would
be different. To the contrary, we expect
that the competitions run under Public
Law 111–8 and ARRA will be similar to
the FY 2006 competition because only
a limited number of nonprofit
organizations are working actively on
the development of teacher and school
leader PBCSs and many of these
organizations are larger organizations.
In addition, the Secretary believes
that the priorities, requirements,
E:\FR\FM\26FEP1.SGM
26FEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 75, No. 38 / Friday, February 26, 2010 / Proposed Rules
sroberts on DSKD5P82C1PROD with PROPOSALS
definitions, and selection criteria
proposed in this notice do not impose
any additional burden on a small entity
applying for a grant than the entity
would face in the absence of the
proposed action. That is, the length of
the applications those entities would
submit in the absence of the proposed
regulatory action and the time needed to
prepare an application would likely be
the same.
Further, this proposed regulatory
action may help a small entity
determine whether it has the interest,
need, or capacity to implement
activities under the program and, thus,
prevent a small entity that does not have
such an interest, need, or capacity from
absorbing the burden of applying.
This proposed regulatory action
would not have a significant economic
impact on a small entity once it receives
a grant because it would be able to meet
the costs of compliance using the funds
provided under this program and with
any matching funds provided by
private-sector partners.
The Secretary invites comments from
small nonprofit organizations and small
LEAs as to whether they believe this
proposed regulatory action would have
a significant economic impact on them
and, if so, requests evidence to support
that belief.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is subject to the
requirements of Executive Order 12372
and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79.
One of the objectives of the Executive
order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened
federalism. The Executive order relies
on processes developed by State and
local governments for coordination and
review of proposed Federal financial
assistance.
This document provides early
notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: Individuals with
disabilities can obtain this document in
an accessible format (e.g., braille, large
print, audiotape, or computer diskette)
on request to the program contact
person listed under For Further
Information Contact.
Electronic Access to This Document:
You can view this document, as well as
all other documents of this Department
published in the Federal Register, in
text or Adobe Portable Document
Format (PDF) 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
VerDate Nov<24>2008
16:27 Feb 25, 2010
Jkt 220001
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.
Dated: February 22, 2010.
´
Thelma Melendez de Santa Ana,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and
Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2010–3963 Filed 2–25–10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
ENVIRONMENTAL PROTECTION
AGENCY
40 CFR Parts 52 and 81
[EPA–R05–OAR–2009–0928; EPA–R05–
OAR–2010–0046; FRL–9116–7]
Approval and Promulgation of
Implementation Plans and Designation
of Areas for Air Quality Planning
Purposes; Ohio; Indiana;
Redesignation of the Ohio and Indiana
Portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton
Area to Attainment for Ozone
AGENCY: Environmental Protection
Agency (EPA).
ACTION: Proposed rule.
SUMMARY: EPA is proposing to approve
the requests of Ohio and Indiana to
redesignate the Ohio and Indiana
portions of the Cincinnati-Hamilton,
OH-KY-IN 8-hour ozone nonattainment
area, ‘‘the Cincinnati-Hamilton area,’’ to
attainment for that standard, because
these requests meet the statutory
requirements for redesignation under
the Clean Air Act (CAA). The Ohio
Environmental Protection Agency (Ohio
EPA) and the Indiana Department of
Environmental Management (IDEM)
submitted these requests on December
14, 2009, and January 21, 2010,
respectively. (EPA will address the
Kentucky portion of the CincinnatiHamilton area in a separate rulemaking
action.)
These proposed approvals involve
several related actions. EPA is
proposing to determine that the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area has attained
the 8-hour ozone National Ambient Air
Quality Standard (NAAQS). The
Cincinnati-Hamilton area includes
Butler, Clermont, Clinton, Hamilton,
and Warren Counties in Ohio,
Lawrenceburg Township in Dearborn
County, Indiana, and Boone, Campbell,
and Kenton Counties in Kentucky. This
determination is based on three years of
complete, quality-assured ambient air
quality monitoring data for the 2007–
2009 ozone seasons that demonstrate
that the 8-hour ozone NAAQS has been
PO 00000
Frm 00029
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
8871
attained in the area. EPA is also
proposing to approve, as revisions to the
Ohio and Indiana State Implementation
Plans (SIPs), the States’ plans for
maintaining the 8-hour ozone NAAQS
through 2020 in the area.
EPA is proposing to approve the 2002
base year emissions inventory submitted
by IDEM on June 13, 2007, as meeting
the base year emissions inventory
requirement of the CAA for the Indiana
portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area.
EPA is proposing to approve the 2005
base year emissions inventory submitted
by Ohio EPA as part of its redesignation
request as meeting the base year
emissions inventory requirements of the
CAA for the Ohio portion of the
Cincinnati-Hamilton area. Finally, EPA
finds adequate and is proposing to
approve the States’ 2015 and 2020
Motor Vehicle Emission Budgets
(MVEBs) for the Ohio and Indiana
portion of the Cincinnati-Hamilton area.
DATES: Comments must be received on
or before March 29, 2010.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments,
identified by Docket ID No. EPA–R05–
OAR–2009–0928 and EPA–R05–OAR–
2010–0046, by one of the following
methods:
1. https://www.regulations.gov: Follow
the online instructions for submitting
comments.
2. E-mail: damico.genevieve@epa.gov.
3. Fax: (312) 692–2511.
4. Mail: Genevieve Damico, Acting
Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section, Air
Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, Chicago,
Illinois 60604.
5. Hand delivery: Genevieve Damico,
Acting Chief, Criteria Pollutant Section,
Air Programs Branch (AR–18J), U.S.
Environmental Protection Agency, 77
West Jackson Boulevard, 18th floor,
Chicago, Illinois 60604. Such deliveries
are only accepted during the Regional
Office normal hours of operation, and
special arrangements should be made
for deliveries of boxed information. The
Regional Office official hours of
business are Monday through Friday,
8:30 a.m. to 4:30 p.m., excluding
Federal holidays.
Instructions: Direct your comments to
Docket ID No. EPA–R05–OAR–2009–
0928 and EPA–R05–OAR–2010–0046.
EPA’s policy is that all comments
received will be included in the public
docket without change and may be
made available online at https://
www.regulations.gov, including any
personal information provided, unless
the comment includes information
claimed to be Confidential Business
Information (CBI) or other information
E:\FR\FM\26FEP1.SGM
26FEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 38 (Friday, February 26, 2010)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 8854-8871]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-3963]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Subtitle B, Chapter II
[Docket ID ED-2010-OESE-0001]
RIN 1810-AB08
Teacher Incentive Fund Program
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
[[Page 8855]]
ACTION: Proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance (CFDA) Numbers: 84.385 and
84.374.
