Request for Information To Gather Technical Expertise Pertaining to the Disaggregation of Asian and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander Student Data and the Use of Those Data in Planning and Programmatic Endeavors, 26531-26534 [2012-10835]
Download as PDF
<![CDATA[
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Notices
6. Percent of infants and toddlers birth to
3 with IFSPs compared to national data.
7. Percent of eligible infants and toddlers
with IFSPs for whom an initial evaluation
and initial assessment and an initial IFSP
meeting were conducted within Part C’s 45day timeline.
8. The percentage of toddlers with
disabilities exiting Part C with timely
transition planning for whom the Lead
Agency has:
A. Developed an IFSP with transition steps
and services at least 90 days, and at the
discretion of all parties, not more than nine
months, prior to the toddler’s third birthday;
B. Notified (consistent with any opt-out
policy adopted by the State) the SEA and the
LEA where the toddler resides at least 90
days prior to the toddler’s third birthday for
toddlers potentially eligible for Part B
preschool services; and
C. Conducted the transition conference
held with the approval of the family at least
90 days, and at the discretion of all parties,
not more than nine months, prior to the
toddler’s third birthday for toddlers
potentially eligible for Part B preschool
services.
9. General supervision system (including
monitoring, complaints, hearings, etc.)
identifies and corrects noncompliance as
soon as possible but in no case later than one
year from identification.
10. Percent of signed written complaints
with reports issued that were resolved within
60-day timeline or a timeline extended for
exceptional circumstances with respect to a
particular complaint, or because the parent
(or individual or organization) and the public
agency agree to extend the time to engage in
mediation or other alternative means of
dispute resolution, if available in the State.
11. Percent of fully adjudicated due
process hearing requests that were fully
adjudicated within the applicable timeline or
a timeline that is properly extended by the
hearing officer at the request of either party.
12. Percent of hearing requests that went to
resolution sessions that were resolved
through resolution session settlement
agreements (applicable if Part B due process
procedures are adopted).
13. Percent of mediations held that
resulted in mediation agreements.
14. State reported data (618 and State
Performance Plan and Annual Performance
Report) are timely and accurate.
[FR Doc. 2012–10831 Filed 5–3–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
[Docket ID ED–2012–OESE–0009]
Request for Information To Gather
Technical Expertise Pertaining to the
Disaggregation of Asian and Native
Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander
Student Data and the Use of Those
Data in Planning and Programmatic
Endeavors
Office of Elementary and
Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
AGENCY:
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:20 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
ACTION:
Request for Information.
The U.S. Department of
Education (the Department) is seeking to
gather and share information about
practices and policies regarding existing
education data systems that disaggregate
data on subgroups within the Asian and
Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Island
(ANHPI) student population. The
Department anticipates making use of
this information to help State
educational agencies (SEAs), local
educational agencies (LEAs), schools,
and institutions of higher education
(IHEs) identify, share, and implement
promising practices and policies for
identifying and overcoming challenges
to gathering and disaggregating data on
subgroups within the ANHPI student
population. SEAs, LEAs, schools, and
IHEs might then use those data to
improve their ability to respond to the
unique needs and issues that might exist
for these subgroups.
The Department is issuing this request
for information (RFI) to collect
information about promising practices
and policies regarding existing
education data systems and models that
disaggregate data on subgroups within
the ANHPI student population. The
Department poses a series of questions
to which we invite interested members
of the public, including experts and data
collection practitioners, to respond. The
Department will publish a document
that contains a summary of the
recommendations that we will develop
using information obtained as a result of
the RFI and through other outreach
efforts.
This RFI has no effect on the existing
Federal data collection and aggregate
reporting requirements for racial and
ethnic data by educational agencies and
institutions. The Department is not
considering modifying its racial and
ethnic data collection and reporting
requirements set forth in its 2007 Final
Guidance on Maintaining, Collecting,
and Reporting Racial and Ethnic Data to
the U.S. Department of Education (2007
Guidance), 72 FR 59266 (October 19,
2007). https://www2.ed.gov/legislation/
FedRegister/other/2007-4/101907c.html.
DATES: Written submissions must be
received by the Department on or before
July 3, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments
through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or via U.S. mail, commercial delivery, or
hand delivery. We will not accept
comments by fax or by email. 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 ‘‘Data
SUMMARY:
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26531
Disaggregation Response’’ at the top of
your comments.
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to
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.’’
• U.S. Mail, Commercial Delivery, or
Hand Delivery: If you mail or deliver
your comments, address them to Donald
Yu, Attention: ANHPI Student Data
Disaggregation RFI, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW.,
room 7C157, Washington, DC 20202–
6132.
• 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
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.
Given the subject matter, some
comments may include proprietary
information as it relates to confidential
commercial information. The Freedom
of Information Act defines ‘‘confidential
commercial information’’ as information
the disclosure of which could
reasonably be expected to cause
substantial competitive harm. You may
wish to request that we not disclose
what you regard as confidential
commercial information.
To assist us in making a
determination on your request, we
encourage you to identify any specific
information in your comments that you
consider confidential commercial
information. Please list the information
by page and paragraph numbers.
