State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program, 59036-59050 [2011-24407]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 76, Number 185 (Friday, September 23, 2011)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Pages 59036-59050]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2011-24407]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Subtitle B, Chapter II

[Docket ID ED-2011-OS-0010]
RIN 1894-AA03


State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program

AGENCY: Department of Education.

ACTION: Interim final requirement; request for comments.

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

SUMMARY: On November 12, 2009, the Secretary of Education (Secretary) 
published in the Federal Register a notice of final requirements, 
definitions, and approval criteria for the State Fiscal Stabilization 
Fund (SFSF) program (November 2009 Notice). In that notice, the 
Secretary established September 30, 2011 as the deadline by which 
States had to collect and publicly report data and other information on 
various SFSF indicators and descriptors. Since publication of the 
November 2009 notice, States have faced many challenges and competing 
priorities in trying to meet the requirements of some of the SFSF 
indicators by the September 30, 2011 deadline. As a result, a number of 
States will be unable to comply fully with the SFSF requirements by the 
September 30, 2011 deadline. Accordingly, in this interim final 
requirement, the Secretary extends that deadline to January 31, 2012.

DATES: This interim final requirement is effective September 23, 2011. 
We must

[[Page 59037]]

receive your comments on or before October 24, 2011.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not 
accept comments by fax or by e-mail. To ensure that we do not receive 
duplicate copies, please submit your comments only one time. In 
addition, please include the Docket ID and the term ``State Fiscal 
Stabilization Fund--Interim Final Requirement'' at the top of your 
comments.
     Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to https://www.regulations.gov to submit your comments electronically. Information 
on using Regulations.gov, including instructions for accessing agency 
documents, submitting comments, and viewing the docket, is available on 
the site under ``How To Use This Site.''
     Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery. If you 
mail or deliver your comments about the interim final requirement, 
address them to Office of the Deputy Secretary (Attention: State Fiscal 
Stabilization Fund Interim Final Requirement), U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 7E214, Washington, DC 20202-
6200.
     Privacy Note: The Department's policy for comments 
received from members of the public (including 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: James Butler, State Fiscal 
Stabilization Fund Program, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland 
Ave., SW., room 7E214, Washington, DC 20202-0008. Telephone: (202) 260-
9737 or by e-mail: SFSFcomments@ed.gov.
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
    Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding 
this interim final requirement to assist us in complying with the 
specific requirements of Executive Order 12866 and Executive Order 
13563 and their overall requirement of reducing regulatory burden that 
might result from this interim final requirement.
    During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public 
comments about this regulatory action by accessing Regulations.gov. You 
may also inspect the public comments in person in room 7E214, 400 
Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of 8:30 a.m. 
and 4:00 p.m., Washington, DC time, Monday through Friday of each week 
except Federal holidays.
    Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the 
Rulemaking Record: On request, we will provide an appropriate 
accommodation or auxiliary aid to an individual with a disability who 
needs assistance to review the comments or other documents in the 
public rulemaking record for this notice. If you want to schedule an 
appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary aid, please 
contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.

Background

    Section 14005(d) of Division A of the American Recovery and 
Reinvestment Act of 2009 (ARRA) requires a State receiving funds under 
the SFSF program to provide assurances in four key areas of education 
reform:
    (1) Achieving equity in teacher distribution, (2) improving 
collection and use of data, (3) standards and assessments, and (4) 
supporting struggling schools. In the November 2009 Notice (74 FR 
58436), we established specific data and information requirements 
(assurance indicators and descriptors) that a State must meet with 
respect to the statutory assurances. We also established specific 
requirements for the plans that a State had to submit as part of its 
application for the second phase of funding under the SFSF program, 
describing the steps it would take to collect and report the required 
data and other information. In addition, we established September 30, 
2011 as the deadline by which States must meet the requirements of 
these indicators and descriptors.
    States are facing many challenges and competing priorities in 
trying to meet the requirements of some of the SFSF indicators by the 
September 30, 2011 deadline. For example, during the Department's 
ongoing program monitoring, States are expressing concerns about their 
ability to fully develop and implement a statewide longitudinal data 
system (SLDS) under Indicator (b)(1) by this deadline. Specifically, 
during its spring 2011 review of each State's Amended Application for 
Funding Under the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Program, the 
Department found that many States still have not fully incorporated the 
following elements into their SLDS: (1) Student-level transcript 
information, including data on courses completed and grades earned 
(Element 9); (2) information regarding the extent to which students 
transition successfully from secondary school to postsecondary 
education, including whether students enroll in remedial coursework 
(Element 11); and (3) other information determined necessary to address 
alignment and adequate preparation for success in postsecondary 
education (Element 12). A number of States also are raising concerns 
about the challenges in collecting and publicly reporting student 
enrollment data for Indicator (c)(11). In its recent review of the SFSF 
amended applications, the Department found that 43 States indicated 
that they did not have the capacity to collect and publicly report 
those data. Further, most States reported in their amended SFSF 
application that they do not yet have the capacity to collect and 
publicly report the course completion data required under Indicator 
(c)(12). Therefore, the Department is extending to January 31, 2012 the 
deadline by which a State must comply with the requirements under any 
of the SFSF indicators and descriptors. The extension of the deadline 
to January 31, 2012 is automatic, and a State does not have to submit a 
request to receive this extension.
    In a notice of proposed revisions to certain data collection and 
reporting requirements, and proposed priority published elsewhere in 
this issue of the Federal Register, the Department is proposing to 
further extend, to December 31, 2012, the deadline by which a State 
must comply with the requirements of Indicators (b)(1), (c)(11), and 
(c)(12) because the requirements under these indicators are 
particularly challenging. To receive an extension to December 31, 2012 
for these specific indicators, the Department is proposing that the 
State submit a request that includes the information proposed in notice 
of proposed revisions to certain data collection and reporting 
requirements, and proposed priority.

