Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, As Amended by the Every Student Succeeds Act-Accountability and State Plans, 34539-34621 [2016-12451]

Agencies

• DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

[Federal Register Volume 81, Number 104 (Tuesday, May 31, 2016)]
[Proposed Rules]
[Pages 34539-34621]
From the Federal Register Online via the Government Publishing Office [www.gpo.gov]
[FR Doc No: 2016-12451]



[[Page 34539]]

Vol. 81

Tuesday,

No. 104

May 31, 2016

Part III





Department of Education





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





34 CFR Parts 200 and 299





Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, As Amended by the Every 
Student Succeeds Act--Accountability and State Plans; Proposed Rule

Federal Register / Vol. 81 , No. 104 / Tuesday, May 31, 2016 / 
Proposed Rules

[[Page 34540]]


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

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION

34 CFR Parts 200 and 299

RIN 1810-AB27
[Docket ID ED-2016-OESE-0032]


Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, As Amended by the 
Every Student Succeeds Act--Accountability and State Plans

AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of 
Education.

ACTION: Notice of proposed rulemaking.

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

SUMMARY: The Secretary proposes to amend the regulations implementing 
programs under title I of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 
1965 (ESEA) to implement changes to the ESEA by the Every Student 
Succeeds Act (ESSA) enacted on December 10, 2015. The Secretary also 
proposes to update the current ESEA general regulations to include 
requirements for the submission of State plans under ESEA programs, 
including optional consolidated State plans.

DATES: We must receive your comments on or before August 1, 2016.

ADDRESSES: Submit your comments through the Federal eRulemaking Portal 
or via postal mail, commercial delivery, or hand delivery. We will not 
accept comments submitted by fax or by email or those submitted after 
the comment period. To ensure that we do not receive duplicate copies, 
please submit your comments only once. In addition, please include the 
Docket ID 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 ``Are you new to the site?''
     Postal Mail, Commercial Delivery, or Hand Delivery: If you 
mail or deliver your comments about these proposed regulations, address 
them to Meredith Miller, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland 
Avenue SW., Room 3C106, Washington, DC 20202-2800.
    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: Meredith Miller, U.S. Department of 
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3C106, Washington, DC 20202-
2800.
    Telephone: (202) 401-8368 or by email: Meredith.Miller@ed.gov.
    If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text 
telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-
800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Executive Summary

    Purpose of This Regulatory Action: On December 10, 2015, President 
Barack Obama signed the ESSA into law. The ESSA reauthorizes the ESEA, 
which provides Federal funds to improve elementary and secondary 
education in the Nation's public schools. ESSA builds on ESEA's legacy 
as a civil rights law and seeks to ensure every child, regardless of 
race, income, background, or where they live has the chance to make of 
their lives what they will. Through the reauthorization, the ESSA made 
significant changes to the ESEA for the first time since the ESEA was 
reauthorized through the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB), 
including significant changes to title I.
    In particular, the ESSA significantly modified the accountability 
requirements of the ESEA. Whereas the ESEA, as amended by the NCLB, 
required a State educational agency (SEA) to hold schools accountable 
based on results on statewide assessments and one other academic 
indicator, the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, requires each SEA to have 
an accountability system that is State-determined and based on multiple 
measures, including at least one measure of school quality or student 
success and, at a State's discretion, a measure of student growth. The 
ESSA also significantly modified the requirements for differentiating 
among schools and the basis on which schools must be identified for 
further comprehensive or targeted support and improvement. 
Additionally, the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, no longer requires a 
particular sequence of escalating interventions in title I schools that 
are identified and continue to fail to make adequate yearly progress 
(AYP). Instead, it gives SEAs and local educational agencies (LEAs) 
discretion to determine the evidence-based interventions that are 
appropriate to address the needs of identified schools.
    In addition to modifying the ESEA requirements for State 
accountability systems, the ESSA also modified and expanded upon the 
ESEA requirements for State and LEA report cards. The ESEA, as amended 
by the ESSA, continues to require that report cards be concise, 
presented in an understandable and uniform format, and, to the extent 
practicable, in a language that parents can understand, but now also 
requires that they be developed in consultation with parents and that 
they be widely accessible to the public. The ESEA, as amended by the 
ESSA, also requires that report cards include certain information that 
was not required to be included on report cards under the ESEA, as 
amended by the NCLB, such as information regarding per-pupil 
expenditures of Federal, State, and local funds; the number and 
percentage of students enrolled in preschool programs; where available, 
the rate at which high school graduates enroll in postsecondary 
education programs; and information regarding the number and percentage 
of English learners achieving English language proficiency. In 
addition, the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, requires that report cards 
include certain information for subgroups for which information was not 
previously required to be reported, including homeless students, 
students in foster care, and students with a parent who is a member of 
the Armed Forces.
    Further, the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, authorizes an SEA to 
submit, if it so chooses, a consolidated State plan or consolidated 
State application for covered programs, and authorizes the Secretary to 
establish, for each covered program, the descriptions, information, 
assurances, and other material required to be included in a 
consolidated State plan or consolidated State application.
    We are proposing these regulations to provide clarity and support 
to SEAs, LEAs, and schools as they implement the ESEA, as amended by 
the ESSA--particularly, the ESEA requirements regarding accountability 
systems, State and LEA report cards, and consolidated State plans--and 
to ensure that key requirements in title I of the ESEA, as amended by 
the ESSA, are implemented consistent with the purpose of the law: ``to 
provide all children significant opportunity to receive a fair, 
equitable, and high-quality education, and to close educational 
achievement gaps.''
    Summary of the Major Provisions of This Regulatory Action: As 
discussed in greater depth in the Significant Proposed Regulations 
section of this document, the proposed regulations would:
     Establish requirements for accountability systems under 
section 1111(c) and (d) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, including 
requirements regarding the indicators

[[Page 34541]]

used to annually meaningfully differentiate all public schools, the 
identification of schools for comprehensive or targeted support and 
improvement, and the development and implementation of improvement 
plans, including evidence-based interventions, in schools that are so 
identified;
     Establish requirements for State and LEA report cards 
under section 1111(h) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, including 
requirements regarding the timeliness and format of such report cards, 
as well as requirements that clarify report card elements that were not 
required under the ESEA, as amended by the NCLB; and
     Establish requirements for consolidated State plans under 
section 8302 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, including 
requirements for the format of such plans, the timing of submission of 
such plans, and the content to be included in such plans.
    Please refer to the Significant Proposed Regulations section of 
this preamble for a detailed discussion of the major provisions 
contained in the proposed regulations.
    Costs and Benefits: The Department believes that the benefits of 
this regulatory action outweigh any associated costs to SEAs and LEAs, 
which would be financed with grant funds. These benefits would include 
a more flexible, less complex and less costly accountability framework 
for the implementation of the ESEA that respects State and local 
decision-making; the efficient and effective collection and 
dissemination of a wide range of education-related data that would 
inform parents, families, and the public about the performance of their 
schools and support State and local decision-making; and an optional, 
streamlined consolidated application process that would promote the 
comprehensive and coordinated use of Federal, State, and local 
resources to improve educational outcomes for all students and all 
subgroups of students. Please refer to the Regulatory Impact Analysis 
section of this document for a more detailed discussion of costs and 
benefits. Consistent with Executive Order 12866, the Office of 
Management and Budget (OMB) has determined that this action is 
economically significant and, thus, is subject to review by the OMB 
under the order.
    Invitation to Comment: We invite you to submit comments regarding 
these proposed regulations. To ensure that your comments have maximum 
effect in developing the final regulations, we urge you to identify 
clearly the specific section or sections of the proposed regulations 
that each of your comments addresses and to arrange your comments in 
the same order as the proposed regulations.
    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 these 
proposed regulations. Please let us know of any further ways we could 
refine estimates of the rule's impacts, 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 these proposed regulations by accessing Regulations.gov. 
You may also inspect the comments in person in room 3C106, 400 Maryland 
Ave. SW., Washington, DC, between 8:30 a.m. and 4:00 p.m., Washington, 
DC time, Monday through Friday of each week except Federal holidays. 
Please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT.
    Particular Issues for Comment: We request comments from the public 
on any issues related to these proposed regulations. However, we 
particularly request the public to comment on, and provide additional 
information regarding, the following issues. Please provide a detailed 
rationale for each response you make.
     Whether the suggested options for States to identify 
``consistently underperforming'' subgroups of students in proposed 
Sec.  200.19 would result in meaningful identification and be helpful 
to States; whether any additional options should be considered; and 
which options, if any, in proposed Sec.  200.19 should not be included 
or should be modified. (Sec.  200.19)
     Whether we should include additional or different options, 
beyond those proposed in this NPRM, to support States in how they can 
meaningfully address low assessment participation rates in schools that 
do not assess at least 95 percent of their students, including as part 
of their State-designed accountability system and as part of plans 
schools develop and implement to improve, so that parents and teachers 
have the information they need to ensure that all students are making 
academic progress. (Sec.  200.15)
     Whether, in setting ambitious long-term goals for English 
learners to achieve English language proficiency, States would be 
better able to support English learners if the proposed regulations 
included a maximum State-determined timeline (e.g., a timeline 
consistent with the definition of ``long-term'' English learners in 
section 3121(a)(6) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA), and if so, 
what should the maximum timeline be and what research or data supports 
that maximum timeline. (Sec.  200.13)
     Whether we should retain, modify, or eliminate in the 
title I regulations the provision allowing a student who was previously 
identified as a child with a disability under section 602(3) of the 
Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (IDEA), but who no longer 
receives special education services, to be included in the children 
with disabilities subgroup for the limited purpose of calculating the 
Academic Achievement indicator, and, if so, whether such students 
should be permitted in the subgroup for up to two years consistent with 
current title I regulations, or for a shorter period of time. (Sec.  
200.16)
     Whether we should standardize the criteria for including 
children with disabilities, English learners, homeless children, and 
children who are in foster care in their corresponding subgroups within 
the adjusted cohort graduation rate, and suggestions for ways to 
standardize these criteria. (Sec.  200.34)
    Assistance to Individuals with Disabilities in Reviewing the 
Rulemaking Record: Upon 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 these proposed regulations. If you want to 
schedule an appointment for this type of accommodation or auxiliary 
aid, please contact the person listed under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION 
CONTACT.

Background

    On December 10, 2015, President Barack Obama signed the ESSA, which 
reauthorizes the ESEA, into law. Through the reauthorization, the ESSA 
made significant changes to the ESEA, including significant changes to 
title I of the ESEA. In particular, the ESSA significantly modified the 
accountability requirements of the ESEA, and modified and expanded upon 
the ESEA requirements for State and LEA report cards.
    Further, the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, authorizes an SEA to 
submit, if it so chooses, a consolidated State plan or consolidated 
State application for covered programs and authorizes the Secretary to 
establish, for each covered program, the descriptions, information, 
assurances, and other material required

[[Page 34542]]

to be included in a consolidated State plan or consolidated State 
application.
    The Department is proposing these regulations to provide clarity 
and support to SEAs, LEAs, and schools as they implement the ESEA 
requirements regarding accountability systems, State and LEA report 
cards, and consolidated State plans. The proposed regulations are 
further described under the Significant Proposed Regulations section of 
this NPRM.

Public Participation

    On December 22, 2015, the Department published a request for 
information in the Federal Register soliciting advice and 
recommendations from the public on the implementation of title I of the 
ESEA, as amended by ESSA. We received 369 comments. We also held two 
public meetings with stakeholders--one on January 11, 2016, in 
Washington, DC and one on January 18, 2016, in Los Angeles, 
California--at which we heard from over 100 speakers, regarding the 
development of regulations, guidance, and technical assistance. In 
addition, Department staff have held more than 100 meetings with 
education stakeholders and leaders across the country to hear about 
areas of interest and concern regarding implementation of the new law.

Significant Proposed Regulations

    The Secretary proposes to amend the regulations implementing 
programs under title I of the ESEA (part 200) and to amend the ESEA 
general regulations to include requirements for the submission of State 
plans under ESEA programs, including optional consolidated State plans 
(part 299).
    To implement the changes made to the ESEA by the ESSA, we propose 
to remove certain sections of the current regulations and replace those 
regulations, where appropriate, with the proposed regulations. 
Specifically, we are proposing to--
     Remove and reserve Sec.  200.7;
     Remove Sec. Sec.  200.12 to 200.22 of the current 
regulations, replace them with proposed Sec. Sec.  200.12 to 200.22, 
and add proposed Sec. Sec.  200.23 and 200.24;
     Remove Sec. Sec.  200.30 to 200.42 of the current 
regulations and replace them with proposed Sec. Sec.  200.30 to 200.37; 
and
     Add proposed Sec. Sec.  299.13 to 299.19.
    We discuss the proposed substantive changes by section. The section 
numbers in the headings of the following discussion are the section 
numbers in the proposed regulations. Generally, we do not address 
proposed changes that are technical or otherwise minor in effect.

Section 200.12 Single Statewide Accountability System

    Statute: Section 1111(c) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, 
requires that each State plan describe a single statewide 
accountability system for all public schools that is based on the 
challenging State academic standards for reading/language arts and 
mathematics, described in section 1111(b)(1), in order to improve 
student academic achievement and school success. These provisions take 
effect beginning with the 2017-2018 school year, as described in 
section 5(e)(1)(B) of the ESSA. The system must also include the 
following key elements:
     Long-term goals and measurements of interim progress, in 
accordance with section 1111(c)(4)(A);
     Indicators, in accordance with section 1111(c)(4)(B);
     Annual meaningful differentiation of all public schools, 
in accordance with section 1111(c)(4)(C); and
     Identification of schools to implement comprehensive or 
targeted support and improvement plans, in accordance with section 
1111(c)(4)(D) and (d)(2)(A)(i).
    Section 1111(c) also requires that State systems include long-term 
goals and measurements of interim progress for all students and 
specific subgroups of students, indicators that are applied to all 
students and specific subgroups of students, and a system of annual 
meaningful differentiation that is based on all indicators in the 
system, for all students and specific subgroups of students; that a 
State determine a minimum number of students necessary to carry out any 
title I, part A requirements that require disaggregation of information 
by each subgroup of students; and that the State annually measure the 
academic achievement of at least 95 percent of all students and 95 
percent of the students in each subgroup of students on the State's 
reading/language arts and mathematics assessments required under 
section 1111(b)(2). Section 1111(c)(5) also specifies that 
accountability provisions for public charter schools must be overseen 
in accordance with State charter school law. Finally, section 1111(d) 
requires States to ensure LEAs and schools develop and implement school 
improvement plans in schools that are identified for comprehensive or 
targeted support and improvement by the State accountability system.
    Current Regulations: Section 200.12 of the title I regulations 
provides a high-level summary of the statutory accountability 
requirements in the ESEA, as amended by the NCLB, which took effect for 
the 2002-2003 school year.
    Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec.  200.12 would replace the 
current regulations with regulations that summarize the requirements 
for accountability systems in the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. The 
proposed regulations would require that each State plan describe that 
the State has developed and will implement a single statewide 
accountability system to improve student academic achievement. The 
proposed regulations would also require a State's accountability system 
to: Be based on the challenging State academic standards and academic 
assessments; include all public schools in the State, including public 
charter schools; and improve student academic achievement and school 
success. In addition, the proposed regulations include the general 
requirements for States to meet the key elements of accountability and 
improvement systems consistent with the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, 
which are described in greater detail in subsequent sections of the 
proposed regulations:
     Long-term goals and measurements of interim progress under 
proposed Sec.  200.13;
     Indicators under proposed Sec.  200.14;
     Inclusion of all students and each subgroup of students, 
and all public elementary and secondary schools consistent with 
proposed Sec. Sec.  200.15 through 200.17;
     Annual meaningful differentiation of schools under 
proposed Sec.  200.18;
     Identification of schools for comprehensive and targeted 
support and improvement under proposed Sec.  200.19; and
     The process for ensuring development and implementation of 
comprehensive and targeted support and improvement plans, including 
evidence-based interventions, consistent with proposed Sec. Sec.  
200.21 through 200.24.
    Finally, proposed Sec.  200.12 would include the statutory 
requirement that the ESEA's accountability provisions for public 
charter schools be overseen in accordance with State charter school 
law.
    Reasons: The ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, significantly changes 
the requirements for school accountability and improvement systems from 
those previously included in the ESEA, as amended by the NCLB. In 
particular, the ESSA eliminates the requirement for schools, LEAs, and 
States to make AYP and replaces it with requirements for new statewide 
accountability systems that are based on different requirements for all 
public schools. These

[[Page 34543]]

requirements do not apply to private schools, including private schools 
that receive title I equitable services. With the new school 
accountability and improvement provisions under the ESSA set to take 
effect for the 2017-2018 school year, it is critical for the Department 
to update the regulations to reflect these changes and provide clarity 
for States in how to implement them. In effect, proposed Sec.  200.12 
would serve as a table of contents for each required component of the 
accountability system, which would be described in greater detail in 
subsequent sections of the proposed regulations.
    These clarifications are necessary to ensure that States clearly 
understand the fundamental components of the new accountability systems 
under the ESSA that will take effect for the 2017-2018 school year, and 
that a description of each such component will be required in their 
State plans submitted to the Department.

Section 200.13 Long-Term Goals and Measurements of Interim Progress

    Statute: Section 1111(c)(4)(A)(i)(I) and (c)(4)(A)(ii) of the ESEA, 
as amended by the ESSA, requires each State to establish ambitious 
long-term goals, and measurements of interim progress toward those 
goals, for specific indicators, for all students and for each subgroup 
of students described in section 1111(c)(2): Economically disadvantaged 
students, students from major racial and ethnic groups, children with 
disabilities, and English learners. These goals and measurements of 
interim progress must be set, at a minimum, for improved academic 
achievement (as measured by proficiency on State assessments in 
reading/language arts and mathematics), for improved high school 
graduation rates (as measured by the four-year adjusted cohort 
graduation rate), and for increases in the percentage of English 
learners making progress toward English language proficiency (as 
measured by the English language proficiency assessments required in 
section 1111(b)(2)(G)) within a State-determined timeline. In addition, 
States may establish long-term goals and measurements of interim 
progress for graduation rates as measured by extended-year adjusted 
cohort graduation rates, but such goals and interim measurements must 
be more rigorous than those set based on the four-year adjusted cohort 
graduation rate.
    Section 1111(c)(4)(A)(i)(II) also requires that the State's 
ambitious long-term goals for achievement and graduation rates use the 
same multi-year length of time for all students and each subgroup of 
students. This is explained further below.
    Finally, section 1111(c)(4)(A)(i)(III) specifies that a State's 
goals for subgroups of students must take into account the improvement 
needed among subgroups that must make greater progress in order to 
close achievement and graduation rate gaps in the State.
    Current Regulations: Various sections of the current title I 
regulations describe the role of goals and annual measurable objectives 
(AMOs) in the State accountability system required by the ESEA, as 
amended by the NCLB, and require each State to establish a definition 
of AYP. These sections essentially repeat the NCLB, with the exception 
of Sec.  200.19 regarding the four-year adjusted cohort graduation 
rate, which was added to the title I regulations in 2008.
    Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec.  200.13 would primarily 
incorporate into regulation the statutory requirements under the ESEA, 
as amended by the ESSA, for State-designed long-term goals and 
measurements of interim progress for academic achievement, graduation 
rates, and progress in achieving English language proficiency. The 
proposed regulations also would clarify certain provisions to support 
effective State and local implementation of the statutory requirements.
Goals for Academic Achievement and Graduation Rates
    Proposed Sec.  200.13 would require each State to--
     Establish ambitious long-term goals and measurements of 
interim progress for academic achievement that are based on grade-level 
proficiency on the State's academic assessments and set separately for 
reading/language arts and mathematics;
     In setting long-term goals and measurements of interim 
progress for academic achievement, apply the same high standards of 
academic achievement to all students and each subgroup of students, 
except students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who 
are assessed based on alternate academic achievement standards, 
consistent with section 1111(b)(1);
     Establish ambitious long-term goals and measurements of 
interim progress for graduation rates that are based on the four-year 
adjusted cohort graduation rate and, if a State chooses to use an 
extended-year rate as part of its Graduation Rate indicator under 
proposed Sec.  200.14, the extended-year adjusted cohort graduation 
rate, except that goals based on the extended-year rate must be more 
rigorous than goals based on the four-year rate;
     Set long-term goals and measurements of interim progress 
for academic achievement and graduation rates for all students and 
separately for each subgroup of students that expect greater rates of 
improvement for subgroups that need to make more rapid progress to 
close proficiency and graduation rate gaps in the State; and
     Use the same multi-year timeline in setting long-term 
goals for academic achievement and graduation rates for all students 
and for each subgroup (e.g., if the goal for all students is to improve 
academic achievement by a certain percentage over 10 years, then the 
goal for children with disabilities must also be set over 10 years, 
even if the subgroup is expected to improve by a greater percentage 
relative to all students over that timeframe).
Goals for Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency
    The proposed regulations would require each State to--
     Establish ambitious long-term goals and measurements of 
interim progress for English learners toward attaining English language 
proficiency, as measured by the State's English language proficiency 
assessment, that set expectations for each English learner to make 
annual progress toward attaining English language proficiency and to 
attain English language proficiency; and
     Determine the State's long-term goals and measurements of 
interim progress for English learners by developing a uniform procedure 
for setting such goals and measurements of interim progress that would 
be applied consistently to all English learners in the State, must take 
into account the student's English language proficiency level, and may 
also consider one or more of the following student-level factors at the 
time of a student's identification as an English learner: (1) Time in 
language instruction educational programs; (2) grade level; (3) age; 
(4) Native language proficiency level; and (5) limited or interrupted 
formal education, if any.
    Reasons: The proposed regulations would primarily replace obsolete 
provisions relating to goals and progress measures within State 
accountability systems to reflect changes required by the ESEA, as 
amended by the ESSA. In addition, the proposed regulations would 
clarify requirements related to goals for academic achievement, 
particularly for students with the most significant cognitive 
disabilities, as well

