Proposed Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria-Supporting Effective Educator Development, 53819-53826 [2012-21814]
Download as PDF
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
explanation of how the exemption
applies to the records withheld, and the
reasons for asserting it, if different from
those described by the Assistant Legal
Counsel, FOIA Programs, the District
Director, or the District Director’s
designee under § 1610.9. The decision
on appeal shall indicate that the person
making the request may, if dissatisfied
with the decision, file a civil action in
the United States District Court for the
district in which the person resides or
has his principal place of business, for
the district where the records reside, or
for the District of Columbia.
(d) No personal appearance, oral
argument or hearing will ordinarily be
permitted in connection with an appeal
to the Legal Counsel or the Assistant
Legal Counsel, FOIA Programs.
(e) On appeal, the Legal Counsel or
designee, or the Assistant Legal
Counsel, FOIA Programs, as
appropriate, may reduce any fees
previously assessed.
(f) In the event that the Commission
terminates its proceedings on a charge
after the District Director or the District
Director’s designee denies a request, in
whole or in part, for the charge file but
during consideration of the requester’s
appeal from that denial, the request may
be remanded for redetermination. The
requester retains a right to appeal to the
Assistant Legal Counsel, FOIA
Programs, from the decision on remand.
11. Revise § 1610.13 to read as
follows:
§ 1610.13
Maintenance of files.
The Legal Counsel or designee, the
Assistant Legal Counsel, FOIA
Programs, and the District Directors or
designees shall maintain files
containing all material required to be
retained by or furnished to them under
this subpart. The material shall be filed
by individual request.
12. Amend § 1610.14 by revising
paragraph (a) to read as follows:
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
§ 1610.14
Waiver of user charges.
(a) Except as provided in paragraph
(b) of this section, the Legal Counsel or
designee, the Assistant Legal Counsel,
FOIA Programs, and the District
Directors or designees shall assess fees
where applicable in accordance with
§ 1610.15 for search, review, and
duplication of records requested. They
shall also have authority to furnish
documents without any charge or at a
reduced charge if disclosure of the
information is in the public interest
because it is likely to contribute
significantly to public understanding of
the operations or activities of the
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:15 Aug 31, 2012
Jkt 226001
53819
government and is not primarily in the
commercial interest of the requester.
*
*
*
*
*
13. Amend § 1610.15 by adding
paragraph (g) to read as follows:
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
§ 1610.15 Schedule of fees and method of
payment for services rendered.
Proposed Priorities, Requirements,
Definitions, and Selection Criteria—
Supporting Effective Educator
Development
*
*
*
*
*
(g) A search fee will not be charged to
requesters specified in paragraphs (a)(1)
and (a)(3) of this section, and a
duplication fee will not be charged to
requesters specified in paragraph (a)(2)
of this section, if the Commission issues
an untimely determination and the
untimeliness is not due to unusual or
exceptional circumstances.
14. Amend § 1610.18 by revising the
introductory text and adding paragraph
(h) to read as follows:
34 CFR Subtitle A
[DOCKET ID ED–2012–OII–0013]
RIN 1855–AA08
[CFDA Number: 84.367D.]
Office of Innovation and
Improvement, Department of Education.
ACTION: Proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria.
AGENCY:
The Commission will provide the
following information to the public.
This information will also be made
available electronically:
*
*
*
*
*
(h) Underlying annual FOIA report
data.
15. Amend § 1610.19 by removing
paragraph (b)(2), redesignating
paragraph (b)(3) as paragraph (b)(2), and
removing the word ‘‘working’’ wherever
it appears in paragraphs (d) and (e) and
add in its place the word ‘‘business.’’
16. Remove and reserve § 1610.20.
The Assistant Deputy
Secretary for Innovation and
Improvement proposes priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria under the Supporting Effective
Educator Development (SEED) Grant
program. We may use these priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria for competitions of the SEED
Grant program for fiscal year (FY) 2012
and later years. We intend for the
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria to help national notfor-profit organizations to build
evidence on how best to recruit, train,
and support effective teachers and
school leaders; recruit and prepare
effective science, technology,
engineering, and mathematics teachers;
and invest in efforts that enhance the
teaching and school leadership
professions.
§ 1610.20
DATES:
§ 1610.18
Information to be disclosed.
[Removed and Reserved]
17. Revise § 1610.21 to read as
follows:
§ 1610.21
Annual report.
The Legal Counsel shall, on or before
February 1, submit individual Freedom
of Information Act reports for each
principal agency FOIA component and
one for the entire agency covering the
preceding fiscal year to the Attorney
General of the United States. The
reports shall include those matters
required by 5 U.S.C. 552(e), and shall be
made available electronically on the
agency Web site.
[FR Doc. 2012–21495 Filed 8–31–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 6570–01–P
PO 00000
Frm 00041
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
SUMMARY:
We must receive your comments
on or before October 4, 2012.
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 email. To ensure
that we do not receive duplicate copies,
please submit your comments only
once. In addition, please include the
Docket ID and the phrase ‘‘Supporting
Effective Educator Development’’ 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.’’ A
direct link to the docket page is also
available at www.ed.gov/programs/
innovation/.
• Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery,
or Hand Delivery. If you mail or deliver
your comments about these proposed
E:\FR\FM\04SEP1.SGM
04SEP1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53820
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria, address them to Office
of Innovation and Improvement
(Attention: Supporting Effective
Educator Development Comments), U.S.
Department of Education, 400 Maryland
Avenue SW., room 4C131, Washington,
DC 20202.
• Privacy Note: The Department’s
policy is to make all comments received
from members of the public 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Richard Wilson Telephone: (202) 453–
6709 or by email: seed@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications
device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay
Service, toll free, at 1–800–877–8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation to Comment: We invite you
to submit comments regarding this
notice. To ensure that your comments
have maximum effect in developing the
notice of final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria, we
urge you to identify clearly the specific
proposed priority, requirement,
definition, or selection criterion that
each comment addresses.
We invite you to assist us in
complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Orders 12866
and 13563 and their overall requirement
of reducing regulatory burden that
might result from the proposed
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria. Please let us know of
any further ways we could reduce
potential costs or increase potential
benefits while preserving the effective
and efficient administration of the
Department’s programs and activities.
During and after the comment period,
you may inspect all public comments
about this notice by accessing
Regulations.gov. You may also inspect
the comments in person, in room
4W335, 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
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:15 Aug 31, 2012
Jkt 226001
schedule an appointment for this type of
accommodation or auxiliary aid, please
contact the person listed under FOR
FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT in the
SUMMARY section of this notice.
Purpose of Program: The SEED Grant
program provides funding for grants to
national not-for-profit organizations for
projects that support teacher or
principal training or professional
enhancement activities and are
supported by at least moderate evidence
of effectiveness (as defined in this
notice).
mechanism to identify and support
projects that will strengthen teaching
and school leadership specifically for
high-need schools. As proposed in this
notice, applicants must demonstrate
how they will build evidence on how
best to recruit, prepare, and support
effective teachers and principals.
The following priorities focus on this
goal.
Program Authority: Department of
Education Appropriations Act, 2012 (Pub. L.
112–74, Title III, Division F).
Background
Proposed Priorities
This notice contains seven proposed
priorities.
Background
The Statutory Context
The Department of Education
Appropriations Act, 2012, requires the
Secretary to reserve up to 1.5 percent of
the funds for the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act’s (ESEA) Title
II, Part A programs for competitive
awards to national not-for-profit
organizations for teacher or principal
training or professional enhancement
activities.
Overview of the SEED Grant program
Reforming and improving schools
with high concentrations of high-need
students is a key priority for the
Department. Strengthening teacher and
principal leadership is an essential part
of any strategy to make a difference in
these schools. Research shows that
teachers are a critical element in
improving student learning.1
Additionally, there is compelling
evidence that strong principals have
positive, although indirect, effects on
student learning.2 The Department is
using the SEED Grant program as a
1 Lee S. Shulman, Knowledge and Teaching:
Foundations of the New Reform, Harvard
Educational Review, Vol. 57, No. 1 (February 1987),
pages 1–22; Eric A. Hanushek, John F. Kain, &
Steven G. Rivkin. Teachers, Schools, and Academic
Achievement (NBER Working Paper No. 6691)
(1998), National Bureau of Economic Research,
Retrieved April 25, 2012, from https://www.nber.org/
papers/w6691.pdf; Thomas J. Kane & Douglas O.
Staiger, Gathering Feedback for Teaching:
Combining High-Quality Observations with Student
Surveys and Achievement Gains, Bill & Melinda
Gates Foundation (January, 2012).
2 Kyla L. Wahlstom, Karen Seashore-Louis,
Kenneth Leithwood, & Stephen E. Anderson,
Learning from Leadership: Investigating the Links to
Improved Student Learning, Center for Applied
Research and Educational Improvement, University
of Minnesota, Ontario Institute for Studies in
Education at the University of Toronto, sponsored
by the Wallace Foundation (July, 2010).
PO 00000
Frm 00042
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
Proposed Priority 1: Teacher or
Principal Recruitment, Selection, and
Preparation
This proposed priority would support
projects that will recruit, select, and
prepare teachers, principals, or both
who are able to increase student
achievement and student learning,
particularly in high-need schools.