SUMMARY: The Secretary of Education (Secretary) proposes priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria under the Teacher
Incentive Fund (TIF) program. These proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria are designed to be used in two
separate and distinct TIF grant competitions: The Main TIF competition,
which will provide TIF funding to eligible entities to support their
implementation of performance-based compensation systems (PBCSs) in
accordance with the priorities, the Main TIF requirements, the
definitions, and the selection criteria proposed in this document, and
the TIF Evaluation competition, which will provide, in accordance with
the priorities, the Main TIF requirements, the definitions, and the
selection criteria as well as the Evaluation requirements proposed in
this document, TIF funding to help pay for the costs of implementing
these eligible entities' PBCS in exchange for an agreement to
participate in the national evaluation. The Secretary may use these
proposed TIF priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria in fiscal year (FY) 2010 and subsequent years. We intend the
proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria
to improve student achievement in high-need schools by creating
incentives for effective teachers and principals in these schools.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before March 29, 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 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 and the term ``Teacher Incentive
Fund'' 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.'' A direct link to the docket
page is also available at https://www.ed.gov/programs/teacherincentive.
Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you
mail or deliver your comments about these proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, address them to:
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education (Attention: Teacher
Incentive Fund Comments), U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland
Avenue, SW., Room 3E120, 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: April Lee. Telephone: (202) 205-5224,
or by e-mail: TIF@ed.gov. Note that we will not accept comments by e-
mail.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the
Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding
this notice. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in
developing the notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions,
and selection criteria, we urge you to identify clearly the specific
proposed priority, requirement, definition, or selection criterion that
each comment addresses.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of
reducing regulatory burden that might result from the proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. Please
let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs or
increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and
efficient administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about this notice by accessing Regulations.gov. You may also
inspect the comments in person, in Room 3E120, 400 Maryland Avenue,
SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m.,
Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal
holidays.
Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record: On request we will provide an appropriate
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the
public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Purpose of Program: The purpose of the TIF program is to support
projects that develop and implement PBCSs for teachers and principals
in order to increase educator effectiveness and student achievement in
high-need schools.
Program Authority: The Departments of Labor, Health and Human
Services, and Education, and Related Agencies Appropriations Act,
2008, Division G, Title III, Pub. L. 110-161; Departments of Labor,
Health and Human Services, and Education, and Related Agencies
Appropriations Act, 2010, Division D, Title III, Pub. L. 111-117;
and the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, Division A,
Title VIII, Pub. L. 111-5 (the ARRA).
Background
The Statutory Requirements
Statutory provisions that govern the use of TIF funds are contained
in the Department's annual congressional appropriations and in the
ARRA. In this regard, Public Law 111-117, which contains the
Department's fiscal year (FY) 2010 appropriation, authorizes the
Department to use TIF funds to make competitive grants to eligible
entities to develop and implement PBCSs in high-need schools. Eligible
entities for these funds are:
(a) Local educational agencies (LEAs), including charter schools
that are LEAs.
(b) States.
(c) Partnerships of--
(1) An LEA, a State, or both; and
(2) At least one non-profit organization.
Under Public Law 111-117, eligible entities must use TIF funds to
develop and implement in high-need schools PBCSs that--
(a) Consider gains in student academic achievement as well as
classroom evaluations conducted multiple times during each school year
among other factors, and
(b) Provide educators with incentives to take on additional
responsibilities and leadership roles.
Public Law 111-117 further provides that grant recipients (1) must
demonstrate that their PBCSs are developed with the input of teachers
and school leaders in the schools and LEAs the grants will serve, and
(2) may use TIF funds to develop or improve systems and tools (which
may be developed and used either for the entire LEA or only for schools
served under
[[Page 8856]]
the grant) that would enhance the quality and success of the PBCS, such
as high-quality teacher evaluations and tools to measure growth in
student achievement. In addition, Public Law 111-117 provides that
applications for TIF grants must include a plan for the financial
sustainability of the activities conducted and systems developed under
the grant once the grant period has expired.
Funds for this program, including funds for a required national
evaluation, were also appropriated as part of the ARRA. Recipients of
awards made with ARRA funds must meet specific reporting requirements
established by the ARRA. The following link provides guidance on these
reporting requirements: https://www.whitehouse.gov/omb/assets/memoranda_fy2009/m09-21.pdf.
Note: Provisions of the ARRA that govern use of TIF funds
require use of funds consistent with substantive requirements in the
Department's FY 2008 appropriations act, Public Law 110-161. The
Department's FY 2009 and FY 2010 appropriations acts contain
comparable provisions governing eligible grantees and the need to
use TIF funds to develop and implement PBCSs in high-need schools.
Although Public Law 110-161 and Public Law 111-115 provide that
Federal TIF funds may support PBCSs only for teachers and
principals, grantees may extend their PBCSs to all school personnel
by using non-TIF funds to pay for additional compensation for non-
instructional personnel.
Under the program, grantees may only use TIF funds for expenses
related to the development and implementation of their PBCS in high-
need schools identified in the applicant's proposal. However, in
addition to the financial incentives given to teachers and principals
based on their effectiveness and their assumption of additional
responsibilities or leadership roles (as defined in this notice), TIF
funds also may be used to support a variety of activities either for
the entire LEA or only for high-need schools served under the grant,
that are related to the PCBS. These activities include professional
development activities, evaluation and research analysis, costs of
developing or improving systems and tools that would enhance the
quality and success of the PBCS, such as high-quality teacher
evaluations and tools to measure growth in student achievement,
reasonable travel expenses related to the TIF program, data system
enhancement or development, and other reasonable and necessary costs.
With regard to payments for financial incentives, while the
Department is not proposing to establish a minimum percentage that
grantees would need to expend, it would expect that as an LEA's PBCS
becomes institutionalized, the percentage of its budget that is used
for incentive payments would increase throughout the five-year grant
period. In addition, while the salaries of certain staff outside of the
PBCS (such as salaries of a school's master, mentor or lead teacher)
could conceivably be legitimate costs of a TIF project, given the
purpose of the program the Department expects to continue to limit its
approval of the number of such staff whose salaries may be paid with
TIF funds. Grantees, however, would be able to use TIF funds towards
the costs of bonuses paid to any number of these staff if they assume
additional responsibilities under the PBCS.
Background: Signed into law by President Obama on February 17,
2009, the ARRA constitutes an unprecedented effort to revive the
Nation's economy, create or save millions of jobs, and address long-
neglected challenges so the Nation can thrive in the 21st century.