[[Page 34544]]

as goals for English learners toward attaining English language 
proficiency.
Goals for Academic Achievement and Graduation Rates
    Under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(ii), State assessments must provide 
information to students, parents, and educators about whether 
individual students are performing at their grade level. This 
determination provides valuable information about whether a student is 
receiving the support he or she needs to meet the challenging State 
academic standards and is on track to graduate ready to succeed in 
college and career, and if not, to help identify areas in which the 
student would benefit from additional support. This information also 
helps States and LEAs identify statewide proficiency gaps when 
establishing the State's goals and measurements of interim progress, as 
required under section 1111(c)(4)(A)(i)(III). Goals based on grade-
level proficiency would provide consistency across the accountability 
system, as the statute requires the Academic Achievement indicator 
described in section 1111(c)(4)(B)(i)(I) to be based on a measure of 
proficiency against the challenging State academic standards. 
Therefore, the proposed regulations would clarify that the long-term 
goals a State establishes must be based on a measure of grade-level 
proficiency on the statewide assessments required under section 
1111(b)(2) and must be set separately for reading/language arts and 
mathematics.
    Section 1111(b)(1) also requires that all students be held to the 
same challenging State academic standards, except for students with the 
most significant cognitive disabilities who are assessed based on 
alternate academic achievement standards, as permitted under section 
1111(b)(2)(D)(i). To ensure that all students are treated equitably and 
expected to meet the same high standards, and that all schools are held 
accountable for meeting these requirements, proposed Sec.  200.13 would 
clarify that long-term goals must be based on the same academic 
achievement standards and definition of ``proficiency'' for all 
students, with the exception of students with the most significant 
cognitive disabilities who take an alternate assessment aligned with 
alternate academic achievement standards.
    Finally, to provide relevant, meaningful information to districts, 
schools, and the public about the level of performance and improvement 
that is expected, proposed Sec.  200.13 would require a State to set 
long-term goals and measurements of interim progress for graduation 
rates that are based on the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate, 
as well as the extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate if such a 
rate were used in the State's Graduation Rate indicator described in 
section 1111(c)(4)(B)(iii). Given that the graduation rate could impact 
whether a school is identified for support and improvement, and related 
interventions, it is critical to require the State to set long-term 
goals and measurements of interim progress for this measure in order to 
establish clear expectations and support all schools in the State in 
increasing the percentage of students graduating high school.
Goals for Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency
    Because the requirement for progress in achieving English language 
proficiency goals has been added to title I in the ESEA, as amended by 
the ESSA, we propose to explain and clarify how States can meet this 
requirement in proposed Sec.  200.13. For English learners to succeed 
in meeting the challenging State academic standards, it is critical for 
these students to attain proficiency in speaking, listening, reading, 
and writing in English, as recognized in section 1111(b)(1)(F), 
including the ability to successfully make academic progress in 
classrooms where the language of instruction is English, as recognized 
in the definition of ``English learner'' in section 8101(20). For these 
reasons, proposed Sec.  200.13 would clarify that States' long-term 
goals must include both annual progress toward English language 
proficiency and actual attainment of English language proficiency for 
all English learners.
    Recent data have highlighted the growing numbers of school-aged 
English learners, particularly in States and LEAs with relatively 
little experience in serving such students previously. The Census 
Bureau's American Community Survey (ACS) data from 2013 show that 
California, Florida, Illinois, New York, and Texas enroll 60 percent of 
the Nation's English learners, but the growth rate in the English 
learner population in other States has exceeded that of these five. For 
example, ACS data show that from 2010 to 2013, the English learner 
population increased by 21 percent in West Virginia, 13 percent in 
Hawaii and North Dakota, and 12 percent in Iowa. In addition, some 
States have experienced large increases of certain English learner 
subgroups over a short period of time. Alaska, the District of 
Columbia, New Hampshire, Oklahoma, South Dakota, Iowa, Maine, and 
Nebraska all experienced more than a 16-percent increase in their 
immigrant population during the 2010 to 2013 timeframe.
    Given the diversity of the English learner population, illustrated 
in the examples above, a reasonable timeframe for schools to support 
one English learner in attaining proficiency in English may be too 
rigorous or too lenient an expectation for another English learner. 
Setting the same long-term goals and measurements of interim progress 
for all English learners in the State may fail to account for these 
differences in the English learner population and would result in goals 
that are inappropriate for some students. Furthermore, the time it 
takes an English learner to attain proficiency can be affected by 
multiple factors, such as age, level of English proficiency, and 
educational experiences in a student's native language.\1\ Thus, 
proposed Sec.  200.13(c) would require States to consider students' 
English language proficiency level in setting goals and measurements of 
interim progress and allow the consideration of additional research-
based student factors. The list of student characteristics in proposed 
Sec.  200.13 is based not only on research but also on input from 
grantees and experts during administration of the former title III 
requirement for annual measurable achievement objectives (AMAOs). The 
ESEA, as amended by the NCLB, required that those AMAOs (which included 
progress toward and attainment of English language proficiency) reflect 
the amount of time an individual child had been enrolled in a language 
instruction educational program. Researchers, however, have found that 
the other factors outlined in proposed Sec.  200.13 are important 
factors that also should be included in setting goals for progress or 
proficiency.\2\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \1\ See, for example, Collier, V.P. (1995). ``Acquiring a second 
language for school.'' Directions in Language & Education, 1(4); 
Garc[iacute]a-V[aacute]zquez, E., V[aacute]zquez, L.A., 
L[oacute]pez, I.C., & Ward, W. (1997). ``Language proficiency and 
academic success: Relationships between proficiency in two languages 
and achievement among Mexican-American students.'' Bilingual 
Research Journal, 21(4), 334-347; and Center for Public Education 
(2007). ``Research Review: What research says about preparing 
English language learners for academic success,'' pp. 6-7.
    \2\ See, for example, Cook, G., Linquanti, R., Chinen, M., & 
Jung, H. (2012). ``National evaluation of Title III implementation 
supplemental report--Exploring approaches to setting English 
language proficiency performance criteria and monitoring English 
learner progress.'' U.S. Department of Education, Office of 
Planning, Evaluation, and Policy Development, Policy and Program 
Studies Service, pp. 68-69.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, proposed Sec.  200.13(c) would require each 
State to establish a uniform procedure for setting long-term goals and 
measurements of interim progress for English learners

[[Page 34545]]

that can be applied consistently and equitably to all English learners 
and schools with such students for accountability purposes, and that 
consider a student's English language proficiency level, as well as 
additional research-based student characteristics at a State's 
discretion (i.e., time in language instruction educational programs, 
grade level, age, native language proficiency level, and limited or 
interrupted formal education) in determining the most appropriate 
timeline and goals for attaining English language proficiency for each 
English learner, or category of English learner. Though the State's 
procedure must be consistently applied for all English learners and 
consider the same student-level characteristics determined by the 
State, this approach would allow differentiation of goals for an 
individual English learner, or for categories of English learners that 
share similar characteristics, based on English language proficiency 
level, as well as factors such as grade level and educational 
background, thereby recognizing the varied needs of the English learner 
population.
    Finally, proposed Sec.  200.13 would require a State's long-term 
goals to expect each English learner to attain English language 
proficiency within a period of time after the student's identification 
as an English learner. This period of time could be informed by 
existing academic research on the typical time necessary for English 
learners to attain English language proficiency,\3\ and we encourage 
States to consider the requirement in section 3121(a)(6) of the ESEA, 
as amended by the ESSA, that subgrantees receiving title III funds 
report the number and percentage of ``long-term'' English learners 
(i.e., those that do not attain English language proficiency within 
five years of initial classification), in order to align the related 
title I and title III requirements. The long-term goals established by 
each State would not change the SEA and LEA's obligation to assist 
individual English learners in overcoming language barriers in a 
reasonable period of time. Given these considerations, we are 
particularly interested in receiving comments on whether, in setting 
ambitious long-term goals to achieve English language proficiency, 
States would be better able to support English learners if the proposed 
regulations include a maximum State-determined timeline, and if so, 
what the maximum timeline should be--including any research or data to 
support the timeline--in order to ensure that State accountability 
systems effectively promote progress in attaining English language 
proficiency for these students.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \3\ See, for example, Hakuta, K., Goto Butler, Y., & Witt, D. 
(2000). ``How long does it take English learners to attain 
proficiency?'' University of California Linguistic Minority Research 
Institute Policy Report 2000-1; MacSwan, J., & Pray, L. (2005). 
``Learning English bilingually: Age of onset of exposure and rate of 
acquisition among English language learners in a bilingual education 
program.'' Bilingual Research Journal, 29(3), 653-678; Motamedi, 
J.G. (2015). ``Time to reclassification: How long does it take 
English language learners in the Washington Road Map school 
districts to develop English proficiency?'' U.S. Department of 
Education, Institute of Education Sciences; and Slavin, R.E., 
Madden, N.A., Calder[oacute]n, M.E., Chamberlain, A., & Hennessy, M. 
(2011). ``Reading and language outcomes of a five-year randomized 
evaluation of transitional bilingual education.'' Educational 
Evaluation and Policy Analysis, 33(1), 47-58.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 200.14 Accountability Indicators

    Statute: Section 1111(c)(4)(B) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, 
requires each State to include, at a minimum, four distinct indicators 
of student performance, measured for all students and separately for 
each subgroup of students, for each school in its statewide 
accountability system. Although five types of indicators are described 
in the statute, only four indicators must apply to each public school 
in a State because two of the required indicators apply only to schools 
in certain grade spans.
     For all public schools in the State, section 
1111(c)(4)(B)(i) requires an indicator of academic achievement, based 
on the long-term goals established under section 1111(c)(4)(A), that 
measures proficiency on the statewide assessments in reading/language 
arts and mathematics required under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I). At the 
State's discretion, this indicator may also include a measure of 
student growth on such assessments, for high schools only.
     For elementary and middle schools in the State, section 
1111(c)(4)(B)(ii) requires an indicator that measures either student 
growth or another valid and reliable statewide academic indicator that 
allows for meaningful differentiation in school performance.
     For all high schools in the State, section 
1111(c)(4)(B)(iii) requires an indicator, based on the long-term goals 
established under section 1111(c)(4)(A), that measures the four-year 
adjusted cohort graduation rate, and, at the State's discretion, the 
extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate.
     For all public schools in the State, section 
1111(c)(4)(B)(iv) requires an indicator measuring progress in achieving 
English language proficiency, within a State-determined timeline, for 
all English learners. This indicator must be measured using the English 
language proficiency assessments required under section 1111(b)(2)(G), 
for all English learners in each of grades 3 through 8, and in the 
grade in which English learners are assessed to meet the requirements 
of section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) to assess students once in high school.
     For all public schools in the State, section 
1111(c)(4)(B)(v) requires at least one valid, reliable, and comparable 
indicator of school quality or student success. Such an indicator may 
include measures of student or educator engagement, student access to 
and completion of advanced coursework, postsecondary readiness, school 
climate and safety, or any other measure a State chooses that meets the 
requirements of section 1111(c)(4)(B)(v). Section 
1111(c)(4)(B)(v)(I)(aa) requires that any school quality or student 
success indicator chosen by the State allow for meaningful 
differentiation of school performance, and section 
1111(c)(4)(B)(v)(I)(bb) requires that the school quality or success 
indicator(s) be valid, reliable, comparable, and statewide (except that 
such indicator(s) may vary for each grade span).
    Current Regulations: Various sections of the current title I 
regulations describe the measures used in the State accountability 
systems required by the ESEA, as amended by the NCLB.
    Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec.  200.14 would clarify the 
statutory requirements in the ESSA for States to include, at a minimum, 
four distinct indicators for each school that measure performance for 
all students and separately for each subgroup of students under 
proposed Sec.  200.16(a)(2).
    Proposed Sec.  200.14(a)(2) would clarify that each State must use 
the same measures within each indicator for all schools, except that 
States may vary the measures within the Academic Progress indicator and 
the School Quality or Student Success indicator or indicators by grade 
span as would be described in proposed Sec.  200.14(c)(2). Proposed 
Sec.  200.14 also would describe each of the five indicators that are 
required, at a minimum, as part of a State's accountability system 
under section 1111(c) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA.
Academic Achievement Indicator
    Proposed Sec.  200.14(b)(1) would:
     Require, for all schools, the Academic Achievement 
indicator to equally measure grade-level proficiency on the reading/
language arts and mathematics assessments required under section 
1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I);

[[Page 34546]]

     Reiterate that the indicator must include the performance 
of at least 95 percent of all students and 95 percent of all students 
in each subgroup consistent with proposed Sec.  200.15; and
     Clarify that, for high schools, this indicator may also 
measure, at the State's discretion, student growth based on the 
reading/language arts and mathematics assessments required under 
section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I).
Academic Progress Indicator
    Proposed Sec.  200.14(b)(2) would require, for all elementary and 
middle schools, the Academic Progress indicator to measure either 
student growth based on the reading/language arts and mathematics 
assessments required under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I), or another 
academic measure that meets the requirements of proposed Sec.  
200.14(c).
Graduation Rate Indicator
    Proposed Sec.  200.14(b)(3) would:
     Require, for all high schools, the Graduation Rate 
indicator to measure the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate; and
     Allow States to also measure the extended-year adjusted 
cohort graduation rate as part of the Graduation Rate indicator.
Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency Indicator
    Proposed Sec.  200.14(b)(4) would:
     Require, for all schools, the Progress in Achieving 
English Language Proficiency indicator to be based on English learner 
performance on the English language proficiency assessment required 
under section 1111(b)(2)(G) in each of grades 3 through 8 and in the 
grades for which English learners are assessed in high school to meet 
the requirements of section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I);
     Require that the Progress in Achieving English Language 
Proficiency indicator take into account a student's English language 
proficiency level and, at a State' discretion, additional student-level 
characteristics of English learners in the same manner used by the 
State under proposed Sec.  200.13; use objective and valid measures of 
student progress such as student growth percentiles (although the 
indicator may also include a measure of English language proficiency); 
and align with the State-determined timeline for attaining English 
language proficiency under proposed Sec.  200.13.
School Quality or Student Success Indicators
    Proposed Sec.  200.14(b)(5) would:
     Require, for all schools, the School Quality or Student 
Success indicator or indicators to meet the requirements of proposed 
Sec.  200.14(c); and
     Reiterate the statutory language that the indicator or 
indicators may differ by each grade span and may include one or more 
measures of: (1) Student access to and completion of advanced 
coursework, (2) postsecondary readiness, (3) school climate and safety, 
(4) student engagement, (5) educator engagement, or any other measure 
that meets the requirements in the proposed regulations.
Requirements for Indicator Selection
    Additionally, under proposed Sec.  200.14(c), a State would be 
required to ensure that each measure it selects to include within an 
indicator:
     Is valid, reliable, and comparable across all LEAs in the 
State;
     Is calculated the same for all schools across the State, 
except that the measure or measures selected within the indicator of 
Academic Progress or any indicator of School Quality or Student Success 
may vary by grade span;
     Can be disaggregated for each subgroup of students; and
     Includes a different measure than the State uses for any 
other indicator.
    Under proposed Sec.  200.14(d), a State would be required to ensure 
that each measure it selects to include as an Academic Progress or 
School Quality or Student Success indicator is supported by research 
finding that performance or progress on such measure is likely to 
increase student academic achievement or, for measures used within 
indicators at the high school level, graduation rates. Finally, under 
proposed Sec.  200.14(e), a State would be required to ensure that each 
measure it selects to include as an Academic Progress or School Quality 
or Student Success indicator aids in the meaningful differentiation 
among schools under proposed Sec.  200.18 by demonstrating varied 
results across all schools.
    Reasons: Given the new statutory requirements in the ESEA, as 
amended by the ESSA, and the increased role for States to establish 
systems of annual meaningful differentiation, we propose to revise the 
current regulations to reflect the new requirements and clarify how 
States may establish and measure each indicator in order to ensure 
these indicators thoughtfully inform annual meaningful differentiation 
of schools (described further in proposed Sec.  200.18).
    Although the statute provides a brief description of each 
indicator, States will need additional guidance as they consider how to 
design and implement school accountability systems that will meet their 
intended purpose of improving student academic achievement and school 
success. Because the indicators are used to identify schools for 
comprehensive and targeted support and improvement, including 
interventions to support improved student outcomes in these schools, it 
is essential to ensure that the requirements for each indicator are 
clear so that differentiation and identification of schools is 
unbiased, accurate, and consistent across the State.
    Proposed Sec.  200.14(a) would reinforce and clarify the statutory 
requirement that all indicators must measure performance for all 
students and separately for each subgroup of students, and that the 
State must use the same measures within each indicator for all schools, 
except for the Academic Progress indicator and the indicator(s) of 
School Quality or Student Success, which may use different measures 
among elementary, middle, and high schools. These proposed requirements 
would ensure that indicators include all students similarly across the 
State, including historically underserved populations, so that all 
students are held to the same high expectations. Further, these 
proposed requirements would ensure the indicators remain comparable 
across the State in order to promote fairness and validity, as schools 
will be held accountable on the basis of their students' performance on 
each indicator.
    While the proposed regulations would require all States to include 
all of the required indicators, disaggregated by each subgroup, for 
annual meaningful differentiation of schools in the 2017-2018 school 
year, including the new indicators under the ESSA (i.e., Academic 
Progress, Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency, and 
School Quality or Student Success indicators), we recognize that some 
States may want to update their accountability systems as new data 
become available. Accordingly, the proposed regulations would not 
preclude States from adding measures to their accountability systems 
over time that they currently do not collect or are unable to 
calculate, or from replacing measures over time, if particular measures 
of interest are not ready for the 2017-2018 school year, or if the 
State would like to gather additional input prior to including these 
measures in the accountability system for purposes of differentiation 
and identification of schools.
Academic Achievement Indicator
    Under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(ii) of the ESEA, as amended by the 
ESSA, State

[[Page 34547]]

assessments must provide information about whether individual students 
are performing at their grade level. This provides valuable information 
to students, parents, educators, and the public about whether all 
students are receiving the support they need to meet the challenging 
State academic standards and are on track to graduate college- and 
career-ready. It also ensures that students needing extra support to 
meet the challenging State academic standards can be identified--
especially as school performance on the Academic Achievement indicator 
would be a substantial part of annual meaningful differentiation of 
schools under proposed Sec.  200.18 and identification of low-
performing schools, including those with low-performing subgroups, for 
improvement under proposed Sec.  200.19. Accordingly, it is important 
to clarify that the measure of proficiency on those assessments 
included in the Academic Achievement indicator must reflect this grade-
level determination, and that reading/language arts and mathematics 
must be equally considered within the indicator.
Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency Indicator
    In order for English learners to succeed in meeting the challenging 
State academic standards, it is critical for them to attain proficiency 
in speaking, listening, reading, and writing in English, as recognized 
in section 1111(b)(1)(F), including academic English proficiency (i.e., 
the ability to successfully achieve in classrooms where the language of 
instruction is English) as recognized in research and in the definition 
of ``English learner'' in section 8101(20).\4\ For these reasons, 
proposed Sec.  200.13 would clarify that States' long-term goals should 
include both attainment of English language proficiency and annual 
progress toward English language proficiency for all English learners.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \4\ See, for example, Halle, T., Hair, E., Wandner, L., 
McNamara, M., and Chien, N. (2012). ``Predictors and outcomes of 
early versus later English language proficiency among English 
language learners.'' Early Childhood Research Quarterly Volume 27, 
Issue 1; and Graham, J. (1987). ``English language proficiency and 
the prediction of academic success.'' TESOL Quarterly, Vol. 21, No. 
3, pp. 505-521.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Similarly, proposed Sec.  200.14(b)(4) would clarify how a State 
measures progress in achieving English language proficiency for all 
English learners for annual meaningful differentiation. The proposed 
regulation would provide States flexibility to develop a specific 
measure for this purpose, while ensuring that States use objective, 
valid, and consistent measures of student progress. Critically, the 
proposed regulations would require an objective and valid measure that 
English learners are attaining, or are on track to attain, English 
language proficiency in a reasonable time period, consistent with the 
State-determined timeline in proposed Sec.  200.13. As the Progress in 
Achieving English Language Proficiency indicator would receive 
substantial weight in annual meaningful differentiation under proposed 
Sec.  200.18 and could affect which schools are identified for support, 
it is important for States to design this indicator in ways that are 
valid and reliable and provide an accurate determination of English 
learners' progress toward achieving proficiency in English. Finally, 
the indicator chosen by the State must include a student's English 
language proficiency level, as well as additional student 
characteristics that are used, at a State's discretion, in the English 
learner-specific long-term goals and measurements of interim progress, 
for the reasons discussed previously in proposed 200.13(c) and to 
provide consistency across the components of State accountability 
systems.
Requirements for Indicator Selection
    Proposed Sec.  200.14(c) would reiterate that all indicators 
included in the accountability system must be valid, reliable, and 
comparable across all LEAs in the State, and that each included measure 
must be calculated in the same way for all schools. It would also 
prevent a State from using the same indicators more than once. For 
example, a State must choose a different indicator to measure school 
quality or student success than it uses to measure academic 
achievement.
    Proposed Sec.  200.14(e) would require that the Academic Progress 
and School Quality or Student Success indicator produce varied results 
across all schools in order to support the statutory requirements for 
meaningful differentiation and long-term student success. These 
proposed requirements are designed to ensure that the indicators 
provide meaningful information about a school's performance, enhancing 
the information provided by other indicators and improving the ability 
of the system to differentiate between schools. In this way, the 
Academic Progress and School Quality or Student Success indicators can 
provide a more holistic picture of a school's performance and, when 
selected thoughtfully, support a State in meeting the statutory 
requirement that these indicators allow for ``meaningful 
differentiation.'' The proposed parameters would help improve the 
validity of annual meaningful differentiation and support States' 
identification of schools most in need of support and improvement. If a 
State chose an indicator that led to consistent results across 
schools--such as average daily attendance, which is often quite high 
even in the lowest-performing schools--it would not allow states to 
meaningfully differentiate between schools for the purposes of 
identifying schools in need of comprehensive and targeted support and 
improvement.
    Finally, proposed Sec.  200.14(d) would ensure that a State selects 
indicators of Academic Progress and School Quality or Student Success 
that are supported by research showing that performance or progress on 
such measures is positively related to student achievement or, in the 
case of measures used within indicators at the high school level, 
graduation rates. For example, a State might include at least one of 
the following School Quality or Student Success indicators that 
examine, for all students and disaggregated for each subgroup of 
students:
     ``Student access to and completion of advanced 
coursework'' through a measure of advanced mathematics course-taking 
(e.g., the percentage of middle school students enrolled in algebra, or 
of high school students enrolled in calculus);
     ``Postsecondary readiness'' through a measure of college 
enrollment following high school graduation or the rate of non-remedial 
postsecondary courses taken;
     ``School climate and safety'' through a robust, valid 
student survey that measures multiple domains (e.g., student 
engagement, safety, and school environment); or
     ``Student engagement'' through a measure of chronic 
absenteeism based on the number of students that miss a significant 
portion (e.g., 15 or more school days or 10 percent or more of total 
school days) of the school year.
    Further, since measures of ``postsecondary readiness'' may not be 
available as an indicator in elementary schools, a State could consider 
using an analogous measure in its accountability system, such as 
``kindergarten readiness'' or another measure that would capture 
important outcomes or learning experiences in the early grades.
    These requirements would support the purpose of title I--to 
``provide all children significant opportunity to receive a fair, 
equitable, and high-quality education and to close educational 
achievement gaps''--by requiring States to use measures that are

[[Page 34548]]

likely to close achievement gaps and are related to improvements in 
critical student outcomes. It would also create consistency across 
components of the accountability system described in proposed Sec.  
200.12; the Academic Progress and School Quality or Student Success 
indicators would both provide additional information to help a State 
differentiate between, and identify, schools in a valid and reliable 
way, and also be relevant to its other indicators and support the 
State's efforts to attain its long-term goals.