Although we included a similar priority
in our September 8, 2011, notice
inviting applications (76 FR 55658–
55664) (2012 SEED NIA), that priority
focused only on teachers. The
Department of Education
Appropriations Act, 2012, provides that
projects may serve principals, teachers,
or both and, therefore, we are modifying
this priority accordingly. Additionally,
we propose to include a more explicit
focus on schools with high
concentrations of high-need students (as
defined in this notice) and to provide
more direction on required project
activities.
Proposed Priority 1
Under this proposed priority, the
Secretary would fund projects that will
create or expand practices and strategies
that increase the number of highly
effective teachers (as defined in this
notice) or highly effective principals (as
defined in this notice) by recruiting,
selecting, and preparing talented
individuals to work in schools with
high concentrations of high-need
students (as defined in this notice).
Projects would include activities that
focus on creating or expanding highperforming teacher preparation
programs, principal preparation
programs, or both. Activities may
include but are not limited to expanding
clinical experiences, re-designing and
implementing program coursework to
align with State standards and district
requirements for their P–12 teachers,
providing induction and other support
for program participants in their
classrooms and schools, and developing
strategies for tracking the effect of
program graduates on the achievement
of their students or their schools.
In addition, an applicant would need
to propose a plan demonstrating a
E:\FR\FM\04SEP1.SGM
04SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
rigorous, competitive selection process
to determine which aspiring teachers or
principals participate in the applicant’s
proposed activities.
Proposed Priority 2: Professional
Development for Teachers of English
Language Arts With a Specific Focus on
Writing
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Background
This proposed priority is based on
Absolute Priority 2 published in the
2012 SEED NIA. We propose changing
the priority by requiring that the
professional development be aligned
with State standards. We also propose to
require that the professional
development align with district needs
and include a rigorous evaluation of the
effectiveness of teachers who participate
in the professional development.
teachers, principals, or both who will
serve as models, coaches, and mentors
from whom other teachers, principals,
or both can learn and strengthen their
practices. We propose changing this
priority from Absolute Priority 3 in the
2012 SEED NIA by encouraging
applicants to target services to teachers,
principals, or both who are working or
agree to work in schools with high
concentrations of high-need students (as
defined in this notice). We also propose
adding requirements for the selection of
participants and the evaluation of
outcomes or effectiveness of
participants.
Proposed Priority 3
Proposed Priority 2
Under this proposed priority, the
Secretary would fund projects designed
to improve student literacy and writing
skills by creating or expanding practices
and strategies that increase the number
of highly effective teachers (as defined
in this notice) of English language arts
by improving their knowledge,
understanding, and teaching of English
language arts, with a specific focus on
teaching writing. Projects would focus
on increasing student achievement (as
defined in this notice) in English
language arts by providing high-quality
professional development to teachers in
schools with high concentrations of
high-need students (as defined in this
notice).
An applicant would be required to
describe the need of the proposed
districts to be served for teacher
professional development in English
language arts and demonstrate
alignment of its proposed project with
State standards.
In addition, applicants would have to
describe how they plan to measure the
impact the professional development
has on the effectiveness of teachers
served by the project. Applicants would
need to determine teacher effectiveness
through a rigorous, transparent, and fair
evaluation in which performance is
differentiated using multiple measures
of effectiveness and based in significant
part on student growth (as defined in
this notice).
Under this proposed priority, the
Secretary would fund projects that will
create or expand practices and strategies
that increase the number of highly
effective teachers (as defined in this
notice), highly effective principals (as
defined in this notice), or both, who
work in schools with high
concentrations of high-need students (as
defined in this notice).
Applicants would be required to focus
their proposed projects on encouraging
and supporting teachers, principals, or
both, who seek a nationally recognized,
standards-based advanced certificate or
advanced credential through highquality professional enhancement
projects designed to improve teaching
and learning for teachers who would
take on career ladder positions (as
defined in this notice), principals, or
both who would serve as models,
mentors, and coaches for other teachers,
principals, or both working in schools
with high concentrations of high-need
students (as defined in this notice).
In addition, effectiveness of teachers
or principals who receive advanced
certification or credentialing would
need to be determined through a
rigorous, transparent, and fair
evaluation in which performance is
differentiated using multiple measures
of effectiveness and based in significant
part on student growth (as defined in
this notice).
Finally, an applicant would need to
propose a plan demonstrating a
rigorous, competitive selection process
to determine which teachers or
principals participate in the applicant’s
proposed activities.
Proposed Priority 3: Advanced
Certification and Advanced
Credentialing
Proposed Priority 4: Promoting Science,
Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) Education
Background
This proposed priority would support
projects that will develop or enhance
systems to develop and recognize
Background
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:15 Aug 31, 2012
Jkt 226001
This proposed priority would support
projects that will improve professional
development for STEM teachers and
PO 00000
Frm 00043
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
53821
increase the number of STEM teachers
from traditionally underrepresented
groups. Improving STEM education is
critical in developing a globally
competitive workforce.
This priority was not used in the 2012
SEED NIA. We propose adding this
priority because it would respond to the
high demand for highly effective STEM
teachers, particularly in high-need
schools. We also note that this proposed
priority is based on the notice of final
supplemental priorities and definitions
for discretionary grant programs,
published in the Federal Register on
December 15, 2010 (75 FR 78486–
78511), and corrected on May 12, 2011
(76 FR 27637–27641) (Supplemental
Priorities). However, in both subsections
(a) and (b) of this proposed priority, we
removed the term ‘‘other educators’’
because the appropriations language for
the SEED Grant program allows projects
that provide services only to teachers,
principals, or both.
Proposed Priority 4
Under this proposed priority, the
Secretary would fund projects that
address one or both of the following
priority areas:
(a) Increasing the opportunities for
high-quality preparation of, or
professional development for, teachers
of STEM subjects.
(b) Increasing the number of
individuals from groups traditionally
underrepresented in STEM, including
minorities, individuals with disabilities,
and women, who are teachers of STEM
subjects and have increased
opportunities for high-quality
preparation or professional
development.
In addition, applicants would have to
describe how they plan to measure the
impact the proposed project activities
have on teacher effectiveness.
Applicants would need to determine
teacher effectiveness through a rigorous,
transparent, and fair evaluation in
which performance is differentiated
using multiple measures of effectiveness
and based in significant part on student
growth (as defined in this notice).
Proposed Priority 5: Professional
Development for Teachers of Core
Academic Subjects
Background
This proposed priority would support
projects that will provide professional
development to teachers of core
academic subjects, including special
education teachers, to help them
continue to improve their pedagogy,
increase their knowledge of core
subjects, and become highly effective
E:\FR\FM\04SEP1.SGM
04SEP1
53822
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
teachers in schools with high
concentrations of high-need students (as
defined in this notice). We propose
adding this priority to support the
creation and expansion of high-quality
professional development projects that
strengthen instruction and raise student
achievement across core academic
subjects. The priority would require that
the professional development be aligned
with State standards. We also propose to
include requirements for the selection of
participants that align with district
needs and for the evaluation of the
effectiveness of participants.
Proposed Priority 5
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Under this proposed priority, the
Secretary would fund projects that will
create or expand practices and strategies
that increase the number of highly
effective teachers (as defined in this
notice) by providing professional
development opportunities to teachers,
including special education teachers, in
schools with high concentrations of
high-need students (as defined in this
notice). Projects would focus on
increasing student achievement (as
defined in this notice) in core academic
subjects by providing high-quality
professional development to teachers.
The academic subjects that may be
addressed through professional
development under this priority include
foreign languages, civics and
government, economics, arts, history,
physical education, geography,
environmental education, and financial
literacy.
Applicants would be required to
describe the need of the proposed
districts to be served for teacher
professional development in the
selected high-need core academic
subjects and to demonstrate alignment
of its proposed project with State
standards.
In addition, applicants would have to
describe how they plan to measure the
impact the professional development
has on teacher effectiveness. Applicants
would need to determine teacher
effectiveness through a rigorous,
transparent, and fair evaluation in
which performance is differentiated
using multiple measures of effectiveness
and based in significant part on student
growth (as defined in this notice).
Proposed Priority 6: Improving
Efficiency
Background
This proposed priority would support
projects that identify cost-effective
strategies to improve project outcomes.
In order to meet this priority, applicants
would be required to demonstrate how
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:15 Aug 31, 2012
Jkt 226001
they will efficiently improve
educational outcomes, including
student achievement. We propose
changing the language in this priority
from the Competitive Preference Priority
2 in the 2012 SEED NIA in order to
emphasize the use of cost-effective
strategies.
Proposed Priority 6
Under this proposed priority, the
Secretary would fund projects that will
identify strategies for providing costeffective, high-quality services at the
State, regional, or local level by making
better use of available resources. Such
projects may include innovative and
sustainable uses of technology,
modification of school schedules and
teacher compensation systems, use of
open educational resources (as defined
in this notice), or other strategies.
Proposed Priority 7: Supporting
Practices and Strategies for Which
There Is Strong Evidence of
Effectiveness
Background
This proposed priority would support
projects that are supported by strong
evidence. The Department firmly
believes that the strongest available
evidence should inform educational
funding and policy decisions. Creating a
larger pool of evidence-supported
implementation sites will provide more
opportunities to scale up projects that
have a history of success and to improve
educational outcomes for more students.
We propose to leave this priority
unchanged from the 2012 SEED NIA;
however, we propose a slightly different
definition of ‘‘strong evidence of
effectiveness’’, as explained in the
Definitions section of this notice.