While this RFI is seeking to gather
information related to policies and
practices, you should still make certain
your comments do not include
disclosures of personally identifiable
information from students’ education
records in a manner that violates the
Family Educational Rights and Privacy
Act of 1974 (FERPA).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Donald Yu, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW.,
Room 3W104, Washington, DC 20202–
6132 by phone at 202–205–4499.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD), call the
Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at
1–(800) 877–8339.
E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM
04MYN1
26532
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Notices
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
1. Introduction
The Department is seeking
information on disaggregation practices
that SEAs, LEAs, schools, and IHEs use
when collecting and reporting data on
Asians and Native Hawaiians or Other
Pacific Islanders.1 This is a request for
information only. This RFI is
specifically inquiring about examples
of: (1) Existing data systems and models
that disaggregate data on subgroups
within the ANHPI student population;
(2) the categories for which these
systems and models disaggregate data
by ANHPI subgroup, including, but not
necessarily limited to, languages
spoken, English language proficiency,
and graduation rates; (3) the challenges
that administrators of those systems and
models have encountered in gathering
high-quality disaggregated data on
subgroups within the ANHPI student
population, and the actions they have
taken to overcome those challenges; and
(4) how educational agencies or
institutions have used, or are using,
disaggregated data on ANHPIs to
improve their ability to identify and
respond to unique educational needs
and issues of those populations.
This RFI has no effect on the existing
Federal data collection and aggregate
reporting requirements for racial and
ethnic data by educational agencies and
institutions. The Department is not
considering modifying its racial and
ethnic data collection and reporting
requirements. The 2007 Guidance sets
forth requirements that aim to strike the
balance between minimizing the burden
for educational agencies and institutions
while also ensuring the availability of
high-quality racial and ethnic data for
carrying out the Department’s
responsibilities in such areas as civil
rights enforcement, program monitoring,
the identification and placement of
students in special education, research
and statistical analyses, and
accountability for student achievement.
Beyond the Federal collection and
reporting requirements, an educational
1 OMB defines ‘‘Asian’’ as a person having origins
in any of the original peoples of the Far East,
Southeast Asia, or the Indian subcontinent
including, for example, Cambodia, China, India,
Japan, Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine
Islands, Thailand, and Vietnam. It includes people
who indicate their race as ‘‘Asian Indian,’’
‘‘Chinese,’’ ‘‘Filipino,’’ ‘‘Korean,’’ ‘‘Japanese,’’
‘‘Vietnamese,’’ and ‘‘Other Asian’’ or provide other
detailed Asian responses. ‘‘Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander’’ is defined as a person
having origins in any of the original peoples of
Hawaii, Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. It
includes people who indicate their race as ‘‘Native
Hawaiian,’’ ‘‘Guamanian or Chamorro,’’ ‘‘Samoan,’’
and ‘‘Other Pacific Islander’’ or provide other
detailed Pacific Islander responses.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:20 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
agency or institution has the flexibility
to collect data on subcategories of racial
and ethnic data for their own
educational purposes. In the 2007
Guidance, the Department noted that an
educational institution may collect
racial and ethnic data on sub-categories
of students, so long as the educational
institution can aggregate the data into
Federal reporting categories. The
Department has encouraged educational
agencies and institutions to pursue this
option if they determine that it would
benefit their educational purposes,
provided that they can still aggregate the
data into the reporting categories
required by the Department. Any
additional racial and ethnic
subcategories may be used by the State
or educational institution and are not
reported to the Department.
It is with this flexibility in mind that
we are publishing this RFI, to learn from
and better understand what SEAs, LEAs,
schools, and IHEs around the country
are doing with regard to collecting racial
and ethnic data on sub-categories of
students and to make any promising
practices available to other educational
agencies and institutions that may be
interested in adopting similar policies
or practices.
This RFI is issued solely for
information and planning purposes and
is not a request for proposals (RFP) or
notice inviting applications (NIA) or a
promise to issue an RFP or NIA. This
RFI does not commit the Department to
contract for any supply or service
whatsoever. Further, the Department is
not now seeking proposals and will not
accept unsolicited proposals. The
Department will not pay for any
information or administrative costs that
you may incur in responding to this RFI.
The documents and information
submitted in response to this RFI
become the property of the U.S.
Government and will not be returned.
2. Background
Disaggregating data on subgroups
within the ANHPI student population
has long been a priority for some
educators, researchers, and advocates.
Although data are limited, evidence
shows large disparities among ANHPI
subgroups in terms of income and
educational attainment (Maramba,
2011). For instance, Southeast Asian
Americans (SEAAs) have some of the
highest poverty rates in the Nation: 37.8
percent of Hmong-Americans, 29.3
percent of Cambodian-Americans, 18.5
percent of Laotian-Americans, and 16.6
percent of Vietnamese-Americans in the
United States live in poverty (Reeves
and Bennett, 2004; Teranishi, 2010).
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
In terms of educational attainment,
data from the 2010 U.S. Census reveal
that 37 percent of CambodianAmericans, 38 percent of HmongAmericans, 33 percent of LaotianAmericans, and 29 percent of
Vietnamese-Americans over 25 years of
age had less than a high school
education in 2010, compared with only
5.4 percent of Japanese-Americans and
7 percent of Indonesian-Americans.