Section 200.15 Participation in Assessments and Annual Measurement of 
Achievement

    Statute: Section 1111(c)(4)(E) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, 
requires each State, for the purpose of school accountability 
determinations, to measure the achievement of not less than 95 percent 
of all students, and 95 percent of all students in each subgroup of 
students, who are enrolled in public schools on the annual statewide 
assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics required by 
section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I). The statute further ensures that this 
requirement is taken into account when determining proficiency on the 
Academic Achievement indicator by specifying that the denominator used 
for such calculations must include at least 95 percent of all students 
and 95 percent of students in each subgroup enrolled in the school. 
Each State also must provide a clear and understandable explanation of 
how the participation rate requirement will be factored into its 
accountability system.
    Current Regulations: Section 200.20(c)(1) of the current 
regulations specifies that, for an LEA or school to make AYP, not less 
than 95 percent of all students and 95 percent of the students in each 
subgroup who are enrolled in the LEA or school must take the statewide 
academic assessments. Title I schools that fail to make AYP due to the 
participation rate requirement can be identified as schools in 
improvement. Section 200.20(c)(2) of the current regulations further 
states that this 95 percent participation requirement does not 
authorize a State, LEA, or school to systematically exclude five 
percent of students from the assessment requirements of the ESEA. The 
regulations also allow a school to count students with the most 
significant cognitive disabilities who take an assessment based on 
alternate academic achievement standards as participants, and to count 
recently arrived English learners (defined in Sec.  200.6(b)(4)(iv) of 
the current regulations as an English learner ``who has attended 
schools in the United States for less than twelve months'') who take 
the English language proficiency assessment or the reading/language 
arts assessment as participants on the State's reading/language arts 
assessment (even if they do not actually take the State's reading/
language arts assessment). Section 200.20(d)(1) further allows States 
to average participation rate data from up to three school years in 
making a determination of whether the school, LEA, or State assessed 95 
percent of all students and students in each subgroup.
    Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec.  200.15 would replace current 
Sec.  200.15 with regulations that update and clarify assessment 
participation rate requirements to reflect new statutory requirements, 
while retaining elements of current Sec.  200.20 that are consistent 
with the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. Proposed Sec.  200.15(a) would 
incorporate the ESSA requirement that States annually measure the 
achievement of at least 95 percent of all students, and 95 percent of 
all students in each subgroup of students under proposed Sec.  
200.16(a)(2), who are enrolled in each public school. Participation 
rates would be calculated separately on the assessments in reading/
language arts and mathematics required under section 
1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I). Proposed Sec.  200.15(b)(1) would incorporate the 
statutory requirements related to the denominator that must be used for 
calculating the Academic Achievement indicator under proposed Sec.  
200.14 for purposes of annual meaningful differentiation of schools, 
while proposed Sec.  200.15(b)(2) would establish minimum requirements 
for factoring the participation rate requirement for all students and 
each subgroup of students into the State accountability system. 
Specifically, the State would be required to take one of the following 
actions for a school that misses the 95 percent participation 
requirement for all students or one or more student subgroups: (1) 
Assign a lower summative rating to the school, described in proposed 
Sec.  200.18; (2) assign the lowest performance level on the State's 
Academic Achievement indicator, described in proposed Sec. Sec.  200.14 
and 200.18; (3) identify the school for targeted support and 
improvement under proposed Sec.  200.19(b)(1); or (4) another equally 
rigorous State-determined action, as described in its State plan, that 
will result in a similar outcome for the school in the system of annual 
meaningful differentiation under proposed Sec.  200.18 and will lead to 
improvements in the school's assessment participation rate so that it 
meets the 95 percent participation requirement. Proposed Sec.  
200.15(c)(1) would further require schools that miss the 95 percent 
participation rate for all students or for one or more subgroups of 
students to develop and implement improvement plans that address the 
reason or reasons for low participation in the school and include 
interventions to improve participation rates in subsequent years, 
except that schools identified for targeted support and improvement due 
to low participation rates would not be required to develop a separate 
plan than the one required under proposed Sec.  200.22. The improvement 
plans would be developed in partnership with stakeholders, including 
parents, include one or more strategies to address the reason or 
reasons for low participation rates in the school and improve 
participation rates in subsequent years, and be approved and monitored 
by the LEA. In addition, proposed Sec.  200.15(c)(2) would require each 
LEA with a significant number of schools missing the 95 percent 
participation rate for all students or for one or more subgroups of 
students to develop and implement an improvement plan that includes 
additional actions to support the effective implementation of school-
level plans to improve low assessment participation rates, which would 
be reviewed and approved by the State.
    Finally, proposed Sec.  200.15(d) would require a State to include 
in its report card a clear explanation of how it will factor the 95 
percent participation rate requirement into its accountability system. 
This section would also retain current regulatory requirements related 
to: (1) Not allowing the systematic exclusion of students from required 
assessments; (2) counting as participants students with the most 
significant cognitive disabilities who take alternate assessments based 
on alternate academic achievement standards; and (3) counting as 
participants recently arrived English learners who take either the 
State's English language proficiency assessment or the reading/language 
arts assessment.
    Reasons: The ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, continues to require the 
participation of all students in the annual statewide assessments in 
reading/language arts and mathematics and includes this requirement as 
a significant component of State-developed accountability systems. In 
particular, ensuring that results on these statewide assessments are 
available for all students is essential for meeting

[[Page 34549]]

accountability system requirements related to the establishment and 
measurement of interim progress toward State-designed, long-term goals 
under section 1111(c)(4)(A); the development and annual measurement of 
the indicators under section 1111(c)(4)(B); the annual meaningful 
differentiation of school performance under section 1111(c)(4)(C); and 
the identification of schools for improvement under section 
1111(c)(4)(D) and (d)(2)(A)(i). The proposed regulations reflect the 
critical importance of continuing to ensure that all students 
participate in annual statewide academic assessments so that parents 
and teachers have the information they need to help all students meet 
the challenging State academic standards and to maintain the utility of 
State accountability systems.
    The proposed regulations would provide States with options to 
ensure that they meet the requirement in section 1111(c)(4)(E)(iii) by 
taking meaningful action to factor the 95 percent participation 
requirement into their accountability systems. Such action is essential 
to protect the credibility of a State's system of identifying schools 
in need of comprehensive or targeted support, enhance the validity of 
academic achievement information, and, most importantly, provide 
parents and educators with information to support all students in 
meeting the challenging State academic standards. These options suggest 
ways States may provide greater transparency and accurate, meaningful 
differentiation of schools to the public regarding low participation 
rates. In particular, the proposed options would ensure that failure to 
meet the 95 percent participation rate requirement is factored in the 
State's accountability system in a meaningful, publicly visible manner 
through a significant impact on a school's performance level or 
summative rating, identification for targeted support and improvement, 
or another equally rigorous, State-determined action, thus providing an 
incentive for the school to ensure that all students participate in 
annual State assessments. In addition to these options for factoring 
the participation rate requirement into the accountability system, the 
proposed regulations would ensure that all schools that miss the 95 
percent participation rate develop plans to meaningfully address and 
improve assessment participation. The proposed regulations also would 
support State efforts to improve low participation rates by requiring 
LEAs with a significant number of schools that miss the 95 percent 
participation rate to develop separate LEA improvement plans that 
include additional actions to ensure the effective implementation of 
school-level plans.
    Given the critical importance of assessing all students and 
subgroups of students as part of providing a strong foundation for each 
component of a State's accountability system, and in ensuring that 
parents and educators have information to support all students in 
meeting the challenging State academic standards, we are especially 
interested in receiving public comment on additional or different ways 
than those articulated in the proposed regulations to support States in 
ensuring that low assessment participation rates are meaningfully 
addressed as part of the State's accountability system, either as part 
of annual meaningful differentiation of schools to increase 
transparency around assessment participation rates or as part of 
school-level actions to improve such rates.

Section 200.16 Subgroups of students

    Statute: Section 1111(c)(2) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, 
delineates the required subgroups of students that must be included in 
a statewide accountability system:
     Economically disadvantaged students;
     Students from major racial and ethnic groups;
     Children with disabilities; and
     English learners.
    Under the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, subgroups of students are 
included for multiple purposes in a statewide accountability system. 
States are required to:
     Establish long-term goals and measurements of interim 
progress for achievement and graduation rates for each subgroup of 
students, as well as for progress in attaining English language 
proficiency for English learners, that take into account the 
improvement necessary to make progress in closing proficiency and 
graduation rate gaps as described in section 1111(c)(4)(A);
     Produce disaggregated subgroup data for each required 
accountability indicator and annually differentiate among all public 
schools based on these indicators as described in section 
1111(h)(1)(C); and
     Identify schools with one or more consistently 
underperforming subgroups of students and schools in which one or more 
subgroups of students perform as poorly as any title I school that is 
among the lowest-performing in the State for targeted support and 
improvement as described in section 1111(c)(4)(C)(iii) and 
1111(d)(2)(A)(i).
    The ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, also includes accountability 
requirements that apply only to English learners, including specific 
provisions for recently arrived English learners who have been enrolled 
in a school in the United States for less than 12 months, and students 
who were previously identified as English learners.
    Section 1111(b)(3)(A) provides a State that chooses not to include 
results on academic assessments for recently arrived English learners 
in the statewide accountability system in their first year enrolled in 
schools in the United States with two options:
    Under section 1111(b)(3)(A)(i), a State may exclude a 
recently arrived English learner from one administration of the 
reading/language arts assessment required under section 1111(b)(2)(A) 
and exclude a recently arrived English learner's results on the 
reading/language arts (if applicable), mathematics, or English language 
proficiency assessment for accountability purposes in the first year of 
the student's enrollment in schools in the United States; or
     Under section 1111(b)(3)(A)(ii), a State may assess and 
report a recently arrived English learner's results on the reading/
language arts and mathematics assessments required under section 
1111(b)(2)(A), but exclude those results for accountability purposes in 
the student's first year of enrollment in schools in the United States. 
In the second year of a recently arrived English learner's enrollment 
in schools in the United States, the State must include a measure of 
such student's growth on the reading/language arts and mathematics 
assessments for accountability purposes. In the third and each 
succeeding year of a recently arrived English learner's enrollment, a 
State must include a measure of such student's proficiency on the 
reading/language arts and mathematics assessments for accountability 
purposes.
    The ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, also specifies a limited 
exception to the requirement that a subgroup of students include only 
students who meet the definition for inclusion in that subgroup. Under 
section 1111(b)(3)(B), a State may include, for up to four years after 
exiting the English learner subgroup, the assessment results of such a 
student previously identified as an English learner in calculating the 
Academic Achievement indicator in reading/language arts and mathematics 
for the English learner subgroup in its statewide accountability 
system.
    Current Regulations: Various sections of the current title I 
regulations describe how subgroups of students are factored

[[Page 34550]]

into the State accountability systems required by the ESEA, as amended 
by the NCLB.
    Section 200.13 specifies that, as part of its definition of AYP, 
each State must apply the same AMOs to all required statutory subgroups 
of students (economically disadvantaged students, students from major 
racial and ethnic groups, students with disabilities, and students with 
limited English proficiency), consistent with the regulations in Sec.  
200.7 for setting a minimum number of students, or n-size, for 
accountability and reporting that protects student privacy and produces 
valid and reliable accountability results. Section 200.19 requires 
disaggregated reporting on the other academic indicator in elementary 
and middle schools and on graduation rates, but does not require a 
State to use disaggregated subgroup data on the other academic 
indicator in elementary and middle schools for AYP determinations.
    Current Sec.  200.6 permits a State to exempt recently arrived 
English learners from one administration of the State's reading/
language arts assessment. This section further defines a ``recently 
arrived limited English proficient student'' as a limited English 
proficient student who has attended schools in the United States (not 
including Puerto Rico) for less than 12 months. The regulations also 
require that a State and its LEAs report on State and district report 
cards the number of recently arrived English learners who are not 
assessed on the State's reading/language arts assessment, and clarify 
that a State must still include recently arrived English learners in 
its annual English language proficiency and mathematics assessments 
annually.
    Section 200.20 permits a State to exclude the performance of a 
recently arrived English learner on a reading/language arts assessment 
(if administered to these students), mathematics assessment, or both, 
in determining AYP for a school or LEA. In other words, the performance 
of recently arrived English learners on content assessments may be 
excluded for accountability purposes for one administration of the 
content assessments.
    Section 200.20 provides that in determining AYP for English 
learners and students with disabilities, a State may include in the 
English learner and students with disabilities subgroup, respectively, 
for up to two AYP determinations, scores of students who were 
previously English learners, but who have exited English learner 
status, and scores of students who were previously identified as 
students with a disability under section 602(3) of the IDEA, but who no 
longer receive services. The regulations require that, if a State 
includes students who were previously identified as English learners or 
students who were previously identified as students with a disability 
under section 602(3) of the IDEA in the respective subgroups in 
determining AYP, the State must include the scores of all such 
students. A State may, however, exclude such students from determining 
whether a subgroup meets the State's n-size within a particular school. 
A State also cannot include such former students in those subgroups for 
reporting on other data beyond AYP determinations (e.g., for reporting 
participation rates).
    Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec.  200.16 would replace the 
current regulations to clarify the statutory requirements under the 
ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, for how a State must include subgroups of 
students in its State accountability system. Specifically, the 
subgroups of students included in the proposed regulations are--
     Economically disadvantaged students;
     Students from each major racial and ethnic group;
     Children with disabilities, as defined in section 8101(4) 
of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA; and
     English learners, as defined in section 8101(20) of the 
ESEA, as amended by the ESSA.
    The proposed regulations would require each State to--
     Include each subgroup of students, separately, and the all 
students group, consistent with the State's minimum number of students, 
or n-size, when establishing long-term goals and measurements of 
interim progress under proposed Sec.  200.13, measuring school 
performance on each of the indicators under proposed Sec.  200.14, 
annually meaningfully differentiating schools under proposed Sec.  
200.18, and identifying schools for comprehensive and targeted support 
and improvement under proposed Sec.  200.19.
     Include, at the State's discretion, for not more than four 
years after a student exits the English learner subgroup, the 
performance of a student previously identified as an English learner on 
the Academic Achievement indicator within the English learner subgroup 
for purposes of annual meaningful differentiation and identification of 
schools for support and improvement under proposed Sec. Sec.  200.18 
and 200.19, if the State includes all such students previously 
identified as English learners and does so for the same State-
determined number of years.
     Include, with respect to an English learner with a 
disability for whom there are no appropriate accommodations for one or 
more domains of the English language proficiency assessment required 
under section 1111(b)(2)(G) because the disability is directly related 
to that particular domain (e.g., a non-verbal English learner who 
cannot take the speaking portion of the assessment), as determined by 
the student's individualized education program (IEP) team or 504 team 
on an individualized basis, in measuring performance against the 
Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency indicator, such a 
student's performance on the English language proficiency assessment 
based on the remaining domains in which it is possible to assess the 
student.
     Select a single statutory exemption from the two options 
included in section 1111(b)(3)(A) for the inclusion of recently arrived 
English learners in its accountability system and apply that exemption 
uniformly to all recently arrived English learners in the State; or
     Establish a uniform statewide procedure for determining 
how to apply the statutory exemption(s), if the State chooses to 
utilize either, or both, of the additional options included in section 
1111(b)(3)(A) for the inclusion of recently arrived English learners in 
its accountability system. The proposed regulations would require a 
State, in establishing its uniform procedure, to take into account 
English language proficiency level and at its discretion, other 
student-level characteristics: Grade level, age, native language 
proficiency level, and limited or interrupted formal education. Each 
State's uniform procedure must be used to determine which, if any, 
exemption is appropriate for an individual English learner.
     Report annually on the number and percentage of recently 
arrived English learners included in accountability under the options 
described in section 1111(b)(3)(A).
    Reasons: The ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, includes the same 
subgroups of students for purposes of a statewide accountability system 
as included under the ESEA, as amended by the NCLB. However, the ESSA 
changes the requirements for how the performance of students in each 
subgroup is included in the accountability system.
    Proposed Sec.  200.16 would clarify that a State must include each 
of the required subgroups of students separately when establishing 
long-term goals and measurements of interim progress, measuring school 
performance

[[Page 34551]]

on each of the indicators, annually meaningfully differentiating 
schools, and identifying schools for comprehensive and targeted support 
and improvement. This clarifies that, for example, ``students from 
major racial and ethnic groups'' cannot be combined into one large 
subgroup, or super-subgroup, that includes students from all major 
racial and ethnic groups together as a substitute for considering each 
of the major racial and ethnic groups separately. Relying exclusively 
on a combined subgroup or a super-subgroup of students, instead of 
using such groups in addition to individual subgroups of students (if a 
State chooses to do so), may mask subgroup performance and conflate the 
distinct academic needs of different groups of students, inhibit the 
identification of schools with one or more consistently underperforming 
subgroups of students for targeted support and improvement, and limit 
information available to the public and parents, which is contrary to 
the statutory purpose to increase transparency, improve academic 
achievement, and hold schools accountable for the success of each 
subgroup.
    Permitting the inclusion of former English learners in the English 
learner subgroup for up to four years after they have exited the 
English learner subgroup recognizes that the population of English 
learners in a school changes over time, as new English learners enter 
and others are reclassified as English language proficient. Including 
students previously identified as English learners in the subgroup 
would allow schools to be recognized for the progress they have made in 
supporting such students toward meeting the challenging State academic 
standards over time. However, selecting which former English learners 
to include, for which purposes, and for how long could undermine the 
fairness of accountability determinations across the State by 
encouraging the inclusion of higher-achieving former English learners 
only, or encouraging the inclusion of higher-achieving former English 
learners for longer periods of time than their lower-achieving peers. 
Further, the inclusion of former English learners should be used to 
increase school-level accountability and recognition for supporting the 
English learner subgroup, which is possible only if such students are 
counted within the subgroup for purposes of meeting the State's n-size.
    For these reasons, proposed Sec.  200.16 would clarify that if a 
State chooses to include former English learners in the English learner 
subgroup for up to four years, it must include all such former English 
learners in the subgroup for the same period of time. Further, former 
English learners must be included in determining whether the English 
learner subgroup meets the State's n-size in a particular school if a 
State chooses to include former English learners in the Academic 
Achievement indicator. The proposed regulations in Sec.  200.16 would 
prohibit States from including former English learners in the English 
learner subgroup for purposes other than calculating and reporting on 
the Academic Achievement indicator. However, the proposed regulations 
would not prohibit States from establishing their own additional 
subgroups of students that include former English learners; we are 
aware that some States track the performance of ``ever English 
learners''--students who have at any time been classified as English 
learners--and the proposed regulations would not prevent that practice.
    The proposed regulations also would clarify that a State must 
include in the Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency 
indicator the composite score of an English learner who has a 
disability that prevents that student from taking, even with 
appropriate accommodations, one or more domains of the English language 
proficiency assessment (speaking, listening, reading, or writing). The 
statute requires that each State assess all English learners annually 
in all four domains with the English language proficiency assessment, 
provide appropriate accommodations to an English learner who is also a 
child with a disability, and hold schools accountable for the 
performance of all English learners. We propose this regulation in 
recognition that, in a limited number of situations, the nature of a 
student's disability may make it impossible to validly assess the 
student in a particular domain of the English language proficiency 
assessment, even with appropriate accommodations. For example, it may 
not be possible, even with appropriate accommodations, to administer 
the speaking domain of the English language proficiency assessment to a 
non-verbal English learner. The purpose of the proposed regulation is 
to ensure that such a student is still included within the 
accountability system based on his or her performance on the remaining 
domains of the English language proficiency assessment.
    To ensure that this exception is used only where necessary, 
proposed 200.16(b)(2) would require a State to include the performance 
of such a student in the Progress in Achieving English Language 
Proficiency indicator based on fewer than all four domains of language 
only where, as determined by the student's IEP or 504 team on an 
individualized basis, it is not possible, even with appropriate 
accommodations, for the student to participate in one or more domains 
of the English language proficiency assessment. A State may not adopt 
categorical rules for excluding English learners with certain 
disabilities from corresponding domains of the English language 
proficiency assessment; rather, just as the IEP or 504 team makes the 
decision about accommodations on an individualized basis, so too the 
decision as to domain participation would be made by the IEP or 504 
team on an individualized basis, and only for this limited subset of 
English learners.
    The ESSA provides new flexibility in how States may include the 
performance of recently arrived English learners on academic 
assessments in the statewide accountability system by their second year 
of enrollment in schools in the United States. Proposed Sec.  200.16 
would clarify that recently arrived English learners must be included 
in meaningful and appropriate ways, acknowledging the diversity and 
varying needs of this population. Research has demonstrated that a 
student's language proficiency, age, and educational background (such 
as amount of formal education and native language proficiency) have an 
impact on that student's development of English language proficiency 
and academic achievement.\5\ While some recently arrived English 
learners may be best served by taking the reading/language arts 
assessment in their first year of enrollment in U.S. schools, and 
subsequently included in growth calculations for accountability in 
their second year of enrollment, this exemption may be inappropriate 
for other recently arrived English learners. Thus, based on the 
existing research base, the proposed regulations would clarify that 
States could either choose to apply one of the statutory options for 
exempting recently arrived English learners uniformly to all recently 
arrived English learners, or have the option of taking into account 
English language proficiency level and, at a State's discretion, 
certain additional student-level characteristics, including grade 
level, age, native language proficiency level, and limited or 
interrupted formal education, when determining which approach for

[[Page 34552]]

inclusion in the accountability system is most appropriate for each 
recently arrived English learner. The proposed regulations would also 
clarify that a State must establish a uniform procedure for making this 
student-level determination, which will ensure fairness across LEAs and 
maximize the inclusion of recently arrived English learners, while 
recognizing the heterogeneity of such students, and promote the 
availability of comparable data for recently arrived English learners 
statewide.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \5\ Thomas, W. P., & Collier, V. (1997). ``School effectiveness 
for language minority students.'' Washington, DC: National 
Clearinghouse for Bilingual Education.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the statute specifically states that the scores of 
students previously identified as an English learner may be included 
for up to four years for the calculation of the Academic Achievement 
indicator, the statute is silent about whether States may include the 
scores of a student who was previously identified as a child with a 
disability under section 602(3) of the IDEA. Accordingly, proposed 
Sec.  200.16 would differ from the current title I regulations, which 
allow States to count the scores of students who were previously 
identified as a child with a disability for the purposes of making 
accountability determinations for up to two years. Unlike English 
learners, who all share a goal of attaining English language 
proficiency and exiting the English learner subgroup, the goal for all 
children with disabilities is not always or necessarily to exit special 
education services. The flexibility in the current title I regulations 
is intended to allow school assessment results for the student with 
disabilities subgroup to reflect the gains that students exiting the 
subgroup had made in academic achievement. As a result, however, the 
academic achievement results used for accountability for the students 
with disabilities subgroup in a particular school may not fully reflect 
the achievement of students receiving special education services. 
Because this provision was not included in the ESEA, as amended by 
ESSA, we seek specific comments on whether the provision to allow a 
student who was previously identified as a child with a disability 
under section 602(3) of the IDEA, but who no longer receives special 
education services, to be included in the children with disabilities 
subgroup for the limited purpose of calculating the Academic 
Achievement indicator should be retained or modified in proposed Sec.  
200.16, and if so, whether such students should be permitted in the 
subgroup for up to two years consistent with the current title I 
regulations, or for a shorter proposed period of time.

Section 200.17 Disaggregation of Data

    Statute: Section 1111(c)(3) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, 
requires each State to determine, in consultation with stakeholders, a 
minimum number of students (hereafter ``n-size'') that the State will 
use for accountability and reporting purposes. The n-size must be 
statistically sound, the same for all students and for each subgroup of 
students, and sufficient to not reveal any personally identifiable 
information.
    Current Regulations: Section 200.7(a)(1) prohibits a State from 
using disaggregated data for reporting purposes or AYP determinations 
if the number of students in the subgroup is insufficient to yield 
statistically reliable information. Section 200.7(a)(2) requires a 
State, using sound statistical methods, to determine and justify in its 
consolidated State plan the minimum number of students sufficient to 
yield statistically reliable information for each purpose for which 
disaggregated data are used.
    Section 200.7(a)(2)(i) requires a State, in determining its minimum 
subgroup size, to consider statistical reliability in setting such 
number to ensure, to the maximum extent practicable, that all students 
are included, particularly at the school level, for purposes of making 
accountability decisions. Section 200.7(a)(2)(ii) requires each State 
to revise its Consolidated State Application Accountability Workbook to 
include: (1) An explanation of how the State's minimum subgroup size 
meets the requirements of Sec.  200.7(a)(2)(i); (2) an explanation of 
how other components of the State's AYP definition, in addition to the 
State's minimum subgroup size, interact to affect the statistical 
reliability of the data and to ensure maximum inclusion of all students 
and subgroups of students; and (3) information on the number and 
percentage of students and subgroups of students excluded from school-
level accountability determinations. Section 200.7(a)(2)(iii) requires 
each State to submit a revised Consolidated State Application 
Accountability Workbook that incorporates the information required in 
Sec.  200.7(a)(2)(ii) for technical assistance and peer review.
    The section also clarifies that students excluded from 
disaggregation and accountability at the school level must be included 
at the level (LEA or State) for which the number of students is 
reliable. It stipulates that a State must apply section 444 of the 
General Education Provisions Act (the Family Educational Rights and 
Privacy Act of 1974) in determining whether disaggregated data would 
reveal personally identifiable information.
    Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec.  200.17 would retain and 
reorganize the relevant requirements of current Sec.  200.7, which 
would be removed and reserved, so that these requirements are 
incorporated directly into the sections of the proposed regulations 
pertaining to accountability, instead of regulations pertaining to 
assessments in current Sec. Sec.  200.2 through 200.10. Further, 
proposed Sec.  200.17 would update the requirements in current Sec.  
200.7 to reflect new statutory requirements that promote statistical 
reliability and inclusion of subgroups for accountability in the ESSA.
    Proposed Sec.  200.17 would also clarify data disaggregation 
requirements. Specifically, proposed Sec.  200.17(a)(2)(iii) would 
clarify that, for the purposes of the statewide accountability system 
under section 1111(c), a State's n-size may not exceed 30 students, 
unless the State is approved to use a higher number after providing a 
justification, including data on the number and percentage of schools 
that are not held accountable for the results of each required subgroup 
of students in the State's system of annual meaningful differentiation, 
in its State plan. Proposed Sec.  200.17(a)(2)(iv) would further 
clarify that the n-size sufficient to yield statistically reliable 
information for purposes of reporting under section 1111(h) may be 
lower than the n-size used for purposes of the statewide accountability 
system under section 1111(c).
    Reasons: The ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, continues to focus on 
holding schools accountable for the outcomes of specific subgroups of 
students. The statute specifically requires that accountability 
determinations be based on the performance of all students and each 
subgroup of students, and requires a State to disaggregate data for 
purposes of measuring progress toward its long-term goals performance 
on each indicator under proposed Sec. Sec.  200.13 and 200.14. The need 
to ensure statistical reliability and protect student privacy qualifies 
these disaggregation requirements; thus, the statute requires States to 
set an n-size and prohibits accountability determinations or reporting 
by subgroup if the size of the subgroup is too small to yield 
statistically reliable results, or would reveal personally identifiable 
information about individual students. Because these are statutory 
requirements for State accountability systems under section 1111(c), we 
propose to reorganize the current