Proposed Priority 7
Under this proposed priority, the
Secretary would fund projects that are
supported by strong evidence of
effectiveness (as defined in this notice).
Types of Priorities
When inviting applications for a
competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each
priority as absolute, competitive
preference, or invitational through a
notice in the Federal Register. The
effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute
priority, as specified by 34 CFR
75.105(c)(3), we would consider only
applications that meet the priority.
Competitive preference priority:
Under a competitive preference priority,
we give competitive preference to an
application by (1) awarding additional
points, depending on the extent to
PO 00000
Frm 00044
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
which the application meets the priority
(34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2) selecting
an application that meets the priority
over an application of comparable merit
that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an
invitational priority, we are particularly
interested in applications that meet the
priority. However, we do not give an
application that meets the priority
preference over other applications (34
CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Proposed Requirements
The Secretary proposes the following
requirements for the SEED Grant
program. We may apply these
requirements in any year in which this
program is in effect.
Eligible applicants: To be eligible for
a SEED Grant program grant, an entity
must be a national not-for-profit
organization (as defined in this notice).
Each applicant must provide in its
application documentation that it is a
national not-for-profit organization (as
defined in this notice).
Evidence of effectiveness: To be
eligible for funding, an applicant must
demonstrate that its proposed project is
supported by at least moderate evidence
of effectiveness (as defined in this
notice).
Each applicant must provide in its
application documentation that its
proposed project is supported by at least
moderate evidence of effectiveness. An
applicant that applies for Proposed
Priority 7 also must provide
documentation that its proposed project
is supported by strong evidence of
effectiveness. An applicant must ensure
that all evidence is available to the
Department from publically available
sources and provide links, references, or
copies of the evidence in the
application. If the Department
determines that an applicant has
provided insufficient evidence that its
proposed project meets the definition of
‘‘moderate evidence of effectiveness,’’ or
‘‘strong evidence of effectiveness,’’ the
applicant will not have an opportunity
to provide additional evidence to
support its application.
Evaluations: An applicant receiving
funds under this program must comply
with the requirements of any evaluation
of the program conducted by the
Department. In addition, an applicant
receiving funds under this program
must make broadly available through
formal (e.g., peer-reviewed journals) or
informal (e.g., newsletters) mechanisms,
and in print or electronically, the results
of any evaluations it conducts of its
funded activities.
E:\FR\FM\04SEP1.SGM
04SEP1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Proposed Definitions
The Secretary proposes the following
definitions for this competition. We
propose to modify the definition of
‘‘national not-for-profit organization’’
from the definition used in the 2012
SEED NIA to add more objective criteria
for determining what type of
organizations meet the definition.
Additionally, the definitions relating to
levels of evidence have both been
changed to align more closely with
other Department definitions of levels of
evidence. We may apply one or more of
these definitions in any year in which
this program is in effect.
Career ladder positions means schoolbased instructional leadership positions
designed to improve instructional
practice, which teachers may
voluntarily accept, such as positions
described as master teacher, mentor
teacher, demonstration or model
teacher, or instructional coach, and for
which teachers are selected based on
criteria that are predictive of the ability
to lead other teachers.
High-need students means students at
risk of educational failure, such as
students who are living in poverty, who
are English learners, who are far below
grade level or who are not on track to
becoming college- or career-ready by
graduation, who have left school or
college before receiving, respectively, a
regular high school diploma or a college
degree or certificate, who are at risk of
not graduating with a diploma on time,
who are homeless, who are in foster
care, who are pregnant or parenting
teenagers, who have been incarcerated,
who are new immigrants, who are
migrant, or who have disabilities.
Highly effective principal means a
principal whose students, overall and
for each subgroup as described in
section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the
Elementary and Secondary Education
Act, as amended (ESEA) (i.e.,
economically disadvantaged students,
students from major racial and ethnic
groups, students with disabilities, and
students with limited English
proficiency), achieve high rates (e.g.,
one and one-half grade levels in an
academic year) of student growth.
Eligible applicants may include
multiple measures, provided that
principal effectiveness is evaluated, in
significant part, based on student
growth. Supplemental measures may
include, for example, high school
graduation rates; college enrollment
rates; evidence of providing supportive
teaching and learning conditions,
support for ensuring effective
instruction across subject areas for a
well-rounded education, strong
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:58 Aug 31, 2012
Jkt 226001
instructional leadership, and positive
family and community engagement; or
evidence of attracting, developing, and
retaining high numbers of effective
teachers.
Highly effective teacher means a
teacher whose students achieve high
rates (e.g., one and one-half grade levels
in an academic year) of student growth.
Eligible applicants may include
multiple measures, provided that
teacher effectiveness is evaluated, in
significant part, based on student
growth. Supplemental measures may
include, for example, multiple
observation-based assessments of
teacher performance or evidence of
leadership roles (which may include
mentoring or leading professional
development learning communities)
that increase effectiveness of other
teachers in the school or local
educational agency (LEA).
Large sample means a sample of 350
or more students (or other single
analysis units) who were randomly
assigned to a treatment or control group,
or 50 or more groups (such as
classrooms or schools) that contain 10
or more students (or other single
analysis units) and that were randomly
assigned to a treatment or control group.
Moderate evidence of effectiveness
means one of the following conditions
is met:
(1) There is at least one study of the
effectiveness of the process, product,
strategy, or practice being proposed that
meets the What Works Clearinghouse
Evidence Standards without
reservations; 3 found a statistically
significant favorable impact on a
relevant outcome (as defined in this
notice) (with no statistically significant
unfavorable impacts on that outcome for
relevant populations in the study or in
other studies of the intervention
reviewed by and reported on by the
What Works Clearinghouse); and
includes a sample that overlaps with the
populations or settings proposed to
receive the process, product, strategy, or
practice.
(2) There is at least one study of the
effectiveness of the process, product,
strategy, or practice being proposed that
meets the What Works Clearinghouse
Evidence Standards with reservations,4
found a statistically significant favorable
3 See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and
Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011),
which can currently be found at the following link:
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
4 See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and
Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011),
which can currently be found at the following link:
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
PO 00000
Frm 00045
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
53823
impact on a relevant outcome (as
defined in this notice) (with no
statistically significant unfavorable
impacts on that outcome for relevant
populations in the study or in other
studies of the intervention reviewed by
and reported on by the What Works
Clearinghouse), includes a sample that
overlaps with the populations or
settings proposed to receive the process,
product, strategy, or practice, and
includes a large sample (as defined in
this notice) and a multi-site sample (as
defined in this notice) (Note: multiple
studies can cumulatively meet the large
and multi-site sample requirements as
long as each study meets the other
requirements in this paragraph).
Multi-site sample means more than
one site, where site can be defined as an
LEA, locality, or State.
National level describes the level of
scope or effectiveness of a process,
product, strategy, or practice that is able
to be effective in a wide variety of
communities, including rural and urban
areas, as well as with different groups
(e.g., economically disadvantaged, racial
and ethnic groups, migrant populations,
individuals with disabilities, English
learners, and individuals of each
gender).
National not-for-profit organization
means an entity that meets the
definition of ‘‘nonprofit’’ under 34 CFR
77.1(c) and is of national scope,
meaning that the entity provides
services in multiple States to a
significant number or percentage of
recipients and is supported by staff or
affiliates in multiple States.
Open educational resources means
teaching, learning, and research
resources that reside in the public
domain or have been released under an
intellectual property license that
permits their free use or repurposing by
others.
Relevant outcome means the student
outcome or outcomes (or the ultimate
outcome if not related to students) that
the proposed project is designed to
improve, consistent with the specific
goals of a program.
Strong evidence of effectiveness
means that one of the following
conditions is met:
(1) There is at least one study of the
effectiveness of the process, product,
strategy, or practice being proposed that
meets the What Works Clearinghouse
Evidence Standards without
reservations; 5 found a statistically
5 See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and
Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011),
which can currently be found at the following link:
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
E:\FR\FM\04SEP1.SGM
04SEP1
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
53824
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
significant favorable impact on a
relevant outcome (as defined in this
notice) (with no statistically significant
unfavorable impacts on that outcome for
relevant populations in the study or in
other studies of the intervention
reviewed by and reported on by the
What Works Clearinghouse); includes a
sample that overlaps with the
populations and settings proposed to
receive the process, product, strategy, or
practice; and includes a large sample (as
defined in this notice) and a multi-site
sample (as defined in this notice) (Note:
multiple studies can cumulatively meet
the large and multi-site sample
requirements as long as each study
meets the other requirements in this
paragraph).
(2) There are at least two studies of
the effectiveness of the process, product,
strategy, or practice being proposed,
each of which meets the What Works
Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with
reservations,6 found a statistically
significant favorable impact on a
relevant outcome (as defined in this
notice) (with no statistically significant
unfavorable impacts on that outcome for
relevant populations in the studies or in
other studies of the intervention
reviewed by and reported on by the
What Works Clearinghouse), includes a
sample that overlaps with the
populations and settings proposed to
receive the process, product, strategy, or
practice, and includes a large sample (as
defined in this notice) and a multi-site
sample (as defined in this notice).
Student achievement means—
(a) For tested grades and subjects: (1)
A student’s score on the State’s
assessments under the ESEA; and, as
appropriate, (2) other measures of
student learning, such as those
described in paragraph (b) of this
definition, provided they are rigorous
and comparable across schools.