Waiver of Rulemaking and Delayed Effective Date

    Under the Administrative Procedure Act (APA) (5 U.S.C. 553), the 
Department is generally required to publish a notice of proposed 
rulemaking and provide the public with an opportunity to comment on 
proposed regulations prior to establishing a final rule. However, we 
are waiving the notice-and-comment rulemaking requirements under the 
APA. Section

[[Page 59038]]

553(b) of the APA provides that an agency is not required to conduct 
notice-and-comment rulemaking when the agency for good cause finds that 
notice and public procedure thereon are impracticable, unnecessary, or 
contrary to the public interest. Although these requirements are 
subject to the APA's notice-and-comment requirements, the Secretary has 
determined that it would be impracticable and contrary to the public 
interest to conduct notice-and-comment rulemaking.
    As discussed under the heading ``Background,'' States are facing 
many challenges and competing priorities in trying to meet some of the 
SFSF collection and public reporting requirements by the September 30, 
2011 deadline. As a result, the Department has concluded that it is 
appropriate to extend the deadline for the SFSF indicators and 
descriptors to January 31, 2012. It is impracticable and contrary to 
the public interest to extend the September 30, 2011 deadline through 
notice-and-comment rulemaking given the limited amount of time 
remaining before this deadline. This interim final requirement will 
provide those States desiring additional time to meet the requirements 
with an extension of the deadline. Absent the interim final 
requirement, a number of States will be unable to comply fully with the 
SFSF requirements. The Department believes that giving the States 
additional time to meet these requirements will not compromise their 
purpose, which is to provide transparency on the extent to which a 
State is implementing reform actions for which it has provided 
assurances.
    Although the Department is adopting this extension on an interim 
final basis, the Department requests public comments on the extension. 
After consideration of public comments, the Secretary will publish a 
notice of final requirement concerning the deadline for compliance with 
the SFSF indicators and descriptors.
    The APA also requires that a substantive rule be published at least 
30 days before its effective date, unless the rule grants or recognizes 
an exemption or relieves a restriction. (5 U.S.C. 553(d)(1)). Because 
we are granting States an extension of the September 30, 2011 deadline, 
the 30-day delayed effective date is not required. Accordingly, this 
interim final requirement is effective on the day it is published.

Interim Final Requirement

    For the reasons discussed previously, the Secretary amends the 
requirements established in the November 2009 Notice by extending the 
deadline by which a State must collect and publicly report data and 
other information on the SFSF indicators and descriptors from September 
30, 2011 to January 31, 2012.

Executive Order 12866

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether 
this regulatory action is significant and, therefore, subject to the 
requirements of the Executive order and review by the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB). Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 
defines ``significant regulatory action'' as an action likely to result 
in a rule that may (1) have an annual effect on the economy of $100 
million or more, or adversely affect a sector of the economy, 
productivity, competition, jobs, the environment, public health or 
safety, or State, local or Tribal governments or communities in a 
material way (also referred to as an economically significant rule); 
(2) create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an action 
taken or planned by another agency; (3) materially alter the budgetary 
impacts of entitlement grants, user fees, or loan programs or the 
rights and obligations of recipients thereof; or (4) raise novel legal 
or policy issues arising out of legal mandates, the President's 
priorities, or the principles stated in the Executive Order.
    It has been determined that this regulatory action is significant 
under section 3(f)(4) of the Executive order.

Summary of Costs and Benefits

    Under Executive Order 12866, we have assessed the potential costs 
and benefits of the regulatory action to extend the current deadline by 
which a State must meet the requirements of the SFSF indicators and 
descriptors and have determined that the interim final requirement will 
not impose additional costs to grantees or the Federal government. 
Additionally, the Department has determined that this requirement does 
not unduly interfere with State, local, and Tribal governments in the 
exercise of their governmental functions.
    The Department is reinstating to December 15, 2011, the information 
collection under OMB Control Number 1810-0695 requiring States to 
collect and publicly report data and other information annually. The 
Department has analyzed the costs of complying with these requirements. 
Some of the costs will be minimal and others more significant. As an 
example of a requirement that results in minimal burden and cost, 
States are currently required to report annually, through EDFacts (the 
Department's centralized data collection and warehousing system), for 
the State as a whole and for each LEA, the number and percentage of 
core academic courses taught, in the highest-poverty and lowest-poverty 
schools, by teachers who are highly qualified. Indicator (a)(1) 
requires that they confirm the data they have reported, which should 
not be a time-consuming responsibility. As a second example, the 
requirement to confirm the approval status of the State's assessment 
system under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA, as determined by the 
Department, should also require minimal effort.
    Other requirements impose significant new costs. We strongly 
believe that the benefits to the public of these requirements outweigh 
the State and local implementation costs. Specifically, the major 
benefit of these requirements, taken in their totality, is better and 
more publicly available information on the status of activities related 
to the reform areas identified in the authorizing statute for the SFSF 
program. As described in detail later in this section, research 
indicates or suggests that progress on each of the reforms will 
contribute to improved student outcomes. The provision of better 
information (on teacher qualifications, teacher and principal 
evaluation systems, State student longitudinal data systems, State 
standards and assessment systems, student success in high-school and 
postsecondary education, efforts to turn around persistently lowest-
achieving schools, and charter school reforms) to policymakers, 
educators, parents, and other stakeholders will assist in their efforts 
to further the reforms. In addition, State reporting of these data will 
help the Department determine the impact of the unprecedented level of 
funding made available by the ARRA. Further, the data and plans that 
States submit will inform Federal education policy, including the 
upcoming reauthorization of the ESEA.
    The following is a detailed analysis of the estimated costs of 
implementing the specific final requirements, followed by a discussion 
of the anticipated benefits. The costs of implementing specific 
paperwork-related requirements are also shown in the tables in the 
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 section of this notice.