Additionally, according to the 2010
Census, only 13 percent of Native
Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders in the
United States 25 years of age and older
had at least a bachelor’s degree. By
contrast, 37.8 percent of FilipinoAmericans 25 and older had at least a
bachelor’s degree. On the issue of
limited English language proficiency, 44
percent of Bangladeshi-Americans and
51 percent of Vietnamese-Americans
indicated they did not speak English
very well (2010 U.S. Census).
Data on the ANHPI student
population as a whole, without
disaggregation, mask the hidden
achievement gaps among subgroups of
ANHPI students and creates a need for
further disaggregation of educational
data among ANHPI student subgroups
(Maramba, 2011). Without disaggregated
data, educational agencies and
institutions might lack the critical and
in-depth information they need to
identify, target, and effectively address
the unique needs of the subgroups of
students who are not succeeding.
There could be several applications
for disaggregated data. For instance,
SEAs, LEAs, schools, and IHEs could
use those data to:
• Identify achievement gaps within
the population of ANHPI students;
• Ensure that support services are
available to the most needy ANHPI
subgroups;
• Analyze graduation rates and
college enrollment rates for the purpose
of making decisions on LEA- and
school-level interventions;
• Examine disparities in school
discipline; and
• Identify rates of enrollment in
rigorous courses (e.g., high-level
science, technology, engineering, and
mathematics course; honors courses;
advanced placement and International
Baccalaureate courses).
While this list of potential uses of
disaggregated data is not exhaustive,
some SEAs, LEAs, schools, and IHEs
might be using disaggregated data in
innovative ways, and the Department
would like to know how this
information is being used to improve
achievement for ANHPI student
subgroups.
E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM
04MYN1
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Notices
The Department has made some
progress in revealing hidden
achievement gaps among ANHPI
subgroups. In 2007, in its Revisions to
the Standards for the Classification of
Federal Data on Race and Ethnicity, 62
FR 58782 (October 30, 1997), the
Department changed the racial and
ethnic data reporting requirements that
implement the Government-wide
standards established by the Office of
Management and Budget;
www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/
1997standards.html. This change has
required educational institutions to
report ‘‘Asian’’ data separately from
‘‘Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific
Islander’’ data to the Department
beginning in school year 2010–11.
In accordance with the 2007 Guidance
and for the first time in 2011, the
Department’s National Center for
Education Statistics (NCES) reported
data for Asian American students
separately from Native Hawaiian and
Other Pacific Islander students in the
National Assessment of Educational
Progress (NAEP) reports. NAEP reports
serve as a common metric for all States,
providing a clear picture of student
academic progress over time. New
baseline data from these NAEP reports
show that Native Hawaiians and Other
Pacific Islanders face achievement gaps
typically reported of other minority
students.
Further, on October 14, 2009,
President Obama signed Executive
Order 13515 ‘‘Increasing Participation of
Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders
in Federal Programs’’ (EO 13515). EO
13515 requires that each participating
Federal agency—including the
Department—develop a plan for
‘‘improv[ing] the quality of life of Asian
Americans and Pacific Islanders through
increased participation in Federal
programs in which Asian Americans
and Pacific Islanders may be
underserved.’’
The Department submitted its plan to
the President in October 2010. The plan
includes a goal to ‘‘identify and
highlight three models with potential
for replication of how schools and
colleges use disaggregated data systems
for * * * students to increase
attainment and achievement.’’ The plan
further states that ‘‘[a]lthough data on
educational achievement and
attainment are generally disaggregated
by major racial and ethnic groups
* * *, a lack of further disaggregation
* * * masks hidden achievement
gaps.’’
This RFI is one step the Department
is taking to achieve the goal previously
described. The RFI seeks information
about existing practices and policies
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:20 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
about collecting data and its use to
improve instructions for ANHPI student
subgroups. In addition, we are
interested in receiving technical
information about these systems, legal
obstacles that were encountered and
how those obstacles were resolved
(including any regulatory solutions),
and other information that would help
the public understand how these
practices and policies for the collection
and use of data on subgroups within the
ANHPI student population could be
implemented by other SEAs, LEAs,
schools, and IHEs.
The Department plans to develop a
summary of the recommendations
drawn from the responses to the RFI
that will be used to help inform
interested organizations. Further, it is
the Department’s goal to take what we
have learned from the RFI and deliver
voluntary technical assistance to SEAs
and LEAs.
3. Context for Responses
3.1 The primary goal of this RFI is to
gather information related to the
disaggregation and use of student data
on subgroups within ANHPI student
populations, and then to disseminate
that information to the public,
specifically to SEAs, LEAs, schools, and
IHEs. Toward that end, the Department
welcomes responses that address SEA,
LEA, school, and IHE policies and
practices related to the issues discussed
in this notice and to applicable Federal,
State, and local laws. To help focus our
consideration of the responses provided,
we have developed several questions.