(b) For non-tested grades and subjects:
alternative measures of student learning
and performance, such as student scores
on pre-tests and end-of-course tests;
student performance on English
language proficiency assessments; and
other measures of student achievement
that are rigorous and comparable across
schools.
Student growth means the change in
student achievement (as defined in this
notice) for an individual student
between two or more points in time. An
applicant may also include other
measures that are rigorous and
comparable across classrooms.
6 See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and
Standards Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011),
which can currently be found at the following link:
https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/
DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:15 Aug 31, 2012
Jkt 226001
Proposed Selection Criteria
Background
The proposed selection criteria are
intended to ensure that applicants can
demonstrate that they have the
experience and capacity to expand or
develop practices and strategies to
recruit, select, and prepare or provide
professional enhancement activities for
teachers, principals, or both.
In the absence of specific selection
criteria for the SEED Grant program, the
Department would use the general
selection criteria in 34 CFR 75.210 of
the Education Department General
Administrative Regulations (EDGAR) in
selecting grant recipients. While many
of the selection criteria subfactors are
taken directly from EDGAR at 34 CFR
75.210, they have been combined in
some cases or organized under different
criteria in other cases. In addition, some
subfactors have been edited to focus on
that which would affect the ability of
the applicant to implement an effective
project that meets the SEED Grant
program’s purposes.
Under the proposed selection criteria,
the Secretary would assess the extent to
which an applicant would be able to
sustain a project once Federal funding
through the SEED Grant program is no
longer available. Thus, eligible
applicants should propose activities that
they will be able to sustain without
funding from the program and should
include in their management plan the
specific steps they will take for
sustained implementation of the
proposed project.
Proposed Selection Criteria
The Secretary proposes the following
selection criteria for evaluating an
application under the SEED Grant
program. We may apply one or more of
these criteria, as well as other criteria or
factors established in 34 CFR 75.210, in
any year in which this program is in
effect. In the notice inviting applications
or the application package, or both, we
will announce the maximum possible
points assigned to each criterion.
(a) Significance. The Secretary
considers the significance of the
proposed project. In determining the
significance of the proposed project, the
Secretary considers:
(1) The significance of the proposed
project on a national level (as defined in
this notice).
(2) The potential contribution of the
proposed project to the development
and advancement of teacher and school
leadership theory, knowledge, and
practices.
(3) The importance or magnitude of
the results or outcomes likely to be
PO 00000
Frm 00046
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
attained by the proposed project,
especially improvements in teaching
and student achievement.
(b) Quality of the Project Design and
Services. The Secretary considers the
quality of the design and services of the
proposed project. In determining the
quality of the design and services of the
proposed project, the Secretary
considers:
(1) The extent to which the goals,
objectives, and outcomes to be achieved
by the proposed project are clearly
specified, aligned, and measurable.
(2) The extent to which the proposed
project is part of a comprehensive effort
to improve teaching and learning and
support rigorous academic standards for
students.
(3) The extent to which the training or
professional development services to be
provided by the proposed project will
be of sufficient quality, intensity, and
duration to lead to improvements in
practice among the recipients of those
services.
(c) Quality of the Management Plan
and Personnel. The Secretary considers
the quality of the management plan for
the proposed project and of the
personnel who will carry out the
proposed project. In determining the
quality of the management plan and the
project personnel, the Secretary
considers:
(1) The qualifications, including
relevant training and experience, of the
project director, key project personnel,
and project consultants or
subcontractors.
(2) The adequacy of the management
plan to achieve the objectives of the
proposed project on time and within
budget, including clearly defined
responsibilities, timelines, and
milestones for accomplishing project
tasks.
(3) The extent to which the time
commitments of the project director and
other key project personnel are
appropriate and adequate to meet the
objectives of the proposed project.
(4) The extent to which the proposed
management plan includes sufficient
and reasonable resources to effectively
carry out the proposed project,
including the project evaluation.
(d) Sustainability. The Secretary
considers the adequacy of resources to
continue the proposed project after the
grant period ends. In determining the
adequacy of resources and the potential
for utility of the proposed project’s
activities and products by other
organizations, the Secretary considers:
(1) The extent to which the proposed
project is designed to build capacity and
yield results that will extend beyond the
period of Federal financial assistance.
E:\FR\FM\04SEP1.SGM
04SEP1
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
(2) The extent to which the proposed
project is likely to yield findings and
products (such as information,
materials, processes, or techniques) that
may be used by other agencies and
organizations.
(3) The extent to which the applicant
will disseminate information about
results and outcomes of the proposed
project in ways that will enable others,
including the public, to use the
information or strategies.
(e) Quality of the Project Evaluation.
The Secretary considers the quality of
the evaluation to be conducted of the
proposed project. In determining the
quality of the evaluation, the Secretary
considers one or more of the following
factors:
(1) The extent to which the methods
of evaluation are thorough, feasible, and
appropriate to the goals, objectives, and
outcomes of the proposed project.
(2) The extent to which the evaluation
includes the use of objective
performance measures that are clearly
related to the intended outcomes of the
project and will produce quantitative
and qualitative data.
(3) The extent to which the evaluation
will provide performance feedback and
permit periodic assessment of progress
toward achieving intended outcomes.
(4) The extent to which the proposed
project plan includes sufficient
resources to carry out the project
evaluation effectively.
Note: We encourage applicants to review
the following technical assistance resources
on evaluation: (1) What Works Clearinghouse
Procedures and Standards Handbook: https://
ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/references/idocviewer/
doc.aspx?docid=19&tocid=1; and (2) IES/
NCEE Technical Methods papers: https://
ies.ed.gov/ncee/tech_methods/.
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
Final Priorities, Requirements,
Definitions, and Selection Criteria
We will announce the final priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria in a notice in the Federal
Register. We will determine the final
priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria after considering
responses to this notice and other
information available to the Department.
This notice does not preclude us from
proposing additional priorities,
requirements, definitions, or selection
criteria, subject to meeting applicable
rulemaking requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit
applications. In any year in which we choose
to use these priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria, we invite
applications through a notice in the Federal
Register.
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:15 Aug 31, 2012
Jkt 226001
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
This proposed regulatory action is not
a significant regulatory action subject to
review by OMB under section 3 (f) of
Executive Order 12866.
We have also reviewed this proposed
regulatory action under Executive Order
13563, which supplements and
explicitly reaffirms the principles,
structures, and definitions governing
regulatory review established in
Executive Order 12866. To the extent
permitted by law, Executive Order
13563 requires that an agency—
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only
on a reasoned determination that their
benefits justify their costs (recognizing
that some benefits and costs are difficult
to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the
least burden on society, consistent with
obtaining regulatory objectives and
taking into account—among other things
and to the extent practical—the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, select those
approaches that maximize net benefits
(including potential economic,
environmental, public health and safety
and other advantages; distributive
impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify
performance objectives, rather than the
behavior or manner of compliance a
regulated entity must adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available
alternatives to direct regulation,
including economic incentives—such as
user fees or marketable permits—to
encourage the desired behavior, or
provide information that enables the
public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires
an agency ‘‘to use the best available
techniques to quantify anticipated
present and future benefits and costs as
accurately as possible.’’ The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of
OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ‘‘identifying
changing future compliance costs that
might result from technological
innovation or anticipated behavior
changes.’’
We are taking this proposed
regulatory action only on a reasoned
determination that the benefits justify
the costs. In choosing among alternative
regulatory approaches, we selected
those approaches that maximize net
benefits. The Department believes that
this proposed regulatory action is
consistent with the principles in
Executive Order 13563.
We also have determined that this
regulatory action would not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal
PO 00000
Frm 00047
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
53825
governments in the exercise of their
governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive
orders, the Department has assessed the
potential costs and benefits of this
regulatory action. The potential costs
associated with this regulatory action
are those resulting from statutory
requirements and those we have
determined as necessary for
administering the Department’s
programs and activities.
Summary of Costs and Benefits
The costs of carrying out activities
would be paid for with program funds
and with matching funds provided by
private-sector partners. Thus, the costs
of implementation would not be a
burden for any eligible applicants,
including small entities.
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)).
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.
We estimate that each applicant
would spend approximately 176 hours
of staff time to address the proposed
requirements and selection criteria,
prepare the application, and obtain
necessary clearances. The total number
of hours for all expected applicants is an
estimated 2,640 hours. We estimate the
total cost per hour of the applicant-level
staff who will carry out this work to be
$57 per hour. The total estimated cost
for all applicants is estimated to be
$150,480.
Under the PRA, the Department has
submitted to OMB for its review a copy
of the information collection (including
the burden estimates) for the SEED
discretionary grant application using the
proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria.
Through this NPP, OII seeks comment
on this information collection. If you
want to comment on the proposed
information collection, please send your
comments to the Office of Information
and Regulatory Affairs, OMB, Attention:
E:\FR\FM\04SEP1.SGM
04SEP1
53826
Federal Register / Vol. 77, No. 171 / Tuesday, September 4, 2012 / Proposed Rules
Desk Officer for U.S. Department of
Education. Send these comments by
email to OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov
or by fax to (202) 395–6974. You may
also send a copy of these comments to
the Department contact named in the
sroberts on DSK5SPTVN1PROD with PROPOSALS
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT
section of this notice.