Distribution of Highly Qualified Teachers

    Section 14005(d)(2) of the ARRA requires a State receiving funds 
under the SFSF program to assure, in the SFSF

[[Page 59039]]

program application, that it will address inequities in the 
distribution of highly qualified teachers. In response to this 
requirement, the Department is requiring States to confirm, for the 
State and for each LEA in the State, the number and percentage of core 
academic courses taught, in the highest-poverty and lowest-poverty 
schools, by teachers who are highly qualified. Because States will have 
previously submitted this information to the Department through the 
EDFacts system, we anticipate that the costs of complying with this 
requirement would be minimal. A State likely would need only to ensure 
that it had correctly aggregated and reported data received from its 
LEAs. The Department expects that each State would require one hour of 
staff time to complete this effort, at a cost of $30 per hour. For the 
50 States, the District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, the total 
estimated level of effort would be 52 hours at a cost of $1,560. In 
addition, the final requirements provide for States to indicate whether 
the State's Teacher Equity Plan (a part of the State's Highly Qualified 
Teacher Plan) has been updated to fully reflect the steps the State is 
currently taking to ensure that students from low-income families and 
minority students are not taught at higher rates than other students by 
inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-field teachers. The Department 
expects that this will require an hour of effort, for a total estimated 
burden of 52 hours at a cost of $1,560.

Teacher and Principal Evaluation Systems

    Section 14005(d)(2) also requires States to take actions to improve 
teacher effectiveness. To accomplish that goal, States must first have 
a means of assessing teacher success. A limited number of States have 
implemented statewide teacher and principal evaluation systems, while 
in the other States the responsibility for evaluating teachers and 
principals rests with the LEAs or schools. Little is known about the 
design of these systems across the Nation, but the collection and 
reporting of additional information would create a resource that 
additional States and LEAs can draw on in building their own systems. 
The Department, therefore, is requiring States to collect and publicly 
report information about these evaluation systems.
    Specifically, the Department is requiring that States describe, for 
each LEA in the State, the systems used to evaluate the performance of 
teachers and principals. Further, the Department requires States to 
indicate, for each LEA in the State, whether the systems used to 
evaluate the performance of teachers and principals include student 
achievement outcomes or student growth data as an evaluation criterion.
    The level of effort required to respond to these requirements would 
likely vary depending on the types of teacher and principal evaluation 
systems in place in a given State or LEA. The Department believes that, 
if a system is in place at the State level, the response burden would 
be low, because the State will have the required information readily 
available. According to the National Council on Teacher Quality, 12 
States require LEAs to use a State-developed instrument to evaluate 
teachers or to develop an equivalent instrument that must be approved 
by the State.\1\ For these 12 States, the Department estimates that a 
total of 72 hours (6 hours per State) would be required to respond to 
these requirements, for a total cost, at $30 per hour, of $2,160. The 
2,487 LEAs located in these States would not be involved in the 
response to these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ State Teacher Policy Yearbook: 2009, page 170. https://www.nctq.org/stpy09/reports/stpy_national.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In the 40 States that do not have statewide teacher and principal 
evaluation systems in place, the level of effort required would likely 
be significantly higher. Approximately half of these States have either 
already reported this information once or have completed more than half 
of the effort involved with reporting. The Department believes that 
these States would require significantly less effort than States that 
have completed less than half of the work involved with meeting these 
requirements. The Department estimates that each State that has 
completed more than half of the work associated with these requirements 
would need 120 hours to meet the requirements, and each State that has 
completed less than half of the work would require 360 hours to meet 
the requirements. Thus, the Department estimates that, on average, 240 
hours would be required at the State level to develop and administer a 
survey of LEAs (including designing the survey instrument, 
disseminating it, providing training or other technical assistance to 
LEAs on completing the survey, collecting the data and other 
information, checking accuracy, and public reporting), which would 
amount to a total of 9,600 hours and a total estimated State cost of 
$288,000 (assuming, again, a cost per hour of $30). The 12,737 LEAs 
located in these States would bear the cost of collecting and reporting 
the data to their States.
    For the purpose of the burden estimates in this section, the 
Department estimates that 75 percent of these LEAs (9,553) have 
centralized teacher and principal evaluation systems in place. For 
those LEAs, we estimate that 3 hours would be required to respond to 
these requirements. For the estimated 3,184 LEAs that do not have a 
centralized evaluation system in place, we estimate that 2 hours would 
be required because we expect that these systems are less complex than 
centralized systems. The Department, thus, estimates that LEAs would 
need to spend a total of 35,027 hours to respond to these proposed 
requirements at a total cost of $875,675, assuming a cost per hour of 
$25.
    The Department is also requiring States to provide, for each LEA in 
the State whose teachers and principals receive performance ratings or 
levels through an evaluation system, the number and percentage of 
teachers and principals rated at each performance rating or level, as 
well as a description of how each LEA uses results from those systems 
in decisions regarding teacher and principal development, compensation, 
promotion, retention, and removal. Finally, the Department is requiring 
States to indicate, for each LEA in the State whose teachers receive 
performance ratings or levels through an evaluation system, whether the 
number and percentage of teachers rated at each performance rating or 
level are publicly reported for each school in the LEA. The Department 
expects that many LEAs that make this information publicly available 
will choose to do so on their pre-existing Web site; if any LEAs 
currently do not have Web sites, they may create a Web site or may 
publicly report this information in another easily accessible format.
    We were unable to find nationally representative information on 
whether LEAs will have information on their teacher and principal 
evaluation systems readily available in a centralized database. The New 
Teacher Project (NTP),\2\ which analyzed the teacher evaluation systems 
of a sample of 12 LEAs, found that of those 12 LEAs, only 4 tracked 
teacher evaluation results electronically. Although the NTP report 
examined only a small number of LEAs, which were not nationally 
representative, and the report was published in 2009, we base our cost 
estimates on this finding, as it is the only source of information 
available. Thus, we assume that 33 percent of LEAs will have 
information on the