Because the questions are only guides to
helping us better understand the issues
surrounding ANHPI data disaggregation
in various education communities,
respondents do not have to respond to
any specific question and may provide
comments in a format that is most
convenient to them. Commenters may
also provide relevant information that is
not responsive to a particular question
but might, nevertheless, be helpful.
3.2 General Questions Regarding
Disaggregation of Data on Subgroups
within Asian and Native Hawaiian or
Other Pacific Islander Student
Populations.
3.2.1 Disaggregation Policies and
Practices. We would be interested in
learning whether your SEA, LEA,
school, or IHE has a policy for
disaggregating data on ANHPI racial or
ethnic subgroups. If you do have such
a policy, we would appreciate learning
how your educational agency or
institution disaggregates the data. For
instance, when data for ANHPI student
subgroups are disaggregated, what are
the specific categories that are used, and
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
26533
why? It would be helpful to know
whether the categories are primarily
based upon categories used by the U.S.
Census, e.g., Asian Indian, Cambodian,
Hmong, and Laotian. If not, we would
be interested in learning what categories
are used and why. We would also find
it helpful if commenters could describe
the information about ANHPI student
subgroups that is most helpful in
identifying and addressing the
educational needs of these student
subgroups, e.g., ethnicity, language,
background, gender, etc.
3.2.3 Data Collection and Systems.
Please describe how the data are
collected. For example, are the data
collected through an annual
questionnaire or survey given to parents
or students? What data systems, such as
a statewide longitudinal data system,
are currently being used to collect and
maintain disaggregated data? What, if
anything, had to be changed about your
data system in order to collect
disaggregated data regarding ANHPI
student subgroups?
3.2.4 Effective Use of Disaggregated
Data. Has your practice of collecting
and using disaggregated data for ANHPI
students improved your SEA’s, LEA’s,
school’s or IHE’s ability to identify and
respond to the unique educational
needs and issues of ANHPI student
subgroups? If so, how? Have specific
programs been created or specific
interventions been implemented in
response to the disaggregated data?
Please describe these programs or
interventions and how they have
targeted specific communities.
3.2.5 Barriers. What barriers or
challenges exist that make adoption of
these practices and policies at the SEA,
LEA, school, or postsecondary levels
difficult? Are there common capacity
challenges (e.g., training or technology)
that SEAs, LEAs, schools, and IHEs
might face when disaggregating data on
ANHPI student subgroups? Did your
SEA, LEA, school, or IHE encounter
privacy issues with the smaller
subgroups resulting from disaggregating
data on the ANHPI student population?
What are the general lessons learned
from the adoption of these
disaggregation practices?
3.2.6 Reporting and Transparency.
For SEAs, LEAs, schools, and IHEs that
have disaggregated data for ANHPI
student subgroups, how are
disaggregated data being publicly
reported and used? For example, how
have the data been used in outreach
efforts, curricula development,
adaptation of English language
proficiency programs, and dropout
prevention efforts?
References:
E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM
04MYN1
26534
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 87 / Friday, May 4, 2012 / Notices
Maramba, D. C. 2011. ‘‘The Importance of
Critically Disaggregating Data: The Case of
Southeast Asian American College
Students.’’ aapi nexus Vol. 9, No. 1&2 (Fall
2011): 127–133.
Reeves, T. J. and C.E. Bennett. 2004. ‘‘We the
people: Asians in the United States.’’
Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Teranishi, R. T. 2010. Asians in the Ivory
Tower: Dilemmas of Racial Inequality in
American Higher Education. New York:
Teachers College Press.
Accessible Format: Individuals with
disabilities can obtain this document in
an accessible format, e.g., braille, large
print, audiotape, or compact disc, on
request to the program contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document:
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 via the Federal
Digital System at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys.
At this site you can view this document,
as well as all other documents of this
Department published in the Federal
Register, in text or Adobe Portable
Document Format (PDF). To use PDF
you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader,
which is available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the
Department published in the Federal
Register by using the article search
feature at: www.federalregister.gov.
Specifically, through the advanced
search feature at this site, you can limit
your search to documents published by
the Department.
Dated: May 1, 2012.
Martha Kanter,
Under Secretary.
Michael Yudin,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Elementary
and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2012–10835 Filed 5–3–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
erowe on DSK2VPTVN1PROD with NOTICES
[Docket No. CP12–157–000]
Northern Natural Gas Company,
Florida Gas Transmission Company,
LLC, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Company, LLC, Enterprise Field
Services, LLC; Notice of Application
Take notice that on April 18, 2012,
Northern Natural Gas Company
(Northern Natural), 1111 South 103rd
Street, Omaha, Nebraska 68124–1000,
on behalf of itself and other owners,
VerDate Mar<15>2010
15:20 May 03, 2012
Jkt 226001
Florida Gas Transmission Company,
LLC, Transcontinental Gas Pipe Line
Company, LLC, and Enterprise Field
Services, LLC, filed an application in
Docket No. CP12–157–000 pursuant to
section 4 and section 7(b) of the Natural
Gas Act (NGA) and Part 157 of the
Commission’s regulations, requesting
authorization to abandon in place
certain inactive gathering facilities
consisting of 16.8 miles of 24-inch
diameter pipeline and appurtenances
located in the Mustang Island and
Matagorda Island Areas in Federal
offshore waters of Texas (MOPS Phase
III Facilities).