In addition to measures that modernize the Nation's infrastructure,
enhance energy independence, preserve and improve affordable health
care, provide tax relief, and protect those in greatest need, the ARRA
provides an unprecedented sum--approximately $100 billion dollars--to
fundamentally transform our public education system. Section 14005(d)
of the ARRA requires that this funding be used to promote effective
school reform in four assurance areas: (1) Adopting internationally
benchmarked standards and assessments that prepare students for success
in college and the workplace; (2) Building data systems that measure
student success and inform teachers and principals in how they can
improve their practices; (3) Increasing teacher effectiveness and
achieving equity in teacher distribution; and (4) Turning around our
lowest achieving schools.
The ARRA's second and third assurances are based upon evidence that
teachers are the single most critical factor in improving student
achievement. However, too many students, particularly those attending
high-need schools, are provided instruction by ineffective teachers.
Accordingly, the ARRA requires the Department to promote efforts that
ensure equitable distribution of effective teachers between high and
low poverty schools so that economically disadvantaged students have
the same access to effective teachers as other students.
TIF is one such effort. By requiring its grantees to draw
distinctions in how teachers are retained, promoted and rewarded, TIF,
as implemented by the Department, advances the ARRA's third assurance
of recruiting, developing and retaining effective teachers. To
accomplish these goals, the ARRA provides TIF with an additional $200
million dollars of funding.
The Department proposes, to the extent feasible and appropriate, to
align TIF with the requirements contained in the other ARRA programs,
including the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, Race to the Top, and the
Title I School Improvement Grants. The Department's intention in doing
so is to encourage applicants to develop plans for evaluating educator
effectiveness and for providing educators the professional development
needed to improve classroom practice and student achievement that
complement, and are consistent with, plans developed across these other
ARRA programs.
Along with authorizing TIF funds to be used to support projects
that implement PBCSs, the ARRA also requires the Department to use the
appropriated funds to conduct a ``rigorous national evaluation * * *
utilizing randomized controlled methodology to the extent feasible,
that assess the impact of performance-based teacher and principal
compensation systems supported by the funds provided in this Act on
teacher and principal recruitment and retention in high-need schools
and subjects.'' The ARRA thus requires the Department to award funds in
a way that will ensure adequate participation of both a treatment group
and control group in the national evaluation. Our proposal for the TIF
Evaluation Competition, and the questions on which we specifically
request public comment, are designed to permit the Department to meet
this responsibility, and at the same time to seek answers to research
questions about the effect of PBCSs on student achievement in high-need
schools that are of great importance to those who would implement such
systems.
Proposed Priorities
This notice contains five proposed priorities. The Secretary
intends to use all five proposed priorities for the Main TIF
competition and the TIF Evaluation competition.
Types of Priorities
The Secretary proposes five priorities for the Main TIF competition
and the TIF Evaluation competition. Proposed Priority 1 through 3 are
absolute priorities. Proposed Priorities 4 and 5 are proposed as
competitive preference priorities and are aligned with other key
education reform goals of the Department.
[[Page 8857]]
We may choose, in the notice of final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria, to change the designation of any
of these priorities to absolute, competitive preference, or
invitational priorities, or to include the substance of these
priorities in the requirements or the selection criteria. We may also
decide to include the substance of the requirements or the selection
criteria in the priorities.
With an invitational priority, we would signal our interest in
receiving applications that meet the priority; however, consistent with
34 CFR 75.105(c)(1), we would not give an application that meets an
invitational priority preference over other applications.
Under an absolute priority, as specified by 34 CFR 75.105(c)(3), we
would consider only applications that meet the priority. Under a
competitive preference priority, we would give competitive preference
to an application by (1) awarding additional points, depending on the
extent to which the application meets the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting an application that meets the
priority over an application of comparable merit that does not meet the
priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Proposed Priority 1 (Absolute)--Differentiated Levels of Compensation
for Effective Teachers and Principals
Background
The quality of classroom teachers is the most important factor
under a school's control that affects student achievement.\1\ Studies
using value-added assessments indicate that individual teachers make a
significant difference in student achievement and that teacher
effectiveness varies considerably, even after adjusting for student
characteristics such as prior performance, race or income.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Goldhaber, D. (2007). Thoughts on Teacher Pay Reform.
Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center on Teacher Quality.
\2\ Sanders, W. (2006, November). Cumulative and Residual
Effects of Teachers on Future Student Academic Achievement.
Knoxville, TN: University of Tennessee; and Rivkin, S., Hanushek,
E., and Kain, J. (2005, March). ``Teachers, Schools, and Academic
Achievement.'' Econometrica, 73, 417-458.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Yet one of the greatest obstacles to achieving the President's
ambitious goal of providing a high-quality education for all children
is that too few students, particularly low-income, minority, and low-
achieving students, are provided instruction by effective teachers. And
because LEAs typically do not pay teachers and principals based on
their effectiveness, but instead on a single salary schedule that pays
all teachers and principals the same based on experience and level of
education, LEAs rarely provide highly effective teachers and principals
in public school systems compensation that differs from what they
provide to less effective teachers and principals.
Moreover, LEAs typically provide no additional incentive for the
most effective teachers or principals to enter or remain in high-need
schools. On the contrary, by providing the same amount of compensation
based on credential and years of experience, and offering more
experienced educators a priority in transfer options, LEA personnel
systems often create at least implicit incentives for teachers and
principals to move into schools and classrooms that present the fewest
challenges. The failure to reward good performance by teachers and
principals and to encourage effective teachers and principals to work
in the most challenging schools makes it difficult to create a culture
in high-need schools that focuses on continued excellence and results.
The Secretary believes that LEAs with high-need schools that
implement a PBCS that (1) rewards teachers and principals who
demonstrate their effectiveness by improving student achievement and
(2) provides opportunities for highly effective teachers to take on
additional roles and responsibilities, will increase overall teacher
and principal quality and will attract outstanding educators to these
schools. The Secretary also believes that these PBCSs will foster the
creation of schools that use evidence of student achievement and of
effective teacher practice to continuously improve teaching and
learning.
Assuming that all funded projects are of sufficient quality, the
Department intends to fund a variety of approaches to implement a PBCS
including individual-based, school- or group-based awards, and a
combination of the two. Each applicant should propose a method or
methods that best meet the needs of its principals, teachers and
students in its high-need schools.