[[Page 59040]]

teacher and principal evaluation results in a central database.\3\ 
Applying this percentage to the estimated 12,040 LEAs that have in 
place a centralized system to evaluate teacher and principal 
performance (which includes the 2,487 LEAs in States with statewide 
systems, as well as the estimated 9,553 LEAs in other States that have 
their own local systems), the Department estimates that 3,973 LEAs 
would need to spend 3 hours each to respond to these requirements for a 
total burden of 11,919 hours and $297,975.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \2\ See https://widgeteffect.org/downloads/TheWidgetEffect.pdf.
    \3\ It is important to note that this study includes in its 
sample only medium-size and large LEAs and, therefore, that the 
actual percentage of LEAs with teacher and principal evaluation 
results in a central database may be lower than 33 percent. We also 
believe, however, that small LEAs with fewer teachers and principals 
would require less effort than a medium-size or large LEA to comply 
with these requirements.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We estimate that each of the other 8,067 LEAs will require 
significantly more time to respond. According to the Digest of 
Education Statistics, there are approximately 3.2 million teachers and 
90,470 principals in public elementary and secondary 
schools.4 5 Based on this figure, we estimate that an 
average LEA employs 210 teachers and 6 principals. Applying this number 
of teachers and principals to the estimated 8,067 LEAs nationwide that 
do not have this information electronically in a central system, we 
estimate that these LEAs will need to enter data for 1,694,070 teachers 
and 48,402 principals into their existing personnel systems. We 
estimate that LEAs could enter information for 6 individuals per hour, 
thus we estimate that these LEAs would have a combined burden of 
290,412 hours at a cost of $7,260,300.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_004.asp?referrer=list. The most recent data available is from 2008.
    \5\ See https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d10/tables/dt10_089.asp?referrer=list . The most recent data available is for the 
2007-08 school year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We further estimate that all 15,224 LEAs would each require 1 hour 
to describe how they use results from teacher and principal evaluation 
systems in decisions regarding teacher and principal development, 
compensation, promotion, retention, and removal.
    The Department, therefore, estimates the total LEA burden for these 
requirements to be 317,555 hours across the Nation at an estimated 
total cost of $7,938,875 (assuming a cost per hour of $25).
    States would then need to collect these data, most likely by 
including these items in the survey instrument that they will develop 
to respond to the other requirements in this section, and will then 
need to aggregate and publicly report the data on their Web site. 
Considering progress that States have made to date, we estimate that 
these activities will require 4 hours of effort per State, for a total 
burden of 208 hours at a cost of $6,240.
    For more detailed estimates of costs for these requirements, please 
see the tables in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 section of this 
notice.

State Data Systems

    Section 14005(d)(3) requires States to assure that they will 
establish a longitudinal data system that includes the elements 
described in section 6401(e)(2)(D) of the America COMPETES Act. To 
track State progress in this reform area, the Department requires each 
State to indicate which of the 12 elements are included in the State's 
statewide longitudinal data system. The costs of reporting this 
information should be minimal. Moreover, most States are already 
reporting information on ten of the 12 elements to the Data Quality 
Campaign, a national effort to encourage State policymakers to use 
high-quality education data to improve student achievement, and to the 
Department as part of reporting for this program to date. The 
Department expects that States will be able to readily provide 
information on whether the two remaining elements are included in their 
data systems and that it should take little time for the States that 
have not been reporting to the Data Quality Campaign to provide 
information on their data systems. We, therefore, estimate that States 
would need only 2 hours to respond to this requirement, for a total 
level of effort of 104 hours at an estimated cost of $3,120.
    The Department is also requiring that States report whether the 
State provides student growth data on their current students and the 
students they taught in the previous year to, at a minimum, teachers of 
reading/language arts and mathematics in grades in which the State 
administers assessments in those subjects in a manner that is timely 
and informs instructional programs. The Department believes that making 
such information available would help improve the quality of 
instruction and the quality of teacher evaluation and compensation 
systems. Under the State Plan section, we discuss the costs of 
developing systems for the provision of student growth data in all 
States. We are also requiring States to indicate whether the State 
provides teachers of reading/language arts and mathematics in grades in 
which the State administers assessments in those subjects with reports 
of individual teacher impact on student achievement on those 
assessments. The costs of merely publicly reporting on whether a State 
currently provides this information to teachers should be minimal. We 
estimate that each State would spend one hour to publicly report this 
information, for a total level of effort of 52 hours at a cost of 
$1,560.

State Assessments

    In response to the requirement in section 14005(d)(4)(A) of the 
ARRA that States enhance the quality of their student assessments, the 
Department requires that the States confirm certain existing data and 
other information and submit some new information about their 
assessment systems. Specifically, the Department requires each State to 
confirm the approval status, as determined by the Department, of the 
State's assessment system (with respect to reading/language arts, 
mathematics, and science assessments). In addition, States will confirm 
that their annual State Report Card (issued pursuant to the 
requirements of section 1111(h) of the ESEA) contains the most recent 
available State reading and mathematics NAEP results. The Department 
estimates that each State would require two hours to respond to these 
requirements, for a total cost of $3,120.
    Section 14005(d)(4)(B) requires States to assure that they will 
administer valid and reliable assessments for children with 
disabilities and limited English proficient students. To measure State 
progress on this assurance, the Department requires States to: confirm 
whether the State has developed and implemented valid and reliable 
alternate assessments for students with disabilities that have been 
approved by the Department; confirm whether the State's alternative 
assessments for students with disabilities, if approved by the 
Department, are based on grade-level, modified, or alternate academic 
achievement standards; indicate whether the State has completed, within 
the last two years, an analysis of the appropriateness and 
effectiveness of the accommodations it provides students with 
disabilities to ensure their meaningful participation in State 
assessments; indicate whether the State has completed, within the last 
two years, an analysis of the appropriateness and effectiveness of the 
accommodations it provides limited English proficient students to 
ensure their meaningful participation in State assessments; and confirm 
whether the State provides native language versions of State 
assessments for limited English proficient students. To respond to 
these