Any questions concerning this
application may be directed to Michael
T. Loeffler, Senior Director, Certificates
and External Affairs, Northern Natural
Gas Company, 1111 South 103rd Street,
Omaha, Nebraska 68124, or phone at
(402) 398–7103, or email at
mike.loeffler@nngco.com.
There are two ways to become
involved in the Commission’s review of
this project. First, any person wishing to
obtain legal status by becoming a party
to the proceedings for this project
should, on or before the comment date
stated below, file with the Federal
Energy Regulatory Commission, 888
First Street NE., Washington, DC 20426,
a motion to intervene in accordance
with the requirements of the
Commission’s Rules of Practice and
Procedure (18 CFR 385.214 or 385.211)
and the Regulations under the NGA (18
CFR 157.10). A person obtaining party
status will be placed on the service list
maintained by the Secretary of the
Commission and will receive copies of
all documents filed by the applicant and
by all other parties. A party must submit
an original and 7 copies of filings made
with the Commission and must mail a
copy to the applicant and to every other
party in the proceeding. Only parties to
the proceeding can ask for court review
of Commission orders in the proceeding.
However, a person does not have to
intervene in order to have comments
considered. The second way to
participate is by filing with the
Secretary of the Commission, as soon as
possible, an original and two copies of
comments in support of or in opposition
to this project. The Commission will
consider these comments in
determining the appropriate action to be
taken, but the filing of a comment alone
will not serve to make the filer a party
to the proceeding. The Commission’s
rules require that persons filing
comments in opposition to the project
provide copies of their protests only to
the party or parties directly involved in
the protest.
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4703
Sfmt 4703
The Commission strongly encourages
electronic filings of comments, protests
and interventions in lieu of paper using
the ‘‘eFiling’’ link at https://
www.ferc.gov. Persons unable to file
electronically should submit an original
and 7 copies of the protest or
intervention to the Federal Energy
Regulatory Commission, 888 First Street
NE., Washington, DC 20426. This filing
is accessible on-line at https://
www.ferc.gov, using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link
and is available for review in the
Commission’s Public Reference Room in
Washington, DC. There is an
‘‘eSubscription’’ link on the Web site
that enables subscribers to receive email
notification when a document is added
to a subscribed docket(s). For assistance
with any FERC Online service, please
email FERCOnlineSupport@ferc.gov, or
call (866) 208–3676 (toll free). For TTY,
call (202) 502–8659.
Comment Date: May 17, 2012.
Dated: April 26, 2012.
Kimberly D. Bose,
Secretary.
[FR Doc. 2012–10791 Filed 5–3–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6717–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF ENERGY
Federal Energy Regulatory
Commission
[Docket No. CP12–164–000]
Texas Eastern Transmission, LP;
Notice of Application
Take notice that on April 19, 2012,
Texas Eastern Transmission, LP (Texas
Eastern), 5400 Westheimer Court,
Houston, Texas 77056, filed in Docket
No. CP12–164–000, a request for
authority, pursuant to 18 CFR part 157
and section 7(b) of the Natural Gas Act,
to abandon, in place and by removal,
certain pipeline facilities and associated
ancillary facilities in Montgomery
County, Texas. Specifically, Texas
Eastern proposes to abandon, in place,
approximately 5.7 miles of 24-inch
diameter auxiliary pipeline and
abandon, by removal, related ancillary
facilities between mile post (MP) 97.54
and MP 103.23. across the Lake Conroe
Reservoir. Texas Eastern states that the
proposed abandonment will not cause a
reduction in firm service to existing
customers, all as more fully set forth in
the application, which is on file with
the Commission and open to public
inspection. The filing may also be
viewed on the web at https://
www.ferc.gov using the ‘‘eLibrary’’ link.
Enter the docket number excluding the
last three digits in the docket number
E:\FR\FM\04MYN1.SGM
04MYN1
]]>Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 87 (Friday, May 4, 2012)]
[Notices]
[Pages 26531-26534]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-10835]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
[Docket ID ED-2012-OESE-0009]
Request for Information To Gather Technical Expertise Pertaining
to the Disaggregation of Asian and Native Hawaiian and Other Pacific
Islander Student Data and the Use of Those Data in Planning and
Programmatic Endeavors
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Request for Information.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The U.S. Department of Education (the Department) is seeking
to gather and share information about practices and policies regarding
existing education data systems that disaggregate data on subgroups
within the Asian and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Island (ANHPI)
student population. The Department anticipates making use of this
information to help State educational agencies (SEAs), local
educational agencies (LEAs), schools, and institutions of higher
education (IHEs) identify, share, and implement promising practices and
policies for identifying and overcoming challenges to gathering and
disaggregating data on subgroups within the ANHPI student population.
SEAs, LEAs, schools, and IHEs might then use those data to improve
their ability to respond to the unique needs and issues that might
exist for these subgroups.