Proposed Absolute Priority
To meet this proposed absolute priority, an applicant must
demonstrate, in its application, that it will develop and implement a
PBCS that rewards, at differentiated levels, teachers and principals
who demonstrate their effectiveness by improving student achievement
(as defined in this notice) as part of the LEA's coherent and
integrated approach to strengthening the educator workforce.
In determining teacher and principal effectiveness as part of the
PBCS, the LEA--
(a) Must give significant weight to student growth (as defined in
this notice) based on objective data on student performance;
(b) Must include observation-based assessments of teacher
performance at multiple points in the year, carried out by evaluators
trained in using objective evidence-based rubrics for observation,
aligned with professional teaching standards; and, if applicable, as
part of the LEA's coherent and integrated approach to strengthening the
educator workforce; and
(c) May include other measures such as evidence of leadership roles
that increase the effectiveness of other teachers in the school or LEA.
In determining principal effectiveness as part of a PBCS, the LEA
must give significant weight to student growth and may include
supplemental measures such as high school graduation and college
enrollment rates.
In addition, the applicant must demonstrate that the differentiated
effectiveness incentive payments will provide incentive amounts that
are substantial and provide justification for the level of incentive
amounts chosen. While the Department does not propose a minimum
incentive amount, the Department encourages applicants to be thorough
in their explanation of why the selected incentive amounts are likely
high enough to create change in the behavior of current and prospective
teachers and principals.
Proposed Priority 2 (Absolute)--Fiscal Sustainability of the
Performance-Based Compensation System (PBCS)
Background
One of the most important steps that LEAs and States must take when
developing and implementing a PBCS is to accurately project program
costs and to plan for fiscal sustainability.\3\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ Guthrie, J.W., and Prince, C.D. (2008). Paying for and
Sustaining a Performance-based Compensation System. Washington, DC:
Center for Educator Compensation Reform. U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Accurate cost projections at the development stage of a PBCS are
critical, especially if an LEA or State plans to expand a PBCS from
just a few schools to all schools in the LEA or to all LEAs in the
State.\4\ Ample evidence suggests that States and LEAs frequently
underestimate both the overall costs of
[[Page 8858]]
PBCSs for teachers and principals and the number of teachers and
principals that will qualify for awards under the chosen PBCS.\5\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ Hassel, B. (2002, May). Better pay for better teaching:
Making teacher compensation pay off in the age of accountability.
Washington, DC: Progressive Policy Institute.
\5\ Odden, A., and Wallace, M. (2007, February). Rewarding
Teacher Excellence: A Teacher Compensation Handbook for State and
Local Policy Makers. Madison, WI: Wisconsin Center for Education
Research, University of Wisconsin-Madison.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Public Law 111-117 requires that applicants must ``include a plan
to sustain financially the activities conducted and systems developed
under the grant once the grant period has expired.'' This absolute
priority is intended to ensure that applicants effectively estimate the
future costs of the particular PBCS they plan to implement, and that
they are prepared to pay financial awards to everyone who earns them
under the system. In addition to the direct costs of performance-based
payments made as part of the PBCS that applicants should expect, there
can be extra costs associated with administering a PBCS. These costs
include both (1) employee benefits, such as premiums toward employee
retirement, State taxes, and Federal withholdings, and (2) the costs of
measuring employee effectiveness, such as costs associated with
developing measures of teacher effectiveness, effective teacher and
principal evaluation systems, incentives for career development, and
longitudinal data systems capable of linking individual educators with
student outcomes.
The Secretary seeks to promote the fiscal sustainability of
effective PBCSs by focusing applicants on the need to find additional
and alternative sources of funding in order to provide an increasing
share of matching funds (non-TIF funds) in those project years when
differentiated compensation is paid to teachers and principals. The
various strategies that States and LEAs might consider for securing
sustainable funding for their PBCSs include:
(a) Redeploying current State, LEA, or school resources, including
resources that currently contribute to salary increments based on the
accumulation of graduate credits and degrees.
(b) Redirecting expected future resources.
(c) Redirecting State and Federal categorical program assistance so
State or Federal program funds, where authorized, are used to assist in
paying for the expenses of the chosen PBCS.
(d) Seeking additional public funding.
(e) Seeking philanthropic or corporate support.
In this proposed priority, we are asking that applicants (1)
demonstrate that they have projected costs associated with the
development and implementation of the PBCS, and (2) provide evidence
that they will be able to sustain a financial commitment to their PBCS
through the commitment of funds other than those provided under the TIF
grant, during and beyond the life of the TIF project.
Proposed Absolute Priority
To meet this proposed absolute priority, the applicant must
provide, in its application, evidence that:
(a) The applicant has projected costs associated with the
development and implementation of the PBCS, during the project period
and beyond, and the LEA has accepted responsibilities to provide such
performance-based compensation to teachers and principals who earn them
under the system; and
(b) The applicant will provide from non-TIF funds over the course
of the five-year project period an increasing share of performance-
based compensation paid to teachers and principals in those project
years in which the LEA provides such payments as part of its PBCS.
Proposed Priority 3 (Absolute)--Programmatic Sustainability of the
Performance-Based Compensation System (PBCS)
Background
The Secretary seeks to focus applicants on the need to plan for the
programmatic sustainability of the chosen PBCS. Evidence suggests that
programmatic sustainability can best be accomplished when the PBCS is
aligned with the LEA's or State's strategies for increasing teachers'
and principals' effectiveness in high-need schools. Ideally, a PBCS
supports and reinforces a coherent and integrated approach to
strengthening the educator workforce, including teacher and principal
recruitment, induction, professional development, evaluation,
retention, and advancement into instructional leadership roles. When
the PBCS's implementation becomes embedded into the core of a LEA's
larger improvement strategy and operations, it will have a much greater
likelihood of financial sustainability over the long term.\6\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ Guthrie, J.W., & Prince, C.D. (2008). Paying for and
sustaining a performance-based compensation system. Washington, DC:
Center for Educator Compensation Reform. U.S. Department of
Education, Office of Elementary and Secondary Education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Thus, through this proposed priority, we are asking that applicants
demonstrate that the proposed PBCS is aligned with a coherent strategy
for strengthening the educator workforce in the LEA(s) participating in
the project.
Proposed Absolute Priority
To meet this proposed absolute priority, the applicant must
provide, in its application, evidence that the proposed PBCS is aligned
with a coherent and integrated strategy, including the use of data and
evaluations for professional development, retention and tenure
decisions, for continuing to strengthen the educator workforce in the
LEA(s) participating in the project after the end of the TIF project
period.