[[Page 59041]]

five indicators, the Department estimates that the 50 States, the 
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico would each require five hours, 
for a total cost of $7,800.
    In addition, the Department requires that States confirm the number 
and percentage of students with disabilities and limited English 
proficient students who are included in State reading/language arts and 
mathematics assessments. The Department expects that each State would, 
on average, require one hour of staff time to complete this effort, at 
a cost of $30 per hour. The burden estimated for this requirement is 
minimal because the States will have already submitted this information 
to the Department through the EDFacts system. For the 50 States, the 
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico, the total estimated level of 
effort would be 52 hours at a cost of $1,560.

High School and Postsecondary Success

    Section 14005(d)(4)(C) of the ARRA requires States to assure that 
they take steps to improve their State academic content standards and 
student academic achievement standards consistent with section 
6401(e)(1)(A)(ii) of the COMPETES Act, which calls for States to 
identify and make any necessary changes to their secondary school 
graduation requirements, academic content standards, academic 
achievement standards, and the assessments students take preceding 
graduation from secondary school in order to align those requirements, 
standards, and assessments with the knowledge and skills necessary for 
success in academic credit-bearing coursework in postsecondary 
education, in the 21st century workforce, and in the Armed Forces 
without the need for remediation. Several of the indicators and 
descriptors with which a State must comply are aligned with this 
provision of the America COMPETES Act.
    First, the Department requires each State to publicly report, for 
the State and each LEA and high school in the State and, at each of 
these levels, by student subgroup,\6\ the number and percentage of 
students who graduate from high school as determined using the four-
year adjusted cohort graduation rate. State efforts to comply with the 
Department's October 29, 2008 regulation requiring the use of a four-
year adjusted cohort graduation rate in the determination of adequate 
yearly progress under Title I of the ESEA are now underway (see 34 CFR 
200.19(b)(1)(i)). Some additional effort would be required to collect 
and report these data for all schools as the current regulations apply 
only to Title I schools.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ The student subgroups include: economically disadvantaged 
students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, students 
with limited English proficiency, and students with disabilities.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Based on the Data Quality Campaign's 2010 survey of the 50 States 
and the District of Columbia, which found that all States have the 
capacity to calculate the National Governors Association longitudinal 
graduation rate,\7\ the Department believes that most States are well-
situated to collect and publicly report these data. In fulfillment of 
the requirement, the Department estimates that States would need to 
distribute to non-Title I LEAs the survey instrument they are using to 
collect this information from Title I LEAs and to input the data from 
these surveys. The Department believes the 25 States that have already 
met this requirement once and the 20 more that have reported completing 
more than half of the effort involved would require less effort than 
States that have completed less than half of the work involved with 
meeting this requirement. The Department estimates that each State that 
has completed more than half of the work associated with these 
requirements would need 2 hours to meet the requirements, and each 
State that has completed less than half of the work would require 8 
hours to meet the requirements. Thus, the Department estimates that 
this would require an estimated average of approximately 3 hours per 
State. The new LEA burden to respond to this indicator would be limited 
to the approximately 1,053 LEAs that do not receive Title I funds.\8\ 
The Department estimates that these LEAs would spend an average of 40 
hours to respond to this indicator for a total LEA effort of 42,120 
hours. The total estimated cost for LEAs is, therefore, $1,053,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \7\ https://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/stateanalysis/executive_summary/.
    \8\ According to data States submitted to the Department, there 
are a total of 15,224 LEAs across the Nation, 14,171 of which 
receive Title I, Part A funds.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    In addition, the Department is requiring States to publicly report, 
for the State, for each LEA in the State, for each high school in the 
State and, at each of these levels, by student subgroup, the number and 
percentage of students who graduate from high school consistent with 34 
CFR 200.19(b)(1)(i) who enroll in an IHE within 16 months of receiving 
a regular high school diploma and, of those students who enroll in a 
public IHE within the State, the number and percentage who complete at 
least one year's worth of college credit (applicable to a degree) 
within two years of enrollment in the IHE. The requirements would 
entail considerable coordination among high schools, LEAs, SEAs, and 
IHEs. The Department expects that SEAs would have to develop a system 
to make this data collection and sharing possible, which they could at 
least partially achieve by establishing a longitudinal data system that 
includes the elements described in section 6401(e)(2)(D) of the 
COMPETES Act. As discussed earlier, section 14005(d)(3) of the ARRA 
requires States to assure, in their SFSF application, that they will 
establish such a data system.
    With respect to the requirement on publicly reporting postsecondary 
enrollment, the Department expects that LEAs will need to enter, into 
their State's statewide longitudinal data system, data on each high 
school graduate's plans after high school, including the IHE where the 
student intends to enroll, if applicable. Based on data from the Digest 
of Education Statistics, the Department estimates that approximately 
2,820,000 students who graduated from public high schools enrolled in 
IHEs as first-time freshmen in fall 2007.\9\ Holding that number 
constant, the Department estimates that LEAs will be able to enter data 
for these students at a pace of 20 students per hour which will result 
in a total level of LEA effort of 141,000 hours at a cost of 
$3,525,000.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \9\ According to the Digest of Education Statistics, 2008, 
approximately 3 million first-time freshmen enrolled in IHEs in fall 
2007. See https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_199.asp. Also according to the Digest, in fall 2005, 859,800 
students were enrolled in private secondary schools. At that time, 
enrollment in public secondary schools was 14,908,126. Extrapolating 
from those data, the Department estimates that 94 percent of all 
first-time postsecondary students graduated from public schools. See 
https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d08/tables/dt08_058.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The State will then likely need to request that each IHE in the 
State confirm a student's enrollment, using the statewide longitudinal 
data system to obtain data on students who intended to enroll within 
the State. Based on data from the 2008 Integrated Postsecondary 
Education Data System (IPEDS), Spring 2009,\10\ the Department 
estimates that 2,284,200 first-time freshmen (81 percent of the 
estimated number of all first-time freshmen who graduate from public 
high schools) enroll in degree-granting IHEs in their home State. The 
Department estimates that IHEs will be able to confirm enrollment for 
20 students per hour, for a total of 114,210 hours of IHE effort at a 
total cost of

