School Improvement Grants; American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA); Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as Amended (ESEA), 66363-66371 [2010-27313]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 75, Number 208 (Thursday, October 28, 2010)]
[Notices]
[Pages 66363-66371]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2010-27313]


=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Docket ID ED-2009-OESE-0010]
RIN 1810-AB06


School Improvement Grants; American Recovery and Reinvestment Act 
of 2009 (ARRA); Title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act 
of 1965, as Amended (ESEA)

ACTION: Final requirements for School Improvement Grants authorized 
under section 1003(g) of Title I of the ESEA.

-----------------------------------------------------------------------

SUMMARY: The U.S. Secretary of Education (Secretary) is adopting as 
final, without changes, interim final requirements for the School 
Improvement Grants (SIG) program authorized under section 1003(g) of 
Title I of the ESEA. These final requirements are needed to incorporate 
new authority included in the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 
(Pub. L. 111-117) applicable to fiscal year (FY) 2010 SIG funds and FY 
2009 ARRA SIG funds. Specifically, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 
2010 expanded the group of schools that are eligible to receive SIG 
funds. In addition, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 raised 
the maximum amount of SIG funds that a State educational agency (SEA) 
may award to a local educational agency (LEA) for each participating 
school from $500,000 to $2,000,000. These final requirements amend the 
final requirements for the SIG program that were published on December 
10, 2009.

DATES: These requirements are effective November 29, 2010.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Patricia McKee. Telephone: 202-260-
0826 or by e-mail: Patricia.McKee@ed.gov.
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the 
Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.
    Individuals with disabilities can obtain this document in an 
accessible format (e.g., braille, large print, audiotape, or computer 
diskette) on request to the contact person listed under FOR FURTHER 
INFORMATION CONTACT.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The Secretary published final requirements 
for the SIG program in the Federal Register on December 10, 2009 (74 FR 
65618). Subsequently, on December 16, 2009, the President signed into 
law the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010, which contained FY 2010 
appropriations for the Department, and which also included two 
provisions applicable to the use of both FY 2010 SIG funds and FY 2009 
ARRA SIG funds. First, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 
expanded eligibility for participation in the SIG program by permitting 
an SEA to award SIG funds for, and for an LEA to use those funds to 
serve, any school that is eligible to receive assistance under Title I, 
Part A and that: (1) Has not made adequate yearly progress (AYP) for at 
least two years; or (2) is in the State's lowest quintile of 
performance based on proficiency rates. With respect to secondary 
schools, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 gave priority to 
high schools with graduation rates

[[Page 66364]]