Proposed Priority 4 (Competitive Preference)--Use of Value-Added
Measures of Student Achievement
Background
The Secretary supports the use of ``value-added'' measures of
teacher and principal effectiveness for purposes of determining
differentiated levels of compensation in a PBCS. Value-added measures
seek to statistically isolate the contribution of teachers and
principals to growth in student achievement between two or more points
in time from other factors contributing to student achievement growth,
including prior student achievement and student and family
characteristics. Research indicates that value-added measures are a
promising means of assessing the contributions of a school, teacher, or
principal, while filtering out the non-school factors that may also
contribute to growth in student achievement.\7\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\7\ Goe, L. (May 2008). Key issue: Using value-added models to
identify and support highly effective teachers. National
Comprehensive Center for Teacher Quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Through this priority, the Secretary seeks to promote the use of
value-added measures in PBCSs for teachers and principals. Value-added
measures of educational performance can provide a useful, objective
measure of teacher and principal effectiveness. The use of a value-
added measure under this priority would need to be implemented
consistent with the requirements in Proposed Absolute Priority 1
(Differentiated Levels of Compensation for Effective Teachers and
Principals), which would require observation-based assessments of
teacher performance at least twice a year.
Given the complexity of models that use value-added measures, the
Secretary seeks to ensure that applicants have a plan for (1) ensuring
that they have the capacity to implement the value-added model
effectively (e.g., that they have appropriate data systems and measures
[[Page 8859]]
to ensure data quality), and (2) clearly explaining the chosen value-
added model to teachers to enable them to use the data generated
through the models to improve classroom practices.
Proposed Competitive Preference Priority
To meet this proposed competitive preference priority, the
applicant must demonstrate, in its application, that the proposed PBCS
for teachers and principals will use a value-added measure of the
impact on student growth as a significant factor in calculating
differentiated levels of compensation provided to teachers and
principals.
Under this proposed priority, the applicant must also demonstrate
that it has a plan to ensure that, as part of the PBCS, it has the
capacity to (1) implement the proposed value-added model (e.g., through
robust data systems that collect the necessary data and ensure data
quality), and (2) educate teachers and principals on the chosen value-
added model and how it would be implemented.
Proposed Priority 5 (Competitive Preference)--Increased Recruitment and
Retention of Teachers in Hard-to-Staff Subjects and Specialty Areas in
High-Need Schools
Background
This proposed competitive preference priority is intended to ensure
that LEAs focus on recruiting and retaining effective teachers of hard-
to-staff subjects and specialty areas in high-need schools. High-need
schools are likely to have a higher proportion of vacancies, novice
teachers, out-of-field teachers, and ineffective teachers than other
schools in the LEA or State educational agency.\8\ In many LEAs,
recruiting and retaining effective secondary mathematics and science
teachers and teachers with the knowledge and skills to effectively
accelerate the learning of English language learners and students with
disabilities is particularly challenging. Providing incentives to hire
and retain teachers who are effective, or likely to be effective, in
teaching hard-to-staff subjects and specialty areas in high-need
schools can be a valuable tool for ensuring that students in those
schools are taught by effective teachers.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\8\ Imazeki, J. and Goe, L. (2009). The Distribution of Highly
Qualified, Experienced Teachers: Challenges and Opportunities.
Washington, DC: National Comprehensive Center on Teacher Quality.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The availability of such incentives should be communicated broadly
to current teachers in the LEA, as well as to potential recruits, to
increase the likelihood that effective teachers within the LEA, as well
as new teachers with relevant backgrounds, will apply for hard-to-staff
subjects and specialty areas in high-need schools.
Proposed Competitive Preference Priority
To meet this proposed competitive preference priority, the
applicant must demonstrate in its application that its proposed PBCS is
designed to assist high-need schools to (1) Serve high-need students
(as defined in this notice), (2) retain effective teachers in teaching
positions in hard-to-staff subjects and specialty areas, such as
mathematics, science, special education, and English language
acquisition, and (3) fill vacancies with teachers of those subjects or
specialty areas who are effective or likely to be effective. Applicants
would be required to provide an explanation for how they will determine
a teacher filling a vacancy is effective or likely to be effective. In
addition, applicants would be required to demonstrate, in their
applications, the extent to which the subject areas or specialty areas
they propose to target are hard-to-staff. Lastly, applicants would need
to demonstrate, in their applications, that they will implement a
process for effectively communicating to teachers which of the LEA's
schools are high-need and which subjects and specialty areas are
considered hard-to-staff.
Requirements
The following sections provide requirements for both the Main TIF
and Evaluation TIF competitions.
Proposed Requirements for the Main TIF Competition
Background
In order to promote successful projects that meet the objectives
Congress has established for the TIF program, the Secretary proposes to
establish the following requirements for the Main TIF competition:
(a) A requirement that an applicant may submit an application for
the Main TIF competition or the Evaluation competition. Applicants not
funded under the Evaluation competition are automatically eligible
under the Main TIF competition, and thus need not apply to both.
(b) A requirement that each applicant describe in its application
how its proposed PBCS will provide educators with incentives to take on
additional responsibilities and leadership roles, as defined in this
notice.
(c) A requirement that every applicant have five core elements (as
described below) of its PBCS in place or it must implement a planning
period.
(d) A requirement that the proposed PBCS provide participating
teachers and principals high quality professional development which is
targeted to needs identified through the evaluation process and shown
to be effective.
(e) A requirement that the applicant document that all
participating schools are high-need schools.
(f) A requirement that limits eligibility for both competitions to
applicants that propose to serve schools not already served (or to be
served) by current TIF grants.
The following describes the Department's rationale for proposing
these requirements:
Selection of Competition. To ensure that there is a sufficient
sample for the national evaluation, we propose to select applicants
from the Evaluation competition before selecting applicants from the
Main TIF competition. In order to not disadvantage the Evaluation
competition applicants, we further propose that any Evaluation
competition applicants not funded in the Evaluation competition would
be automatically eligible for the Main TIF competition.
Application Requirement. Public Law 111-8 requires that any PBCS
funded under the TIF program provide educators with incentives to take
on additional responsibilities and leadership roles.
The Secretary views this requirement as a critical component for
successful PBCSs and wants to ensure that each applicant has a plan in
place that details how its proposed PBCS will provide these incentives.
Core Elements of a PBCS and a Potential Planning Period. The
Secretary has identified five core elements that he believes are
essential to the success of any effective PBCS. We, therefore, propose
to require each TIF grantee to have:
(a) A plan for effectively communicating to teachers,
administrators, other school personnel, and the community at-large
about the components of the PBCS.