[[Page 34553]]

regulations so that requirements related to a State's n-size are 
included within the regulatory sections pertaining to accountability, 
instead of State assessment systems, by removing and reserving current 
Sec.  200.7 and replacing it with proposed Sec.  200.17.
    A State's n-size should be no larger than necessary to ensure the 
protection of privacy for individuals and to allow for statistically 
reliable results of the aggregate performance of the students who make 
up a subgroup. The n-size must also be small enough to ensure the 
maximum inclusion of each student subgroup in accountability decisions 
and school identification, including measuring student progress against 
the State's long-term goals and indicators and notifying schools with 
consistently underperforming subgroups of students for targeted support 
and improvement, consistent with the statutory requirements to 
disaggregate data for such purposes.
    Setting an n-size that is statistically reliable has been a 
challenge for States. Previous approaches have, at times, prioritized 
setting a conservative n-size (e.g., 100 students) in order to yield 
more reliable accountability decisions. However, the use of an n-size 
is intended to ensure that results are both reliable and valid. While, 
in general, the reliability of results increases as the sample size 
increases, the validity of the results can decrease as more student 
subgroups are excluded from the accountability system. In other words, 
in determining an n-size, a State must appropriately balance the goal 
of producing reliable results with the goal of holding schools 
accountable for the outcomes of each subgroup of students. For example, 
under the ESEA, as amended by the NCLB, 79 percent of students with 
disabilities were included in the accountability systems of States with 
an n-size of 30. However, only 32 percent of students with disabilities 
were included in the accountability systems of States with an n-size of 
40.\6\ Similarly, in a 2016 examination of the effect of using 
different subgroup sizes in California's CORE school districts,\7\ the 
study found that when using an n-size of 100, only 37 percent of 
African American students' math scores are reported at the school-
level. However, using an n-size of 20 increases the percentage of 
``visible'' African American students to 88 percent. The impact for 
students with disabilities is even larger: when the n-size is 100, only 
25 percent of students with disabilities are reported at the school-
level; however, 92 percent of students with disabilities are reported 
when using an n-size of 20.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \6\ Harr-Robins, J., Song, M., Hurlburt, S., Pruce, C., 
Danielson, L., & Garet, M. (2013). ``The inclusion of students with 
disabilities in school accountability systems: An update (NCEE 2013-
4017).'' Washington, DC: National Center for Education Evaluation 
and Regional Assistance, Institute of Education Sciences, U.S. 
Department of Education, pp. 24-26.
    \7\ Hough, H., & Witte, J. (2016). ``Making students visible: 
Comparing different student subgroup sizes for accountability.'' 
CORE-PACE Research Partnership, Policy Memo, 16-2.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Other analyses have shown that an n-size of 60 can potentially 
exclude all students with disabilities from a State's accountability 
system.\8\ Basic statistics (i.e., the Central Limit Theorem) support 
the use of 30 as an n-size.\9\ The Central Limit Theorem states that as 
long as one uses a reasonably large sample size (e.g., sample size 
greater than or equal to 30), the mean will be normally distributed, 
even if the distribution of scores in the sample is not.\10\ Finally, 
some researchers have suggested that an n-size of 25 is sufficient to 
yield reliable data on student performance.\11\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \8\ Simpson, M.A., Gong, B., & Marion, S. (2006). ``Effect of 
minimum cell sizes and confidence interval sizes for special 
education subgroups on school-level AYP determinations.'' Council of 
Chief State School Officers; Synthesis Report 61. National Center on 
Educational Outcomes, University of Minnesota.
    \9\ Urdan, T.C. (2010). Statistics in Plain English. New York: 
Routledge.
    \10\ Ibid.
    \11\ Linn, R.L., Baker, E. L., & Herman, J.L. (2002). ``Minimum 
group size for measuring adequate yearly progress.'' The CRESST 
line. https://www.cse.ucla.edu/products/newsletters/cresst_cl2002_4.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    For these reasons, proposed Sec.  200.17(a)(2) would allow states 
to establish a range of n-sizes, not to exceed 30, so that States may 
select an n-size that is both valid and reliable. The proposed 
regulations would also allow a State to set an n-size that exceeds 30 
students if it demonstrates how the higher number promotes sound, 
reliable accountability decisions and the use of disaggregated data in 
making those decisions in its State plan, including data on the number 
and percentage of schools that would not be held accountable for the 
results of students in each subgroup under its proposed n-size.

Section 200.18 Annual Meaningful Differentiation of School Performance

    Statute: Section 1111(c)(4)(C)(i) of the ESEA, as amended by the 
ESSA, requires that each State establish a system for meaningfully 
differentiating all public schools in the State each year. The system 
of annual meaningful differentiation must be based on all of the 
indicators in the State accountability system under section 
1111(c)(4)(B) for all students and for each subgroup of students. 
Section 1111(c)(4)(C)(ii) requires that the system of annual meaningful 
differentiation afford substantial weight to each of the following 
indicators:
     Academic achievement;
     Graduation rates for high schools;
     A measure of student growth, if determined appropriate by 
the State, or another valid and reliable academic indicator that allows 
for meaningful differentiation in school performance for elementary and 
secondary schools that are not high schools; and
     Progress in achieving English language proficiency.
    These indicators, combined, must also be afforded much greater 
weight than the indicator or indicators of school quality or student 
success.
    Current Regulations: Various sections of the current title I 
regulations describe how a school's performance against its AMOs in 
reading/language arts and mathematics and other academic indicators, 
including graduation rates, determine whether a school makes, or fails 
to make, AYP in a given school year. These sections essentially restate 
the statutory language in the ESEA, as amended by the NCLB.
    Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec.  200.18 would replace the 
current regulations with regulations implementing the ESEA statutory 
requirements, as amended by the ESSA, for States to establish systems 
of annual meaningful differentiation of all public schools.
Performance Levels and Summative Ratings
    The proposed regulations would require each State's system of 
annual meaningful differentiation to--
     Include the performance of all students and each subgroup 
of students in a school on all of the indicators, consistent with 
proposed regulations for inclusion of subgroups in Sec.  200.16, for 
disaggregation of data in Sec.  200.17, and for inclusion of students 
that attend the same school for only part of the year in Sec.  
200.20(c);
     Include at least three distinct levels of performance for 
schools on each indicator that are clear and understandable to the 
public, and set those performance levels in a way that is consistent 
with the school's attainment of the State's long-term goals and 
measurements of interim progress in proposed Sec.  200.13;
     Provide information on each school's level of performance 
on each indicator in the accountability system separately as part of 
the description of the State's accountability system under

[[Page 34554]]

section 1111(h)(1)(C)(i)(IV) that is included as part of LEA report 
cards consistent with proposed Sec.  200.32;
     Result in a single rating from among at least three 
distinct rating categories for each school, based on a school's level 
of performance on each indicator, to describe a school's summative 
performance and include such a rating as part of the description of the 
State's system for annual meaningful differentiation on LEA report 
cards consistent with proposed Sec. Sec.  200.31 and 200.32;
     Meet the requirements of proposed Sec.  200.15 to annually 
measure the achievement of not less than 95 percent of all students and 
95 percent of all students in each subgroup of students on the 
assessments under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I); and
     Inform the State's methodology to identify schools for 
comprehensive and targeted support and improvement described in 
proposed Sec.  200.19.
Weighting of Indicators
    To annually meaningfully differentiate among all public schools in 
the State, including determining the summative rating for each school, 
proposed Sec.  200.18 would require States to use consistent weighting 
among the indicators for all schools within each grade span. In 
particular, proposed Sec.  200.18 would require States to give 
substantial weight to each of the Academic Achievement, Academic 
Progress, Graduation Rate, and Progress in English Language Proficiency 
indicators, consistent with the statutory requirements in section 
1111(c)(4)(C)(ii)(I). Proposed Sec.  200.18 would also require States 
to give much greater weight to those indicators, in the aggregate, than 
to the indicator or indicators of school quality or student success, 
consistent with the statutory requirements in section 
1111(c)(4)(C)(ii)(II).
    Further, to show that its system of annual meaningful 
differentiation meets these requirements for providing substantial and 
much greater weight to certain indicators, under proposed Sec.  200.18 
each State would be required to:
     Demonstrate that school performance on the School Quality 
or Student Success indicator(s) may not be used to change the identity 
of schools that would otherwise be identified for comprehensive support 
and improvement, unless such schools are making significant progress 
for the all students group under proposed Sec.  200.16(a)(1) on at 
least one of the indicators that is afforded substantial weight and can 
be measured for all students; and
     Demonstrate that school performance on the School Quality 
or Student Success indicator(s) may not be used to change the identity 
of schools that would otherwise be identified for targeted support and 
improvement, unless each consistently underperforming or low-performing 
subgroup is making significant progress on at least one of the 
indicators that is afforded substantial weight.
    In other words, the four substantially weighted indicators, 
together, would not be deemed to have much greater weight in the system 
if performance on the other, not substantially weighted indicator could 
remove a school from identification. Thus, in order for the school to 
be removed from identification it must also be making progress for the 
relevant subgroup of students on an indicator that receives substantial 
weight.
    Similarly, under proposed Sec.  200.18 each State would be required 
to demonstrate, based on the performance of all students and each 
subgroup of students, that a school performing in the lowest 
performance level on any of the substantially weighted indicators does 
not receive the same summative rating as a school performing in the 
highest performance level on all of the indicators. In other words, an 
indicator would not be considered to have substantial weight, and the 
overall system would not be meaningfully differentiating among schools, 
if low performance on that indicator failed to result in a school being 
rated differently than a school performing at the highest level on 
every indicator.
    Finally, proposed Sec.  200.18 would clarify that a State would not 
be required to afford the same substantial weight to each of the 
indicators that are required to receive a substantial weight in the 
system of annual meaningful differentiation. Further, it would clarify 
that if a school did not meet the State's n-size for English learners, 
a State must exclude the Progress in English Language Proficiency 
indicator from annual meaningful differentiation for the school and 
afford all of the remaining indicators for such a school the same 
relative weight that is afforded to those indicators in schools that 
meet the State's n-size for the English learner subgroup. It would not 
necessarily, however, relieve a school from its reporting requirements 
for English learners under the law if a State selects an n-size that is 
lower for reporting purposes than for purposes of annual meaningful 
differentiation consistent with proposed Sec.  200.17.
    Reasons: Given the changes in the ESEA statutory requirements and 
the heightened role for States in establishing systems of annual 
meaningful differentiation, we propose to revise the current 
regulations to reflect the new requirements and clarify how annual 
meaningful differentiation is related to other parts of the 
accountability system, such as participation in assessments in proposed 
Sec.  200.15 and the identification of schools for comprehensive and 
targeted support and improvement in proposed Sec.  200.19.
    Without successful annual meaningful differentiation of schools, 
low-performing schools may not be identified for needed resources and 
interventions, and States and LEAs may be unable to provide appropriate 
supports and recognition that are tailored to schools' and students' 
needs based on their performance. Additionally, parents and the public 
will lack access to transparent information about the quality of 
schools in their communities and how well schools are educating all 
students. Providing information for each of these purposes is 
particularly difficult, given that accountability systems must include 
multiple indicators, disaggregated by multiple subgroups. For these 
reasons, proposed Sec.  200.18 would further clarify the statutory 
requirements to ensure that annual meaningful differentiation results 
in actionable, useful information for States, LEAs, educators, parents, 
and the public.
Performance Levels and Summative Ratings
    First, proposed Sec.  200.18(b) would require States to establish 
at least three distinct performance levels for schools on each 
indicator and ensure that LEAs include how each school fared against 
these performance levels, separately by indicator, as part of the 
description of the accountability system on annual LEA report cards. To 
ensure that differentiation of schools is meaningful, the 
accountability system should allow for more than two possible outcomes 
for each school, and a requirement for at least three performance 
levels on each indicator would enable the system to recognize both 
high-performing and low-performing schools that are outliers, and 
distinguish them from more typical school performance.
    Second, proposed Sec.  200.18(b) would require each State to set 
performance levels on each indicator in a way that is consistent with 
attainment of the State's long-term goals and measurements of interim 
progress. If a school is

[[Page 34555]]

repeatedly failing to make sufficient progress toward the State's goals 
for academic achievement, graduation rates, or English language 
proficiency, that would be reflected in the performance level the 
school receives on those indicators. This would help ensure that the 
system of annual meaningful differentiation and the State's long-term 
goals work together to provide a coherent picture of school performance 
to parents and the public, and that schools receive a consistent signal 
regarding the student progress and outcomes they are expected to 
achieve each year.
    In addition, proposed Sec.  200.18(b) would require the performance 
levels to be clear and understandable to parents and the public. For 
example, creating three levels of performance that are all synonyms for 
``meeting expectations'' would likely be unhelpful, confusing, and fail 
to differentiate between schools in a meaningful way. Instead, the 
levels should indicate distinct differences in performance in user-
friendly terms that the local community, especially students' parents, 
can understand.
    These performance levels would need to be reported separately for 
each indicator under proposed Sec.  200.14, because each measures a 
distinct aspect of school quality and performance, as well as reported 
together in a single summative rating, from among at least three 
overall school rating categories. Many schools may excel on some 
indicators, and struggle on other indicators--information that could be 
hidden if only an aggregate rating were reported, or if performance 
levels were reported on some, but not all, of the indicators. This also 
serves as an important safeguard to ensure that the Academic 
Achievement, Academic Progress, Graduation Rates, and Progress in 
Achieving English Language Proficiency indicators--the substantially 
weighted indicators in the system--are not overshadowed in a summative 
rating by School Quality or Student Success indicators that States may 
add. Further, by presenting the performance level on each indicator 
separately, States and districts would be better equipped to customize 
supports, technical assistance, and resources to meet the needs of each 
school.
    However, there is significant value in providing a summative rating 
for each school that considers the school's level of performance across 
all of the indicators, and many States have already chosen to aggregate 
multiple measures into a single rating (e.g., A-F school grades, 
performance indices, accreditation systems) for State or Federal 
accountability purposes. A single summative rating is easy for 
stakeholders, parents, and the public to understand, summarizes 
complicated information into a more digestible format, and provides 
clear comparisons among schools, just as grade point averages provide a 
quick, high-level snapshot of students' average academic performance, 
while students' grades in each subject provide more detailed 
information about particular strengths and weaknesses. Further, a 
summative rating sends a strong signal to educators and school leaders 
to focus on improving school performance across all indicators in the 
system, as each will contribute to the summative result. Research has 
shown that accountability systems have a stronger impact on increasing 
student achievement, particularly in mathematics, when summative 
ratings are linked to accountability determinations and potential 
rewards and interventions for schools than when systems rely on 
reporting information without school-level consequences based on that 
information.\12\ For these reasons, proposed Sec.  200.18 would require 
States to provide schools with summative ratings, across all 
indicators, and to report those ratings for each school on LEA report 
cards, as described in proposed Sec. Sec.  200.31 and 200.32.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \12\ See, for example, Dee, Thomas S., & Jacob, B. (May 2011). 
``The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement.'' 
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 418-446; Carnoy, 
Martin, & Loeb, S. (2002). ``Does external accountability affect 
student outcomes? A cross-state analysis.'' Educational Evaluation 
and Policy Analysis, 24(4), 305-31; and Ahn, T., & Vigdor, J. L. 
(September 2014). ``The impact of No Child Left Behind's 
accountability sanctions on school performance: Regression 
discontinuity evidence from North Carolina.'' NBER Working Paper No. 
w20511.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Weighting of Indicators
    Proposed Sec.  200.18(c) and (d) would clarify the requirements for 
four indicators--Academic Achievement, Academic Progress, Graduation 
Rates, and Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency, as 
described in proposed Sec.  200.14--to be afforded substantial weight 
separately, and much greater weight together, than the State's 
indicator or indicators of School Quality or Student Success in the 
summative rating by specifying three checks that States must meet to 
demonstrate that their systems comply with this requirement. Taken 
together, these checks would help ensure that the indicators that are 
required in the statute to receive much greater weight, in the 
aggregate, ultimately drive annual determinations of school quality and 
identification of schools for support and improvement. Similarly, they 
would help ensure that each substantially weighted indicator is not 
overshadowed by indicators that are not afforded that distinction by 
the statute. In addition to clarifying the statute, the checks required 
in proposed Sec.  200.18(d) would provide critical parameters to help 
ensure that State accountability systems will emphasize student 
academic outcomes, like academic achievement, graduation rates, and 
English language proficiency, and will help close achievement gaps, 
consistent with the purpose of title I of the ESEA.
    Proposed Sec.  200.18(c) and (e) would clarify that in meeting the 
requirement to use consistent weighting across all schools within a 
grade span and for particular indicators to be afforded substantial 
weight, each indicator does not have to receive the same substantial 
weight. This would allow States to prioritize among the substantially 
weighted indicators, based on their unique goals and challenges, and 
customize their systems of annual meaningful differentiation to 
emphasize certain indicators more heavily within a particular grade 
span.
    Further, proposed Sec.  200.18(e) would clarify how a State must 
meet the requirements that they afford indicators substantial weight 
when a school does not enroll sufficient numbers of English learners to 
include the Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency 
indicator. By requiring the same relative weighting among the remaining 
indicators in such a school as the weighting used in schools that meet 
the State's n-size for the English learner subgroup, the proposed 
regulation would help promote fair, comparable differentiation among 
all public schools, regardless of variation in the demographics of a 
school's student population. If the Academic Achievement indicator 
typically receives twice the weight of School Quality or Student 
Success indicators, as determined by the State, in schools that meet 
the State's n-size for English learners, the Academic Achievement 
indicator would continue to receive twice the weight of the School 
Quality or Student Success indicators in schools that do not meet the 
State's n-size for English learners. In this way, the proposed 
regulations would ensure that the weight that would have otherwise been 
given to the Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency 
indicator is distributed among the other indicators in an unbiased and 
consistent way, so that the overall accountability system does not 
place relatively more, or less, emphasis on a particular

[[Page 34556]]

indicator in schools without sufficient numbers of English learners.
    Overall, proposed Sec.  200.18 would provide clarity to States, 
support consistency in how terms are defined, and help ensure that key 
indicators, especially those most directly related to student learning 
outcomes, receive the emphasis required by the statute in the 
accountability system. The terms ``substantial'' and ``much greater'' 
are ambiguous, especially when States could employ various approaches 
in order to differentiate schools. The proposed regulations would give 
consistent meaning to these terms and help protect subgroups of 
students whose performance could be overlooked, and whose schools could 
go unidentified, if certain indicators were afforded insufficient 
weight. For example, if Progress in Achieving English Language 
Proficiency received less than ``substantial'' weight in a State's 
system of annual meaningful differentiation, it is possible that 
schools failing to support their English learners in attaining English 
language proficiency would go unidentified for targeted support and 
improvement, and students in those schools would not receive the 
supports, resources, and services they would have otherwise been 
eligible for as a school identified for improvement.

Section 200.19 Identification of Schools

    Statute: Section 1111(c)(4)(D) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, 
requires each State to create a methodology, based on the system of 
annual meaningful differentiation described in section 1111(c)(4)(C), 
for identifying certain public schools for comprehensive support and 
improvement. This methodology must identify schools beginning with the 
2017-2018 school year, and at least once every three years thereafter, 
and must include three types of schools, specified in section 
1111(c)(4)(D)(i)--
     The lowest-performing five percent of all title I schools 
in the State;
     Any public high school in the State failing to graduate 
one-third or more of its students; and
     Title I schools with a consistently underperforming 
subgroup that, on its own, is performing as poorly as all students in 
the lowest-performing five percent of title I schools and that has 
failed to improve after implementation of a targeted support and 
improvement plan.
    Section 1111(c)(4)(C)(iii) and section 1111(d)(2)(A)(i) also 
require a State to use its method for annual meaningful 
differentiation, based on all indicators in the accountability system, 
to identify any public school in which one or more subgroups of 
students is consistently underperforming, as determined by the State, 
and to notify each LEA in the State of any public school served by the 
LEA of such identification so that the LEA can ensure the school 
develops a targeted support and improvement plan. The notification must 
also specify, beginning with the 2017-2018 school year as described in 
section 1111(d)(2)(D), if a subgroup of students in the school, on its 
own, has performed as poorly as all students in the bottom five percent 
of title I schools that have been identified for comprehensive support 
and improvement. This type of targeted support and improvement schools 
must implement additional targeted supports, as described in section 
1111(d)(2)(C).
    Section 1111(c)(4)(D)(ii) specifies that a State may also add other 
statewide categories of schools in addition to the categories of 
schools described above.
    Current Regulations: Section 200.32 of the current title I 
regulations requires all LEAs to identify any title I school for 
improvement that fails to make AYP for two or more consecutive years. 
Generally, under the regulations, title I schools must be identified by 
the beginning of the school year following the school year in which the 
LEA administered the assessments that resulted in the school's failure 
to make AYP.
    Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec.  200.19 would replace the 
current regulations with regulations reflecting the new statutory 
requirements under the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, to identify 
schools for comprehensive support and improvement and for targeted 
support and improvement.
Comprehensive Support and Improvement, Generally
    With regard to identification for comprehensive support and 
improvement, the proposed regulations would require each State to 
establish a methodology, based on its system of annual meaningful 
differentiation under proposed Sec.  200.18, to identify a statewide 
category of schools for comprehensive support and improvement, which 
must include three types of schools: The lowest-performing schools, 
high schools with low graduation rates, and schools with chronically 
low-performing subgroups.
Lowest-Performing Five Percent of Title I Schools
    The proposed regulations would require that each State identify the 
lowest-performing schools to include at least five percent of title I 
elementary, middle, and high schools in the State, taking into 
account--
     A school's summative rating among all students on the 
State's accountability indicators, averaged over no more than three 
years consistent with proposed Sec.  200.20(a), which describes data 
procedures for annual meaningful differentiation and identification of 
schools; and
     The statutory requirement to assign substantial weight 
individually, and much greater weight overall, to the indicators of 
Academic Achievement, Academic Progress, Graduation Rates, and Progress 
in Achieving English Language Proficiency.
Low Graduation Rate High Schools
    Proposed Sec.  200.19 would require low graduation rate high 
schools to include any high school in the State with a four-year 
adjusted cohort graduation rate among all students below 67 percent, or 
below a higher percentage selected by the State, averaged over no more 
than three years consistent with proposed Sec.  200.20(a).
Schools With Chronically Low-Performing Subgroups
    Proposed Sec.  200.19 would also require States to identify schools 
with chronically low-performing subgroups of students, which are 
defined as any title I school with one or more subgroups that performs 
as poorly as all students in any of the lowest-performing five percent 
of title I schools under proposed Sec.  200.19(a)(1) and that have not 
sufficiently improved, as defined by the State, after implementation of 
a targeted support and improvement plan over no more than three years.
Identification for Targeted Support and Improvement
    With regard to identification of schools for targeted support and 
improvement, the proposed regulations would establish requirements for 
identifying two types of schools. First, a State would be required to 
identify under proposed Sec.  200.19(b)(2) each school with at least 
one low-performing subgroup of students, which is defined as a subgroup 
of students that is performing at a level at or below the summative 
performance of all students in any of the lowest-performing five 
percent of title I schools in comprehensive support and improvement. 
Second, each State would establish a methodology, based on its system 
of annual meaningful differentiation under proposed Sec.  200.18, to 
identify schools with consistently underperforming subgroups for 
targeted