below 60 percent. Second, the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2010 
raised the maximum subgrant size for a participating school from 
$500,000 to $2,000,000.\1\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ These two provisions apply only to FY 2009 ARRA SIG funds 
and FY 2010 SIG funds; they do not apply to SIG funds made available 
through the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 2009 (i.e., the regular 
FY 2009 SIG funds). Therefore, prior to October 1, 2010, regular FY 
2009 SIG funds may not be spent pursuant to the flexibility in these 
provisions. Regular FY 2009 SIG funds, however, become subject to 
the requirements applicable to FY 2010 SIG funds on October 1, 2010 
when they become carryover funds. See section 421(b)(2)(A) of the 
General Education Provisions Act (20 U.S.C. 1225(b)(2)(A)). 
Accordingly, in order to ensure compliance with the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2010, we will consider LEAs' obligations of SIG 
funds in the State as a whole prior to October 1, 2010 to come from 
the State's allocation of FY 2009 ARRA SIG funds, which we believe 
in every State will be more than sufficient to cover those 
obligations. Beginning October 1, 2010, LEAs may use all SIG funds, 
including regular FY 2009 SIG funds, pursuant to the flexibility in 
these provisions, consistent with the final requirements as amended.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    On January 21, 2010, the Secretary published interim final 
requirements for the SIG program in the Federal Register (75 FR 3375) 
to incorporate this new authority into the SIG final requirements that 
were published on December 10, 2009. The interim final requirements 
became effective February 8, 2010; however, at the time the interim 
final requirements were published, the Secretary invited public 
comment. During the public comment period, we received only one comment 
on the interim final requirements. That comment expressed general 
disagreement with the SIG final requirements published on December 10, 
2009 but did not address the changes to those requirements made by the 
interim final requirements.
    Absent any public comments addressing the changes to the December 
10 SIG final requirements made in the January 21 interim final 
requirements, the Secretary has determined that no substantive changes 
to the interim final requirements are necessary; hence, with the 
exception of two technical changes described herein, there are no 
differences between the interim final requirements and these final 
requirements.
    For the reasons explained in the preamble to the interim final 
requirements (75 FR 3375, 3376-80), the Secretary adopts as final the 
interim final requirements as follows:
    1. Section I.A.1--defining ``greatest need'': The Secretary amends 
the definitions of Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III schools to incorporate 
the expanded eligibility provided for in the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2010. The final requirements do not change the 
definition of ``persistently lowest-achieving schools'' as that 
definition is used to define Tier I and Tier II schools but permit an 
SEA, at its option, to identify additional schools in each tier.
    With respect to Tier I, in addition to the Title I schools in 
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that an SEA identifies 
as persistently lowest-achieving schools, the SEA may identify any 
elementary school that (1) is eligible to receive Title I, Part A funds 
(including schools that receive Title I, Part A funds and those that do 
not); (2) either has not made AYP for at least two consecutive years or 
is in the State's lowest quintile of performance based on proficiency 
rates on the State's assessments under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA 
in reading/language arts and mathematics combined; and (3) is no higher 
achieving on the State's assessments combined than the highest-
achieving Tier I school that the SEA has identified under paragraph 
(a)(1)(i) of the definition of ``persistently lowest-achieving 
schools.'' These newly eligible schools may be Title I schools that are 
not identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring or 
schools eligible for, but not receiving, Title I, Part A funds, 
provided they meet the criteria in section I.A.1(a)(ii) of these final 
requirements.
    With respect to Tier II, in addition to the secondary schools that 
are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I, Part A funds that an SEA 
identifies as persistently lowest-achieving schools, the SEA may 
identify any secondary school that (1) is eligible to receive Title I, 
Part A funds (including schools that receive Title I, Part A funds and 
those that do not); (2) either has not made AYP for at least two 
consecutive years or is in the State's lowest quintile of performance 
based on proficiency rates on the State's assessments under section 
1111(b)(3) of the ESEA in reading/language arts and mathematics 
combined; and (3) either is no higher achieving on the State's 
assessments combined than the highest-achieving Tier II school that the 
SEA has identified under paragraph (a)(2)(i) of the definition of 
``persistently lowest-achieving schools'' or is a high school that has 
had a graduation rate that is less than 60 percent over a number of 
years. Tier II secondary schools that an SEA has identified as 
persistently lowest-achieving schools--i.e., secondary schools that are 
eligible for, but do not receive, Title I, Part A funds--are eligible 
without the need for an SEA or LEA to obtain a waiver of section 
1003(g)'s limitation on serving only Title I schools in improvement, 
corrective action, or restructuring. Tier II also may now include Title 
I secondary schools that are or are not in improvement, corrective 
action, or restructuring if those schools meet the criteria in section 
I.A.1(b)(ii) of these final requirements and are not already captured 
in Tier I.
    With respect to Tier III, in addition to any Title I school in 
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that is not a Tier I 
or Tier II school, an SEA may identify any school that (1) is eligible 
for Title I, Part A funds (including schools that receive Title I, Part 
A funds and those that do not); (2) has not made AYP for at least two 
years or is in the State's lowest quintile of performance based on 
proficiency rates on the State's assessments under section 1111(b)(3) 
of the ESEA in reading/language arts and mathematics combined; and (3) 
does not meet the requirements to be a Tier I or Tier II school. Thus, 
a Tier III school may be a Title I school in improvement, corrective 
action, or restructuring, a school that receives Title I, Part A funds 
that is not in improvement, or a school that is eligible for, but does 
not receive, Title I, Part A funds, provided the school meets one of 
the two criteria in section I.A.1(c)(ii)(A) of these final 
requirements.
    The Secretary makes a technical change in section I.A.1(c)(i) that 
was not in the interim final requirements to make clear that a Tier III 
school may be a Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or 
restructuring that is not a Tier I or a Tier II school. The addition of 
the phrase ``or a Tier II'' school in this section is necessary because 
a Title I secondary school in improvement, corrective action, or 
restructuring could be a newly eligible Tier II school at an SEA's 
option and, therefore, could not be a Tier III school.
    2. Section I.A.4--evidence of strongest commitment: The Secretary 
amends section I.A.4 to refer to Tier I and Tier II schools rather than 
persistently lowest-achieving schools to reflect the possibility that 
an SEA has added newly eligible schools to Tier I and Tier II.
    3. Sections I.B.2 and I.B.3--waivers for Tier I and Tier II Title I 
participating schools: The Secretary amends section I.B.2 to clarify 
that an SEA may seek a waiver of the school improvement timeline in 
section 1116(b) with respect to a Tier I or Tier II Title I 
participating school that implements a turnaround or restart model. The 
Secretary also amends section I.B.3 to clarify that an SEA may seek a 
waiver of the schoolwide program poverty threshold in section 1114(a) 
with respect to a Tier I or Tier II Title I participating school

[[Page 66365]]

below that threshold in order that the school may implement one of the 
school intervention models through a schoolwide program.
    4. Section I.B.4--waiver to serve non-Title I secondary schools: 
The Secretary removes section I.B.4, which permitted an SEA to seek a 
waiver to enable an LEA to use SIG funds to serve secondary schools 
that are eligible for, but do not receive, Title I, Part A funds, 
because it is no longer needed.
    5. New section I.B.4 (formerly section I.B.5)--extending the period 
of availability: In new section I.B.4, which permits an SEA to seek a 
waiver to extend the period of availability of SIG funds, the Secretary 
makes a technical change that was not in the interim final requirements 
to remove the phrase ``beyond September 30, 2011''. That phrase applied 
to FY 2009 SIG funds but is not applicable to FY 2010 SIG funds, which 
are available through September 30, 2012 without a waiver of the period 
of availability. We are removing the phrase to ensure there is no 
confusion about the period of availability of FY 2010 SIG funds. Thus, 
an SEA requesting a waiver to extend the period of availability for its 
FY 2010 SIG funds under this provision would be requesting a waiver for 
extension beyond September 30, 2012.
    6. Section II.A.1--LEA eligibility: The Secretary amends section 
II.A.1 to make clear that an LEA may apply for a SIG grant if the LEA 
receives Title I, Part A funds and has one or more schools that qualify 
under the State's definition of a Tier I, Tier II, or Tier III school.
    7. Sections II.A.4 and II.A.5--LEA's budget: The Secretary removes 
language that is no longer necessary from sections II.A.4 and II.A.5 
regarding an LEA's budget because the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 
2010 raised the maximum amount for each participating school from 
$500,000 to $2,000,000. Thus, an LEA's budget can reflect more 
accurately the actual amount needed to implement one of the four school 
intervention models in each Tier I and Tier II school the LEA commits 
to serve, and the LEA can budget more accurately for its Tier III 
schools without concern that they generate funds for the LEA's Tier I 
and Tier II schools.
    8. Section II.A.6--SIG funds are supplemental: The Secretary adds 
section II.A.6, which requires an LEA that commits to serve one or more 
Tier I, Tier II, or Tier III schools that do not receive Title I, Part 
A funds to ensure that each of those schools receives all of the State 
and local funds it would have received in the absence of the SIG funds.
    9. Sections II.B.4 and II.B.7 (formerly II.B.8)--priority for 
funding Tier I and Tier II schools: The Secretary amends sections 
II.B.4 and II.B.7 (as well as various other sections--e.g., sections 
II.A.1, II.A.3) to give equal status to Tier I and Tier II schools. 
Accordingly, sections II.B.4 and II.B.7 make clear that an LEA that 
applies to serve either Tier I or Tier II schools receives priority 
before an LEA that applies to serve only Tier III schools. Moreover, as 
section II.B.7 makes clear, an SEA must award SIG funds to each LEA to 
serve the Tier I and Tier II schools that the SEA has approved the LEA 
to serve before awarding any funds to an LEA to serve a Tier III 
school. In other words, an SEA must ensure that all Tier I and Tier II 
schools are funded before it funds the Tier III schools identified in 
its LEAs' applications.
    10. Section II.B.5--size of LEA grant awards: The Secretary amends 
section II.B.5 to clarify that the Consolidated Appropriations Act, 
2010 raised the maximum amount an LEA may receive per year for each 
Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III school the LEA commits to serve from 
$500,000 to $2,000,000.
    11. Section II.B.6--allocating SIG funds to LEAs: The Secretary 
removes section II.B.6, which governed the allocation of SIG funds to 
LEAs, because it is no longer needed after the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2010 extended the maximum amount an LEA may receive 
for each school to $2,000,000.
    12. Section II.B.9 (formerly II.B.10)--2010 SIG appropriations: The 
Secretary removes the phrase ``(depending on the availability of 
appropriations)'' in section II.B.9(a) and (b) because the Consolidated 
Appropriations Act, 2010 appropriated SIG funds for FY 2010.
    13. Section II.C--renewal for additional one-year periods: These 
final requirements amend section II.C.1(a) to require Tier III schools 
that receive SIG funds to meet ``goals established by the LEA and 
approved by the SEA.''