The Department is issuing this request for information (RFI) to
collect information about promising practices and policies regarding
existing education data systems and models that disaggregate data on
subgroups within the ANHPI student population. The Department poses a
series of questions to which we invite interested members of the
public, including experts and data collection practitioners, to
respond. The Department will publish a document that contains a summary
of the recommendations that we will develop using information obtained
as a result of the RFI and through other outreach efforts.
This RFI has no effect on the existing Federal data collection and
aggregate reporting requirements for racial and ethnic data by
educational agencies and institutions. The Department is not
considering modifying its racial and ethnic data collection and
reporting requirements set forth in its 2007 Final Guidance on
Maintaining, Collecting, and Reporting Racial and Ethnic Data to the
U.S. Department of Education (2007 Guidance), 72 FR 59266 (October 19,
2007). https://www2.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister/other/2007-4/101907c.html.
DATES: Written submissions must be received by the Department on or
before July 3, 2012.
ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal
or via U.S. mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not
accept comments by fax or by email. 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 ``Data
Disaggregation Response'' at the top of your comments.
Federal eRulemaking Portal: Go to 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.''
U.S. Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you
mail or deliver your comments, address them to Donald Yu, Attention:
ANHPI Student Data Disaggregation RFI, U.S. Department of Education,
400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 7C157, Washington, DC 20202-6132.
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 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.
Given the subject matter, some comments may include proprietary
information as it relates to confidential commercial information. The
Freedom of Information Act defines ``confidential commercial
information'' as information the disclosure of which could reasonably
be expected to cause substantial competitive harm. You may wish to
request that we not disclose what you regard as confidential commercial
information.
To assist us in making a determination on your request, we
encourage you to identify any specific information in your comments
that you consider confidential commercial information. Please list the
information by page and paragraph numbers.
While this RFI is seeking to gather information related to policies
and practices, you should still make certain your comments do not
include disclosures of personally identifiable information from
students' education records in a manner that violates the Family
Educational Rights and Privacy Act of 1974 (FERPA).
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Donald Yu, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3W104, Washington, DC 20202-
6132 by phone at 202-205-4499.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), call the
Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-(800) 877-8339.
[[Page 26532]]
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
1. Introduction
The Department is seeking information on disaggregation practices
that SEAs, LEAs, schools, and IHEs use when collecting and reporting
data on Asians and Native Hawaiians or Other Pacific Islanders.\1\ This
is a request for information only. This RFI is specifically inquiring
about examples of: (1) Existing data systems and models that
disaggregate data on subgroups within the ANHPI student population; (2)
the categories for which these systems and models disaggregate data by
ANHPI subgroup, including, but not necessarily limited to, languages
spoken, English language proficiency, and graduation rates; (3) the
challenges that administrators of those systems and models have
encountered in gathering high-quality disaggregated data on subgroups
within the ANHPI student population, and the actions they have taken to
overcome those challenges; and (4) how educational agencies or
institutions have used, or are using, disaggregated data on ANHPIs to
improve their ability to identify and respond to unique educational
needs and issues of those populations.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ OMB defines ``Asian'' as a person having origins in any of
the original peoples of the Far East, Southeast Asia, or the Indian
subcontinent including, for example, Cambodia, China, India, Japan,
Korea, Malaysia, Pakistan, the Philippine Islands, Thailand, and
Vietnam. It includes people who indicate their race as ``Asian
Indian,'' ``Chinese,'' ``Filipino,'' ``Korean,'' ``Japanese,''
``Vietnamese,'' and ``Other Asian'' or provide other detailed Asian
responses. ``Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander'' is defined
as a person having origins in any of the original peoples of Hawaii,
Guam, Samoa, or other Pacific Islands. It includes people who
indicate their race as ``Native Hawaiian,'' ``Guamanian or
Chamorro,'' ``Samoan,'' and ``Other Pacific Islander'' or provide
other detailed Pacific Islander responses.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
This RFI has no effect on the existing Federal data collection and
aggregate reporting requirements for racial and ethnic data by
educational agencies and institutions. The Department is not
considering modifying its racial and ethnic data collection and
reporting requirements. The 2007 Guidance sets forth requirements that
aim to strike the balance between minimizing the burden for educational
agencies and institutions while also ensuring the availability of high-
quality racial and ethnic data for carrying out the Department's
responsibilities in such areas as civil rights enforcement, program
monitoring, the identification and placement of students in special
education, research and statistical analyses, and accountability for
student achievement. Beyond the Federal collection and reporting
requirements, an educational agency or institution has the flexibility
to collect data on subcategories of racial and ethnic data for their
own educational purposes. In the 2007 Guidance, the Department noted
that an educational institution may collect racial and ethnic data on
sub-categories of students, so long as the educational institution can
aggregate the data into Federal reporting categories. The Department
has encouraged educational agencies and institutions to pursue this
option if they determine that it would benefit their educational
purposes, provided that they can still aggregate the data into the
reporting categories required by the Department. Any additional racial
and ethnic subcategories may be used by the State or educational
institution and are not reported to the Department.
It is with this flexibility in mind that we are publishing this
RFI, to learn from and better understand what SEAs, LEAs, schools, and
IHEs around the country are doing with regard to collecting racial and
ethnic data on sub-categories of students and to make any promising
practices available to other educational agencies and institutions that
may be interested in adopting similar policies or practices.