[[Page 34557]]

support and improvement under proposed Sec.  200.19(b)(1). Proposed 
Sec.  200.19(c) would require that the State's methodology--
     Include any school with at least one consistently 
underperforming subgroup of students; and
     Take into account (1) a school's performance on the 
accountability indicators, over no more than two years, and (2) the 
statutory requirement to assign substantial weight individually, and 
much greater weight overall, to the indicators of Academic Achievement, 
Academic Progress, Graduation Rates, and Progress in Achieving English 
Language Proficiency. This methodology could also, at the State's 
discretion, include schools with low participation rates consistent 
with proposed Sec.  200.15(b)(2)(iii).
    In addition, proposed Sec.  200.19(c) would require each State to 
identify subgroups of students that are consistently underperforming 
using a uniform definition across all LEAs, which may include:
     A subgroup of students that is not on track to meet the 
State's long-term goals or is not meeting the State's measurements of 
interim progress under proposed Sec.  200.13;
     A subgroup of students that is performing at the lowest 
performance level in the system of annual meaningful differentiation on 
at least one indicator, or is particularly low performing on measures 
within an indicator (e.g., performance on the State mathematics 
assessments);
     A subgroup of students that is performing at or below a 
State-determined threshold compared to the average performance among 
all students, or the highest-performing subgroup, in the State;
     A subgroup of students that is performing significantly 
below the average performance among all students, or the highest-
performing subgroup, in the State, such that the performance gap is 
among the largest in the State; or
     Another definition, determined by the State, which the 
State demonstrates in its State plan would meet all proposed 
requirements for identification of schools for targeted support and 
improvement.
Frequency and Timeline for Identification
    Proposed Sec.  200.19 would also establish the timeline for 
identification of schools for comprehensive and targeted support and 
improvement, as follows:
     The lowest-performing title I schools, low graduation rate 
high schools, and title I schools with chronically low-performing 
subgroups would be identified for comprehensive support and improvement 
at least once every three years, beginning with the 2017-2018 school 
year, except that schools with chronically low-performing subgroups of 
students would not be required to be identified the first time a State 
identifies its lowest-performing and low graduation rate high schools 
in the 2017-2018 school year.
     Schools with consistently underperforming subgroups of 
students would be identified for targeted support and improvement 
annually, beginning with the 2018-2019 school year.
     Schools with low-performing subgroups of students that are 
performing at a level at or below the summative performance of all 
students in any of the lowest-performing five percent of title I 
schools would be identified at least once every three years, with 
identification occurring in each year that the State identifies the 
lowest-performing five percent of title I schools for comprehensive 
support and improvement, beginning with the 2017-2018 school year.
    Finally, proposed Sec.  200.19 would require that each State 
identify schools for comprehensive and targeted support and improvement 
by the beginning of the school year for which such school is 
identified. Specifically, the year of identification would be defined 
as the school year immediately following the year in which the State 
most recently measured the school's performance on the indicators under 
proposed Sec.  200.14 that resulted in the school's identification. In 
other words, schools identified for the 2017-2018 school year would be 
identified, at a minimum, on the basis of their performance in the 
2016-2017 school year and schools identified for the 2018-2019 school 
year would be identified, at a minimum, on the basis of their 
performance in the 2017-2018 school year, consistent with proposed 
Sec.  200.20(a) regarding uniform procedures for averaging data.\13\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \13\ Recognizing that identification of schools in 2017-2018 may 
be delayed in some States due to the Department's review and 
approval process for State plans under section 1111 of the ESEA, as 
amended by the ESSA, the Department plans to issue non-regulatory 
guidance to allow delayed identification of schools in the 2017-2018 
school year in States whose plans have not yet been approved by the 
beginning of the 2017-2018 school year consistent with the State 
plan submission timeline in proposed Sec.  299.13. Because proposed 
Sec. Sec.  200.21 and 200.22 would allow identified schools to have 
a planning year, States and LEAs could allow schools that were 
identified for comprehensive or targeted support and improvement 
partway through the 2017-2018 school year to engage in planning and 
pre-implementation activities for the remainder of the 2017-2018 
school year, so that all schools are fully implementing their 
support and improvement plans, as required by the ESEA, as amended 
by the ESSA, on the first day of the 2018-2019 school year.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Reasons: Proposed Sec.  200.19 replaces obsolete provisions of 
current regulations with new regulations incorporating the requirements 
under the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, for the identification of low-
performing schools.
    Appropriate, accurate, and timely identification of low-performing 
schools is critical to ensuring that State accountability systems work 
and help improve student academic achievement and school success, as 
intended in the statute. LEAs are eligible to receive additional 
funding from their States, as described in proposed Sec.  200.24, to 
support these schools. If low-performing schools are misidentified and 
excluded from comprehensive or targeted support and improvement, 
students who are struggling may not receive the additional resources 
and support they need. In addition, research has demonstrated that 
accountability systems with meaningful consequences for poor school 
performance are more effective at improving student outcomes than 
systems that rely primarily on reporting of school-level data to 
encourage improvement.\14\ For these reasons, and given the extent of 
the statutory changes, we propose to update the current regulations to 
reflect the new requirements and support State implementation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \14\ See, for example, Dee, Thomas S., & Jacob, B. (May 2011). 
``The impact of No Child Left Behind on student achievement.'' 
Journal of Policy Analysis and Management, 30(3), 418-446; and 
Hanushek, Eric A., & Raymond, M.E. (2005). ``Does school 
accountability lead to improved student performance?'' Journal of 
Policy Analysis and Management, 24(2), 297-327.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed regulations would also clarify statutory school 
improvement provisions through additional requirements that align 
identification for school improvement with other accountability 
requirements, help ensure appropriate and timely identification of 
schools with low-performing students and subgroups of students, and 
create a cohesive system of school accountability and improvement, with 
distinct reasons for school identification and clear timelines for 
identification.
Comprehensive Support and Improvement, Generally
    Proposed Sec.  200.19 would clarify that identification of title I 
schools in the lowest-performing five percent of title I schools in the 
State and identification of high schools with low graduation rates

[[Page 34558]]

is based on the performance of all students in the school. This 
clarification would help distinguish these schools, which proposed 
Sec.  200.19 refers to as the lowest-performing schools and low 
graduation rate high schools, from schools identified due to 
consistently underperforming subgroups of students or low-performing 
subgroups. Further, because schools identified due to chronically low-
performing subgroups of students are identified by directly comparing 
subgroup performance in a particular school to the performance of 
students within schools in the lowest-performing five percent of 
schools, the lowest-performing schools must be identified on the basis 
of all students' performance for this comparison to be meaningful.
    Similarly, proposed Sec.  200.19 would clarify that identification 
of each type of school in comprehensive support and improvement must be 
based on a school's performance over no more than three years, 
consistent with the statutory requirement to identify these schools 
once every three years and with proposed regulations regarding 
averaging data across years under proposed Sec.  200.20(a). If data 
were considered over a longer period of time, it may not reflect the 
school's current learning conditions, potentially leading to 
inappropriate identification of schools that have improved 
dramatically, or non-identification of schools that have experienced 
significant declines, since the last time the State identified these 
schools. Limiting the window over which performance may be considered 
at three years would help ensure identification is timely and accurate, 
and that improvement plans are developed for schools most in need of 
support.
Lowest-Performing Five Percent of Title I Schools
    The proposed regulations would help ensure annual meaningful 
differentiation and school identification work together, creating a 
coherent accountability system that parents, the public, and other 
stakeholders can understand and that provides consistent information to 
schools regarding the progress and outcomes they are expected to 
achieve. For these reasons, proposed Sec.  200.19 would ensure the 
lowest-performing schools are identified school summative ratings. For 
similar reasons, proposed Sec.  200.19 would clarify that 
identification of the lowest-performing schools would be consistent 
with the statutory requirement that the Academic Achievement, Academic 
Progress, Graduation Rate, and Progress in Achieving English Language 
Proficiency indicators be given substantial weight individually, and 
much greater weight together, than indicator(s) of School Quality or 
Student Success.
Low Graduation Rate High Schools
    Proposed Sec.  200.19 would specify that any high school with a 
four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate below 67 percent, averaged 
over no more than three years, must be identified due to low graduation 
rates, consistent with the statutory requirements in section 
1111(c)(4)(d)(i)(II). However, the proposed regulations also would 
permit a State to set a threshold that is higher than 67 percent for 
identifying low graduation rate high schools, in recognition of the 
wide range of average graduation rates across different States.\15\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \15\ EDFacts Data Groups 695 and 696, School year 2013-14; 
September 4, 2015. https://nces.ed.gov/ccd/tables/ACGR_RE_and_characteristics_2013-14.asp.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Although the statute permits the use of an extended-year adjusted 
cohort graduation rate within the Graduation Rate indicator, the four-
year adjusted cohort graduation rate is the only measure within the 
Graduation Rate indicator required for all schools. Relying exclusively 
on the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate for identification 
would provide a consistent benchmark for holding schools accountable 
across States and LEAs, and signal the importance of on-time high 
school graduation as a key determinant of school and student success. 
If extended-year rates were considered in the identification of such 
high schools, the performance of students failing to graduate on-time 
could compensate for low on-time graduation rates, as calculated by the 
four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate, and prevent identification 
of high schools with low on-time graduation rates.
Identification for Targeted Support and Improvement
    Proposed Sec.  200.19 would also support States in accurately 
identifying schools for targeted support and improvement by aligning 
the methodology for identifying these schools with other components of 
the State accountability system. Specifically, proposed Sec.  200.19(b) 
would clarify the two types of schools identified for targeted support 
and improvement: Schools with low-performing subgroups of students and 
schools with consistently underperforming subgroups of students. First, 
a State would be required under proposed Sec.  200.19(b)(2) to identify 
schools with one or more subgroups of students performing, as an 
individual subgroup, as poorly as all students in any school in the 
lowest-performing five percent of title I schools based on the State's 
summative ratings. These schools would be referred to as schools with 
low-performing subgroups in proposed Sec.  200.19 and would receive 
additional targeted support under proposed Sec.  200.22. The proposed 
regulations are needed to clarify how identification of these schools 
enables the State to meet the statutory requirement to identify, at 
least once every three years, any school with low-performing subgroups 
of students for comprehensive support and improvement if such a school 
receives title I funds and does not meet the State's exit criteria 
after implementing a targeted support and improvement plan (described 
further in proposed Sec.  200.22).
    Second, proposed Sec.  200.19(c) would require States, in 
identifying schools with consistently underperforming subgroups of 
students for targeted support and improvement, to consider a school's 
level of performance on the indicators described in proposed Sec.  
200.14. Further, a State's methodology for identifying such schools 
would need to be consistent with the statutory requirement for the 
Academic Achievement, Academic Progress, Graduation Rate, and Progress 
in Achieving English Language Proficiency indicators to be given 
substantial weight individually, and much greater weight, in the 
aggregate, than indicator(s) of School Quality or Student Success. This 
clarification would help ensure a State's system of annual meaningful 
differentiation and system of identification are coherent to parents 
and the public, and send a consistent signal to educators and schools 
regarding what level of student progress and achievement is considered 
sufficient.
    Proposed Sec.  200.19(c) would further clarify the methodology 
States would use to identify schools with consistently underperforming 
subgroups of students by specifying that identification of these 
schools must be based on school performance in the system of annual 
meaningful differentiation over no more than two years. If data were 
considered over a longer period of time, it may not reflect the most 
current level of subgroup performance in the school, leading to 
inappropriate identification. Further, by ensuring identification 
following no more than two years of low subgroup performance, schools 
can receive the supports needed to help the subgroup improve prior to 
that particular cohort of students exiting the

[[Page 34559]]

school. Early identification of schools for targeted support and 
improvement also may result in increased achievement in such schools, 
which would help avoid subsequent identification for comprehensive 
support and improvement and avoid strain on State and local improvement 
capacity.
    Proposed Sec.  200.19(c) would also provide parameters around how a 
State must define ``consistently underperforming,'' with multiple 
suggested approaches. The accountability systems established in the 
ESSA require disaggregated information by subgroup in each of its 
components: long-term goals and measurements of interim progress, 
indicators, assessment participation rates, and annual meaningful 
differentiation. In this way, the statute signals the importance of 
including subgroups of students to the maximum extent possible. 
However, identification of schools specifically based on subgroup 
performance, and subsequent interventions to support improved outcomes 
for all students in the school, depends on a robust definition of 
``consistently underperforming.'' For these reasons, proposed Sec.  
200.19(c) would suggest ways for States to define ``consistently 
underperforming'' to help ensure that each State system of 
identification meaningfully considers performance for subgroups of 
students. Given that there likely are numerous ways to establish a 
methodology for identifying consistently underperforming subgroups, we 
are especially interested in receiving public comment on whether the 
suggested methods in Sec.  200.19 would result in meaningful 
differentiation and identification of schools; which additional options 
should be considered, if any; and which options, if any, in proposed 
Sec.  200.19 should not be included or should be modified because they 
do not adequately identify underperforming subgroups of students.
Frequency and Timeline for Identification
    Finally, proposed Sec.  200.19 would clarify the timeline for 
identification of schools under the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. The 
statute is clear that identification begins with the 2017-2018 school 
year and that a State must identify schools for comprehensive support 
and improvement at least once every three years, but does not indicate 
at which point during the year such identification must occur. Because 
a clear, regular timeline for identification of schools is critical to 
meet the needs of students, allow sufficient time for planning 
meaningful interventions, and permit full and effective implementation 
of support and improvement plans, proposed Sec.  200.19 would require 
identification of all schools by the beginning of each school year for 
which the school is identified and would clarify that the year for 
which the school is identified (e.g., the 2017-2018 school year) means 
the school year immediately following the year in which the State most 
recently measured the school's performance on the indicators under 
proposed Sec.  200.14 that resulted in the school's identification 
(e.g., the 2016-2017 school year).
    Further, proposed Sec.  200.19 clarifies when State accountability 
systems under the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, take effect, with the 
lowest-performing schools, high schools with low graduation rates, and 
schools with chronically low-performing subgroups in comprehensive 
support and improvement and schools with low-performing subgroups in 
targeted support and improvement identified at least once every three 
years starting in 2017-2018, and with schools that have consistently 
underperforming subgroups of students identified annually starting in 
2018-2019. However, because identification of a school with chronically 
low-performing subgroups only occurs after such a school has 
implemented a targeted support and improvement plan and failed to meet 
the State's exit criteria under proposed Sec.  200.22, a State could 
not identify such schools in 2017-2018. Accordingly, proposed Sec.  
200.19 requires identification of schools with chronically low-
performing subgroups for comprehensive support and improvement the 
second time a State identifies its lowest performing schools for 
comprehensive support and improvement, no later than the 2020-2021 
school year, as title I schools with low-performing subgroups would 
have had an opportunity to implement a targeted support and improvement 
plan and demonstrate that they met the exit criteria at that time.

Section 200.20 Data Procedures for Annual Meaningful Differentiation 
and Identification of Schools

    Statute: Section 1111(c)(4)(B) and (C) of the ESEA, as amended by 
the ESSA, requires States to annually measure indicators and 
meaningfully differentiate among all public schools in the State, 
including by using disaggregated data on each subgroup in a school that 
meets the minimum subgroup size set by the State under section 
1111(c)(3). Section 1111(c)(4)(D) requires States to identify low-
performing schools for comprehensive support at least once every three 
years and to annually identify schools with consistently 
underperforming subgroups. The statute does not specify how data 
averaging procedures may be applied for purposes of measuring school 
performance on each indicator, or for reporting purposes, and how that 
interacts with the State's minimum subgroup size.
    Section 1111(c)(4)(F) contains requirements for including students 
that do not attend the same school in an LEA for the entire school year 
in State accountability systems. The statute indicates that the 
performance of any student enrolled for at least half of the school 
year must be included on each indicator in the accountability system; 
students enrolled for less than half of the school year in the same 
school may be excluded. For graduation rates, if a high school student 
enrolled for less than half of the school year drops out and does not 
transfer to another high school, such student must be included in the 
denominator for calculating the four-year adjusted cohort graduation 
rate and assigned either to the school the student most recently 
attended, or to the school where the student was enrolled for the 
greatest proportion of school days during grades 9 through 12.
    Current Regulations: Section 200.20 describes how schools make AYP 
and clarifies that, for the purposes of determining AYP, a State is 
permitted to establish a uniform procedure for averaging data, which 
may include averaging data across school years and combining data 
across grades, within subject area and subgroup, in a school or LEA. 
Additionally, if a State averages data across school years, the State 
may average data from the school year for which the AYP determination 
is made with data from the immediately preceding one or two school 
years. Consistent with Sec. Sec.  200.13 through 200.20, a State that 
averages data across school years must continue to meet annual 
assessment and reporting requirements, make annual AYP determinations 
for all schools and LEAs, and implement school improvement 
requirements.
    Section 200.20(e) requires a State to include all students that 
have been enrolled in schools in an LEA for a full academic year in 
determining AYP for each LEA, but students that are not enrolled in the 
same school for the full academic year may be excluded from AYP 
determinations for the school. The current title I regulations do not 
define ``full academic year.''

[[Page 34560]]

    Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec.  200.20 would replace current 
title I regulations with regulations that would update and clarify how 
data averaging may be used in the statewide accountability system for 
annual meaningful differentiation and identification of schools under 
proposed Sec. Sec.  200.18 and 200.19. The proposed regulations would 
retain the requirements of current Sec.  200.20, while updating 
references to reflect new statutory requirements under the ESEA, as 
amended by the ESSA. The requirements retained from the current 
regulations would also be reordered for clarity.
    Proposed Sec.  200.20(a)(1)(ii)(A)-(B) would clarify that, if a 
State averages data across years, the State must continue to report 
data for a single year, without averaging, on State and LEA report 
cards under section 1111(h). Further, under proposed Sec.  
200.20(a)(1)(ii)(C), a State that averages data across years would be 
required to explain its uniform procedure for averaging data in its 
State plan and specify the use of such procedure in its description of 
the indicators used for annual meaningful differentiation in its 
accountability system on the State report card under section 
1111(h)(1)(C)(i)(III).
    Proposed Sec.  200.20(a)(2) would retain requirements from the 
current regulations on combining data across grades and further clarify 
that a State choosing to combine data across grades must, consistent 
with the requirements for averaging data across years, use the same 
uniform procedure for all public schools; report data for each grade in 
the school on State and LEA report cards under section 1111(h); and, 
consistent with proposed Sec.  200.20(a)(1)(ii)(C), explain its uniform 
procedure in its State plan and specify the use of such procedure on 
its State report card.
    Proposed Sec.  200.20(b) would restate, and restructure, the 
requirements on partial enrollment from section 1111(c)(4)(F). Section 
200.20(b)(2)(ii) would clarify that the approach used by an LEA for 
assigning high school students who exit without a diploma and who do 
not transfer to another high school must be consistent with the 
approach established by the State for calculating the denominator of 
the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate under proposed Sec.  
200.34(f). Additionally, proposed Sec.  200.20(b)(2)(iii) would clarify 
that all students, regardless of their length of enrollment in a school 
within an LEA during the academic year, must be included for purposes 
of reporting on the State and LEA report cards under section 1111(h) 
for such school year.
    Reasons: Proposed Sec.  200.20 would retain from the current 
regulations the flexibility for States to average data across years or 
combine data across grades, because the reliability of data used to 
make accountability determinations continues to be important for 
supporting systems that fairly measure the performance of all students 
and, to the greatest extent practicable, all subgroups of students in a 
school. Averaging data across school years, or across grades, in a 
school can increase the data available to consider as part of 
accountability determinations, improving reliability of accountability 
determinations and increasing the likelihood that a particular subgroup 
in a school will meet the State's minimum n-size. We propose to reorder 
the requirements in proposed Sec.  200.20 to make the regulations 
easier to understand and to facilitate compliance.
    Proposed Sec.  200.20(a)(1)(ii) would also require that a State 
explain its uniform procedure for averaging data in its State plan and 
specify the use of such procedure on its annual State report card in 
order to increase transparency. Such information is important to help 
stakeholders understand how accountability determinations are made.
    To be consistent with the proposed requirements for averaging data 
across years and create a coherent system, proposed Sec.  200.20(a)(2) 
would clarify that States choosing to combine data across grades must 
report data individually for each grade in a school, use the same 
uniform procedure for combining data across grades in all schools, and 
explain the procedure in the State plan and specify its use in the 
State report card.
    Proposed Sec.  200.20(b) would clarify that the inclusion of 
students for accountability must be based on time enrolled in a school, 
rather than attendance, which we believe is more consistent with the 
new statutory requirements under section 1111(c)(4)(F) of the ESEA, as 
amended by the ESSA, which are intended to ensure accountability 
systems and reporting are maximally inclusive of all students and each 
subgroup of students, while promoting fairness in school accountability 
determinations by excluding students whose performance had little to do 
with a particular school because they were only enrolled for a short 
period of time. Furthermore, basing the inclusion of students on 
attendance could create a perverse incentive to discourage students who 
are low-performing from attending schools--contrary to the purpose of 
title I to provide all children significant opportunity to receive a 
fair, equitable, and high-quality education, and to close educational 
achievement gaps.

Section 200.21 Comprehensive Support and Improvement

    Statute: Section 1111(d) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, 
requires a State to notify each LEA of any school served by the LEA 
that is identified for comprehensive support and improvement. Upon 
receiving such information from the State, section 1111(d)(1)(B) 
requires the LEA, in partnership with stakeholders, to design and 
implement a comprehensive support and improvement plan that is informed 
by the State's long-term goals and indicators described in section 
1111(c)(4); includes evidence-based interventions; is based on a 
school-level needs assessment; identifies resource inequities; is 
approved by the school, LEA, and SEA; and upon approval and 
implementation, is monitored and periodically reviewed by the SEA.
    With respect to any high school identified for comprehensive 
support and improvement due to low graduation rates, as described in 
section 1111(c)(4)(D)(i)(II), the State may permit differentiated 
improvement activities under section 1111(d)(1)(C) that utilize 
evidence-based interventions for schools that predominately serve 
students returning to school after exiting without a regular diploma or 
who are significantly off track to accumulate sufficient academic 
credits to meet high school graduation requirements. Section 
1111(d)(1)(C) also allows a State to exempt high schools with less than 
100 students that are identified for comprehensive support and 
improvement due to low graduation rates from implementing the required 
improvement activities.
    Section 1111(d)(1)(D) allows an LEA to provide all students 
enrolled in a school identified by the State for comprehensive support 
and improvement with the option to transfer to another public school 
served by the LEA, unless such an option is prohibited by State law.
    Section 1111(d)(3)(A)(i)(I) also requires a State to establish 
statewide exit criteria for comprehensive support and improvement 
schools, which, if not satisfied within a State-determined number of 
years (not to exceed four years), must result in more rigorous State-
determined action in the school, such as the implementation of 
interventions (which may address school-level operations).
    Current Regulations: Sections 200.30 to 200.49 of the current title 
I

[[Page 34561]]

regulations require States and LEAs to ensure escalating improvement 
measures over time for title I schools that do not make AYP for 
consecutive years and require LEAs to implement specific strategies for 
students attending schools identified for each phase of improvement, 
based on the number of years a school has failed to make AYP.
    Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec.  200.21 would replace the 
current regulations with regulations that clarify the statutory 
requirements under the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, for States to help 
ensure that LEAs with schools identified for comprehensive support and 
improvement develop and implement plans that will be effective in 
increasing student academic achievement and school success.
Notice
    Proposed Sec.  200.21 would require that each State notify any LEA 
that serves a school identified for comprehensive support and 
improvement no later than the beginning of the school year for which 
the school is identified. Proposed Sec.  200.21 would also require that 
an LEA that receives such a notification from the State promptly notify 
the parents of each student enrolled in the identified school, 
including, at a minimum, the reason or reasons for the school's 
identification and an explanation for how parents can be involved in 
developing and implementing the school's improvement plan. This notice 
must--
     Be in an understandable and uniform format;
     Be, to the extent practicable, written in a language that 
parents can understand or, if it is not practicable to provide written 
translations to a parent with limited English proficiency, be orally 
translated for such parent; and
     Be, upon request by a parent or guardian who is an 
individual with a disability as defined by the Americans with 
Disabilities Act, 42 U.S.C. 12102, provided in an alternative format 
accessible to that parent.
Needs Assessment
    Proposed Sec.  200.21 would require that an LEA with a school 
identified for comprehensive support and improvement complete, in 
partnership with stakeholders (including principals and other school 
leaders, teachers, and parents), a needs assessment for the school that 
examines--
     Academic achievement information based on the performance, 
on the State assessments in reading/language arts and mathematics, of 
all students and each subgroup of students in the school;
     The school's performance, including among subgroups of 
students, on all indicators and on the State's long-term goals and 
measurements of interim progress described in proposed Sec. Sec.  
200.13 and 200.14;
     The reason or reasons the school was identified for 
comprehensive support and improvement; and
     At the LEA's discretion, the school's performance on 
additional, locally selected indicators that are not included in the 
State's system of annual meaningful differentiation that affect student 
outcomes in the school.
LEA Development of Comprehensive Support and Improvement Plan
    The proposed regulations would require an LEA with a school 
identified for comprehensive support and improvement to develop and 
implement a comprehensive support and improvement plan to improve 
student outcomes in the school. Specifically, the proposed regulations 
would require that the comprehensive support and improvement plan--
     Be developed in partnership with stakeholders (including 
principals and other school leaders, teachers, and parents);
     Describe how early stakeholder input was solicited and 
taken into account in the plan's development, and how stakeholders will 
participate in the plan's implementation;
     Incorporate the results of the school-level needs 
assessment;
     Include one or more interventions (e.g., increasing access 
to effective teachers or adopting incentives to recruit and retain 
effective teachers; increasing or redesigning instructional time; 
interventions based on data from early warning indicator systems; 
reorganizing the school to implement a new instructional model; 
strategies designed to increase diversity by attracting and retaining 
students from varying socioeconomic backgrounds; replacing school 
leadership; in the case of an elementary school, increasing access to 
high-quality preschool; converting the school to a public charter 
school; changing school governance, closing the school; or, in the case 
of a public charter school, revoking or non-renewing the school's 
charter by its authorized public chartering agency consistent with 
State charter school law) that: (1) Are evidence-based; (2) are 
supported, to the extent practicable, by the strongest level of 
evidence that is available and appropriate to meet the needs of the 
school, as identified by the needs assessment, and by research 
conducted on a sample population or setting that overlaps with the 
population or setting of the school to be served; and (3) may be 
selected from among State-established evidence-based interventions or a 
State-approved list of evidence-based interventions;
     Identify and address resource inequities by including, at 
a minimum, a review of LEA- and school-level resources among schools 
and, as applicable, within schools with respect to disproportionate 
rates of ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers 
identified by the State and LEA under sections 1111(g)(1)(B) and 
1112(b)(2) and per-pupil expenditures of Federal, State, and local 
funds reported annually under section 1111(h)(1)(C)(x), and, at the 
LEA's discretion, a review of LEA and school-level budgeting and 
resource allocation with respect to disproportionate rates of 
ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers and per-pupil 
expenditures and any other resource, including access and availability 
of advanced coursework, preschool programs, and instructional materials 
and technology;
     Be made publicly available by the LEA, including to 
parents consistent with the notice requirements described above; and
     Be approved by the school, the LEA, and the State.
    Additionally, an LEA may have a planning year for a school 
identified for comprehensive support and improvement, during which the 
LEA must carry out the needs assessment and develop the school's 
comprehensive support and improvement plan to prepare for the 
successful implementation of the school's interventions. Such a 
planning year is limited to the school year in which the school was 
identified.
State Responsibilities
    Proposed Sec.  200.21 would require that a State review and approve 
each comprehensive support and improvement plan in a timely manner, as 
determined by the State, and take all actions necessary to ensure that 
each school and LEA develops and implements a plan that meets all of 
the requirements of proposed Sec.  200.21 within the required 
timeframe. Further, the proposed regulations would require that the 
State monitor and periodically review each LEA's implementation of its 
plan.
Exit Criteria
    Proposed Sec.  200.21 would also require that the State establish 
uniform statewide exit criteria for schools implementing comprehensive 
support and improvement plans to help ensure continued progress to 
improve student