Final Requirements

    The Secretary adopts as final the interim final requirements (with 
the technical changes described herein) published in the Federal 
Register on January 21, 2010 (75 FR 3375). For the ease of the user of 
the final requirements, the Secretary has incorporated the changes made 
by these final requirements into the December 10, 2009 final 
requirements as published at 74 FR 65618 and is publishing a combined 
set of SIG final requirements as follows:

I. SEA Priorities in Awarding School Improvement Grants

    A. Defining key terms. To award School Improvement Grants to its 
LEAs, consistent with section 1003(g)(6) of the ESEA, an SEA must 
define three tiers of schools, in accordance with the requirements in 
paragraph 1, to enable the SEA to select those LEAs with the greatest 
need for such funds. From among the LEAs in greatest need, the SEA must 
select, in accordance with paragraph 2, those LEAs that demonstrate the 
strongest commitment to ensuring that the funds are used to provide 
adequate resources to enable the lowest-achieving schools to meet the 
accountability requirements in this notice. Accordingly, an SEA must 
use the following definitions to define key terms:
    1. Greatest need. An LEA with the greatest need for a School 
Improvement Grant must have one or more schools in at least one of the 
following tiers:
    (a) Tier I schools: (i) A Tier I school is a Title I school in 
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that is identified by 
the SEA under paragraph (a)(1) of the definition of ``persistently 
lowest-achieving schools.''
    (ii) At its option, an SEA may also identify as a Tier I school an 
elementary school that is eligible for Title I, Part A funds that--
    (A)(1) Has not made adequate yearly progress for at least two 
consecutive years; or
    (2) Is in the State's lowest quintile of performance based on 
proficiency rates on the State's assessments under section 1111(b)(3) 
of the ESEA in reading/language arts and mathematics combined; and
    (B) Is no higher achieving than the highest-achieving school 
identified by the SEA under paragraph (a)(1)(i) of the definition of 
``persistently lowest-achieving schools.''
    (b) Tier II schools: (i) A Tier II school is a secondary school 
that is eligible for, but does not receive, Title I, Part A funds and 
is identified by the SEA under paragraph (a)(2) of the definition of 
``persistently lowest-achieving schools.''
    (ii) At its option, an SEA may also identify as a Tier II school a 
secondary school that is eligible for Title I, Part A funds that--
    (A)(1) Has not made adequate yearly progress for at least two 
consecutive years; or
    (2) Is in the State's lowest quintile of performance based on 
proficiency rates on the State's assessments under section 1111(b)(3) 
of the ESEA in reading/language arts and mathematics combined; and

[[Page 66366]]