(b) The involvement and support of teachers, principals, and other
certified personnel (including input from teachers and principals in
the schools and LEAs to be served by the grant) and the involvement and
support of unions in participating LEAs where they are the designated
exclusive representatives for the purpose of collective bargaining that
is needed to carry out the grant.
[[Page 8860]]
(c) Rigorous, transparent, and fair evaluation systems for teachers
and principals that differentiate effectiveness using multiple rating
categories that take into account student achievement growth as a
significant factor, as well as classroom observations conducted at
least twice during the school year. The classroom observation process
must: (1) Use an objective, evidence-based rubric aligned with
professional teaching standards and the LEA'S coherent and integrated
approach to strengthening the educator workforce; (2) provide for
observations of each teacher or principal multiple times during the
school year by individuals (who may include peer reviewers), who are
provided specialized training; (3) incorporate the collection and
evaluation of additional forms of evidence; and (4) ensure a high
degree of inter-rater reliability (i.e., agreement among two or more
raters who score approximately the same) across the evaluators.
(d) A data-management system, consistent with the LEA's proposed
PBCS, that can link student achievement data to teacher and principal
payroll and human resources systems.
(e) A plan for ensuring that teachers and principals understand the
specific measures of teacher and principal effectiveness included in
the PBCS, and receive professional development that enables them to use
data generated by these measures to improve their practice.
The Secretary recognizes that not every applicant will be able to
demonstrate in its application that it has in place all five core
elements necessary to ensure effective implementation of its PBCS.
Based on the Department's experience with current TIF grantees,
however, we believe that having these required core elements in place
before beginning to build a PBCS leads to a much more efficient and
successful implementation of that system. Therefore, the Secretary
proposes to require any applicant that cannot demonstrate in its
application that it has in place each of these five core elements to
agree, as part of its application, to implement a planning period of up
to one year, during which it would use its TIF funds to develop the
core element or elements it lacks. Because of the importance of the
core elements, a grantee would be prohibited from using TIF program
funds to provide incentive payments to teachers or principals until the
Secretary is satisfied that it has implemented all five elements (as
demonstrated in the grantee's reports to the Department during the
project period).
Professional Development. The Secretary believes that high-quality
professional development, tied to the evaluation systems described
above, is a key component of any successful and enduring PBCS for
teachers and principals. Among other things, professional development
enables all teachers and principals in high-need schools to learn how
to generate, examine, and use student growth data to improve their
practices in the classroom and in their schools, and thereby raise
student achievement. For this reason, the Secretary proposes to require
each applicant to demonstrate, in its application, that it has a system
in place, or a specific plan for developing one, to (1) provide high-
quality professional development that is aligned with the PBCS for
teachers and principals consistent with the definition of the term
professional development in section 9101(34) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA) and targeted to
needs identified in the evaluation process; and (2) regularly assess
the effectiveness of this professional development in improving teacher
practice and student achievement and make modifications necessary to
improve its effectiveness.
High-Need Schools Documentation. Consistent with the requirement
that all schools served through the TIF program be ``high-need,'' the
Secretary proposes to require that each applicant demonstrate, in its
application, that it will implement the proposed PBCS in high-need
schools (as defined in this notice). The Secretary proposes this
requirement to enable the Department to ensure that all applicants are
eligible to receive funding under this program. This requirement would
specify that applicants must identify the schools in which the PBCS
would be implemented, and provide school-level data that demonstrate
that each school to be served is a high-need school. We would require
school-level data as opposed to LEA or State-level data because the TIF
authorizing statute requires poverty data be identified at the school
level.
Additional Eligibility Requirement. Finally, the Secretary proposes
to limit eligibility for the Main TIF competition and the Evaluation
competition to applicants that are serving schools not already served
(or to be served) by current TIF grants. We propose to establish this
eligibility requirement (1) in order to expand the number of LEAs and
schools that are able to take advantage of PBCSs funded under the TIF
program; and (2) because we believe that the projects currently funded
under the TIF program should successfully complete the activities
described in their approved application before seeking additional TIF
funds to enhance their current projects in schools already served.
Nothing in this proposed eligibility requirement would preclude current
TIF grantees from applying for a new award to expand their TIF-
supported PBCS into other high-need schools in the participating LEA.
Proposed Requirements for Main TIF Competition
For the reasons outlined in the preceding Background section, the
Secretary proposes the following requirements for the Main TIF
competition.
Selection of Competition. An applicant may submit an application
for either the Main TIF competition or the Evaluation competition. Each
applicant must identify in its application the competition for which it
is applying. The Evaluation competition will be funded prior to the
Main TIF competition. Any Evaluation applicants not funded in the
Evaluation competition will be automatically eligible for the Main TIF
competition.
Application Requirement. Each applicant must describe in its
application how its proposed PBCS will provide educators with
incentives to take on additional responsibilities and leadership roles,
as defined in this notice.
Core Elements of a PBCS and a Potential Planning Period. Each
applicant must either--
(a) Demonstrate in its application that it has in place each of the
following five core elements; or
(b) If the applicant cannot demonstrate in its application that it
has in place each of these five core elements--
(1) Agree, as part of its application, to implement a planning
period of up to one year, during which it will use its TIF funds to
develop the core element or elements it lacks; and
(2) Include a plan for how it will implement the core element or
elements it lacks during the planning period.
Core Elements.
(a) A plan for effectively communicating to teachers,
administrators, other school personnel, and the community at-large the
components of the PBCS;
(b) The involvement and support of teachers, principals, and other
certified personnel (including input from teachers and principals in
the schools and LEAs to be served by the grant) and the involvement and
support of unions in participating LEAs where they are the
[[Page 8861]]
designated exclusive representatives for the purpose of collective
bargaining that is needed to carry out the grant;
(c) Rigorous, transparent, and fair evaluation systems for teachers
and principals that differentiate effectiveness using multiple rating
categories that take into account student achievement growth as a
significant factor, as well as classroom observations conducted at
least twice during the school year. The evaluation process must: (1)
Use an objective, evidence-based rubric aligned with professional
teaching standards and the LEA's coherent and integrated approach to
strengthening the educator workforce; (2) provide for observations of
each teacher or principal multiple times during the school year by
individuals (who may include peer reviewers), who are provided
specialized training; (3) incorporate the collection and evaluation of
additional forms of evidence; and (4) ensure a high degree of inter-
rater reliability (i.e., agreement among two or more raters who score
approximately the same);
(d) A data-management system that can link student achievement data
to teacher and principal payroll and human resources systems; and
(e) A plan for ensuring that teachers and principals understand the
specific measures of teacher and principal effectiveness included in
the PBCS, and receive professional development that enables them to use
data generated by these measures to improve their practice.