In preparing your comments you may
want to review the ICR, which we
maintain in the Education Department
Information Collection System (EDICS)
at https://edicsweb.ed.gov. Click on
Browse Pending Collections. This
proposed collection is identified as
proposed collection (04833) 1855-New.
This ICR is also available on OMB’s
RegInfo Web site at www.reginfo.gov.
We consider your comments on this
proposed collection of information in—
• Deciding whether the proposed
collection is necessary for the proper
performance of our functions, including
whether the information will have
practical use;
• Evaluating the accuracy of our
estimate of the burden of the proposed
collection, including the validity of our
methodology and assumptions;
• Enhancing the quality, usefulness,
and clarity of the information we
collect; and
• Minimizing the burden on those
who must respond. This includes
exploring the use of appropriate
automated, electronic, mechanical, or
other technological collection
techniques.
OMB is required to make a decision
concerning the collection of information
contained in these proposed priorities,
requirements, and selection criteria
between 30 and 60 days after
publication of this document in the
Federal Register. Therefore, to ensure
that OMB gives your comments full
consideration, it is important that OMB
receives your comments on the
proposed collection within 30 days after
publication. This does not affect the
deadline for your comments to us on the
proposed priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria.
Please note that 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.
We will provide the OMB control
number when we publish the notice of
VerDate Mar<15>2010
16:15 Aug 31, 2012
Jkt 226001
final priorities, requirements,
definitions, and selection criteria.
Intergovernmental Review: This
program is subject to Executive Order
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR
Part 79. One of the objectives of the
Executive Order is to foster an
intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism. The Executive
Order relies on processes developed by
State and local governments for
coordination and review of proposed
Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early
notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: Individuals with
disabilities can obtain this document in
an accessible format (e.g., braille, large
print, audiotape, or 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: August 30, 2012.
James H. Shelton, III,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and
Improvement.
[FR Doc. 2012–21814 Filed 8–31–12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000–01–P
DEPARTMENT OF THE INTERIOR
National Park Service
[NPS–YELL–10569; 2310–0070–422]
36 CFR Part 7
RIN 1024–AE10
Special Regulations; Areas of the
National Park System, Yellowstone
National Park
National Park Service, Interior.
Proposed rule.
AGENCY:
ACTION:
PO 00000
Frm 00048
Fmt 4702
Sfmt 4702
This rule would implement
an amended Record of Decision for the
2011 Winter Use Plan/Environmental
Impact Statement and would govern
winter visitation and certain
recreational activities in Yellowstone
National Park for the 2012–2013 winter
season. The rule proposes to retain, for
one additional year, the regulation and
management framework that have been
in place for the past three winter
seasons (2009–2010, 2010–2011 and
2011–2012). Specifically, the rule would
retain provisions that require most
recreational snowmobiles operating in
the park to meet certain National Park
Service air and sound emissions
requirements; require snowmobiles and
snowcoaches in Yellowstone to be
accompanied by a commercial guide; set
daily entry limits on the numbers of
snowmobiles (up to 318) and
snowcoaches (up to 78) that may enter
the park; and prohibit traveling off
designated oversnow routes.
DATES: Comments must be received by
October 4, 2012.
ADDRESSES: You may submit your
comments, identified by Regulation
Identifier Number (RIN) 1024–AE10, by
any of the following methods:
• Federal eRulemaking Portal: https://
www.regulations.gov. Follow the
instructions for submitting comments.
• Mail: Yellowstone National Park,
Winter Use Proposed Rule, P.O. Box
168, Yellowstone National Park, WY
82190.
• Hand Deliver to: Management
Assistant’s Office, Headquarters
Building, Mammoth Hot Springs,
Yellowstone National Park, Wyoming.
All submissions received must
include the agency name and RIN. For
additional information see ‘‘Public
Participation’’ under SUPPLEMENTARY
INFORMATION below.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:
Wade Vagias, Management Assistant’s
Office, Headquarters Building,
Yellowstone National Park, 307–344–
2035 or at the address listed in the
ADDRESSES section.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
SUMMARY:
Background
The National Park Service (NPS) has
managed winter use in Yellowstone
National Park for several decades. A
detailed history of the winter use issue,
past planning efforts, and litigation is
provided on the park’s Web site, https://
www.nps.gov/yell/parkmgmt/
timeline.htm. The park has most
recently operated under a temporary
one-year rule (76 FR 77131). That rule,
which expired by its own terms on
March 15, 2012, had extended for one
E:\FR\FM\04SEP1.SGM
04SEP1
Agencies
[Federal Register Volume 77, Number 171 (Tuesday, September 4, 2012)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 53819-53826]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Printing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2012-21814]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Subtitle A
[DOCKET ID ED-2012-OII-0013]
RIN 1855-AA08
Proposed Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection
Criteria--Supporting Effective Educator Development
[CFDA Number: 84.367D.]
AGENCY: Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.
ACTION: Proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement
proposes priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria
under the Supporting Effective Educator Development (SEED) Grant
program. We may use these priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria for competitions of the SEED Grant program for
fiscal year (FY) 2012 and later years. We intend for the priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria to help national not-
for-profit organizations to build evidence on how best to recruit,
train, and support effective teachers and school leaders; recruit and
prepare effective science, technology, engineering, and mathematics
teachers; and invest in efforts that enhance the teaching and school
leadership professions.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before October 4, 2012.
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 email. To ensure that we do not receive
duplicate copies, please submit your comments only once. In addition,
please include the Docket ID and the phrase ``Supporting Effective
Educator Development'' 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.'' A direct link to the docket page is
also available at www.ed.gov/programs/innovation/.
Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery. If you
mail or deliver your comments about these proposed
[[Page 53820]]
priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, address
them to Office of Innovation and Improvement (Attention: Supporting
Effective Educator Development Comments), U.S. Department of Education,
400 Maryland Avenue SW., room 4C131, Washington, DC 20202.
Privacy Note: The Department's policy is to make all
comments received from members of the public 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.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Richard Wilson Telephone: (202) 453-
6709 or by email: seed@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service, toll free, at 1-800-
877-8339.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding
this notice. To ensure that your comments have maximum effect in
developing the notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions,
and selection criteria, we urge you to identify clearly the specific
proposed priority, requirement, definition, or selection criterion that
each comment addresses.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Orders 12866 and 13563 and their overall
requirement of reducing regulatory burden that might result from the
proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.
Please let us know of any further ways we could reduce potential costs
or increase potential benefits while preserving the effective and
efficient administration of the Department's programs and activities.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about this notice by accessing Regulations.gov. You may also
inspect the comments in person, in room 4W335, 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 in the
SUMMARY section of this notice.
Purpose of Program: The SEED Grant program provides funding for
grants to national not-for-profit organizations for projects that
support teacher or principal training or professional enhancement
activities and are supported by at least moderate evidence of
effectiveness (as defined in this notice).
Program Authority: Department of Education Appropriations Act,
2012 (Pub. L. 112-74, Title III, Division F).
Proposed Priorities
This notice contains seven proposed priorities.
Background
The Statutory Context
The Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2012, requires the
Secretary to reserve up to 1.5 percent of the funds for the Elementary
and Secondary Education Act's (ESEA) Title II, Part A programs for
competitive awards to national not-for-profit organizations for teacher
or principal training or professional enhancement activities.
Overview of the SEED Grant program
Reforming and improving schools with high concentrations of high-
need students is a key priority for the Department. Strengthening
teacher and principal leadership is an essential part of any strategy
to make a difference in these schools. Research shows that teachers are
a critical element in improving student learning.\1\ Additionally,
there is compelling evidence that strong principals have positive,
although indirect, effects on student learning.\2\ The Department is
using the SEED Grant program as a mechanism to identify and support
projects that will strengthen teaching and school leadership
specifically for high-need schools. As proposed in this notice,
applicants must demonstrate how they will build evidence on how best to
recruit, prepare, and support effective teachers and principals.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\1\ Lee S. Shulman, Knowledge and Teaching: Foundations of the
New Reform, Harvard Educational Review, Vol. 57, No. 1 (February
1987), pages 1-22; Eric A. Hanushek, John F. Kain, & Steven G.
Rivkin. Teachers, Schools, and Academic Achievement (NBER Working
Paper No. 6691) (1998), National Bureau of Economic Research,
Retrieved April 25, 2012, from https://www.nber.org/papers/w6691.pdf;
Thomas J. Kane & Douglas O. Staiger, Gathering Feedback for
Teaching: Combining High-Quality Observations with Student Surveys
and Achievement Gains, Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation (January,
2012).
\2\ Kyla L. Wahlstom, Karen Seashore-Louis, Kenneth Leithwood, &
Stephen E. Anderson, Learning from Leadership: Investigating the
Links to Improved Student Learning, Center for Applied Research and
Educational Improvement, University of Minnesota, Ontario Institute
for Studies in Education at the University of Toronto, sponsored by
the Wallace Foundation (July, 2010).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
The following priorities focus on this goal.
Proposed Priority 1: Teacher or Principal Recruitment, Selection, and
Preparation
Background
This proposed priority would support projects that will recruit,
select, and prepare teachers, principals, or both who are able to
increase student achievement and student learning, particularly in
high-need schools. Although we included a similar priority in our
September 8, 2011, notice inviting applications (76 FR 55658-55664)
(2012 SEED NIA), that priority focused only on teachers. The Department
of Education Appropriations Act, 2012, provides that projects may serve
principals, teachers, or both and, therefore, we are modifying this
priority accordingly. Additionally, we propose to include a more
explicit focus on schools with high concentrations of high-need
students (as defined in this notice) and to provide more direction on
required project activities.