    (B)(1) Is no higher achieving than the highest-achieving school 
identified by the SEA under paragraph (a)(2)(i) of the definition of 
``persistently lowest-achieving schools;'' or
    (2) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in 
34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent over a number of years.
    (c) Tier III schools: (i) A Tier III school is a Title I school in 
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that is not a Tier I 
or a Tier II school.
    (ii) At its option, an SEA may also identify as a Tier III school a 
school that is eligible for Title I, Part A funds that--
    (A)(1) Has not made adequate yearly progress for at least two 
years; or
    (2) Is in the State's lowest quintile of performance based on 
proficiency rates on the State's assessments under section 1111(b)(3) 
of the ESEA in reading/language arts and mathematics combined; and
    (B) Does not meet the requirements to be a Tier I or Tier II 
school.
    (iii) An SEA may establish additional criteria to use in setting 
priorities among LEA applications for funding and to encourage LEAs to 
differentiate among Tier III schools in their use of school improvement 
funds.
    2. Strongest Commitment. An LEA with the strongest commitment is an 
LEA that agrees to implement, and demonstrates the capacity to 
implement fully and effectively, one of the following rigorous 
interventions in each Tier I and Tier II school that the LEA commits to 
serve:
    (a) Turnaround model: (1) A turnaround model is one in which an LEA 
must--
    (i) Replace the principal and grant the principal sufficient 
operational flexibility (including in staffing, calendars/time, and 
budgeting) to implement fully a comprehensive approach in order to 
substantially improve student achievement outcomes and increase high 
school graduation rates;
    (ii) Using locally adopted competencies to measure the 
effectiveness of staff who can work within the turnaround environment 
to meet the needs of students,
    (A) Screen all existing staff and rehire no more than 50 percent; 
and
    (B) Select new staff;
    (iii) Implement such strategies as financial incentives, increased 
opportunities for promotion and career growth, and more flexible work 
conditions that are designed to recruit, place, and retain staff with 
the skills necessary to meet the needs of the students in the 
turnaround school;
    (iv) Provide staff ongoing, high-quality, job-embedded professional 
development that is aligned with the school's comprehensive 
instructional program and designed with school staff to ensure that 
they are equipped to facilitate effective teaching and learning and 
have the capacity to successfully implement school reform strategies;
    (v) Adopt a new governance structure, which may include, but is not 
limited to, requiring the school to report to a new ``turnaround 
office'' in the LEA or SEA, hire a ``turnaround leader'' who reports 
directly to the Superintendent or Chief Academic Officer, or enter into 
a multi-year contract with the LEA or SEA to obtain added flexibility 
in exchange for greater accountability;
    (vi) Use data to identify and implement an instructional program 
that is research-based and vertically aligned from one grade to the 
next as well as aligned with State academic standards;
    (vii) Promote the continuous use of student data (such as from 
formative, interim, and summative assessments) to inform and 
differentiate instruction in order to meet the academic needs of 
individual students;
    (viii) Establish schedules and implement strategies that provide 
increased learning time (as defined in this notice); and
    (ix) Provide appropriate social-emotional and community-oriented 
services and supports for students.
    (2) A turnaround model may also implement other strategies such 
as--
    (i) Any of the required and permissible activities under the 
transformation model; or
    (ii) A new school model (e.g., themed, dual language academy).
    (b) Restart model: A restart model is one in which an LEA converts 
a school or closes and reopens a school under a charter school 
operator, a charter management organization (CMO), or an education 
management organization (EMO) that has been selected through a rigorous 
review process. (A CMO is a non-profit organization that operates or 
manages charter schools by centralizing or sharing certain functions 
and resources among schools. An EMO is a for-profit or non-profit 
organization that provides ``whole-school operation'' services to an 
LEA.) A restart model must enroll, within the grades it serves, any 
former student who wishes to attend the school.
    (c) School closure: School closure occurs when an LEA closes a 
school and enrolls the students who attended that school in other 
schools in the LEA that are higher achieving. These other schools 
should be within reasonable proximity to the closed school and may 
include, but are not limited to, charter schools or new schools for 
which achievement data are not yet available.
    (d) Transformation model: A transformation model is one in which an 
LEA implements each of the following strategies:
    (1) Developing and increasing teacher and school leader 
effectiveness.
    (i) Required activities. The LEA must--
    (A) Replace the principal who led the school prior to commencement 
of the transformation model;
    (B) Use rigorous, transparent, and equitable evaluation systems for 
teachers and principals that--
    (1) Take into account data on student growth (as defined in this 
notice) as a significant factor as well as other factors such as 
multiple observation-based assessments of performance and ongoing 
collections of professional practice reflective of student achievement 
and increased high school graduations rates; and
    (2) Are designed and developed with teacher and principal 
involvement;
    (C) Identify and reward school leaders, teachers, and other staff 
who, in implementing this model, have increased student achievement and 
high school graduation rates and identify and remove those who, after 
ample opportunities have been provided for them to improve their 
professional practice, have not done so;
    (D) Provide staff ongoing, high-quality, job-embedded professional 
development (e.g., regarding subject-specific pedagogy, instruction 
that reflects a deeper understanding of the community served by the 
school, or differentiated instruction) that is aligned with the 
school's comprehensive instructional program and designed with school 
staff to ensure they are equipped to facilitate effective teaching and 
learning and have the capacity to successfully implement school reform 
strategies; and
    (E) Implement such strategies as financial incentives, increased 
opportunities for promotion and career growth, and more flexible work 
conditions that are designed to recruit, place, and retain staff with 
the skills necessary to meet the needs of the students in a 
transformation school.
    (ii) Permissible activities. An LEA may also implement other 
strategies to develop teachers' and school leaders' effectiveness, such 
as--
    (A) Providing additional compensation to attract and retain staff 
with the skills necessary to meet the needs of the students in a 
transformation school;

[[Page 66367]]