This RFI is issued solely for information and planning purposes and
is not a request for proposals (RFP) or notice inviting applications
(NIA) or a promise to issue an RFP or NIA. This RFI does not commit the
Department to contract for any supply or service whatsoever. Further,
the Department is not now seeking proposals and will not accept
unsolicited proposals. The Department will not pay for any information
or administrative costs that you may incur in responding to this RFI.
The documents and information submitted in response to this RFI
become the property of the U.S. Government and will not be returned.
2. Background
Disaggregating data on subgroups within the ANHPI student
population has long been a priority for some educators, researchers,
and advocates. Although data are limited, evidence shows large
disparities among ANHPI subgroups in terms of income and educational
attainment (Maramba, 2011). For instance, Southeast Asian Americans
(SEAAs) have some of the highest poverty rates in the Nation: 37.8
percent of Hmong-Americans, 29.3 percent of Cambodian-Americans, 18.5
percent of Laotian-Americans, and 16.6 percent of Vietnamese-Americans
in the United States live in poverty (Reeves and Bennett, 2004;
Teranishi, 2010).
In terms of educational attainment, data from the 2010 U.S. Census
reveal that 37 percent of Cambodian-Americans, 38 percent of Hmong-
Americans, 33 percent of Laotian-Americans, and 29 percent of
Vietnamese-Americans over 25 years of age had less than a high school
education in 2010, compared with only 5.4 percent of Japanese-Americans
and 7 percent of Indonesian-Americans. Additionally, according to the
2010 Census, only 13 percent of Native Hawaiians and Pacific Islanders
in the United States 25 years of age and older had at least a
bachelor's degree. By contrast, 37.8 percent of Filipino-Americans 25
and older had at least a bachelor's degree. On the issue of limited
English language proficiency, 44 percent of Bangladeshi-Americans and
51 percent of Vietnamese-Americans indicated they did not speak English
very well (2010 U.S. Census).
Data on the ANHPI student population as a whole, without
disaggregation, mask the hidden achievement gaps among subgroups of
ANHPI students and creates a need for further disaggregation of
educational data among ANHPI student subgroups (Maramba, 2011). Without
disaggregated data, educational agencies and institutions might lack
the critical and in-depth information they need to identify, target,
and effectively address the unique needs of the subgroups of students
who are not succeeding.
There could be several applications for disaggregated data. For
instance, SEAs, LEAs, schools, and IHEs could use those data to:
Identify achievement gaps within the population of ANHPI
students;
Ensure that support services are available to the most
needy ANHPI subgroups;
Analyze graduation rates and college enrollment rates for
the purpose of making decisions on LEA- and school-level interventions;
Examine disparities in school discipline; and
Identify rates of enrollment in rigorous courses (e.g.,
high-level science, technology, engineering, and mathematics course;
honors courses; advanced placement and International Baccalaureate
courses).
While this list of potential uses of disaggregated data is not
exhaustive, some SEAs, LEAs, schools, and IHEs might be using
disaggregated data in innovative ways, and the Department would like to
know how this information is being used to improve achievement for
ANHPI student subgroups.
[[Page 26533]]
The Department has made some progress in revealing hidden
achievement gaps among ANHPI subgroups. In 2007, in its Revisions to
the Standards for the Classification of Federal Data on Race and
Ethnicity, 62 FR 58782 (October 30, 1997), the Department changed the
racial and ethnic data reporting requirements that implement the
Government-wide standards established by the Office of Management and
Budget; www.whitehouse.gov/omb/fedreg/1997standards.html. This change
has required educational institutions to report ``Asian'' data
separately from ``Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander'' data to
the Department beginning in school year 2010-11.
In accordance with the 2007 Guidance and for the first time in
2011, the Department's National Center for Education Statistics (NCES)
reported data for Asian American students separately from Native
Hawaiian and Other Pacific Islander students in the National Assessment
of Educational Progress (NAEP) reports. NAEP reports serve as a common
metric for all States, providing a clear picture of student academic
progress over time. New baseline data from these NAEP reports show that
Native Hawaiians and Other Pacific Islanders face achievement gaps
typically reported of other minority students.
Further, on October 14, 2009, President Obama signed Executive
Order 13515 ``Increasing Participation of Asian Americans and Pacific
Islanders in Federal Programs'' (EO 13515). EO 13515 requires that each
participating Federal agency--including the Department--develop a plan
for ``improv[ing] the quality of life of Asian Americans and Pacific
Islanders through increased participation in Federal programs in which
Asian Americans and Pacific Islanders may be underserved.''
The Department submitted its plan to the President in October 2010.
The plan includes a goal to ``identify and highlight three models with
potential for replication of how schools and colleges use disaggregated
data systems for * * * students to increase attainment and
achievement.'' The plan further states that ``[a]lthough data on
educational achievement and attainment are generally disaggregated by
major racial and ethnic groups * * *, a lack of further disaggregation
* * * masks hidden achievement gaps.''