Planning Period Requirements. Each grantee that implements a
planning period to develop the core element or elements it lacks, would
be--
(a) Required to demonstrate in its annual performance report or
other interim performance report that it has implemented any of the
five core elements it had lacked; and
(b) Prohibited from using TIF program funds to provide incentive
payments to teachers or principals until it has implemented a PBCS
that, to the Secretary's satisfaction, has all five core elements.
Professional Development. Each applicant must demonstrate, in its
application, that its proposed PBCS will include a high-quality
professional development component for teachers and principals
consistent with the definition of the term professional development in
section 9101(34) of the ESEA.
The applicant must demonstrate that its PBCS has a professional
development component in place, or a specific plan for developing one
that is directly linked to the specific measures of teacher and
principal effectiveness included in the PBCS. The professional
development component of the PBCS must--
(1) Be based on needs assessed either at the high-need schools
participating in the applicant's proposed PBCS or LEA-wide;
(2) Be targeted to individual teachers' and principals' needs as
identified in the evaluation process;
(3) Provide--
(a) Those teachers and principals who do not receive differentiated
compensation based on effectiveness under the PBCS with the tools and
skills they need to improve their effectiveness in the classroom or
school and be able to raise student achievement; and
(b) Those teachers and principals who are deemed to be effective
and who, therefore, receive differentiated compensation under the PBCS,
with the tools and skills they need to (1) continue effective practices
in the classroom or school and raise student achievement, and (2)
successfully assume additional responsibilities and leadership roles;
and
(4) Include helping teachers and principals to better understand
and use the measures of effectiveness in the PBCS to improve practice
and student achievement.
(5) Include a process for regularly assessing the effectiveness of
this professional development in improving teacher practice and student
achievement and making modifications necessary to improve its
effectiveness.
High-Need Schools Documentation. Each applicant must demonstrate,
in its application, that the schools to be served by the proposed PBCS
are high-need schools, as defined in this notice. Each applicant must
provide, in its application, a list of schools in which the proposed
PBCS will be implemented as well as the most current data on the
percentage of each identified school's students who are eligible for
free or reduced-price lunch subsidies under the Richard B. Russell
National School Lunch Act, or other poverty measures that the LEA uses
(see section 1113(a)(5) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. 6313(a)(5))). Data
provided to demonstrate eligibility as a high-need school must be
school-level data; the Department will not accept LEA- or State-level
data for purposes of documenting whether a school is a high-need
school.
Additional Eligibility Requirement. An applicant must demonstrate,
in its application, that it will implement the proposed PBCS only in
schools that are not being served (or are not to be served) by current
TIF grants.
Proposed Requirements for the TIF Evaluation Competition
Background
The ARRA requires the Department's Institute of Education Sciences
(IES) to conduct a rigorous national evaluation, utilizing randomized
controlled methodology to the extent feasible, to assess the impact
that PBCSs for teachers and principals that are supported by program
funds have on teacher and principal recruitment and retention in high-
need schools and subjects. IES intends to implement this requirement,
as well as to conduct related research on important issues that concern
the effect of PBCSs on increased student achievement, by conducting a
national random-assignment impact evaluation of TIF grantees (the
Evaluation) that will provide researchers, policy-makers, school
administrators, and teachers with important information about the
teacher and principal differentiated effectiveness incentives component
of the PBCS. Moreover, to meet its statutory responsibility to conduct
this evaluation, the Department needs to be able to ensure it is able
to assess the impact of differentiated effectiveness incentives
component PBCSs using a sufficient number of high-need schools in
comparison to high-need schools in which differentiated effectiveness
incentives component PCBSs are not being implemented.
In order to select both appropriate grantees (consistent with the
objectives of the evaluation) and a sufficient number of participating
LEAs and schools for the evaluation, the Department proposes to hold a
separate competition under the TIF program--the TIF Evaluation
competition--and to select applicants for an award under the Evaluation
competition prior to selecting any applicants for an award under the
Main competition. Under the TIF Evaluation competition, applicants must
address all of the requirements and absolute priorities in the Main TIF
competition, as well as additional requirements that are specific to
the TIF Evaluation competition. The following describes the Evaluation
that IES would conduct as well as the competition the Secretary would
hold to select participants in the Evaluation.
Description of the Evaluation
Through the Evaluation, IES would study a select group of PBCSs
implemented in one or more LEAs, in which the PBCS--
(a) Determines the amount of teacher incentives for differentiated
[[Page 8862]]
effectiveness using one of the following two models:
(1) An individual-based incentive pay model, defined as a PBCS that
uses individual performance criteria for determining differentiated
effectiveness incentive payments.
(2) A mixed-group incentive model, defined as a PBCS that
determines differentiated effectiveness incentive payments using
performance criteria to evaluate a group, such as a grade-level team of
teachers or an entire school group, or using a mixture of individual
and group performance criteria;
(b) Determines the amount of principal differentiated effectiveness
incentive payments using any incentive model determined appropriate by
the applicant and proposed in the applicant's application; and
(c) Requires an LEA to make substantial and differentiated
effectiveness incentive payments at the following levels--
(1) For differentiated effectiveness incentive payments provided to
principals, (i) the average principal payout (defined as the total
amount of principal payments divided by the total number of principals
in the schools participating in the differentiated effectiveness
incentive payment component of the PBCS) is substantial (e.g., 5% of
the average principal salary), (ii) the criteria for determining
whether a principal is eligible for payment are challenging (e.g.,
payments are only made to those who perform significantly better than
the current average performance among study schools within the
district), and (iii) there is an expectation of meaningful differences
in resulting principal pay (e.g., at least some principals could
reasonably expect to receive an incentive payment of three times the
average principal payout) and the applicant's documentation of cost
projections is consistent with this expectation; and
(2) For differentiated effectiveness incentive payments provided to
teachers, (i) The average teacher payout (defined as the total amount
of teacher payments divided by the total number of teachers in the
schools participating in the differentiated effectiveness incentive
payment component of the PBCS) is substantial (e.g., 5% of the average
teacher salary), (ii) the criteria for determining whether a teacher is
eligible for payment are challenging (e.g., payments are only made to
those who perform significantly better than the current average
performance among study schools within the district), and (iii) there
is an expectation of meaningful differences in resulting teacher pay
(e.g., at least some teachers could reasonably expect to receive an
incentive payment of three times the average teacher payout) and the
applicant's documentation of cost projections is consistent with this
expectation.