    (B) Instituting a system for measuring changes in instructional 
practices resulting from professional development; or
    (C) Ensuring that the school is not required to accept a teacher 
without the mutual consent of the teacher and principal, regardless of 
the teacher's seniority.
    (2) Comprehensive instructional reform strategies.
    (i) Required activities. The LEA must--
    (A) Use data to identify and implement an instructional program 
that is research-based and vertically aligned from one grade to the 
next as well as aligned with State academic standards; and
    (B) Promote the continuous use of student data (such as from 
formative, interim, and summative assessments) to inform and 
differentiate instruction in order to meet the academic needs of 
individual students.
    (ii) Permissible activities. An LEA may also implement 
comprehensive instructional reform strategies, such as--
    (A) Conducting periodic reviews to ensure that the curriculum is 
being implemented with fidelity, is having the intended impact on 
student achievement, and is modified if ineffective;
    (B) Implementing a schoolwide ``response-to-intervention'' model;
    (C) Providing additional supports and professional development to 
teachers and principals in order to implement effective strategies to 
support students with disabilities in the least restrictive environment 
and to ensure that limited English proficient students acquire language 
skills to master academic content;
    (D) Using and integrating technology-based supports and 
interventions as part of the instructional program; and
    (E) In secondary schools--
    (1) Increasing rigor by offering opportunities for students to 
enroll in advanced coursework (such as Advanced Placement; 
International Baccalaureate; or science, technology, engineering, and 
mathematics courses, especially those that incorporate rigorous and 
relevant project[dash], inquiry[dash], or design-based contextual 
learning opportunities), early-college high schools, dual enrollment 
programs, or thematic learning academies that prepare students for 
college and careers, including by providing appropriate supports 
designed to ensure that low-achieving students can take advantage of 
these programs and coursework;
    (2) Improving student transition from middle to high school through 
summer transition programs or freshman academies;
    (3) Increasing graduation rates through, for example, credit-
recovery programs, re-engagement strategies, smaller learning 
communities, competency-based instruction and performance-based 
assessments, and acceleration of basic reading and mathematics skills; 
or
    (4) Establishing early-warning systems to identify students who may 
be at risk of failing to achieve to high standards or graduate.
    (3) Increasing learning time and creating community-oriented 
schools.
    (i) Required activities. The LEA must--
    (A) Establish schedules and strategies that provide increased 
learning time (as defined in this notice); and
    (B) Provide ongoing mechanisms for family and community engagement.
    (ii) Permissible activities. An LEA may also implement other 
strategies that extend learning time and create community-oriented 
schools, such as--
    (A) Partnering with parents and parent organizations, faith- and 
community-based organizations, health clinics, other State or local 
agencies, and others to create safe school environments that meet 
students' social, emotional, and health needs;
    (B) Extending or restructuring the school day so as to add time for 
such strategies as advisory periods that build relationships between 
students, faculty, and other school staff;
    (C) Implementing approaches to improve school climate and 
discipline, such as implementing a system of positive behavioral 
supports or taking steps to eliminate bullying and student harassment; 
or
    (D) Expanding the school program to offer full-day kindergarten or 
pre-kindergarten.
    (4) Providing operational flexibility and sustained support.
    (i) Required activities. The LEA must--
    (A) Give the school sufficient operational flexibility (such as 
staffing, calendars/time, and budgeting) to implement fully a 
comprehensive approach to substantially improve student achievement 
outcomes and increase high school graduation rates; and
    (B) Ensure that the school receives ongoing, intensive technical 
assistance and related support from the LEA, the SEA, or a designated 
external lead partner organization (such as a school turnaround 
organization or an EMO).
    (ii) Permissible activities. The LEA may also implement other 
strategies for providing operational flexibility and intensive support, 
such as--
    (A) Allowing the school to be run under a new governance 
arrangement, such as a turnaround division within the LEA or SEA; or
    (B) Implementing a per-pupil school-based budget formula that is 
weighted based on student needs.
    3. Definitions.
    Increased learning time means using a longer school day, week, or 
year schedule to significantly increase the total number of school 
hours to include additional time for (a) instruction in core academic 
subjects including English, reading or language arts, mathematics, 
science, foreign languages, civics and government, economics, arts, 
history, and geography; (b) instruction in other subjects and 
enrichment activities that contribute to a well-rounded education, 
including, for example, physical education, service learning, and 
experiential and work-based learning opportunities that are provided by 
partnering, as appropriate, with other organizations; and (c) teachers 
to collaborate, plan, and engage in professional development within and 
across grades and subjects.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ Research supports the effectiveness of well-designed 
programs that expand learning time by a minimum of 300 hours per 
school year. (See Frazier, Julie A.; Morrison, Frederick J. ``The 
Influence of Extended-Year Schooling on Growth of Achievement and 
Perceived Competence in Early Elementary School.'' Child 
Development. Vol. 69 (2), April 1998, pp.495-497 and research done 
by Mass2020.) Extending learning into before- and after-school hours 
can be difficult to implement effectively, but is permissible under 
this definition with encouragement to closely integrate and 
coordinate academic work between in school and out of school. (See 
James-Burdumy, Susanne; Dynarski, Mark; Deke, John. ``When 
Elementary Schools Stay Open Late: Results from The National 
Evaluation of the 21st Century Community Learning Centers Program.'' 
Educational Evaluation and Policy Analysis, Vol. 29 (4), December 
2007, Document No. PP07-121.) (https://www.mathematica-mpr.com/publications/redirect_PubsDB.asp?strSite=https://epa.sagepub.com/cgi/content/abstract/29/4/296
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Persistently lowest-achieving schools means, as determined by the 
State--
    (a)(1) Any Title I school in improvement, corrective action, or 
restructuring that--
    (i) Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of Title I schools 
in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring or the lowest-
achieving five Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, or 
restructuring in the State, whichever number of schools is greater; or
    (ii) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in 
34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent over a number of years; 
and
    (2) Any secondary school that is eligible for, but does not 
receive, Title I funds that--

[[Page 66368]]

    (i) Is among the lowest-achieving five percent of secondary schools 
or the lowest-achieving five secondary schools in the State that are 
eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds, whichever number of 
schools is greater; or
    (ii) Is a high school that has had a graduation rate as defined in 
34 CFR 200.19(b) that is less than 60 percent over a number of years.
    (b) To identify the lowest-achieving schools, a State must take 
into account both--
    (i) The academic achievement of the ``all students'' group in a 
school in terms of proficiency on the State's assessments under section 
1111(b)(3) of the ESEA in reading/language arts and mathematics 
combined; and
    (ii) The school's lack of progress on those assessments over a 
number of years in the ``all students'' group.
    Student growth means the change in achievement for an individual 
student between two or more points in time. For grades in which the 
State administers summative assessments in reading/language arts and 
mathematics, student growth data must be based on a student's score on 
the State's assessment under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA. A State 
may also include other measures that are rigorous and comparable across 
classrooms.
    4. Evidence of strongest commitment. (a) In determining the 
strength of an LEA's commitment to ensuring that school improvement 
funds are used to provide adequate resources to enable Tier I and Tier 
II schools to improve student achievement substantially, an SEA must 
consider, at a minimum, the extent to which the LEA's application 
demonstrates that the LEA has taken, or will take, action to--
    (i) Analyze the needs of its schools and select an intervention for 
each school;
    (ii) Design and implement interventions consistent with these 
requirements;
    (iii) Recruit, screen, and select external providers, if 
applicable, to ensure their quality;
    (iv) Align other resources with the interventions;
    (v) Modify its practices or policies, if necessary, to enable it to 
implement the interventions fully and effectively; and
    (vi) Sustain the reforms after the funding period ends.
    (b) The SEA must consider the LEA's capacity to implement the 
interventions and may approve the LEA to serve only those Tier I and 
Tier II schools for which the SEA determines that the LEA can implement 
fully and effectively one of the interventions.