[[Page 34562]]

academic achievement. In establishing the exit criteria, the proposed 
regulations would require a State to ensure that a school meeting the 
exit criteria within a State-determined number of years, not to exceed 
four years, both increases student outcomes and no longer meets the 
criteria for comprehensive support and improvement under proposed Sec.  
200.19.
    The proposed regulations would specify that, if a school does not 
meet the exit criteria, the State would require the LEA to conduct a 
new school-level needs assessment and, based on its results, amend its 
comprehensive support and improvement plan to--
     Address the reasons the school did not meet the exit 
criteria, including whether the school implemented the interventions 
with fidelity and sufficient intensity, and the results of the new 
needs assessment;
     Update how it will continue to address previously 
identified resource inequities and identify and address any new 
resource inequities consistent with the requirements to review those 
inequities in its original plan; and
     Implement additional interventions in the school that (1) 
must be determined by the State; (2) must be more rigorous and based on 
strong or moderate levels of evidence; (3) must be supported, to the 
extent practicable, by evidence from a sample population or setting 
that overlaps with the population or setting of the school to be 
served; and (4) may address school-level operations, such as changes to 
budgeting, staffing, or the school day and year.
    The proposed regulations would require that the LEA submit the 
amended plan to the State in a timely manner, as determined by the 
State. Upon receipt of the LEA's amended plan, proposed Sec.  200.21 
would require that the State review and approve the plan in a timely 
manner, as determined by the State, and take all actions necessary to 
ensure that each school and LEA meets the requirements of proposed 
Sec.  200.21 to develop and implement the amended plan within the 
required timeframe. The proposed regulations would also require that 
the LEA make the amended plan publicly available, including to parents, 
consistent with the manner in which they provided the required notice 
described above.
    Finally, the proposed regulations would require that a State 
increase its monitoring, support, and periodic review of each LEA's 
implementation of an amended comprehensive support and improvement plan 
based on a school's failure to meet the exit criteria.
State Discretion for Certain High Schools
    Proposed Sec.  200.21 would incorporate the flexibility in section 
1111(d)(1)(C) for States with respect to certain high schools 
identified for low graduation rates. First, the proposed regulations 
would permit differentiated school improvement activities, as long as 
those activities still meet the requirements for schools in 
comprehensive support and improvement described above, including in a 
high school that predominantly serves students who (1) have returned to 
education after having exited high school without a regular high school 
diploma and (2) based on their grade or age, are significantly off 
track to earn sufficient academic credits to meet the State's 
graduation requirements. Second, the proposed regulations would permit 
a State to allow an LEA to forgo implementation of a comprehensive 
support and improvement plan in a high school that was identified under 
proposed Sec.  200.19 for low graduation rates, but has a total 
enrollment of less than 100 students.
Public School Choice
    Proposed Sec.  200.21 would clarify the option for students to 
transfer to a different public school included in section 1111(d)(1)(D) 
by precluding the option to transfer from a school identified for 
comprehensive support and improvement to another school identified for 
comprehensive support and improvement and specifying that, if such an 
option is inconsistent with a federal desegregation order, the LEA must 
petition and obtain court approval for such transfers.
    Reasons: Proposed Sec.  200.21 would provide clarity where the 
statute is ambiguous and reorganize the statutory requirements to 
facilitate a better understanding of, and compliance with, those 
requirements. Specifically, proposed Sec.  200.21 would clarify the 
requirements regarding notice, development, approval, and 
implementation of comprehensive support and improvement plans, 
including a strengthened role for the State in supporting such 
implementation in schools that fail to meet the State's exit criteria 
over time.
Notice
    Before a comprehensive support and improvement plan is implemented 
in an identified school, the statute requires the LEA to develop such a 
plan in partnership with stakeholders, including parents. In order to 
ensure that parents are meaningfully included in this process, proposed 
Sec.  200.21 would require an LEA to provide notice to parents of the 
school's identification in order to ensure that the notice is not only 
understandable and clear about why a school was identified, but also 
enables parents to be engaged in development and implementation of the 
comprehensive support and improvement plan, as required by the statute. 
These requirements would provide greater transparency and help parents 
understand the need for, and the process for developing, a school's 
comprehensive support and improvement plan, including the needs 
assessment, so that they can be meaningful participants in school 
improvement activities and take an active role in supporting their 
child's education. Parents and guardians with disabilities or limited 
English proficiency have the right to request notification in 
accessible formats. We encourage States and LEAs to proactively make 
all information and notices they provide to parents and families 
accessible, helping to ensure that parents are not routinely requesting 
States and LEAs to make information available in alternative formats. 
For example, one way to ensure accessibility would be to provide orally 
interpreted and translated notifications and to follow the requirements 
of section 508 of the Rehabilitation Act.
Needs Assessment
    To inform the development of a comprehensive support and 
improvement plan, an LEA with a school identified for comprehensive 
support and improvement must complete a needs assessment for the 
school. The proposed regulations would specify certain elements that 
must be part of the school-level needs assessment, ensuring that a 
needs assessment is conducted in partnership with stakeholders; is 
informed by relevant data, including student performance on the State 
academic assessments and other measures the LEA determines are relevant 
to their local context; and examines the reason the school was 
identified for comprehensive support and improvement. These elements 
would provide a sound basis for a comprehensive support and improvement 
plan, and would increase the likelihood that such a plan would be 
effective, by examining multiple dimensions of school performance and 
specifically analyzing the reason or reasons the school was identified.

[[Page 34563]]

LEA Development of Comprehensive Support and Improvement Plan
    Proposed Sec.  200.21 would also clarify requirements for the 
development of the comprehensive support and improvement plan. First, 
the regulations would require (1) meaningful, ongoing stakeholder input 
in the development and implementation of plans, and (2) that the plans, 
and any amendments to the plans, be made publicly available in a manner 
that will ensure parents can access them. A plan cannot be implemented 
in partnership with parents, teachers, and principals if the plan 
itself is not easily accessible.
    Second, the proposed regulations would clarify that the evidence 
requirements for comprehensive support and improvement plans are based 
on the definition of ``evidence-based'' in section 8101(21) of the 
ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. Specifically, proposed Sec.  200.21 would 
specify that one or more of a school's activities and interventions, as 
opposed to all activities and interventions, must be evidence-based, 
and would require an LEA to take into consideration, in selecting an 
evidence-based intervention, the strongest level of evidence that is 
available and appropriate and its relevance to the context in which the 
intervention will be implemented, if practicable. Schools implementing 
comprehensive support and improvement plans are more likely to see 
improvements if they employ particular strategies that are grounded in 
evidence. Because the evidence base for interventions in low-performing 
schools is relatively nascent and still growing, proposed Sec.  200.21 
would help support LEAs in making prudent, smart choices when selecting 
among evidence-based interventions by encouraging the use of 
interventions that are supported by the strongest level of evidence 
that is available and appropriate to meet the needs of the school, 
including, where possible, evidence suggesting that the intervention 
was effective for an overlapping population or in an overlapping 
setting to those of the identified school.
    Third, proposed Sec.  200.21 would specify minimum requirements for 
the LEA's efforts to review and address resource inequities, which may 
include LEA- and school-level budgeting. Specifically, at a minimum, 
the identification of resource inequities must include a review of 
disproportionate rates, among schools and, as applicable, within 
schools, of ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers and 
per-pupil expenditures of Federal, State, and local funds--using data 
already required to be collected and reported under the ESEA, as 
amended by the ESSA. In addition, we propose clarifications that would 
emphasize the importance of equity and access in other areas (e.g., 
access to advanced coursework or high-quality preschool programs). In 
total, these clarifications would encourage LEAs to correct deficits in 
resources that will be critical to developing and implementing a 
successful improvement plan for schools in need of comprehensive 
support.
    Finally, the proposed regulations would clarify an LEA may have, 
with respect to each school identified for comprehensive support and 
improvement, a planning year limited to the school year in which the 
school was identified. This would allow time to prepare for the 
successful implementation of interventions specified in the plan by, 
for example, consulting with stakeholders, conducting a needs 
assessment, and identifying resource inequities and evidence-based 
interventions, and to ensure that such planning does not inordinately 
delay the full implementation of interventions that are needed to 
support improved student achievement and school success.
State Responsibilities
    The proposed regulations would clarify the State's responsibilities 
regarding plan approval. Specifically, the State would be required to 
conduct a timely review of the LEA's plan and take necessary actions to 
ensure that each school and LEA is able to meet all of the requirements 
of proposed Sec.  200.21 to develop and implement the plan within the 
required timeframe. These clarifications would ensure plans are 
approved expeditiously and meet key statutory requirements, and prevent 
significant delays at the LEA or school level in implementation of 
activities and interventions that will help improve student achievement 
and outcomes in identified schools.
Exit Criteria
    Further, to ensure continued progress in student academic 
achievement and school success, proposed Sec.  200.21 would require the 
State to establish uniform statewide exit criteria for any school 
implementing a comprehensive support and improvement plan, including 
that the school no longer meets the criteria for identification under 
proposed Sec.  200.19(a) and demonstrates improved student outcomes. 
Requiring improved student outcomes would help ensure that schools do 
not exit improvement status before making meaningful gains in 
performance, consistent with the statutory requirement in section 
1111(d)(3), that a State ensure schools identified for comprehensive 
support and improvement achieve continued progress to improve student 
academic achievement and school success.
    Proposed Sec.  200.21 also would clarify additional actions a 
school identified for comprehensive support and improvement must take 
if it does not meet the exit criteria. In particular, as noted above, 
schools implementing comprehensive support and improvement plans are 
more likely to see improvements if they employ strategies that are 
grounded in research. In addition, the proposed regulations would 
ensure the State has a larger role in supporting an LEA in the 
development and oversight of an amended comprehensive support and 
improvement plan after its initial plan was unsuccessful, which is 
necessary when an LEA's plan for improvement has been ineffective.

Section 200.22 Targeted Support and Improvement

    Statute: Section 1111(d) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, 
requires a State to notify each LEA of any school served by the LEA in 
which any subgroup of students is consistently underperforming, as 
described in section 1111(c)(4)(C)(iii), as well as ensure such an LEA 
provides notification to identified schools. Upon receiving 
notification from the LEA, the school, in partnership with 
stakeholders, must design a school-level targeted support and 
improvement plan to improve student outcomes based on the indicators in 
the statewide accountability system. The plan must be informed by all 
indicators described in section 1111(c)(4)(B), including student 
performance against the State's long-term goals described in section 
1111(c)(4)(A); include evidence-based interventions; be approved by the 
LEA prior to implementation; be monitored, upon submission and during 
implementation, by the LEA; and result in additional action following 
unsuccessful implementation of the plan after a number of years 
determined by the LEA.
    Section 1111(d) requires additional targeted support for schools 
with any subgroup of students performing at or below the level of 
students in the lowest-performing five percent of all title I schools 
identified for comprehensive support and improvement under section 
1111(c)(4)(D)(i)(I). In addition to implementing targeted support and

[[Page 34564]]

improvement plans as described in clauses (i) through (iv) in section 
1111(d)(2)(B), schools identified for additional targeted support must 
also identify resource inequities, which may include a review of LEA- 
and school-level budgeting, to be addressed through plan 
implementation.
    Section 1111(d) also requires a State to establish statewide exit 
criteria for schools requiring additional targeted support, as 
described in section 1111(d)(2)(C). If these exit criteria are not met 
within a State-determined number of years, the State must identify 
title I schools requiring additional targeted support as comprehensive 
support and improvement schools.
    Current Regulations: Sections 200.30 through 200.49 of the current 
title I regulations require States and LEAs to ensure improvement 
measures escalate consequences over time for title I schools that do 
not make AYP for consecutive years. In addition, LEAs must implement 
specific strategies for students attending schools identified for each 
phase of improvement, based on the number of years a school has failed 
to make AYP.
    Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec.  200.22 would replace the 
current regulations with regulations that clarify the statutory 
requirements in the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, for States and LEAs 
to ensure that schools identified for targeted support and improvement 
will implement plans that are effective in increasing student academic 
achievement for the lowest-performing students in those schools.
Notice
    Proposed Sec.  200.22 would require a State to notify each LEA that 
serves one or more schools identified for targeted support and 
improvement of the identification, and would then require each LEA to 
notify each identified school, no later than the beginning of the 
school year for which the school is identified, including notice of the 
subgroup or subgroups that have been identified by the State as 
consistently underperforming or low-performing, or, at the State's 
discretion, the subgroup or subgroups that are identified under 
proposed Sec.  200.15(b)(2)(iii) for low assessment participation 
rates.
    Proposed Sec.  200.22 would also require that an LEA that receives 
such a notification from the State promptly notify the parents of each 
student enrolled in the identified school so that parents may be 
meaningfully involved in improvement efforts. The parental notice would 
be required to be understandable and accessible in the same manner as 
the notice under proposed Sec.  200.21(b)(1)-(3) and include at a 
minimum, the reason or reasons for identification and an explanation of 
how parents can be involved in developing and implementing the school's 
support and improvement plan, consistent with the statutory requirement 
that parents serve as partners in the development of such plans.
Development of Targeted Support and Improvement Plans
    The proposed regulations would require a school identified for 
targeted support and improvement to develop and implement a plan that 
addresses the reason or reasons for identification and that will 
improve student outcomes for the lowest-performing students in the 
school. Specifically, the proposed regulations would require that the 
targeted support and improvement plan--
     Be developed in partnership with stakeholders (including 
principals and other school leaders, teachers, and parents);
     Describe, at a minimum, how early stakeholder input was 
solicited and taken into account in the plan's development, and how 
stakeholders will participate in the plan's implementation;
     Be designed to improve student performance for the lowest-
performing students on each of the indicators in the statewide 
accountability system that led to the school's identification, or, in 
the case of a school identified under proposed Sec.  200.15(b)(2)(iii) 
to improve assessment participation rates in the school;
     Take into consideration the school's performance on all 
indicators in the statewide accountability system and student 
performance against the State's long-term goals and measurements of 
interim progress, including student academic achievement on each of the 
assessments required under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v), and, at the 
school's discretion, locally selected indicators that are not included 
in the State's system of annual meaningful differentiation that affect 
student outcomes in the school;
     For any school operating a schoolwide program under 
section 1114 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, address the needs 
identified by the needs assessment required under section 1114(b)(6);
     Include one or more interventions that (1) must be 
evidence-based; (2) must be appropriate to address the reason or 
reasons for identification and to improve student outcomes for the 
lowest-performing students in the school, consistent with the 
requirement in section 1111(d)(2)(B) of the ESEA, as amended by the 
ESSA; (3) must be, to the extent practicable, supported by research 
conducted on a sample population or setting that overlaps with the 
population or setting of the school to be served; and (4) may be 
selected from a State-approved list of evidence-based interventions;
     Be submitted by the school to the LEA for review and 
approval; and
     For a school with low-performing subgroups as described 
under proposed regulations in Sec.  200.19(b)(2), identify and address 
resource inequities that affect the low-performing subgroup by 
including, at a minimum, a review of LEA- and school-level resources 
among schools and, as applicable, within schools with respect to 
disproportionate rates of ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced 
teachers identified by the State and LEA under sections 1111(g)(1)(B) 
and 1112(b)(2) and per-pupil expenditures of Federal, State, and local 
funds reported annually under section 1111(h)(1)(C)(x), and, at the 
LEA's discretion, a review of LEA- and school-level budgeting and 
resource allocation with respect to disproportionate rates of 
ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers and per-pupil 
expenditures and any other resource, including access and availability 
of advanced coursework, preschool programs, and instructional materials 
and technology.
    Additionally, a school identified for targeted support and 
improvement due to consistently underperforming or low-performing 
subgroups of students may have a planning year during which the school 
must carry out stakeholder engagement, selection of interventions, and 
other activities necessary to prepare for successful implementation of 
the plan. The planning year is limited to the school year in which the 
school was identified.
LEA Responsibilities
    The proposed regulations would also require that an LEA review and 
approve each targeted support and improvement plan in a timely manner 
and take all actions necessary to ensure that each school is able to 
meet all of the requirements of proposed Sec.  200.22 to develop and 
implement the plan within the required timeframe. Further, the proposed 
regulations would require that the LEA monitor each school's 
implementation of its plan. Finally, the proposed regulations would 
require that the LEA make each targeted support and improvement plan, 
and any amendments to the plan, publicly available, including to 
parents

[[Page 34565]]

consistent with the manner in which the LEA is required to provide 
notice as described above.
Exit Criteria
    The proposed regulations would require that the LEA establish 
uniform exit criteria for schools implementing targeted support and 
improvement plans, except for title I schools with low-performing 
subgroups as described in proposed Sec.  200.19(b)(2), and make the 
exit criteria publicly available. The proposed regulations would 
require that, in establishing the exit criteria, an LEA ensure that a 
school meeting the exit criteria successfully implemented its targeted 
support and improvement plan such that it no longer meets the criteria 
for identification and has improved student outcomes for its lowest-
performing students, including each subgroup of students that was 
identified as consistently underperforming, or in the case of a school 
identified under proposed Sec.  200.15(b)(2)(iii), met the requirement 
for student participation in assessments, within an LEA-determined 
number of years.
    If a school does not meet the exit criteria within an LEA-
determined number of years, the proposed regulations specify that the 
LEA would:
     Require the school to amend its targeted support and 
improvement plan to include additional actions that address the reasons 
the school did not meet the exit criteria and encourage the school to 
include interventions that meet a higher level of evidence consistent 
with section 8101(21) than the interventions required to be included in 
the school's original plan or to increase the intensity of effective 
interventions included in the school's original plan;
     Review and approve, in the same manner in which the LEA 
reviewed and approved the original plan, the amended targeted support 
and improvement plan; and
     Increase its monitoring and support of the school's 
implementation of the plan.
Schools With Low-Performing Subgroups Requiring Additional Targeted 
Support
    For a school with one or more low-performing subgroups (i.e., 
subgroups that are performing as poorly as students in the lowest-
performing schools in the State) that is identified for targeted 
support and improvement, as described in proposed Sec.  200.19(b)(2), 
proposed Sec.  200.22 would require its targeted support and 
improvement plan to identify and address resource inequities that 
affect the low-performing subgroup or subgroups. This would include, at 
a minimum, a review of LEA- and school-level resources among schools 
and, as applicable, within schools with respect to disproportionate 
rates of ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers 
identified by the State and LEA under sections 1111(g)(1)(B) and 
1112(b)(2) and per-pupil expenditures of Federal, State, and local 
funds reported annually under section 1111(h)(1)(C)(x), and may include 
a review of LEA- and school-level budgeting and resource allocation 
with respect to disproportionate rates of ineffective, out-of-field, or 
inexperienced teachers and per-pupil expenditures and any other 
resource, such as access and availability of advanced coursework, 
preschool programs, and instructional materials and technology.
    Further, for a title I school with one or more low-performing 
subgroups that is identified for targeted support and improvement, the 
proposed regulations would require that the State establish uniform 
statewide exit criteria that, at a minimum, ensure that each such 
school meeting the exit criteria has improved student outcomes for its 
lowest-performing students, including each subgroup identified as low-
performing, and no longer meets the criteria for identification as a 
targeted support and improvement school. If such a school does not meet 
the uniform statewide exit criteria for low-performing targeted support 
and improvement title I schools after a State-determined number of 
years not to exceed three years, the State would be required to 
identify that school as a comprehensive support and improvement school, 
consistent with the requirement in section 1111(c)(3)(D) that a State 
identify such schools for comprehensive support and improvement at 
least every three years.
    Reasons: Proposed Sec.  200.22 would provide clarity where the 
statute is ambiguous and reorganize the statutory requirements to 
facilitate a better understanding of, and compliance with, those 
requirements. Specifically, proposed Sec.  200.22 would clarify the 
requirements regarding notice, development, approval, and 
implementation of targeted support and improvement plans, including 
provisions to strengthen the rigor and increase effective 
implementation of plans in schools that fail, over time, to meet exit 
criteria established by the LEA or State.
Notice
    Before a targeted support and improvement plan is implemented, the 
LEA must provide notice to parents of the school's identification. The 
proposed regulations would clarify the requirements of such notice, 
specifically that the notice is timely, understandable, and accessible 
to all parents, including those with limited English language 
proficiency and disabilities. Moreover, the proposed regulations would 
require the notice to clearly explain to parents why a school was 
identified and how parents can be involved in developing and 
implementing the school's targeted support and improvement plan, 
consistent with the statutory requirement for parents to serve as 
partners in developing these plans. The proposed requirements would 
enable parents to become meaningfully and actively engaged in efforts 
to improve their child's school by creating a mechanism for parents to 
learn how they can become involved in the development and 
administration of the plan and the issues the plan will be designed to 
address.
Development of Targeted Support and Improvement Plans
    Proposed Sec.  200.22 would also clarify the requirements for the 
development of the targeted support and improvement plan. First, these 
requirements would require meaningful, ongoing stakeholder input in the 
development and implementation of targeted support and improvement 
plans, as well as that the plans be made available to the public, 
particularly to ensure transparency for parents of enrolled students 
and those who are members of consistently underperforming or low-
performing subgroups. Plans cannot be implemented in partnership with 
parents, teachers, and principals if the plan itself is not easily 
accessible.
    Second, the proposed regulations would clarify that the evidence 
requirements for targeted support and improvement plans are based on 
the definition of ``evidence-based'' in section 8101(21) of the ESEA, 
as amended by the ESSA. Specifically, proposed Sec.  200.22 would 
require that one or more of a school's activities and interventions, as 
opposed to all activities, be evidence-based and would require certain 
considerations regarding the selection of evidence, if practicable. 
Schools implementing targeted support and improvement plans are more 
likely to see improvements for low-performing students, including low-
performing subgroups of students, if they employ strategies that are 
grounded in research. Because the evidence base for interventions in 
low-performing schools that will support the lowest-performing