Proposed Priority 1
Under this proposed priority, the Secretary would fund projects
that will create or expand practices and strategies that increase the
number of highly effective teachers (as defined in this notice) or
highly effective principals (as defined in this notice) by recruiting,
selecting, and preparing talented individuals to work in schools with
high concentrations of high-need students (as defined in this notice).
Projects would include activities that focus on creating or expanding
high-performing teacher preparation programs, principal preparation
programs, or both. Activities may include but are not limited to
expanding clinical experiences, re-designing and implementing program
coursework to align with State standards and district requirements for
their P-12 teachers, providing induction and other support for program
participants in their classrooms and schools, and developing strategies
for tracking the effect of program graduates on the achievement of
their students or their schools.
In addition, an applicant would need to propose a plan
demonstrating a
[[Page 53821]]
rigorous, competitive selection process to determine which aspiring
teachers or principals participate in the applicant's proposed
activities.
Proposed Priority 2: Professional Development for Teachers of English
Language Arts With a Specific Focus on Writing
Background
This proposed priority is based on Absolute Priority 2 published in
the 2012 SEED NIA. We propose changing the priority by requiring that
the professional development be aligned with State standards. We also
propose to require that the professional development align with
district needs and include a rigorous evaluation of the effectiveness
of teachers who participate in the professional development.
Proposed Priority 2
Under this proposed priority, the Secretary would fund projects
designed to improve student literacy and writing skills by creating or
expanding practices and strategies that increase the number of highly
effective teachers (as defined in this notice) of English language arts
by improving their knowledge, understanding, and teaching of English
language arts, with a specific focus on teaching writing. Projects
would focus on increasing student achievement (as defined in this
notice) in English language arts by providing high-quality professional
development to teachers in schools with high concentrations of high-
need students (as defined in this notice).
An applicant would be required to describe the need of the proposed
districts to be served for teacher professional development in English
language arts and demonstrate alignment of its proposed project with
State standards.
In addition, applicants would have to describe how they plan to
measure the impact the professional development has on the
effectiveness of teachers served by the project. Applicants would need
to determine teacher effectiveness through a rigorous, transparent, and
fair evaluation in which performance is differentiated using multiple
measures of effectiveness and based in significant part on student
growth (as defined in this notice).
Proposed Priority 3: Advanced Certification and Advanced Credentialing
Background
This proposed priority would support projects that will develop or
enhance systems to develop and recognize teachers, principals, or both
who will serve as models, coaches, and mentors from whom other
teachers, principals, or both can learn and strengthen their practices.
We propose changing this priority from Absolute Priority 3 in the 2012
SEED NIA by encouraging applicants to target services to teachers,
principals, or both who are working or agree to work in schools with
high concentrations of high-need students (as defined in this notice).
We also propose adding requirements for the selection of participants
and the evaluation of outcomes or effectiveness of participants.
Proposed Priority 3
Under this proposed priority, the Secretary would fund projects
that will create or expand practices and strategies that increase the
number of highly effective teachers (as defined in this notice), highly
effective principals (as defined in this notice), or both, who work in
schools with high concentrations of high-need students (as defined in
this notice).
Applicants would be required to focus their proposed projects on
encouraging and supporting teachers, principals, or both, who seek a
nationally recognized, standards-based advanced certificate or advanced
credential through high-quality professional enhancement projects
designed to improve teaching and learning for teachers who would take
on career ladder positions (as defined in this notice), principals, or
both who would serve as models, mentors, and coaches for other
teachers, principals, or both working in schools with high
concentrations of high-need students (as defined in this notice).
In addition, effectiveness of teachers or principals who receive
advanced certification or credentialing would need to be determined
through a rigorous, transparent, and fair evaluation in which
performance is differentiated using multiple measures of effectiveness
and based in significant part on student growth (as defined in this
notice).
Finally, an applicant would need to propose a plan demonstrating a
rigorous, competitive selection process to determine which teachers or
principals participate in the applicant's proposed activities.
Proposed Priority 4: Promoting Science, Technology, Engineering, and
Mathematics (STEM) Education
Background
This proposed priority would support projects that will improve
professional development for STEM teachers and increase the number of
STEM teachers from traditionally underrepresented groups. Improving
STEM education is critical in developing a globally competitive
workforce.
This priority was not used in the 2012 SEED NIA. We propose adding
this priority because it would respond to the high demand for highly
effective STEM teachers, particularly in high-need schools. We also
note that this proposed priority is based on the notice of final
supplemental priorities and definitions for discretionary grant
programs, published in the Federal Register on December 15, 2010 (75 FR
78486-78511), and corrected on May 12, 2011 (76 FR 27637-27641)
(Supplemental Priorities). However, in both subsections (a) and (b) of
this proposed priority, we removed the term ``other educators'' because
the appropriations language for the SEED Grant program allows projects
that provide services only to teachers, principals, or both.
Proposed Priority 4
Under this proposed priority, the Secretary would fund projects
that address one or both of the following priority areas:
(a) Increasing the opportunities for high-quality preparation of,
or professional development for, teachers of STEM subjects.
(b) Increasing the number of individuals from groups traditionally
underrepresented in STEM, including minorities, individuals with
disabilities, and women, who are teachers of STEM subjects and have
increased opportunities for high-quality preparation or professional
development.
In addition, applicants would have to describe how they plan to
measure the impact the proposed project activities have on teacher
effectiveness. Applicants would need to determine teacher effectiveness
through a rigorous, transparent, and fair evaluation in which
performance is differentiated using multiple measures of effectiveness
and based in significant part on student growth (as defined in this
notice).
Proposed Priority 5: Professional Development for Teachers of Core
Academic Subjects
Background
This proposed priority would support projects that will provide
professional development to teachers of core academic subjects,
including special education teachers, to help them continue to improve
their pedagogy, increase their knowledge of core subjects, and become
highly effective
[[Page 53822]]
teachers in schools with high concentrations of high-need students (as
defined in this notice). We propose adding this priority to support the
creation and expansion of high-quality professional development
projects that strengthen instruction and raise student achievement
across core academic subjects. The priority would require that the
professional development be aligned with State standards. We also
propose to include requirements for the selection of participants that
align with district needs and for the evaluation of the effectiveness
of participants.
Proposed Priority 5
Under this proposed priority, the Secretary would fund projects
that will create or expand practices and strategies that increase the
number of highly effective teachers (as defined in this notice) by
providing professional development opportunities to teachers, including
special education teachers, in schools with high concentrations of
high-need students (as defined in this notice). Projects would focus on
increasing student achievement (as defined in this notice) in core
academic subjects by providing high-quality professional development to
teachers. The academic subjects that may be addressed through
professional development under this priority include foreign languages,
civics and government, economics, arts, history, physical education,
geography, environmental education, and financial literacy.
Applicants would be required to describe the need of the proposed
districts to be served for teacher professional development in the
selected high-need core academic subjects and to demonstrate alignment
of its proposed project with State standards.
In addition, applicants would have to describe how they plan to
measure the impact the professional development has on teacher
effectiveness. Applicants would need to determine teacher effectiveness
through a rigorous, transparent, and fair evaluation in which
performance is differentiated using multiple measures of effectiveness
and based in significant part on student growth (as defined in this
notice).
Proposed Priority 6: Improving Efficiency
Background
This proposed priority would support projects that identify cost-
effective strategies to improve project outcomes. In order to meet this
priority, applicants would be required to demonstrate how they will
efficiently improve educational outcomes, including student
achievement. We propose changing the language in this priority from the
Competitive Preference Priority 2 in the 2012 SEED NIA in order to
emphasize the use of cost-effective strategies.
Proposed Priority 6
Under this proposed priority, the Secretary would fund projects
that will identify strategies for providing cost-effective, high-
quality services at the State, regional, or local level by making
better use of available resources. Such projects may include innovative
and sustainable uses of technology, modification of school schedules
and teacher compensation systems, use of open educational resources (as
defined in this notice), or other strategies.
Proposed Priority 7: Supporting Practices and Strategies for Which
There Is Strong Evidence of Effectiveness
Background
This proposed priority would support projects that are supported by
strong evidence. The Department firmly believes that the strongest
available evidence should inform educational funding and policy
decisions. Creating a larger pool of evidence-supported implementation
sites will provide more opportunities to scale up projects that have a
history of success and to improve educational outcomes for more
students. We propose to leave this priority unchanged from the 2012
SEED NIA; however, we propose a slightly different definition of
``strong evidence of effectiveness'', as explained in the Definitions
section of this notice.
Proposed Priority 7
Under this proposed priority, the Secretary would fund projects
that are supported by strong evidence of effectiveness (as defined in
this notice).
Types of Priorities
When inviting applications for a competition using one or more
priorities, we designate the type of each priority as absolute,
competitive preference, or invitational through a notice in the Federal
Register. The effect of each type of priority follows:
Absolute priority: Under an absolute priority, as specified by 34
CFR 75.105(c)(3), we would consider only applications that meet the
priority.