B. Providing flexibility

    1. An SEA may award school improvement funds to an LEA for a Tier I 
or Tier II school that has implemented, in whole or in part, an 
intervention that meets the requirements under section I.A.2(a), 2(b), 
or 2(d) of these requirements within the last two years so that the LEA 
and school can continue or complete the intervention being implemented 
in that school.
    2. An SEA may seek a waiver from the Secretary of the requirements 
in section 1116(b) of the ESEA in order to permit a Tier I or Tier II 
Title I participating school implementing an intervention that meets 
the requirements under section I.A.2(a) or 2(b) of these requirements 
in an LEA that receives a School Improvement Grant to ``start over'' in 
the school improvement timeline. Even though a school implementing the 
waiver would no longer be in improvement, corrective action, or 
restructuring, it may receive school improvement funds.
    3. An SEA may seek a waiver from the Secretary to enable a Tier I 
or Tier II Title I participating school that is ineligible to operate a 
Title I schoolwide program and is operating a Title I targeted 
assistance program to operate a schoolwide program in order to 
implement an intervention that meets the requirements under section 
I.A.2(a), 2(b), or 2(d) of these requirements.
    4. An SEA may seek a waiver from the Secretary to extend the period 
of availability of school improvement funds so as to make those funds 
available to the SEA and its LEAs for up to three years.
    5. If an SEA does not seek a waiver under section I.B.2, 3, or 4, 
an LEA may seek a waiver.

II. Awarding School Improvement Grants to LEAs

A. LEA Requirements

    1. An LEA may apply for a School Improvement Grant if it receives 
Title I, Part A funds and has one or more schools that qualify under 
the State's definition of a Tier I, Tier II, or Tier III school.
    2. In its application, in addition to other information that the 
SEA may require--
    (a) The LEA must--
    (i) Identify the Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III schools it commits 
to serve;
    (ii) Identify the intervention it will implement in each Tier I and 
Tier II school it commits to serve;
    (iii) Demonstrate that it has the capacity to use the school 
improvement funds to provide adequate resources and related support to 
each Tier I and Tier II school it commits to serve in order to 
implement fully and effectively one of the four interventions 
identified in section I.A.2 of these requirements;
    (iv) Provide evidence of its strong commitment to use school 
improvement funds to implement the four interventions by addressing the 
factors in section I.A.4(a) of these requirements;
    (v) Include a timeline delineating the steps the LEA will take to 
implement the selected intervention in each Tier I and Tier II school 
identified in the LEA's application; and
    (vi) Include a budget indicating how it will allocate school 
improvement funds among the Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III schools it 
commits to serve.
    (b) If an LEA has nine or more Tier I and Tier II schools, the LEA 
may not implement the transformation model in more than 50 percent of 
those schools.
    3. The LEA must serve each Tier I school unless the LEA 
demonstrates that it lacks sufficient capacity (which may be due, in 
part, to serving Tier II schools) to undertake one of these rigorous 
interventions in each Tier I school, in which case the LEA must 
indicate the Tier I schools that it can effectively serve. An LEA may 
not serve with school improvement funds awarded under section 1003(g) 
of the ESEA a Tier I or Tier II school in which it does not implement 
one of the four interventions identified in section I.A.2 of these 
requirements.
    4. The LEA's budget for each Tier I and Tier II school it commits 
to serve must be of sufficient size and scope to ensure that the LEA 
can implement one of the rigorous interventions identified in section 
I.A.2 of these requirements. The LEA's budget must cover the period of 
availability of the school improvement funds, taking into account any 
waivers extending the period of availability received by the SEA or 
LEA.
    5. The LEA's budget for each Tier III school it commits to serve 
must include the services it will provide the school, particularly if 
the school meets additional criteria established by the SEA.
    6. An LEA that commits to serve one or more Tier I, Tier II, or 
Tier III schools that do not receive Title I, Part A funds must ensure 
that each such school it serves receives all of the State and local 
funds it would have received in the absence of the school improvement 
funds.
    7. An LEA in which one or more Tier I schools are located and that 
does not apply to serve at least one of these schools may not apply for 
a grant to serve only Tier III schools.

[[Page 66369]]

    8. (a) To monitor each Tier I and Tier II school that receives 
school improvement funds, an LEA must--
    (i) Establish annual goals for student achievement on the State's 
assessments in both reading/language arts and mathematics; and
    (ii) Measure progress on the leading indicators in section III of 
these requirements.
    (b) The LEA must also meet the requirements with respect to 
adequate yearly progress in section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA.
    9. If an LEA implements a restart model, it must hold the charter 
school operator, CMO, or EMO accountable for meeting the final 
requirements.