[[Page 34566]]

students is nascent, proposed Sec.  200.22 would help support schools 
in making choices when selecting among evidence-based interventions by 
encouraging the use of interventions supported by the strongest level 
of evidence that is available and appropriate based on the needs of the 
school and that have been proven effective in a setting or sample 
population that overlaps with the identified school and its needs. 
This, in turn, would help support effective implementation of the 
overall plan and improvement in student outcomes for the school as a 
whole, including the subgroups that are struggling.
    Finally, the proposed regulations would clarify that a school 
identified for targeted support and improvement due to low-performing 
or consistently underperforming subgroups of students may have a 
planning year limited to the school year in which the school was 
identified. This would allow time for the activities necessary to 
prepare for the successful implementation of interventions specified in 
the plan, including consulting with stakeholders, analyzing the reasons 
the school was identified for targeted support, and selecting 
appropriate evidence-based interventions to address those reasons, and 
to ensure that such planning does not inordinately delay the full 
implementation of interventions that are needed to support improved 
student achievement and school success.
LEA Responsibilities
    The proposed regulations would clarify that the targeted support 
and improvement plan must be submitted by the school to the LEA for 
review and approval. The LEA would be required to conduct a timely 
review of the plan and take all actions necessary to ensure that each 
school is able to meet all of the requirements of proposed Sec.  200.22 
to develop and implement the plan within the required timeframe. 
Further, LEAs would be required to make the approved plans and all 
approved amendments to the plans publicly available. These 
clarifications are intended to ensure that plans are approved 
expeditiously, meet key statutory requirements, and are transparent and 
widely available to the public, and to prevent significant delays in 
the implementation of activities and interventions that will help 
improve student achievement and outcomes for low-performing students, 
including consistently underperforming subgroups, in identified 
schools.
Exit Criteria
    Proposed Sec.  200.22 would make clear that each LEA must establish 
and make public exit criteria for schools implementing targeted support 
and improvement plans in order to meet the statutory requirement that 
an LEA must require a school that unsuccessfully implements its 
targeted support and improvement plan to take additional action. These 
exit criteria must, at a minimum, require that the school no longer 
meet the criteria for identification as a school for targeted support 
and improvement and demonstrate improved academic achievement for its 
lowest-performing students, including underperforming subgroups. These 
criteria must also be tailored to consider participation in statewide 
assessments in States that choose to identify schools with low 
participation rates for targeted support and improvement under proposed 
Sec.  200.15(b)(2)(iii). Overall, this structure is similar to the 
parameters for exit criteria for comprehensive support and improvement 
so that there is consistency across the accountability system. Further, 
these clarifications would help make clear that schools improving 
educational outcomes are able to exit targeted support and improvement 
status, while providing safeguards to ensure that consistently 
underperforming subgroups do not struggle indefinitely if plans are 
inadequate or ineffectively implemented, and that schools are provided 
with additional help and support, when needed.
Schools With Low-Performing Subgroups Requiring Additional Targeted 
Support
    Proposed Sec.  200.22 would clarify and reorganize the statutory 
requirements that, in the case of a school with low-performing 
subgroups that are performing as poorly as all students in the lowest-
performing five percent of title I schools, the school's targeted 
support and improvement plan also identifies and reviews resource 
inequities and their effect on each low-performing subgroup in the 
school. The proposed regulations would ensure this review is aligned 
with the review that would be required in comprehensive support and 
improvement plans, creating coherence across the statewide 
accountability system. Further, these clarifications are intended to 
emphasize the importance of equity and encourage LEAs and schools to 
correct resource disparities (e.g., disproportionate rates with respect 
to ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers and per-pupil 
expenditures) that will be critical to developing and implementing 
successful support and improvement plans for schools identified for 
targeted support and improvement.
    Additionally, proposed Sec.  200.22 would clarify the State-
developed exit criteria for title I schools with low-performing 
subgroups and ensure that such a school that has not improved is 
identified for comprehensive support and improvement on the same 
timeline on which the State identifies schools in need of comprehensive 
support and intervention, consistent with 200.19(d)(1)(i). If the 
targeted support and improvement plan developed by the school has not 
helped its lowest-performing students, including low-performing 
subgroups, improve, it is imperative that these students receive the 
same supports, resources, and attention as similarly performing 
students in the bottom five percent of schools--those provided by the 
LEA for schools in comprehensive support and improvement. While many 
schools identified for comprehensive support and improvement 
demonstrate low performance among all students, LEAs and the State must 
also take responsibility and rigorous action to improve student 
outcomes for schools with low-performing subgroups, particularly when a 
school-developed improvement plan has not been effective. By providing 
for comprehensive support and improvement in schools with chronically 
low-performing subgroups, proposed Sec.  200.22 would help States and 
LEAs meet the purpose of title I: ``providing all children significant 
opportunity to receive a fair, equitable, and high-quality education, 
and to close educational achievement gaps.''

Section 200.23 State Responsibilities To Support Continued Improvement

    Statute: Section 1111(d)(3)(A)(ii) of the ESEA, as amended by the 
ESSA, requires each State to provide support for LEA and school 
improvement, including the periodic review of resource allocation to 
support school improvement in LEAs serving significant numbers of 
schools identified for either comprehensive support and improvement or 
targeted support and improvement. Section 1111(d)(3)(A)(iii) requires 
each State to provide technical assistance to each of its LEAs serving 
significant numbers of schools identified for either comprehensive 
support and improvement or targeted support and improvement. Section 
1111(d)(3)(B)(i) allows a State to take additional improvement actions 
in any LEA serving a significant number of schools identified for 
comprehensive support and improvement and not meeting State-established 
exit criteria or any LEA serving a significant number of

[[Page 34567]]

schools identified for targeted support and improvement. Section 
1111(d)(3)(B)(ii) allows a State to establish alternative evidence-
based, State-determined strategies that may be used by LEAs to assist 
schools identified for comprehensive support and improvement, 
consistent with State law.
    Current Regulations: Section 200.49 describes an SEA's 
responsibilities to make technical assistance available to schools that 
have been identified for improvement, corrective action, or 
restructuring and requires an SEA to take additional actions if it 
determines that an LEA has failed to carry out its school improvement 
responsibilities. Section 200.50(a)(1)(ii) requires an SEA to annually 
review each of its LEAs receiving title I funds to determine whether 
the LEA is carrying out its responsibilities with respect to school 
improvement .
    Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec.  200.23 would clarify the 
statutory requirements in the ESEA related to continued support for 
school and LEA improvement.
State Review of Resource Allocation
    Proposed Sec.  200.23(a) would require each State to periodically 
review resource allocations for each LEA serving significant numbers of 
schools identified either for comprehensive or targeted support and 
improvement. The proposed regulations would further specify that the 
required review must consider allocations between LEAs and between 
schools and any inequities identified in school support and improvement 
plans consistent with proposed Sec.  200.21(d)(4) and Sec.  
200.22(c)(7), and would require each State to take action, to the 
extent practicable, to address any resource inequities identified 
during its review.
State Responsibilities for Technical Assistance
    Proposed Sec.  200.23(b) would require each State to describe in 
its State plan the technical assistance it will provide to each of its 
LEAs serving significant numbers of schools identified for either 
comprehensive support and improvement or targeted support and 
improvement. The proposed regulations would specify minimum 
requirements for such technical assistance, including a requirement 
that the State describe how it will assist LEAs in developing and 
implementing comprehensive support and improvement plans and ensuring 
that schools develop and implement targeted support and improvement 
plans, conducting school-level needs assessments, selecting evidence-
based interventions, and reviewing and addressing resource inequities.
Additional State Action To Support LEA Improvement
    The proposed regulations also would permit a State to take certain 
additional improvement actions consistent with section 1111(d)(3)(B) of 
the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. Proposed Sec.  200.23(c)(1) would 
permit a State to take additional improvement actions in (1) any LEA, 
or authorized public chartering agency consistent with State charter 
school law, serving a significant number of schools identified for 
comprehensive support and improvement and not meeting State-established 
exit criteria, or (2) any LEA, or authorized public chartering agency 
consistent with State charter school law, serving a significant number 
of schools implementing targeted support and improvement plans. Such 
actions could include, for each school that does not meet State-
established exit criteria following implementation of a comprehensive 
support and improvement plan, reorganizing the school to implement a 
new instructional model; replacing school leadership; converting the 
school to a public charter school; changing school governance; closing 
the school; or, in the case of a public charter school, revoking or 
non-renewing the school's charter consistent with State charter school 
law.
    In addition, proposed Sec.  200.23(c)(2) would allow a State to 
establish an exhaustive or non-exhaustive list of State-approved, 
evidence-based interventions for use in schools implementing 
comprehensive or targeted support and improvement plans. Proposed Sec.  
200.23(c)(3) would permit a State to establish, or to use previously 
developed and established, evidence-based, State-determined 
interventions, which may include whole-school reform models, for use by 
LEAs to assist schools identified for comprehensive support and 
improvement. Proposed Sec.  200.23(c)(4) would allow a State to 
establish a process for review and approval of amended targeted support 
and improvement plans developed following a school's unsuccessful 
implementation of its targeted support and improvement plan, consistent 
with proposed Sec.  200.22(e)(2).
    Reasons: The proposed regulations would clarify State 
responsibilities to provide support and technical assistance to LEAs 
with significant numbers of schools identified for either comprehensive 
support and improvement or targeted support and improvement. A key 
purpose of the proposed regulations is to ensure that the support and 
technical assistance from the State required by section 1111(d)(3)(A) 
is provided in a timely manner to support LEAs. The proposed 
regulations would also reinforce the LEA's role in development and 
implementation of effective support and improvement plans for low-
performing schools. Similarly, the proposed regulations would require 
States to periodically review and take action, to the extent 
practicable, to address any resource inequities uncovered by their 
review of resource allocation between LEAs and schools; such action 
would support effective implementation of improvement plans by helping 
to coordinate actions at the State, district, and school levels and 
promote making sufficient resources available to support improvement. 
We encourage States to time their periodic review of resource 
allocation to align with existing, ongoing processes for reviewing the 
support they provide to LEAs and schools, such as each time the State 
submits its title I plan to the Department, or each time it identifies 
its lowest-performing schools.
    The proposed regulations also would help ensure that the technical 
assistance provided by States is aligned with the statutory school 
improvement requirements, including those related to conducting needs 
assessments for schools identified for comprehensive support and 
improvement, the use of evidence-based interventions, and review of 
resource inequities. Such technical assistance is essential to building 
local capacity at both the LEA and school levels to carry out critical 
new responsibilities under the ESSA, including greater use of evidence-
based interventions.
    In addition, the proposed regulations would clarify State authority 
to take additional actions aimed at ensuring effective local 
implementation of comprehensive and targeted support and improvement 
plans. For example, the proposed regulations specify that States may 
take additional improvement actions in LEAs, as well as in authorized 
public chartering agencies consistent with State charter school law, so 
that States have tools to support the capacity of these entities to 
help improve low-performing schools. Further, permitting States to 
establish or maintain lists of evidence-based interventions would 
facilitate the selection and implementation of evidence-based 
improvement actions by LEAs with schools identified for improvement. 
The proposed regulations also would clarify that the alternative, 
evidence-based,

[[Page 34568]]

State-determined strategies authorized by section 1111(d)(3)(B)(ii) may 
include whole-school reform strategies that could simplify LEA efforts 
to identify appropriate, comprehensive approaches to turning around 
their lowest-performing schools.
    Finally, the proposed regulation recognizes the critical role of 
States in providing additional support to schools that were identified 
for targeted support and improvement and did not implement their plans 
successfully, by permitting States to establish a review and approval 
process for such schools' amended targeted support and improvement 
plans. Implementation of a State-level review and approval process 
would help ensure that LEAs and affected schools benefit from the 
State's experience in working with schools facing similar challenges 
and increase the likelihood that the additional actions proposed for 
such schools are of sufficient rigor to ensure meaningful improvement 
for consistently underperforming and low-performing subgroups of 
students.

Section 200.24 Resources To Support Continued Improvement

    Statute: Section 1003 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, provides 
dedicated resources for school improvement.
    Under section 1003(a), States must reserve seven percent of title 
I, part A allocations for school improvement, at least 95 percent of 
which must be distributed to LEAs either competitively or by formula to 
serve schools implementing comprehensive or targeted support and 
improvement activities, including the implementation of evidence-based 
interventions, under section 1111(d). Section 1003(c) allows States to 
award subgrants for up to four years, which may include one planning 
year.
    Under section 1003, States must prioritize funds for LEAs that 
serve high numbers, or a high percentage, of schools identified for 
comprehensive support and improvement; LEAs with the greatest need for 
such funds, as defined by the State; and LEAs with the strongest 
commitment to improving student achievement and outcomes. Additionally, 
subgrants must be of sufficient size to enable an LEA to effectively 
implement selected strategies, and LEAs receiving a subgrant must 
represent the geographic diversity of the State.
    Section 1003(b)(1)(B) allows a State, with the approval of the LEA, 
to directly provide for the improvement activities required under 
section 1111(d) or to arrange for their provision through other 
entities such as school support teams, educational service agencies, or 
nonprofit or for-profit external providers with expertise in using 
evidence-based strategies to improve student achievement, instruction, 
and schools. Additionally, under section 1003(b)(2), States are 
required to use any funds not distributed to LEAs to establish a method 
to allocate funds under section 1003, to monitor and evaluate the use 
of such funds by LEAs, and, as appropriate, to reduce barriers and 
provide operational flexibilities for schools in the implementation of 
comprehensive and targeted support and improvement activities under 
section 1111(d). In addition, section 1003(i) requires States to 
include on State report cards a list of all LEAs and schools receiving 
funds under section 1003, including the amount of funds each school 
received and the types of strategies each school implemented.
    To receive funds under section 1003, an LEA must submit an 
application to the State that includes, at a minimum, a description of 
how the LEA will carry out its responsibilities for school improvement 
under section 1111(d), including how the LEA will: Help schools develop 
and implement comprehensive and targeted support and improvement plans; 
monitor schools receiving funds under section 1003; use a rigorous 
review process to recruit, screen, select, and evaluate any external 
partners with whom the LEA will partner; align other Federal, State, 
and local resources to carry out the activities supported with funds 
under section 1003; and, as appropriate, modify practices or policies 
to provide operational flexibility that enables full and effective 
implementation of school improvement plans.
    Current Regulations: Section 200.99 requires each State to reserve 
two percent of its fiscal year 2003 and 2004 title I, part A 
allocation, and four percent of its title I, part A allocation for each 
succeeding fiscal year, to carry out State and local responsibilities 
for school improvement under sections 1116 and 1117 of the ESEA, as 
amended by NCLB.
    Section 1003(g) of the ESEA, as amended by NCLB, authorized an 
additional source of school improvement funding through the School 
Improvement Grants (SIG) program, which was first funded in fiscal year 
2007 and which provided formula grants to States that then were 
competitively subgranted to LEAs to support the activities required 
under sections 1116 and 1117.
    Following a one-time appropriation of $3 billion for SIG under the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009, the Department 
promulgated regulations to significantly strengthen the SIG program.
    Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec.  200.24 would clarify the new 
requirements included in the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, for funds 
that the State must set aside for LEAs to support schools implementing 
comprehensive and targeted support and improvement plans.
LEA Eligibility
    The proposed regulations would clarify that an LEA is eligible for 
school improvement funds under section 1003(a) if it has one or more 
schools identified for comprehensive support and improvement or 
targeted support and improvement and if it applies to serve each school 
identified for comprehensive support and improvement before applying to 
serve a school identified for targeted support and improvement. 
Proposed Sec.  200.24 would also clarify that funds may not be used to 
serve schools that are identified for targeted support and improvement 
under proposed Sec.  200.15(b)(2)(iii) for low assessment participation 
rates, if the State chooses to identify such schools for targeted 
support and improvement, because funds for school improvement provided 
under section 1003 are intended to serve low-performing schools, 
including schools with low-performing subgroups, that are identified on 
the basis of the indicators under proposed Sec.  200.14.
LEA Application
    Proposed Sec.  200.24 would require that an LEA seeking school 
improvement funds submit an application to the State that includes, at 
a minimum--
     A description of one or more evidence-based interventions 
based on strong, moderate, or promising evidence consistent with 
section 8101(21) that will be implemented in each school the LEA 
proposes to serve;
     A description of how the LEA will: (1) Carry out its 
responsibilities to develop and implement a comprehensive support and 
improvement plan that meets the requirements in proposed Sec.  200.21 
for each school identified for comprehensive support and improvement 
that the LEA applies to serve, and (2) support each school identified 
for targeted support and improvement that the LEA applies to serve in 
developing, approving, and implementing a targeted support and 
improvement plan under proposed Sec.  200.22;

[[Page 34569]]

     A budget indicating how it will allocate school 
improvement funds among schools identified for comprehensive and 
targeted support and improvement that it intends to serve;
     The LEA's plan to monitor each school for which the LEA 
receives school improvement funds, including its plan to increase 
monitoring of schools that do not meet State or LEA exit criteria, as 
applicable;
     A description of the rigorous review process that the LEA 
will use to recruit, screen, select, and evaluate any external 
providers with which the LEA intends to partner;
     A description of how the LEA will align other Federal, 
State, and local resources to carry out the activities in the schools 
it applies to serve and sustain effective activities in such schools 
after funding under section 1003 is completed;
     As appropriate, a description of how the LEA will modify 
practices and policies to provide operational flexibility, including 
with respect to school budgeting and staffing, that will help enable 
full and effective implementation of the school's comprehensive or 
targeted support and improvement plan under proposed Sec. Sec.  200.21 
and 200.22;
     For an LEA that plans to allow a school to use the first 
year, or a portion of the first year, it receives school improvement 
funds for planning activities, a description of those planning 
activities, the timeline for implementation of those activities, and a 
description of how those activities will support successful 
implementation of the school's comprehensive or targeted support and 
improvement plan; and
     An assurance that each school the LEA proposes to serve 
will receive all of the State and local funds it would have otherwise 
received.
State Allocation of Funds
    The proposed regulations would also clarify the State's 
responsibilities in allocating school improvement funds to LEAs. 
Specifically, they would require that a State review, in a timely 
manner, each LEA application and award funds to an LEA application that 
meets the requirements of the proposed regulations in an amount that is 
of sufficient size to enable the LEA to effectively implement the 
comprehensive or targeted support and improvement plan. Under the 
proposed regulations, to be of sufficient size, each award would be at 
least $50,000 per school identified for targeted support and 
improvement the LEA is applying to serve and at least $500,000 for each 
school identified for comprehensive support and improvement the LEA is 
applying to serve, except that a State could conclude, based on a 
demonstration from the LEA in its application, that a smaller award 
would be sufficient to successfully implement the plan in a particular 
school.
    If a State has insufficient school improvement funds to make awards 
to all eligible LEAs that are of sufficient size, the proposed 
regulations would require that a State, whether through formula or a 
competition, award funds to an LEA applying to serve a school 
identified for comprehensive support and improvement before awarding 
funds to an LEA applying to serve a school identified for targeted 
support and improvement. Further, the proposed regulations would 
require that a State prioritize its funding such that it--
     Gives priority in funding to an LEA that demonstrates the 
greatest need for the funds, as determined by the State, based, at a 
minimum, on the number or percentage of schools in the LEA implementing 
either a comprehensive or targeted support and improvement plan and 
based on the State's review of resource inequities among and within 
LEAs, required under proposed Sec.  200.23(a);
     Gives priority in funding to an LEA that demonstrates the 
strongest commitment to using the school improvement funds to enable 
the lowest-performing schools to improve, taking into consideration, 
with respect to each school the LEA proposes to serve: (1) The proposed 
use of evidence-based interventions that are supported by the strongest 
level of evidence available; and (2) commitment to family and community 
engagement; and
     Considers geographic diversity within the State. The 
proposed regulations would further require that a State make awards to 
LEAs either on a competitive or formula basis for not more than four 
years, which may include a planning year. If a State permits an LEA to 
have a planning year with respect to a particular school, the State 
would be required to review the performance of the LEA during the 
planning year against the LEA's approved application and determine that 
the LEA will be able to ensure that the school fully implements the 
activities and interventions that will be supported with school 
improvement funds by the beginning of the next school year before 
renewing the school improvement award.
State Responsibilities
    The proposed regulations would require that each State--
     Establish the method to allocate school improvement funds;
     Monitor the use of school improvement funds;
     Evaluate the use of school improvement funds including by, 
at a minimum, engaging in ongoing efforts to examine the effects of the 
evidence-based interventions implemented using school improvement funds 
on student outcomes and other relevant outcomes and disseminate its 
findings to LEAs with schools required to implement evidence-based 
interventions;
     Determine that the school is making progress on the 
indicators in the statewide accountability system in proposed Sec.  
200.14 prior to renewing an LEA's award of school improvement funds 
with respect to a particular school is implementing evidence-based 
interventions with fidelity to the requirements in proposed Sec. Sec.  
200.21 and 200.22 in the LEA's application; and
     Reduce barriers and provide operational flexibility for 
schools in LEAs receiving school improvement funds, including with 
respect to school budgeting and staffing, as appropriate.
    Further, the proposed regulations would clarify that a State may 
set aside up to five percent of its school improvement fund reservation 
under section 1003(a) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, to carry out 
these five activities.
    Finally, the proposed regulations would clarify that a State may 
directly provide for school improvement activities or arrange for their 
provision through an external partner, such as school support teams, 
educational service agencies, or nonprofit or for-profit entities. An 
external partner would be required to have expertise in using evidence-
based strategies to improve student achievement, instruction, and 
schools, and the proposed regulations would require that, with respect 
to each school, either the State has the authority to take over the 
school consistent with State law or the LEA approves the arrangement. 
If the State arranges for the provision of services through an external 
partner, the regulations would require that the State undertake a 
rigorous review process in recruiting, screening, selecting, and 
evaluating an external partner the State uses to carry out the 
activities and the external partner have a demonstrated success 
implementing the evidence-based interventions that it will implement.