Competitive preference priority: Under a competitive preference
priority, we give competitive preference to an application by (1)
awarding additional points, depending on the extent to which the
application meets the priority (34 CFR 75.105(c)(2)(i)); or (2)
selecting an application that meets the priority over an application of
comparable merit that does not meet the priority (34 CFR
75.105(c)(2)(ii)).
Invitational priority: Under an invitational priority, we are
particularly interested in applications that meet the priority.
However, we do not give an application that meets the priority
preference over other applications (34 CFR 75.105(c)(1)).
Proposed Requirements
The Secretary proposes the following requirements for the SEED
Grant program. We may apply these requirements in any year in which
this program is in effect.
Eligible applicants: To be eligible for a SEED Grant program grant,
an entity must be a national not-for-profit organization (as defined in
this notice). Each applicant must provide in its application
documentation that it is a national not-for-profit organization (as
defined in this notice).
Evidence of effectiveness: To be eligible for funding, an applicant
must demonstrate that its proposed project is supported by at least
moderate evidence of effectiveness (as defined in this notice).
Each applicant must provide in its application documentation that
its proposed project is supported by at least moderate evidence of
effectiveness. An applicant that applies for Proposed Priority 7 also
must provide documentation that its proposed project is supported by
strong evidence of effectiveness. An applicant must ensure that all
evidence is available to the Department from publically available
sources and provide links, references, or copies of the evidence in the
application. If the Department determines that an applicant has
provided insufficient evidence that its proposed project meets the
definition of ``moderate evidence of effectiveness,'' or ``strong
evidence of effectiveness,'' the applicant will not have an opportunity
to provide additional evidence to support its application.
Evaluations: An applicant receiving funds under this program must
comply with the requirements of any evaluation of the program conducted
by the Department. In addition, an applicant receiving funds under this
program must make broadly available through formal (e.g., peer-reviewed
journals) or informal (e.g., newsletters) mechanisms, and in print or
electronically, the results of any evaluations it conducts of its
funded activities.
[[Page 53823]]
Proposed Definitions
The Secretary proposes the following definitions for this
competition. We propose to modify the definition of ``national not-for-
profit organization'' from the definition used in the 2012 SEED NIA to
add more objective criteria for determining what type of organizations
meet the definition. Additionally, the definitions relating to levels
of evidence have both been changed to align more closely with other
Department definitions of levels of evidence. We may apply one or more
of these definitions in any year in which this program is in effect.
Career ladder positions means school-based instructional leadership
positions designed to improve instructional practice, which teachers
may voluntarily accept, such as positions described as master teacher,
mentor teacher, demonstration or model teacher, or instructional coach,
and for which teachers are selected based on criteria that are
predictive of the ability to lead other teachers.
High-need students means students at risk of educational failure,
such as students who are living in poverty, who are English learners,
who are far below grade level or who are not on track to becoming
college- or career-ready by graduation, who have left school or college
before receiving, respectively, a regular high school diploma or a
college degree or certificate, who are at risk of not graduating with a
diploma on time, who are homeless, who are in foster care, who are
pregnant or parenting teenagers, who have been incarcerated, who are
new immigrants, who are migrant, or who have disabilities.
Highly effective principal means a principal whose students,
overall and for each subgroup as described in section
1111(b)(2)(C)(v)(II) of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act, as
amended (ESEA) (i.e., economically disadvantaged students, students
from major racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and
students with limited English proficiency), achieve high rates (e.g.,
one and one-half grade levels in an academic year) of student growth.
Eligible applicants may include multiple measures, provided that
principal effectiveness is evaluated, in significant part, based on
student growth. Supplemental measures may include, for example, high
school graduation rates; college enrollment rates; evidence of
providing supportive teaching and learning conditions, support for
ensuring effective instruction across subject areas for a well-rounded
education, strong instructional leadership, and positive family and
community engagement; or evidence of attracting, developing, and
retaining high numbers of effective teachers.
Highly effective teacher means a teacher whose students achieve
high rates (e.g., one and one-half grade levels in an academic year) of
student growth. Eligible applicants may include multiple measures,
provided that teacher effectiveness is evaluated, in significant part,
based on student growth. Supplemental measures may include, for
example, multiple observation-based assessments of teacher performance
or evidence of leadership roles (which may include mentoring or leading
professional development learning communities) that increase
effectiveness of other teachers in the school or local educational
agency (LEA).
Large sample means a sample of 350 or more students (or other
single analysis units) who were randomly assigned to a treatment or
control group, or 50 or more groups (such as classrooms or schools)
that contain 10 or more students (or other single analysis units) and
that were randomly assigned to a treatment or control group.
Moderate evidence of effectiveness means one of the following
conditions is met:
(1) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the
process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that meets the
What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations; \3\
found a statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant
outcome (as defined in this notice) (with no statistically significant
unfavorable impacts on that outcome for relevant populations in the
study or in other studies of the intervention reviewed by and reported
on by the What Works Clearinghouse); and includes a sample that
overlaps with the populations or settings proposed to receive the
process, product, strategy, or practice.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\3\ See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards
Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), which can currently be found
at the following link: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the
process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that meets the
What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with reservations,\4\ found
a statistically significant favorable impact on a relevant outcome (as
defined in this notice) (with no statistically significant unfavorable
impacts on that outcome for relevant populations in the study or in
other studies of the intervention reviewed by and reported on by the
What Works Clearinghouse), includes a sample that overlaps with the
populations or settings proposed to receive the process, product,
strategy, or practice, and includes a large sample (as defined in this
notice) and a multi-site sample (as defined in this notice) (Note:
multiple studies can cumulatively meet the large and multi-site sample
requirements as long as each study meets the other requirements in this
paragraph).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\4\ See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards
Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), which can currently be found
at the following link: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Multi-site sample means more than one site, where site can be
defined as an LEA, locality, or State.
National level describes the level of scope or effectiveness of a
process, product, strategy, or practice that is able to be effective in
a wide variety of communities, including rural and urban areas, as well
as with different groups (e.g., economically disadvantaged, racial and
ethnic groups, migrant populations, individuals with disabilities,
English learners, and individuals of each gender).
National not-for-profit organization means an entity that meets the
definition of ``nonprofit'' under 34 CFR 77.1(c) and is of national
scope, meaning that the entity provides services in multiple States to
a significant number or percentage of recipients and is supported by
staff or affiliates in multiple States.
Open educational resources means teaching, learning, and research
resources that reside in the public domain or have been released under
an intellectual property license that permits their free use or
repurposing by others.
Relevant outcome means the student outcome or outcomes (or the
ultimate outcome if not related to students) that the proposed project
is designed to improve, consistent with the specific goals of a
program.
Strong evidence of effectiveness means that one of the following
conditions is met:
(1) There is at least one study of the effectiveness of the
process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed that meets the
What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards without reservations; \5\
found a statistically
[[Page 53824]]
significant favorable impact on a relevant outcome (as defined in this
notice) (with no statistically significant unfavorable impacts on that
outcome for relevant populations in the study or in other studies of
the intervention reviewed by and reported on by the What Works
Clearinghouse); includes a sample that overlaps with the populations
and settings proposed to receive the process, product, strategy, or
practice; and includes a large sample (as defined in this notice) and a
multi-site sample (as defined in this notice) (Note: multiple studies
can cumulatively meet the large and multi-site sample requirements as
long as each study meets the other requirements in this paragraph).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\5\ See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards
Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), which can currently be found
at the following link: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
(2) There are at least two studies of the effectiveness of the
process, product, strategy, or practice being proposed, each of which
meets the What Works Clearinghouse Evidence Standards with
reservations,\6\ found a statistically significant favorable impact on
a relevant outcome (as defined in this notice) (with no statistically
significant unfavorable impacts on that outcome for relevant
populations in the studies or in other studies of the intervention
reviewed by and reported on by the What Works Clearinghouse), includes
a sample that overlaps with the populations and settings proposed to
receive the process, product, strategy, or practice, and includes a
large sample (as defined in this notice) and a multi-site sample (as
defined in this notice).
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
\6\ See What Works Clearinghouse Procedures and Standards
Handbook (Version 2.1, September 2011), which can currently be found
at the following link: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/DocumentSum.aspx?sid=19.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------
Student achievement means--
(a) For tested grades and subjects: (1) A student's score on the
State's assessments under the ESEA; and, as appropriate, (2) other
measures of student learning, such as those described in paragraph (b)
of this definition, provided they are rigorous and comparable across
schools.
(b) For non-tested grades and subjects: alternative measures of
student learning and performance, such as student scores on pre-tests
and end-of-course tests; student performance on English language
proficiency assessments; and other measures of student achievement that
are rigorous and comparable across schools.
Student growth means the change in student achievement (as defined
in this notice) for an individual student between two or more points in
time. An applicant may also include other measures that are rigorous
and comparable across classrooms.
Proposed Selection Criteria
Background
The proposed selection criteria are intended to ensure that
applicants can demonstrate that they have the experience and capacity
to expand or develop practices and strategies to recruit, select, and
prepare or provide professional enhancement activities for teachers,
principals, or both.
In the absence of specific selection criteria for the SEED Grant
program, the Department would use the general selection criteria in 34
CFR 75.210 of the Education Department General Administrative
Regulations (EDGAR) in selecting grant recipients. While many of the
selection criteria subfactors are taken directly from EDGAR at 34 CFR
75.210, they have been combined in some cases or organized under
different criteria in other cases. In addition, some subfactors have
been edited to focus on that which would affect the ability of the
applicant to implement an effective project that meets the SEED Grant
program's purposes.