B. SEA requirements

    1. To receive a School Improvement Grant, an SEA must submit an 
application to the Department at such time, and containing such 
information, as the Secretary shall reasonably require.
    2. (a) An SEA must review and approve, consistent with these 
requirements, an application for a School Improvement Grant that it 
receives from an LEA.
    (b) Before approving an LEA's application, the SEA must ensure that 
the application meets these requirements, particularly with respect 
to--
    (i) Whether the LEA has agreed to implement one of the four 
interventions identified in section I.A.2 of these requirements in each 
Tier I and Tier II school included in its application;
    (ii) The extent to which the LEA's application shows the LEA's 
strong commitment to use school improvement funds to implement the four 
interventions by addressing the factors in section I.A.4(a) of these 
requirements;
    (iii) Whether the LEA has the capacity to implement the selected 
intervention fully and effectively in each Tier I and Tier II school 
identified in its application; and
    (iv) Whether the LEA has submitted a budget that includes 
sufficient funds to implement the selected intervention fully and 
effectively in each Tier I and Tier II school it identifies in its 
application and whether the budget covers the period of availability of 
the funds, taking into account any waiver extending the period of 
availability received by either the SEA or the LEA.
    (c) An SEA may, consistent with State law, take over an LEA or 
specific Tier I or Tier II schools in order to implement the 
interventions in these requirements.
    (d) An SEA may not require an LEA to implement a particular model 
in one or more schools unless the SEA has taken over the LEA or school.
    (e) To the extent that a Tier I or Tier II school implementing a 
restart model becomes a charter school LEA, an SEA must hold the 
charter school LEA accountable, or ensure that the charter school 
authorizer holds it accountable, for complying with these requirements.
    3. An SEA must post on its Web site, within 30 days of awarding 
School Improvement Grants to LEAs, all final LEA applications as well 
as a summary of those grants that includes the following information:
    (a) Name and National Center for Education Statistics (NCES) 
identification number of each LEA awarded a grant.
    (b) Amount of each LEA's grant.
    (c) Name and NCES identification number of each school to be 
served.
    (d) Type of intervention to be implemented in each Tier I and Tier 
II school.
    4. If an SEA does not have sufficient school improvement funds to 
award, for up to three years, a grant to each LEA that submits an 
approvable application, the SEA must give priority to LEAs that apply 
to serve Tier I or Tier II schools.
    5. An SEA must award a School Improvement Grant to an LEA in an 
amount that is of sufficient size and scope to support the activities 
required under section 1116 of the ESEA and these requirements. The 
LEA's total grant may not be less than $50,000 or more than $2,000,000 
per year for each Tier I, Tier II, and Tier III school that the LEA 
commits to serve.
    6. If an SEA does not have sufficient school improvement funds to 
allocate to each LEA with a Tier I or Tier II school an amount 
sufficient to enable the school to implement fully and effectively the 
specified intervention throughout the period of availability, including 
any extension afforded through a waiver, the SEA may take into account 
the distribution of Tier I and Tier II schools among such LEAs in the 
State to ensure that Tier I and Tier II schools throughout the State 
can be served.
    7. An SEA must award funds to serve each Tier I and Tier II school 
that its LEAs commit to serve, and that the SEA determines its LEAs 
have the capacity to serve, prior to awarding funds to its LEAs to 
serve any Tier III schools. If an SEA has awarded school improvement 
funds to its LEAs for each Tier I and Tier II school that its LEAs 
commit to serve in accordance with these requirements, the SEA may 
then, consistent with section II.B.9, award remaining school 
improvement funds to its LEAs for the Tier III schools that its LEAs 
commit to serve.
    8. In awarding School Improvement Grants, an SEA must apportion its 
school improvement funds in order to make grants to LEAs, as 
applicable, that are renewable for the length of the period of 
availability of the funds, taking into account any waivers that may 
have been requested and received by the SEA or an individual LEA to 
extend the period of availability.
    9. (a) If not every Tier I school in a State is served with FY 2009 
school improvement funds, an SEA must carry over 25 percent of its FY 
2009 funds, combine those funds with FY 2010 school improvement funds, 
and award those funds to eligible LEAs consistent with these 
requirements. This requirement does not apply in a State that does not 
have sufficient school improvement funds to serve all the Tier I 
schools in the State.
    (b) If each Tier I school in a State is served with FY 2009 school 
improvement funds, an SEA may reserve up to 25 percent of its FY 2009 
allocation and award those funds in combination with its FY 2010 funds 
consistent with these requirements.
    10. In identifying Tier I and Tier II schools in a State for 
purposes of allocating funds appropriated for School Improvement Grants 
under section 1003(g) of the ESEA for any year subsequent to FY 2009, 
an SEA must exclude from consideration any school that was previously 
identified as a Tier I or Tier II school and in which an LEA is 
implementing one of the four interventions identified in these 
requirements using funds made available under section 1003(g) of the 
ESEA.
    11. An SEA that is participating in the ``differentiated 
accountability pilot'' must ensure that its LEAs use school improvement 
funds available under section 1003(g) of the ESEA in a Tier I or Tier 
II school consistent with these requirements.
    12. Before submitting its application for a School Improvement 
Grant to the Department, the SEA must consult with its Committee of 
Practitioners established under section 1903(b) of the ESEA regarding 
the rules and policies contained therein and may consult with other 
stakeholders that have an interest in its application.

C. Renewal for Additional One-Year Periods

    1. If an SEA or an individual LEA requests and receives a waiver of 
the period of availability of school improvement funds, an SEA--

[[Page 66370]]

    (a) Must renew the School Improvement Grant for each affected LEA 
for additional one-year periods commensurate with the period of 
availability if the LEA demonstrates that its Tier I and Tier II 
schools are meeting the requirements in section II.A.8, and that its 
Tier III schools are meeting the goals established by the LEA and 
approved by the SEA; and
    (b) May renew an LEA's School Improvement Grant if the SEA 
determines that the LEA's schools are making progress toward meeting 
the requirements in section II.A.8 or the goals established by the LEA.
    2. If an SEA does not renew an LEA's School Improvement Grant 
because the LEA's participating schools are not meeting the 
requirements in section II.A.8 or the goals established by the LEA, the 
SEA may reallocate those funds to other eligible LEAs, consistent with 
these requirements.

D. State Reservation for Administration, Evaluation, and Technical 
Assistance

    An SEA may reserve from the school improvement funds it receives 
under section 1003(g) of the ESEA in any given year no more than five 
percent for administration, evaluation, and technical assistance 
expenses. An SEA must describe in its application for a School 
Improvement Grant how the SEA will use these funds.