The Department intends to assess the performance component of a
PBCS described in paragraph (c) in relation to a comparison group. This
notice describes two possible options for a comparison group. A
decision about whether to use either of these comparison designs, or a
different approach, will be made after review of public comment on this
notice. Accordingly, we specifically request comment on these proposed
designs as well as alternatives.
The two comparison designs are as follows:
(a) Comparison design 1: The differentiated effectiveness incentive
component of the PBCS would be compared to a PBCS with no
differentiated effectiveness incentive component. Thus, under this
design, all non-performance pay components of the PBCS (e.g., the
professional development component, incentives for leadership roles
component, and incentives for taking on additional responsibilities)
would be implemented in all schools participating in the evaluation and
the performance pay component of the PBCS would be implemented only in
those schools designated by the evaluation contractor;
(b) Comparison design 2: The differentiated effectiveness incentive
component of the PBCS would be compared to a PBCS with an across-the-
board salary increase of an amount equivalent to the expected average
payout in the differentiated effectiveness incentive payment (e.g., if
the expected average teacher payout is 5% of the average teacher
salary, then one-half of the schools participating in the evaluation,
as designated by the evaluation contractor, would implement the
applicant's proposed performance component of the PBCS while the other
half of the schools participating in the evaluation would implement an
across-the-board salary increase equivalent to the proposed applicant's
expected average payout, 5% in this example).
In evaluating the selected PBCSs, the Evaluation would address the
following research questions:
(a) Under comparison design 1: What is the effect on student
achievement of an LEA's PBCS that includes a performance component of a
PBCS that includes differentiated pay and in which the incentive has a
substantive average payout (e.g., 5% of the average teacher salary for
teachers)? What is the effect of such a PBCS component on the
composition and effectiveness of teachers and principals eligible for
the incentive payments? What is the effect on recruitment and retention
of eligible teachers and principals?
(b) Under comparison design 2: What is the effect on student
achievement of a performance based increase in wages compared to an
across-the-board increase in teacher and principal salary in which the
expected payouts are equivalent? Are there differences in the
composition and effectiveness of teachers and principals between these
two methods of increasing wages? Are there any differential effects on
recruitment and retention of teachers and principals?
(c) What is the relationship between the effect on student
achievement of individual-based and mixed-group incentive pay models
(i.e., is the differentiated effectiveness incentive of an individual-
based incentive pay model more likely to be associated with an effect
on student achievement)?
(d) What features of PBCSs (e.g., relative emphasis on student
achievement or teacher/principal observations incentives based on
absolute versus relative standards; and the extent of staff
eligibility) are associated with improved teacher and principal
effectiveness and student achievement?
(e) What are the implementation challenges associated with PBCSs,
and what strategies do grantees use to overcome them?
TIF Evaluation Competition
Grantees funded under the TIF Evaluation competition would be
awarded at least an additional $1 million over the 5-year grant period
(above the amount of funding awarded to them to implement the PBCS
proposed in its application) to help pay for any additional costs of
implementing activities associated with their TIF project. These costs
might include those associated with developing value-added measures of
student achievement, and professional development and expenses related
to release time for teachers to attend professional development that is
designed to support or complement the PBCS, and available to staff
working on the grant or district-wide. In addition, while under the
Main TIF competition the Department would continue its practice of
permitting TIF funding to be used to pay the salary of only one Master,
Mentor, or Lead Teacher or academic coach per school, recipients of
awards under the Evaluation competition would be permitted to use
[[Page 8863]]
the additional $1 million for salaries of other academic coaches such
as math and reading coaches, and of other Master, Mentor, or Lead
Teachers. Finally, TIF Evaluation grantees could also use the
additional $1 million award to pay for costs of securing data,
including data linked to student achievement, needed by the evaluation
contractor.
In order to be eligible to receive this additional funding,
applicants seeking awards under the TIF Evaluation competition must
agree to certain additional requirements. The following describes the
Department's rationale for proposing these additional requirements for
applicants under the TIF Evaluation competition:
Budget Information. The Secretary proposes to require each
applicant under the TIF Evaluation competition to include the
additional $1 million funds available in its proposed budget
accompanying the application for funding, and indicate the activities
it plans to implement using these additional funds. This application
requirement would assist the Department in conducting the necessary
budget analysis before grant funding is awarded and ensure the
Department has adequate budget information to fiscally manage the grant
throughout the five-year project period.
Two Incentive Models for Determining Teacher Incentive Payments.
Each TIF Evaluation competition grantee would be required to implement,
in at least one LEA, a PBCS that determines teacher differentiated
effectiveness incentive payments using either an individual-based
incentive pay model or a mixed-group incentive pay model.
The two proposed models would allow the Evaluation to separately
test two prominent models of incentive pay and allow for analyses that
will provide information about core aspects of differentiated
effectiveness incentive pay to inform policy. An individual-based
incentive pay model, which we would define as a PBCS that uses
individual performance criteria for determining incentive payments,
would provide the most direct incentive to teachers to improve their
own effectiveness, and thus the student achievement of the students
they teach. Under this model, the amount of a teacher's incentive
payment would be directly linked to the teacher's individual
performance, as measured against the criteria established for the PBCS.
One possible downside of using an individual-based incentive model is
that, given its focus on the individual, it may undermine collaboration
among teachers.
A mixed-group incentive pay model, which we would define as a PBCS
that determines differentiated effectiveness incentive payments using
performance criteria to evaluate a group, such as a grade-level team of
teachers or an entire school group, or using a mixture of individual
and group performance criteria, acknowledges the importance of
collaboration but may weaken the incentive for individual teachers to
perform better, because the performance criteria are, at least in part,
based on the performance of others. The use of individual teacher
performance criteria in addition to group performance criteria in a
mixed-group incentive pay model allows the grantee to use individual
performance criteria, which could lead to individual teacher
differentiated effectiveness incentive payments that differ by
individuals within the group. (If the PBCS only used group performance
criteria, then teachers within a group meeting the group performance
criteria all receive the same incentive payments. If, on the other
hand, the PBCS uses a mix of group and individual performance criteria,
then incentive payments for individual teachers within the group can
differ from teacher to teacher.)
Including in the Evaluation some LEAs with PBCSs that use an
individual-based incentive pay model and some LEAs with PBCSs that use
a mixed-group incentive pay model to determine teacher differentiated
effectiveness incentive payments would allow IES to analyze separately
each model. It also would allow the Evaluation to focus on the
relationship between various PBCS features (e.g., relative emphasis on
student achievement or teacher/principal observations as a performance
criterion; incentives based on absolute vers