This RFI is one step the Department is taking to achieve the goal
previously described. The RFI seeks information about existing
practices and policies about collecting data and its use to improve
instructions for ANHPI student subgroups. In addition, we are
interested in receiving technical information about these systems,
legal obstacles that were encountered and how those obstacles were
resolved (including any regulatory solutions), and other information
that would help the public understand how these practices and policies
for the collection and use of data on subgroups within the ANHPI
student population could be implemented by other SEAs, LEAs, schools,
and IHEs.
The Department plans to develop a summary of the recommendations
drawn from the responses to the RFI that will be used to help inform
interested organizations. Further, it is the Department's goal to take
what we have learned from the RFI and deliver voluntary technical
assistance to SEAs and LEAs.
3. Context for Responses
3.1 The primary goal of this RFI is to gather information related
to the disaggregation and use of student data on subgroups within ANHPI
student populations, and then to disseminate that information to the
public, specifically to SEAs, LEAs, schools, and IHEs. Toward that end,
the Department welcomes responses that address SEA, LEA, school, and
IHE policies and practices related to the issues discussed in this
notice and to applicable Federal, State, and local laws. To help focus
our consideration of the responses provided, we have developed several
questions. Because the questions are only guides to helping us better
understand the issues surrounding ANHPI data disaggregation in various
education communities, respondents do not have to respond to any
specific question and may provide comments in a format that is most
convenient to them. Commenters may also provide relevant information
that is not responsive to a particular question but might,
nevertheless, be helpful.
3.2 General Questions Regarding Disaggregation of Data on Subgroups
within Asian and Native Hawaiian or Other Pacific Islander Student
Populations.
3.2.1 Disaggregation Policies and Practices. We would be interested
in learning whether your SEA, LEA, school, or IHE has a policy for
disaggregating data on ANHPI racial or ethnic subgroups. If you do have
such a policy, we would appreciate learning how your educational agency
or institution disaggregates the data. For instance, when data for
ANHPI student subgroups are disaggregated, what are the specific
categories that are used, and why? It would be helpful to know whether
the categories are primarily based upon categories used by the U.S.
Census, e.g., Asian Indian, Cambodian, Hmong, and Laotian. If not, we
would be interested in learning what categories are used and why. We
would also find it helpful if commenters could describe the information
about ANHPI student subgroups that is most helpful in identifying and
addressing the educational needs of these student subgroups, e.g.,
ethnicity, language, background, gender, etc.
3.2.3 Data Collection and Systems. Please describe how the data are
collected. For example, are the data collected through an annual
questionnaire or survey given to parents or students? What data
systems, such as a statewide longitudinal data system, are currently
being used to collect and maintain disaggregated data? What, if
anything, had to be changed about your data system in order to collect
disaggregated data regarding ANHPI student subgroups?
3.2.4 Effective Use of Disaggregated Data. Has your practice of
collecting and using disaggregated data for ANHPI students improved
your SEA's, LEA's, school's or IHE's ability to identify and respond to
the unique educational needs and issues of ANHPI student subgroups? If
so, how? Have specific programs been created or specific interventions
been implemented in response to the disaggregated data? Please describe
these programs or interventions and how they have targeted specific
communities.
3.2.5 Barriers. What barriers or challenges exist that make
adoption of these practices and policies at the SEA, LEA, school, or
postsecondary levels difficult? Are there common capacity challenges
(e.g., training or technology) that SEAs, LEAs, schools, and IHEs might
face when disaggregating data on ANHPI student subgroups? Did your SEA,
LEA, school, or IHE encounter privacy issues with the smaller subgroups
resulting from disaggregating data on the ANHPI student population?
What are the general lessons learned from the adoption of these
disaggregation practices?
3.2.6 Reporting and Transparency. For SEAs, LEAs, schools, and IHEs
that have disaggregated data for ANHPI student subgroups, how are
disaggregated data being publicly reported and used? For example, how
have the data been used in outreach efforts, curricula development,
adaptation of English language proficiency programs, and dropout
prevention efforts?
References:
[[Page 26534]]
Maramba, D. C. 2011. ``The Importance of Critically Disaggregating
Data: The Case of Southeast Asian American College Students.'' aapi
nexus Vol. 9, No. 1&2 (Fall 2011): 127-133.
Reeves, T. J. and C.E. Bennett. 2004. ``We the people: Asians in the
United States.'' Washington, DC: U.S. Census Bureau.
Teranishi, R. T. 2010. Asians in the Ivory Tower: Dilemmas of Racial
Inequality in American Higher Education. New York: Teachers College
Press.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format, e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or compact disc, on request to the program contact person
listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
Electronic Access to This Document:
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
via the Federal Digital System at: www.gpo.gov/fdsys. At this site you
can view this document, as well as all other documents of this
Department published in the Federal Register, in text or Adobe Portable
Document Format (PDF). To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader,
which is available free at the site.
You may also access documents of the Department published in the
Federal Register by using the article search feature at:
www.federalregister.gov. Specifically, through the advanced search
feature at this site, you can limit your search to documents published
by the Department.
Dated: May 1, 2012.
Martha Kanter,
Under Secretary.
Michael Yudin,
Deputy Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 2012-10835 Filed 5-3-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P