E. A State Whose School Improvement Grant Exceeds the Amount the State 
May Award to Eligible LEAs

    In some States in which a limited number of Title I schools are 
identified for improvement, corrective action, or restructuring, the 
SEA may be able to make School Improvement Grants, renewable for 
additional years commensurate with the period of availability of the 
funds, to each LEA with a Tier I, Tier II, or Tier III school without 
using the State's full allocation under section 1003(g) of the ESEA. An 
SEA in this situation may reserve no more than five percent of its FY 
2009 allocation of school improvement funds for administration, 
evaluation, and technical assistance expenses under section 1003(g)(8) 
of the ESEA. The SEA may retain sufficient school improvement funds to 
serve, for succeeding years, each Tier I, II, and III school that 
generates funds for an eligible LEA. The Secretary may reallocate to 
other States any remaining school improvement funds from States with 
surplus funds.

III. Reporting and Evaluation

A. Reporting Metrics

    To inform and evaluate the effectiveness of the interventions 
identified in these requirements, the Secretary will collect data on 
the metrics in the following chart. The Department already collects 
most of these data through EDFacts and will collect data on two metrics 
through SFSF reporting. Accordingly, an SEA must only report the 
following new data with respect to school improvement funds:
    1. A list of the LEAs, including their NCES identification numbers, 
that received a School Improvement Grant under section 1003(g) of the 
ESEA and the amount of the grant.
    2. For each LEA that received a School Improvement Grant, a list of 
the schools that were served, their NCES identification numbers, and 
the amount of funds or value of services each school received.
    3. For any Tier I or Tier II school, school-level data on the 
metrics designated on the following chart as ``SIG'' (School 
Improvement Grant):

----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                  Achievement        Leading
                    Metric                                  Source                 indicators       indicators
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                   SCHOOL DATA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which intervention the school used (i.e.,      NEW SIG........................
 turnaround, restart, closure, or
 transformation).
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
AYP status...................................  EDFacts........................         [check]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Which AYP targets the school met and missed..  EDFacts........................         [check]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
School improvement status....................  EDFacts........................         [check]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Number of minutes within the school year.....  NEW SIG........................  ...............         [check]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                     STUDENT OUTCOME/ACADEMIC PROGRESS DATA
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of students at or above each        EDFacts........................         [check]
 proficiency level on State assessments in
 reading/language arts and mathematics (e.g.,
 Basic, Proficient, Advanced), by grade and
 by student subgroup.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Student participation rate on State            EDFacts........................  ...............         [check]
 assessments in reading/language arts and in
 mathematics, by student subgroup.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Average scale scores on State assessments in   NEW SIG........................         [check]
 reading/language arts and in mathematics, by
 grade, for the ``all students'' group, for
 each achievement quartile, and for each
 subgroup.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Percentage of limited English proficient       EDFacts........................         [check]
 students who attain English language
 proficiency.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Graduation rate..............................  EDFacts........................         [check]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Dropout rate.................................  EDFacts........................  ...............         [check]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Student attendance rate......................  EDFacts........................  ...............         [check]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

[[Page 66371]]

 
Number and percentage of students completing   NEW SIG HS only................  ...............         [check]
 advanced coursework (e.g., AP/IB), early-
 college high schools, or dual enrollment
 classes.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
College enrollment rates.....................  NEW SFSF Phase II HS only......         [check]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                      STUDENT CONNECTION AND SCHOOL CLIMATE
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discipline incidents.........................  EDFacts........................  ...............         [check]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Truants......................................  EDFacts........................  ...............         [check]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     TALENT
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Distribution of teachers by performance level  NEW SFSF Phase II..............  ...............         [check]
 on LEA's teacher evaluation system.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Teacher attendance rate......................  NEW SIG........................  ...............         [check]
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

    4. An SEA must report these metrics for the school year prior to 
implementing the intervention, if the data are available, to serve as a 
baseline, and for each year thereafter for which the SEA allocates 
school improvement funds under section 1003(g) of the ESEA. With 
respect to a school that is closed, the SEA need report only the 
identity of the school and the intervention taken--i.e., school 
closure.

B. Evaluation

    An LEA that receives a School Improvement Grant must participate in 
any evaluation of that grant conducted by the Secretary.
Executive Order 12866
    Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether a 
regulatory action is ``significant'' and therefore subject to the 
requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the Office 
of Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 
defines a ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely to 
result in a rule that may (1) have an annual effect on the economy of 
$100 million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, 
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or 
safety, or State, local or tribal governments or communities in a 
material way (also referred to as an ``economically significant'' 
rule); (2) create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the 
budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or local programs 
or the rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel 
legal or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's 
priorities, or the principles set forth in the Executive order. The 
Secretary has determined that this regulatory action is not significant 
under section 3(f) of the Executive order.
    We have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly 
interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of 
their governmental functions.
    We summarized the potential costs and benefits of these final 
requirements in the interim final requirements at 75 FR 3375, 3382.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
    The Secretary certifies that these final requirements will not have 
a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small entities 
for the reasons summarized in the interim final requirements at 75 FR 
3375, 3382-3383.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
    These final requirements contain information collection 
requirements that are subject to review by OMB under the Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3501-3520). The Department received 
emergency approval for the information collections in the SIG final 
requirements published on December 10, 2009, under OMB Control Number 
1810-0682. OMB approved changes described in the interim final 
requirements at 75 FR 3375, 3383 on January 20, 2010. On June 10, 2010, 
the Department submitted a request to OMB for regular approval of this 
collection and received approval on September 22, 2010, under the OMB 
control number 1810-0682, which lasts until September 30, 2013.
Intergovernmental Review
    This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the 
regulations in 34 CFR 79.
Electronic Access to This Document
    You may view this document, as well as all other documents of this 
Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable 
Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site: https://www.ed.gov/news/fedregister.
    To use PDF, you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available 
free at this site.

    Note: The official version of this document is the document 
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the 
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal 
Regulations is available on GPO Access at: https://www.gpoaccess.gov/nara/.


    Dated: October 25, 2010.
Arne Duncan,
Secretary of Education.
[FR Doc. 2010-27313 Filed 10-27-10; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P