[[Page 59042]]

$2,855,250 (assuming a cost of $25 per hour).\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \10\ https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_223.asp.
    \11\ Note that a table in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 
section of this notice provides the burden estimates by IHE, but 
that this narrative provides national estimates using the total 
number of students included in the data requirement.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    States will also likely need to request that IHEs outside the State 
confirm the enrollment of students who indicated that they would enroll 
in those institutions. Again, based on data from the 2008 IPEDS, Spring 
2009, the Department estimates that 535,800 students who graduate from 
public high schools each year enroll in IHEs in States outside their 
home State. The Department estimates that it will take States 30 
minutes per student to complete this process, including contacting out-
of-State IHEs, obtaining the necessary information from them, and 
including data on those students in their public reports. This element 
of the requirement, therefore, will result in a national total of 
267,900 hours of State effort at a total cost of $8,037,000. As with 
students who enroll in IHEs in their home State, the Department 
estimates that IHEs will be able to confirm enrollment for 20 students 
per hour, for a total of 26,790 hours of IHE effort at a total cost of 
$669,750.
    Finally, to meet the requirement that they publicly report the 
number of students who enroll in IHEs, States will need to aggregate 
the data received from all IHEs and will then need to run analyses and 
publicly report the data for the State, for each LEA, for each high 
school and, at each of these levels, by student subgroup. The 
Department estimates that each State will need 40 hours to conduct 
these analyses and publicly report these data, for a total State burden 
of 2,080 hours at a cost of $62,400.
    The requirement that States publicly report the number of students 
enrolling in a public, in-State IHE who complete at least one year's 
worth of college credit applicable toward a degree within two years of 
enrollment at the IHE will also entail a collaborative process between 
SEAs and IHEs. Again, based on data from the Digest of Education 
Statistics, the Department estimates that 1,691,678 first-time freshmen 
enroll in public, degree-granting IHEs in their home State.\12\ 
Further, the Department estimates that, once a State has established a 
system for the collection and reporting of these data, IHEs will be 
able to enter data for 20 students an hour; thus, the total estimated 
level of effort to respond to this requirement will be approximately 
84,584 hours of IHE effort at an estimated cost of $2,114,600, assuming 
a cost of $25 per hour.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ According to the Digest of Education Statistics, 2009, 
2,240,414 first-time freshmen enrolled in public, degree-granting 
IHEs in fall 2008, which represented 74 percent of all first-time 
freshmen. See https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_199.asp. Also in fall 2008, 2,109,931 freshmen who graduated from 
high school within the last 12 months attended degree-granting IHEs 
in their home State, which represented 81 percent of all freshmen. 
See https://nces.ed.gov/programs/digest/d09/tables/dt09_223.asp. 1. 
An estimate of the number of first-time freshmen enrolled in public, 
degree-granting IHEs in their home State can be derived two ways. 
Applying the percentage of first-time freshmen attending public 
degree-granting IHEs to the number of first-time freshmen attending 
an IHE in their home State yields an estimate of 1,508,484, and 
applying the percentage of first-time freshmen attending an IHE in 
their home State to the number of first-time freshmen attending 
public degree-granting IHEs yields an estimate of 2,169,077. For the 
purposes of this estimate, the Department chooses the midpoint of 
these figures, which is 1,838,780. Applying the estimate (described 
earlier) that 94 percent of all first-time postsecondary students 
graduated from public schools, the Department estimates that 
1,691,678 public high school graduates enroll in public degree-
granting IHEs in their home State.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Finally, as with the previous indicator, States will need to 
aggregate the data received from all IHEs and will then need to run 
analyses and publicly report the data for the State, LEA, and school 
levels and at each of these levels, by student subgroup. The Department 
estimates that each State will need 40 hours to conduct these analyses 
and publicly report these data, for a total State burden of 2,080 hours 
at a cost of $62,400.