Under the proposed selection criteria, the Secretary would assess
the extent to which an applicant would be able to sustain a project
once Federal funding through the SEED Grant program is no longer
available. Thus, eligible applicants should propose activities that
they will be able to sustain without funding from the program and
should include in their management plan the specific steps they will
take for sustained implementation of the proposed project.
Proposed Selection Criteria
The Secretary proposes the following selection criteria for
evaluating an application under the SEED Grant program. We may apply
one or more of these criteria, as well as other criteria or factors
established in 34 CFR 75.210, in any year in which this program is in
effect. In the notice inviting applications or the application package,
or both, we will announce the maximum possible points assigned to each
criterion.
(a) Significance. The Secretary considers the significance of the
proposed project. In determining the significance of the proposed
project, the Secretary considers:
(1) The significance of the proposed project on a national level
(as defined in this notice).
(2) The potential contribution of the proposed project to the
development and advancement of teacher and school leadership theory,
knowledge, and practices.
(3) The importance or magnitude of the results or outcomes likely
to be attained by the proposed project, especially improvements in
teaching and student achievement.
(b) Quality of the Project Design and Services. The Secretary
considers the quality of the design and services of the proposed
project. In determining the quality of the design and services of the
proposed project, the Secretary considers:
(1) The extent to which the goals, objectives, and outcomes to be
achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified, aligned, and
measurable.
(2) The extent to which the proposed project is part of a
comprehensive effort to improve teaching and learning and support
rigorous academic standards for students.
(3) The extent to which the training or professional development
services to be provided by the proposed project will be of sufficient
quality, intensity, and duration to lead to improvements in practice
among the recipients of those services.
(c) Quality of the Management Plan and Personnel. The Secretary
considers the quality of the management plan for the proposed project
and of the personnel who will carry out the proposed project. In
determining the quality of the management plan and the project
personnel, the Secretary considers:
(1) The qualifications, including relevant training and experience,
of the project director, key project personnel, and project consultants
or subcontractors.
(2) The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the objectives
of the proposed project on time and within budget, including clearly
defined responsibilities, timelines, and milestones for accomplishing
project tasks.
(3) The extent to which the time commitments of the project
director and other key project personnel are appropriate and adequate
to meet the objectives of the proposed project.
(4) The extent to which the proposed management plan includes
sufficient and reasonable resources to effectively carry out the
proposed project, including the project evaluation.
(d) Sustainability. The Secretary considers the adequacy of
resources to continue the proposed project after the grant period ends.
In determining the adequacy of resources and the potential for utility
of the proposed project's activities and products by other
organizations, the Secretary considers:
(1) The extent to which the proposed project is designed to build
capacity and yield results that will extend beyond the period of
Federal financial assistance.
[[Page 53825]]
(2) The extent to which the proposed project is likely to yield
findings and products (such as information, materials, processes, or
techniques) that may be used by other agencies and organizations.
(3) The extent to which the applicant will disseminate information
about results and outcomes of the proposed project in ways that will
enable others, including the public, to use the information or
strategies.
(e) Quality of the Project Evaluation. The Secretary considers the
quality of the evaluation to be conducted of the proposed project. In
determining the quality of the evaluation, the Secretary considers one
or more of the following factors:
(1) The extent to which the methods of evaluation are thorough,
feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and outcomes of the
proposed project.
(2) The extent to which the evaluation includes the use of
objective performance measures that are clearly related to the intended
outcomes of the project and will produce quantitative and qualitative
data.
(3) The extent to which the evaluation will provide performance
feedback and permit periodic assessment of progress toward achieving
intended outcomes.
(4) The extent to which the proposed project plan includes
sufficient resources to carry out the project evaluation effectively.
Note: We encourage applicants to review the following technical
assistance resources on evaluation: (1) What Works Clearinghouse
Procedures and Standards Handbook: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/wwc/references/idocviewer/doc.aspx?docid=19&tocid=1; and (2) IES/NCEE
Technical Methods papers: https://ies.ed.gov/ncee/tech_methods/.
Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria
We will announce the final priorities, requirements, definitions,
and selection criteria in a notice in the Federal Register. We will
determine the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and
selection criteria after considering responses to this notice and other
information available to the Department. This notice does not preclude
us from proposing additional priorities, requirements, definitions, or
selection criteria, subject to meeting applicable rulemaking
requirements.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which we choose to use these priorities, requirements, definitions,
and selection criteria, we invite applications through a notice in
the Federal Register.
Executive Orders 12866 and 13563
This proposed regulatory action is not a significant regulatory
action subject to review by OMB under section 3 (f) of Executive Order
12866.
We have also reviewed this proposed regulatory action under
Executive Order 13563, which supplements and explicitly reaffirms the
principles, structures, and definitions governing regulatory review
established in Executive Order 12866. To the extent permitted by law,
Executive Order 13563 requires that an agency--
(1) Propose or adopt regulations only on a reasoned determination
that their benefits justify their costs (recognizing that some benefits
and costs are difficult to quantify);
(2) Tailor its regulations to impose the least burden on society,
consistent with obtaining regulatory objectives and taking into
account--among other things and to the extent practical--the costs of
cumulative regulations;
(3) In choosing among alternative regulatory approaches, select
those approaches that maximize net benefits (including potential
economic, environmental, public health and safety and other advantages;
distributive impacts; and equity);
(4) To the extent feasible, specify performance objectives, rather
than the behavior or manner of compliance a regulated entity must
adopt; and
(5) Identify and assess available alternatives to direct
regulation, including economic incentives--such as user fees or
marketable permits--to encourage the desired behavior, or provide
information that enables the public to make choices.
Executive Order 13563 also requires an agency ``to use the best
available techniques to quantify anticipated present and future
benefits and costs as accurately as possible.'' The Office of
Information and Regulatory Affairs of OMB has emphasized that these
techniques may include ``identifying changing future compliance costs
that might result from technological innovation or anticipated behavior
changes.''
We are taking this proposed regulatory action only on a reasoned
determination that the benefits justify the costs. In choosing among
alternative regulatory approaches, we selected those approaches that
maximize net benefits. The Department believes that this proposed
regulatory action is consistent with the principles in Executive Order
13563.
We also have determined that this regulatory action would not
unduly interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the
exercise of their governmental functions.
In accordance with both Executive orders, the Department has
assessed the potential costs and benefits of this regulatory action.
The potential costs associated with this regulatory action are those
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as
necessary for administering the Department's programs and activities.
Summary of Costs and Benefits
The costs of carrying out activities would be paid for with program
funds and with matching funds provided by private-sector partners.
Thus, the costs of implementation would not be a burden for any
eligible applicants, including small entities.
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)). 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.
We estimate that each applicant would spend approximately 176 hours
of staff time to address the proposed requirements and selection
criteria, prepare the application, and obtain necessary clearances. The
total number of hours for all expected applicants is an estimated 2,640
hours. We estimate the total cost per hour of the applicant-level staff
who will carry out this work to be $57 per hour. The total estimated
cost for all applicants is estimated to be $150,480.
Under the PRA, the Department has submitted to OMB for its review a
copy of the information collection (including the burden estimates) for
the SEED discretionary grant application using the proposed priorities,
requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. Through this NPP,
OII seeks comment on this information collection. If you want to
comment on the proposed information collection, please send your
comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs, OMB,
Attention:
[[Page 53826]]
Desk Officer for U.S. Department of Education. Send these comments by
email to OIRA_DOCKET@omb.eop.gov or by fax to (202) 395-6974. You may
also send a copy of these comments to the Department contact named in
the FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT section of this notice.
In preparing your comments you may want to review the ICR, which we
maintain in the Education Department Information Collection System
(EDICS) at https://edicsweb.ed.gov. Click on Browse Pending Collections.
This proposed collection is identified as proposed collection (04833)
1855-New. This ICR is also available on OMB's RegInfo Web site at
www.reginfo.gov.
We consider your comments on this proposed collection of
information in--
Deciding whether the proposed collection is necessary for
the proper performance of our functions, including whether the
information will have practical use;
Evaluating the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of
the proposed collection, including the validity of our methodology and
assumptions;
Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the
information we collect; and
Minimizing the burden on those who must respond. This
includes exploring the use of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of
information contained in these proposed priorities, requirements, and
selection criteria between 30 and 60 days after publication of this
document in the Federal Register. Therefore, to ensure that OMB gives
your comments full consideration, it is important that OMB receives
your comments on the proposed collection within 30 days after
publication. This does not affect the deadline for your comments to us
on the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria.
Please note that 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. We will provide the OMB control number when we publish the
notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection
criteria.
Intergovernmental Review: This program is subject to Executive
Order 12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR Part 79. One of the
objectives of the Executive Order is to foster an intergovernmental
partnership and a strengthened federalism. The Executive Order relies
on processes developed by State and local governments for coordination
and review of proposed Federal financial assistance.
This document provides early notification of our specific plans and
actions for this program.
Accessible Format: Individuals with disabilities can obtain this
document in an accessible format (e.g., braille, large print,
audiotape, or 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: August 30, 2012.
James H. Shelton, III,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement.
[FR Doc. 2012-21814 Filed 8-31-12; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P