Supporting Struggling Schools

    A key goal of the ARRA is to ensure that States and LEAs provide 
targeted, intensive support and effective interventions to turn around 
the persistently lowest-achieving schools in the State. Section 
14005(d)(5) requires States to ensure compliance with the Title I 
requirements in this area. To track State progress, the Department is 
requiring States to provide, for each LEA in the State and aggregated 
at the State level, the number and percentage of schools in 
improvement, corrective action, or restructuring that have made 
progress on State assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics 
in the last year, and, for the State, in the ``all students'' category 
and for each student subgroup (as under section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) of the 
ESEA), and, of the Title I schools in improvement, corrective action, 
or restructuring, the number and identity of the persistently lowest-
achieving schools as defined by the State. The State is also required 
to provide the definition that it uses to identify its ``persistently 
lowest-achieving schools.'' States are also required to publicly report 
the number and identity of their Title I schools in improvement, 
corrective action, or restructuring that are identified as persistently 
lowest-achieving and, of those schools, the number and identity of 
schools that have been turned around, restarted, closed, or transformed 
in the last year.
    The Department believes that States will already have available the 
data needed to report on the indicators related to the total number and 
percentage of schools in improvement, corrective action, or 
restructuring that have made progress on State assessments, although 
they might need to run new analyses of the data. However, the 
Department expects that States will have to collect new data on the 
schools in improvement, corrective action, or restructuring (in general 
and in the persistently lowest-achieving schools) that have been turned 
around, restarted, closed, or transformed. (In addition, the State will 
need to define the term ``persistently lowest-achieving schools.'') We 
estimate that this data collection will entail two hours of effort in 
each of the 4,729 LEAs (the number of LEAs that, according to data 
reported to EDFacts, had at least one school in improvement, corrective 
action, or restructuring in the 2010-11 school year). As a result, the 
Department estimates that the total LEA burden for this requirement 
will be 9,458 hours at a cost of $236,450. States will then need to 
aggregate these data, in addition to the effort they will spend 
responding to the other indicators that relate to struggling schools. 
Approximately 40 States have either already submitted this information 
once or have completed more than 50 percent of the effort to meet the 
requirement. As a result, the Department estimates that these States 
will require less effort than the other 12 to meet this reporting 
requirement. The Department estimates that, on average, each State will 
require 14 hours of effort to respond to these requirements, for a 
total cost of $21,840.
    In addition, the Department is requiring States to provide, for the 
State, the number and identity of the secondary schools that are 
eligible for, but do not receive, Title I funds, that are identified as 
persistently lowest-achieving schools, and, of these schools, the 
number and identity of schools that have been turned around, restarted, 
closed, or transformed in the last year. The Department expects that 
some, but not all, States have the data required to determine the 
identity of secondary schools that are eligible for, but do not 
receive, Title I funds, but that they may have to run new analyses of 
the data to

[[Page 59043]]

determine which of these schools have been turned around, restarted, 
closed, or transformed in the last year. Other States may have to 
include an item in the LEA survey that they will be distributing to 
respond to several of these requirements. Based on State efforts to 
report on these two indicators to date, the Department estimates that 
each State will require an average of 8 hours of effort to respond to 
these two requirements, for a total cost of $12,480. We further 
estimate that the 4,729 affected LEAs will need a total of 4 hours to 
respond to these two survey items.

Charter Schools

    The Department believes that the creation and maintenance of high-
quality charter schools is a key strategy for promoting successful 
models of school reform. To determine the level of State effort in this 
area, the Department is requiring States to provide, at the State level 
and, if applicable, for each LEA in the State, the number of charter 
schools that are currently permitted to operate under State law and the 
number that are currently operating. We expect that this information 
will be readily available and that States will need only a total of one 
hour to respond to these two requirements.
    In addition, the Department will require States to provide, for the 
State and for each LEA in the State that operates charter schools, the 
number and percentage (including numerator and denominator) of charter 
schools that have made progress on State assessments in reading/
language arts and mathematics in the last year. Finally, the Department 
is requiring States to provide, for the State and for each LEA in the 
State that operates charter schools, the number and identity of charter 
schools that have closed (including schools that were not reauthorized 
to operate) within each of the last five years and to indicate, for 
each such school, whether the closure was for financial, enrollment, 
academic, or other reasons. The Department believes that SEAs will 
likely also have this information readily available (although some may 
need to obtain additional information from their LEAs) and will need 
eight hours to publicly report it. The Department assumes that the 
effort to respond to these requirements will be limited to the 42 
States (including the District of Columbia and Puerto Rico) that allow 
charter schools. The Department thus estimates that the State effort 
required to respond to these indicators will total 336 hours at a cost 
of $10,080.

Total Estimated Costs

    The Department estimates that the total burden of responding to 
these requirements will be 287,424 hours and $8,622,720 for SEAs, 
564,076 hours and $14,101,900 for LEAs, and 225,584 hours and 
$5,639,600 for IHEs, for a total burden of 1,077,084 hours at a cost of 
$28,364,220.

Benefits

    The principal benefits of the requirements are those resulting from 
the reporting and public availability of information on each State's 
progress in the four reform areas described in the ARRA. The Department 
believes that the information gathered and reported as a result of 
these requirements will improve public accountability for performance, 
help States, LEAs, and schools learn from one another and make 
improvements in what they are doing, and inform the ESEA 
reauthorization process.
    A second major benefit is that better public information on State 
and local progress in the four reform areas will likely spur more rapid 
progress on those reforms, because States and LEAs that appear to be 
lagging in one or more areas may see a need to redouble their efforts. 
The Department believes that more rapid progress on the essential 
educational reforms will have major benefits nationally, and that these 
reforms have the potential to drive dramatic improvements in student 
outcomes.
    For example, statewide longitudinal data systems are essential 
tools in advancing education reform. With these systems in place, 
States can use this data to evaluate the effectiveness of specific 
interventions, schools, principals, and teachers by tracking individual 
student achievement, high school graduation, and postsecondary 
enrollment and credit. They can, for example, track the academic 
achievement of individual students over time, even if those students 
change schools within the State during the course of their education. 
By analyzing this information, decision-makers can determine if a 
student's ``achievement trajectory'' will result in his or her being 
college- or career-ready and can better target services based on the 
student's academic needs.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ For example, see https://dataqualitycampaign.org/files/publications-dqc_academic_growth-100908.pdf and https://www.dataqualitycampaign.org/files/Meetings-DQC_Quarterly_Issue_Brief_092506.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department also believes that States' implementation of these 
requirements will lead to more widespread development and 
implementation of better teacher and principal evaluation systems. In 
particular, the availability of accurate, complete, and valid 
achievement data is essential to implementing better systems of teacher 
and principal evaluation. Value-added models, for example, can provide 
an objective estimate of the impact of teachers on student learning and 
achievement.\14\ Further, they can be used by schools, LEAs, or States 
to reward excellence in teaching or school leadership, as a component 
of performance-based compensation systems, or to identify schools in 
need of improvement or teachers who may require additional training or 
professional development.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See: Braun, Henry I. Using Student Progress To Evaluate 
Teachers: A Primer on Value-Added Models. Educational Testing 
Service, Policy Information Center, 2005; Marsh, Julie A.; Pane, 
John F.; Hamilton, Laura S. Making Sense of Data-Driven Decision 
Making in Education: Evidence from Recent RAND Research. Santa 
Monica, CA: RAND Corporation, 2006; and Sanders, William L. ``Value-
Added Assessment from Student Achievement Data: Opportunities and 
Hurdles.'' Journal of Personnel Evaluation in Education, Vol. 14, 
No. 4, p. 329-339, 2000.
    \15\ Center for Educator Compensation Reform: https://cecr.ed.gov/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The Department believes that the requirements will have additional 
benefits to the extent that they provide States with incentives to 
address inequities in the distribution of effective teachers, improve 
the quality of State assessments, and undergo intensive efforts to 
improve struggling schools. Numerous studies document the substantial 
impact of improved teaching on educational outcomes and the need to 
take action to turn around the lowest-performing schools, including 
high schools (and their feeder middle schools) that enroll a 
disproportionate number of the students who fail to complete a high 
school education and receive a regular high school diploma. The 
Department believes that more widespread adoption of these reforms 
would have a significant, positive impact on student achievement.
    Although these benefits are not easily quantified, the Department 
believes they will exceed the projected costs.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent 
burden, the Department conducts a preclearance consultation program to 
provide the general public and Federal agencies with an opportunity to 
comment on proposed and continuing collections of information in 
accordance with the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 (PRA) (44 U.S.C. 
3506(c)(2)(A)).

[[Page 59044]]

This helps ensure that: The public understands the Department's 
collection instructions; respondents can provide the requested data in 
the desired format; reporting burden (time and financial resources) is 
minimized; collection instruments are clearly understood; and the 
Department can properly assess the impact of collection requirements on 
respondents.
    This Interim Final Requirement contains an information collection 
requirement previously approved under OMB control number 1810-0695. 
Under the PRA the Department has submitted a copy of this section to 
OMB for its review.
    A Federal agency cannot conduct or sponsor a collection of 
information unless OMB approves the collection under the PRA and the 
corresponding information collection instrument displays a currently 
valid OMB control number. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
no person is required to comply with, or is subject to penalty for 
failure to comply with, a collection of information if the collection 
instrument does not display a currently valid OMB control number.
    In the final requirement we will display the control number 
assigned by OMB to any information collection requirement in this IFR 
and adopted in the final requirement.
    In the SFSF Phase 2 application, the Department established 
indicators and descriptors that required States to collect and publicly 
report data and other information annually. The Office of Management 
and Budget approved that information collection under an emergency 
review (OMB Control Number 1810-0695). The Department's authority under 
that information collection has expired. Therefore, the Department is 
reinstating to December 15, 2011 the information collection under OMB 
Control Number 1810-0695.
    A description of the specific information collection requirements 
is provided in the following tables along with estimates of the annual 
recordkeeping burden for these requirements. Included in an estimate is 
the time for collecting and tracking data, maintaining records, 
calculations, and reporting. The first table presents the estimated 
indicators burden for SEAs, the second table presents the estimated 
indicators burden for LEAs, and the third table presents the estimated 
indicators burden for IHEs.

State Fiscal Stabilization Fund Indicators and Descriptors

                                           I. Assurance Indicators and Descriptors Burden Hours/Cost for SEAS
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                                                                                                            Total cost
                 Citation                                    Description                     Number of     Average hours    Total hours   (total hours x
                                                                                            respondents    per response*                      $30.00)
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Indicator (a)(1)..........................  Confirm, for the State, the number and                    52               1              52          $1,560
                                             percentage (including numerator and
                                             denominator) of core academic courses
                                             taught, in the highest-poverty and lowest-
                                             poverty schools, by teachers who are highly
                                             qualified consistent with section 9101(23)
                                             of the Elementary and Secondary Education
                                             Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA).
Indicator (a)(2)..........................  Confirm whether the State's Teacher Equity                52               1              52           1,560
                                             Plan (as part of the State's Highly
                                             Qualified Teacher Plan) fully reflects the
                                             steps the State is currently taking to
                                             ensure that students from low-income
                                             families and minority students are not
                                             taught at higher rates than other students
                                             by inexperienced, unqualified, or out-of-
                                             field teachers (as required in section
                                             1111(b)(8)(C) of the ESEA).
Descriptor (a)(1).........................  Describe, for each local educational agency               52             118           6,158         184,740
                                             (LEA) in the State, the systems used to
                                             evaluate the performance of teachers and
                                             the use of results from those systems in
                                             decisions regarding teacher development,
                                             compensation, promotion, retention, and
                                             removal.
Indicator (a)(3)..........................  Indicate, for each LEA in the State, whether              52               4             208           6,240
                                             the systems used to evaluate the
                                             performance of teachers include student
                                             achievement outcomes or student growth data
                                             as an evaluation criterion.
Indicator (a)(4)..........................  Provide, for each LEA in the State whose                  52               2             104           3,120
                                             teachers receive performance ratings or
                                             levels through an evaluation system, the
                                             number and percentage (including numerator
                                             and denominator) of teachers rated at each
                                             performance rating or level.
Indicator (a)(5)..........................  Indicate, for each LEA in the State whose                 52               1              52           1,560
                                             teachers receive performance ratings or