[[Page 34570]]

Reporting
    The proposed regulations would require that each State include in 
its State report card a list of all the LEAs and schools receiving 
school improvement funds, including the amount of funds each LEA 
receives to serve each school and the type of intervention or 
interventions being implemented in each school with school improvement 
funds.
    Reasons: The proposed regulations would clarify State and LEA 
responsibilities to ensure that the schools in need of the most support 
receive funds under section 1003 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, 
and use such funds appropriately and effectively to improve student 
outcomes and school success. We propose to update the current 
regulations to address the increased State reservation of funds 
required by the statute and explain how these funds must be used to 
reinforce the statutory requirements for supporting school improvement 
in schools identified under section 1111(d).
LEA Eligibility
    Proposed Sec.  200.24 would clarify that States should prioritize 
funding to serve schools identified for comprehensive support and 
improvement. Schools in comprehensive support and improvement have been 
identified due to systemic low performance or graduation rates for all 
students, or chronically low-performing subgroups of students. We 
recognize that, given limited resources, pervasive, schoolwide 
challenges in student performance and outcomes should be addressed with 
improvement funds prior to addressing challenges in schools that are 
localized or smaller in scope.
LEA Application
    Proposed Sec.  200.24 would clarify the statutory components of 
each LEA's application for funds under section 1003 from the State, 
with a particular emphasis on how the application requirements align 
with the expectations of LEAs to support schools identified for 
comprehensive or targeted support and improvement under section 
1111(d), in implementing evidence-based interventions. Proposed Sec.  
200.24 would specify that one or more school interventions funded under 
section 1003 must meet a higher level of evidence (i.e., strong, 
moderate, or promising levels of evidence), even though other 
interventions that can be included in support and improvement plans 
under section 1111(d) could meet a lower evidence level. Similarly, the 
proposed regulations would clarify how the planning year that is 
permitted for a school in comprehensive or targeted support and 
improvement under proposed Sec. Sec.  200.21 and 200.22 is distinct 
from a planning year for use of section 1003 funds to ensure that 
receipt of school improvement funding does not delay full 
implementation of a support and improvement plan under section 1111(d).
    In addition, the proposed regulations would clarify the minimum 
requirements an LEA must address in its application to the State to 
receive funds under section 1003 to ensure effective local 
implementation of comprehensive support and improvement plans and 
targeted support and improvement plans for schools in LEAs that receive 
school improvement funds. For example, in addition to describing the 
LEA's plan to monitor each school for which the LEA receives school 
improvement funds, the LEA would also be required to include its plan 
to increase monitoring of schools that do not meet the exit criteria. 
This would help ensure that schools identified for comprehensive or 
targeted support and improvement do not linger in such a status for 
multiple years without increased attention from the LEA, and reinforce 
the goals of the statewide accountability system. An LEA would also 
describe how it will plan for school improvement activities to be 
sustained in schools once funding is completed, in addition to 
describing how it will align Federal, State, and local resources.
State Allocation of Funds
    To ensure funding for school improvement has a meaningful impact, 
particularly for schools that are the lowest-performing in the State 
and require comprehensive support and improvement and whole-school 
reform, the proposed regulations would require States to allocate 
grants of sufficient size so that each school identified for 
comprehensive support and improvement would receive at least $500,000 
per year and each school identified for targeted support and 
improvement would receive at least $50,000 per year, unless the LEA 
provides a justification to the State that a lesser amount would be 
sufficient. The minimum award amount of $500,000 for a school 
identified for comprehensive support and improvement would help ensure 
that it has the resources it needs to implement the comprehensive 
interventions that will lead to sustained school improvements. The 
amount is based on data about the size of awards under the School 
Improvement Grants program, under which low-performing schools 
implemented whole-school comprehensive reform models aimed at turning 
around the schools' performance.\16\ The minimum award amount of 
$50,000 for a school identified for targeted support and improvement 
would ensure that school improvement resources are not spread so thinly 
across LEAs in the State that funds for an individual school are 
inadequate to support high-quality, faithful implementation of an 
evidence-based intervention that will improve student and school 
outcomes and assist the school in exiting improvement status.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \16\ See Hulburt, S., Therriault, S.B., Le Floch, K.C., and Wei, 
T. (2012). ``School improvement grants: Analyses of state 
applications and eligible and awarded schools.'' U.S. Department of 
Education, Institute of Education Sciences, pp. 29-34.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    The proposed regulations would also emphasize that, in determining 
the greatest need for funds if insufficient funds are available to 
award a grant of sufficient size to all LEAs, States must examine the 
number and percentage of schools identified in the LEA for 
comprehensive or targeted support and improvement, the resource 
inequities the State has identified under proposed Sec.  200.23, and 
academic achievement and student outcomes in the identified schools. 
Similarly, in determining the strongest commitment, a State must 
examine the proposed use of evidence-based interventions, and the LEA's 
commitment to family and community engagement. The purpose of these 
proposed regulations is to increase the likelihood that funds are 
awarded to LEAs that will successfully implement interventions in 
schools identified for comprehensive or targeted support and 
improvement. Specifically, the use of more rigorous evidence-based 
interventions and strong support from the local community are likely to 
increase a school's chances of significantly improving student 
achievement and outcomes.
State Responsibilities
    Proposed Sec.  200.24 would clarify the statutory requirements for 
States to support LEAs in using funds under section 1003, and help 
align these responsibilities with the expectations on the State to 
support schools identified for comprehensive or targeted support and 
improvement under section 1111(d). For example, States would be 
required to evaluate the use of funds under section 1003 including by 
examining the effects of evidence-based interventions on student 
achievement and outcomes in schools supported by 1003 funds and 
disseminating those

[[Page 34571]]

results to LEAs. This activity would reinforce the technical assistance 
States would be providing to LEAs under proposed Sec.  200.23, which 
will be critical to guide LEAs' and schools' implementation of the new 
evidence requirements in the statute and to help build stronger 
evidence of effective interventions. By specifying the minimum 
requirements a State must meet, States will be better equipped to 
support effective implementation of comprehensive support and 
improvement plans and targeted support and improvement plans for 
schools in LEAs that receive funds under section 1003.

Section 200.30 Annual State Report Card

    Statute: Section 1111(h)(1)(A) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, 
requires a State that receives assistance under title I, part A to 
disseminate widely to the public an annual State report card for the 
State as a whole. Section 1111(h)(1)(B) of the ESEA, as amended by the 
ESSA, further requires the State report card to be: Concise; presented 
in an understandable and uniform format that is developed in 
consultation with parents; presented to the extent practicable in a 
language that parents can understand; and widely accessible to the 
public.
    In addition, section 1111(h)(1)(C) of the ESEA, as amended by the 
ESSA, establishes minimum requirements for the content of State report 
cards, including requirements for a State to include disaggregated 
information for certain data elements by subgroup. Included among the 
subgroups for which disaggregation is required for some data elements 
are migrant status, homeless status, status as a child in foster care, 
and status as a student with a parent who is a member of the Armed 
Forces on active duty.
    Finally, section 1111(i) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, 
provides that disaggregation of data for State report cards shall not 
be required if such disaggregation will reveal personally identifiable 
information about any student, teacher, principal, or other school 
leader, or will provide data that are insufficient to yield 
statistically reliable information.
    Current Regulations: None.
    Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec.  200.30 would require a State 
to prepare and disseminate widely to the public an annual State report 
card that includes information on the State as a whole and is concise 
and presented in an understandable and uniform format and in a manner 
accessible to the public, including the parents of students in the 
State.
    Proposed Sec.  200.30(a) restates statutory requirements that a 
State that receives title I, part A funds must prepare and disseminate 
widely to the public an annual State report card, which must include, 
at a minimum the information required under section 1111(h)(1)(C) of 
the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. It also requires that State report 
cards include, for each authorized public chartering agency in the 
State, demographic and academic achievement data for each school 
authorized by such agency compared to the community in which the 
charter school is located.
    Proposed Sec.  200.30(b) restates the statutory requirement that a 
State report card be concise and presented in an understandable and 
uniform format that is developed in consultation with parents. It also 
would clarify that to meet these requirements, a State, in addition to 
meeting all minimum requirements under section 1111(h)(1)(C) of the 
ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, must develop with parental input a report 
card format that begins with a clearly labeled overview section that is 
prominently displayed. Under proposed Sec.  200.30(b), the overview 
section of a State report card would include statewide results for all 
students and, at a minimum, each subgroup of students described in 
proposed Sec.  200.16(a)(2) on the following: The State's academic 
assessments in each of reading/language arts, mathematics, and science; 
each measure within the Academic Progress indicator for public 
elementary schools and secondary schools that are not high schools; the 
four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate, and each measure within each 
indicator of School Quality or Student Success. In addition, the 
overview section would include the number and percentage of English 
learners achieving English language proficiency on the State's English 
language proficiency assessment.
    Proposed Sec.  200.30(c) would also require that each State report 
card be in a format and language, to the extent practicable, that 
parents can understand consistent with proposed Sec.  200.21(b)(1)-(3).
    Proposed Sec.  200.30(d) would restate the statutory requirements 
for a State to disseminate widely to the public the State report card, 
which at a minimum must be made available on a single page of the SEA's 
Web site, and to include on the SEA's Web site the report card for each 
LEA in the State required under proposed Sec.  200.31 as well as the 
annual report to the Secretary required under section 1111(h)(5) of the 
ESEA, as amended by the ESSA.
    Proposed Sec.  200.30(e) would require the dissemination of the 
State report cards no later than December 31 each year, beginning with 
report cards based on information from the 2017-2018 school year. If a 
State is unable to meet this deadline for the 2017-2018 school year for 
some or all of the newly required information under section 
1111(h)(1)(C) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, proposed Sec.  
200.30(e) would allow the State to request from the Secretary a one-
time, one-year extension for reporting on such required elements of the 
report cards. A State would be required to submit an extension request 
to the Secretary by July 1, 2018, and include evidence demonstrating 
that the State cannot meet the deadline, as well as a plan and timeline 
for how the State would publish the newly required information by 
December 31, 2019.
    Finally, proposed Sec.  200.30(f) would define certain terms 
related to the subgroups for which disaggregated data must be reported 
under section 1111(h) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. It would 
clarify the meaning of the terms ``migrant status,'' ``homeless 
status,'' ``child in foster care status,'' and ``student with a parent 
who is a member of the armed forces on active duty'' by reference to 
established statutory and regulatory definitions. Proposed Sec.  
200.30(e) would also clarify that, consistent with proposed Sec.  
200.17, disaggregation on State and LEA report cards is not required if 
the number of students in the subgroup is insufficient to yield 
statistically reliable information or the results would reveal 
personally identifiable information about a student.
    Reasons: State report cards were conceived under the ESEA, as 
amended by the NCLB, as a mechanism to increase the availability of 
school accountability data for parents and the public, enabling them to 
reward and hold accountable public officials, State and local 
administrators, and educators for the performance of their public 
schools. Built on decades of education performance reporting that 
started with the Nation's Report Card in 1969, school performance 
reporting requirements under the ESEA, as amended by the NCLB, 
significantly expanded the depth and breadth of accountability data 
available to parents and the public. These audiences had to make 
meaning out of the data provided on report cards, which were often 
lengthy and complex despite requirements that they be concise and 
understandable.
    With respect to State report cards, section 1111(h)(1) of the ESEA, 
as

[[Page 34572]]

amended by the ESSA, maintains the requirement that report cards be 
concise and understandable. At the same time, however, report cards 
must include valuable new data elements, which could make report cards 
longer and more complex, and if confusing, potentially not as useful to 
stakeholders. As a result, we are proposing Sec.  200.30 to clarify 
what States must do to meet these seemingly conflicting requirements. 
In addition, we are requiring that State report cards provide 
information for each authorized public chartering agency in the State 
in order to provide transparency regarding the demographic composition 
and academic achievement of charters schools authorized by such agency 
as compared to the broader community in which the schools are located.
    Proposed Sec.  200.30 would require States to develop a format and 
process to share report cards with parents, as well as the public in a 
manner that is concise, accessible, informative, timely, and 
understandable. The proposed regulations would specify that States 
design and disseminate an overview section that would be prominently 
displayed on annual report cards. These requirements would help parents 
and the public more effectively access and use State-level data.
    The proposed regulations would also encourage States to creatively 
design and publish report cards that are truly concise while not 
abandoning minimum report card requirements related to transparent and 
accurate presentation of a broad range of data. These requirements 
would maintain a commitment to the civil rights legacy of the ESEA by 
ensuring that objective, disaggregated evidence of student academic 
achievement, graduation rates, other academic indicators, and 
indicators of school quality or success are visible to the public in a 
format that clearly conveys where gaps exist between subgroups of 
students.
    Proposed Sec.  200.30(c)-(d) is also intended to provide clarity to 
States related to statutory reporting requirements that call for report 
cards to be widely accessible, including on the SEA's Web site. To 
clarify this statutory requirement, proposed Sec.  200.30(c) would 
require that report cards be provided in a format and language, to the 
extent practicable, that parents can understand, increasing the access 
and availability to all members of the public, regardless of language 
barrier or disability.
    Proposed Sec.  200.30(e) would also require States to make report 
cards publicly available no later than December 31 each year. This 
would create a more well-informed public that is better prepared to 
work with educators and local school officials during the school year 
to effectively address and close achievement, opportunity, and equity 
gaps in a timely manner.
    To ensure States and LEAs disaggregate student data on report cards 
so that it is accurate and comparable across and within States and 
LEAs, proposed Sec.  200.30(f) would define the terms used to identify 
certain subgroups for which disaggregated data must be provided under 
applicable reporting requirements in section 1111(h)(1)(C) of the ESEA, 
as amended by the ESSA. Specifically, proposed Sec.  200.30(f) would 
clarify the meaning of the terms ``migrant status,'' ``homeless 
status,'' ``child in foster care status,'' and ``student with a parent 
who is a member of the Armed Forces on active duty'' by reference to 
established statutory and regulatory definitions. In addition to 
clarifying these definitions, proposed Sec.  200.30 would also correct 
a technical error under section 1111(h)(1)(C)(ii) of the ESEA, as 
amended by the ESSA, which defines ``active duty'' by reference to 10 
U.S.C. 101(d)(5). Section 101(d)(5) of title 10 of the United States 
Code defines ``full-time National Guard duty,'' not ``active duty.'' 
``Active duty'' is defined under 10 U.S.C. 101(d)(1) to mean full-time 
duty in the active military service of the United States, including 
``full-time training duty, annual training duty, and attendance, while 
in the active military service, at a school designated as a service 
school by law or by the Secretary of the military department concerned. 
Such term does not include full-time National Guard duty.'' Finally, to 
ensure States and LEAs report disaggregated data that is reliable and 
protects student privacy, proposed Sec.  200.30 would also reinforce 
statutory requirements under section 1111(i) of the ESEA, as amended by 
the ESSA, and proposed Sec.  200.17, which require that disaggregated 
data only be shared when information is statistically reliable and in a 
format that protects the identity of individual students.
    The Department will pursue options to help ensure the transparency, 
accessibility, and utility of State report cards, which may include 
providing links to State report cards on our Web site.

Section 200.31 Annual LEA Report Card

    Statute: Section 1111(h)(2)(A) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, 
requires an LEA that receives assistance under title I, part A to 
prepare and disseminate an annual LEA report card that includes 
information on the LEA as a whole and each school served by the LEA. 
Section 1111(h)(2)(B) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, further 
requires that each LEA report card be: Concise; presented in an 
understandable and uniform format; presented to the extent practicable 
in a language that parents can understand; and accessible to the 
public. Further, LEA report cards must be available on the LEA's Web 
site, if the LEA operates a Web site. If the LEA does not operate a Web 
site, the LEA must make the report card available to the public in 
another manner determined by the LEA.
    In addition, sections 1111(h)(1)(C) and 1111(h)(2)(C) establish 
minimum requirements for the content of LEA report cards, including 
requirements for an LEA to include disaggregated information for 
certain data elements by subgroup. Included among the subgroups for 
which disaggregation is required for some data elements are migrant 
status, homeless status, status as a child in foster care, and status 
as a student with a parent who is a member of the Armed Forces on 
active duty.
    Finally, section 1111(i) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, 
provides that disaggregation of data for LEA report cards shall not be 
required if such disaggregation will reveal personally identifiable 
information about any student, teacher, principal, or other school 
leader, or will provide data that are insufficient to yield 
statistically reliable information.
    Current Regulations: None.
    Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec.  200.31 would require an LEA to 
prepare and disseminate to the public an annual LEA report card that 
includes information on the LEA as a whole and each school served by 
the LEA and that is concise and presented in an understandable and 
uniform format and in a manner accessible to the public, including 
parents of students in the LEA.
    Proposed Sec.  200.31(a) restates statutory requirements that an 
LEA that receives title I, part A funds must prepare and disseminate to 
the public an annual LEA report card, which must include, at a minimum, 
the information required under section 1111(h)(1)(C) of the ESEA, as 
amended by the ESSA, for the LEA as a whole and each school served by 
the LEA.
    Proposed Sec.  200.31(b) restates the statutory requirement that an 
LEA report card be concise and presented in an understandable and 
uniform format. Proposed Sec.  200.31(b) would clarify that, to meet 
these requirements, an LEA, in

[[Page 34573]]

addition to meeting all minimum requirements under section 
1111(h)(2)(C) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, must develop a 
report card format in consultation with parents, that begins with, for 
the LEA as a whole and for each school served by the LEA, a clearly 
labeled overview section that is prominently displayed and that, for 
each school served by the LEA, can be distributed to parents on a 
single piece of paper. Proposed Sec.  200.31(b) would require that the 
overview section include, at a minimum, for the LEA as a whole and for 
each school served by the LEA, the same information as is required on 
State report cards under proposed Sec.  200.30(b)(2), for all students 
and each subgroup of students described in proposed Sec.  200.16(a)(2). 
In addition, proposed Sec.  200.31(b) would require the overview 
section for the LEA as a whole to include information on the 
achievement on the State's academic assessments in reading/language 
arts, mathematics, and science of students served by the LEA compared 
to students in the State as a whole, and the overview section for each 
school to include corresponding information for the school's students 
compared to students served by the LEA and the State as a whole. The 
overview section would also be required to include, for each school, 
information on school-level accountability results, including, as 
applicable, identification for comprehensive or targeted support and 
improvement described in proposed Sec. Sec.  200.18 and 200.19 and, for 
the LEA and for each school, basic LEA or school identifying 
information (e.g., name, address, phone number, and status as a 
participating Title I school).
    Proposed Sec.  200.31(c) would also require that each LEA report 
card be in a format and language, to the extent practicable, that 
parents can understand consistent with proposed Sec.  200.21(b)(1)-(3).
    Proposed Sec.  200.31(d) would restate the statutory requirements 
for an LEA report card to be made available on the LEA's Web site, 
except that an LEA that does not operate a Web site may provide the 
information to the public in another manner determined by the LEA. 
Proposed Sec.  200.31(d) would further require that the LEA provide the 
information required for the overview section under proposed Sec.  
200.31(b)(2) to parents of each student enrolled in each school in the 
LEA directly though such means as regular mail or email and in a timely 
manner consistent with Sec.  200.31(e).
    Proposed Sec.  200.31(e) would require the dissemination of LEA 
report cards on the same timeline as State report cards under proposed 
Sec.  200.30(e). If an LEA is unable to meet this deadline for some or 
all of the newly required information under section 1111(h)(1)(C) of 
the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, proposed Sec.  200.31(e) would allow 
the State to request from the Secretary, on behalf of the LEA, a one-
time, one-year extension for reporting on such required elements 
consistent with the requirements for State report card extensions under 
Sec.  200.31(e)(2). Additionally, proposed Sec.  200.31(f) would 
incorporate by reference the requirements regarding disaggregation of 
data under proposed Sec.  200.30(f).
    Reasons: For the same reasons as the parallel requirements for 
annual State report cards under proposed Sec.  200.30, proposed Sec.  
200.31 would require LEAs to develop a format and process for 
developing and disseminating LEA report cards in a manner that is 
concise, accessible, informative, timely, and understandable. With 
respect to LEA report cards in particular, there is evidence that when 
school quality information, including information about school 
accountability results, is provided to parents, they pay attention and 
respond. This suggests that concise presentation of school quality data 
would increase the likelihood that more parents are knowledgeable about 
the academic achievement of their children and the students in their 
community, and the performance of their child's school, including the 
relative standing of the school compared to LEA-wide and statewide 
performance.\17\
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \17\ Black, S.E. (1999). ``Do better schools matter? Parental 
valuation of elementary education.'' Quarterly Journal of Economics, 
114 (2): 577-99.
    Charbonneau, E., & Van Ryzin, G.G. (2012). ``Performance 
measures and parental satisfaction with New York City Schools.'' 
American Review of Public Administration, 42 (1): 54-65.
    Figlio, D.N. & Lucas, M.E. (2004). ``What's in a grade? School 
report cards and the housing market.'' American Economic Review, 94 
(3): 591-604.
    Hastings, J.S. & Weinstein, J.M. (2008). ``Information, school 
choice, and academic achievement: Evidence from two experiments.'' 
Quarterly Journal of Economics, 123 (4): 1373-414.
    Jacobsen, R. & Saultz, A. (2013). ``Do good grades matter? 
Public accountability data and perceptions of school quality.'' In 
The Infrastructure of Accountability, ed. Anagnostopoulos, D., 
Rutledge, S.A., & Jacobsen, R. Cambridge, MA: Harvard Education 
Press.
    Jacobsen, R., Saultz, A. & Snyder, J.W. (2013). ``When 
accountability strategies collide: Do policy changes that raise 
accountability standards also erode public satisfaction?'' 
Educational Policy, 27 (2): 360-89.
    Koning, P. & Wiel, K.V.D. (2013). ``Ranking the Schools: How 
school-quality information affects school choice in the 
Netherlands.'' Journal of the European Economic Association, 11 (2): 
466-493.
    Nunes, L.C., Reis, A.B., & Seabra, C. (2015). ``The publication 
of school rankings: A step toward increased accountability?'' 
Economics of Education Review, 49 (December): 15-23.
    Rockoff, J.E. & Turner, L.J. (2008). Short run impacts of 
accountability on school quality. Working Paper 14564, National 
Bureau of Economic Research, https://www.nber.org/papers/w14564.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Recognizing the importance of LEA and school information to 
parents, proposed Sec.  200.31(d) includes an additional requirement, 
not included in the State report card requirements under proposed Sec.  
200.30, that would require an LEA to provide the information required 
for the overview section under proposed Sec.  200.31(b)(2) to parents 
of each student enrolled a school served by the LEA directly though 
such means as regular mail or email and in a timely manner consistent 
with proposed Sec.  200.31(e). This proposed requirement is necessary 
to ensure that key information about LEA and school performance reaches 
parents on a timeline such that they have relevant information to work 
effectively with educators and local school officials during the school 
year.

Section 200.32 Description and Results of a State's Accountability 
System

    Statute: Section 1111(h)(1)(C)(i) and section 1111(h)(2)(C) of the 
ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, require State and LEA report cards to 
include a description of the State's accountability system under 
section 1111(c) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, including:
     The minimum number of students that the State determines 
are necessary to be included in each of the subgroups of students, as 
defined in section 1111(c)(2), for use in the accountability system;
     The long-term goals and measurements of interim progress 
for all students and for each of the subgroups of students, as defined 
in section 1111(c)(2);
     The indicators described in section 1111(c)(4)(B) used to 
meaningfully differentiate all public schools in the State;
     The State's system for meaningfully differentiating all 
public schools in the State, including: The specific weight of the 
indicators described in section 1111(c)(4)(B) in such differentiation; 
the methodology by which the State differentiates all such schools; the 
methodology by which the State identifies a school as consistently 
underperforming for any subgroup of students described in section 
1111(c)(4)(C)(iii), including the time period used by the State to 
determine consistent underperformance; and the methodology by which the 
State identifies a school for comprehensive

[[Page 34574]]

support and improvement as required under section 1111(c)(4)(D)(i);
     The number and names of all public schools in the State 
identified by the State for comprehensive support and improvement under 
section 1111(c)(4)(D)(i) or implementing targeted support and 
improvement plans under section 1111(d)(2); and
     The exit criteria established by the State as required 
under section 1111(d)(3)(A)(i) for schools in comprehensive support and 
improvement and for schools requiring additional targeted support, 
including the number of years by which a school requiring additional 
targeted support must meet the exit criteria as established under 
section 1111(d)(3)(A)(i)(II).
    Current Regulations: None.
    Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec.  200.32(a) would restate the 
statutory requirements in section 1111(h)(1)(C)(i) of the ESEA, as 
amended by the ESSA, for describing the State's current accountability 
system on State report cards and clarify that the description must 
include:
     The minimum number of students under proposed Sec.  
200.17;
     The long-term goals and measurements of interim progress 
under proposed Sec.  200.13;
     The indicators under proposed Sec.  200.14 and the State's 
uniform procedure for averaging data across years or combining data 
across grades under proposed Sec.  200.20, if applicable;
     The system of annual meaningful differentiation under 
proposed Sec.  200.18, including the weight of each indicator, how 
participation rates factor into such differentiation consistent with 
proposed Sec.  200.15, and the methodology to differentiate among 
schools using performance levels and summative ratings;
     The methodology used to identify schools with one or more 
consistently underperforming subgroups for targeted support and 
improvement consistent with proposed Sec.  200.19(c);
     The methodology used to identify schools for comprehensive 
support and improvement consistent with proposed Sec.  200.19(a); and
     The exit criteria established by the State under 
Sec. Sec.  200.21(f) and 200.22(f) for schools in comprehensive support 
and improvement and for schools in targeted support and improvement 
with low-performing subgroups consistent with proposed Sec.  
200.19(b)(2), including the number of years by which schools must meet 
the applicable exit criteria.
    Further, proposed Sec.  200.32(b) would clarify that, to the extent 
that a description of the required accountability system elements is 
provided in the State plan or in another location on the SEA's Web 
site, a State or LEA may provide the Web address or URL of, or direct 
link to, the State plan or other location on the SEA's Web site to meet 
the reporting requirements for these accountability system elements. 
The Web site content referred to in such a Web address or link must be 
in a format and language that parents can understand, in compliance 
with the requirements under Sec.  200.21(b)(1)-(3).
    Proposed Sec.  200.32(c) would also require LEA report cards to 
include, for each school served by the LEA, the performance level 
described in proposed Sec.  200.18(b)(3) on each indicator under 
proposed Sec.  200.14, as well as the school's single summative rating 
described in proposed Sec.  200.18(b)(4). In reporting each school's 
performance level on each of the accountability system indicators, an 
LEA would be required to include, if the State accountability system 
includes more than one measure within any indicator, results on all 
such measures individually in addition to the performance level for 
each indicator (which takes into account the school's results on all of 
the measures within the indicator).
    Proposed Sec.  200.32(c) would also require State and LEA report 
cards to include the reason for which the State identified a school for 
comprehensive support and improvement under proposed Sec.  200.19(a) 
(i.e., lowest-performing school, low graduation rates, chronically low-
performing subgroups). In the case that a school is identified for 
comprehensive support with one of more chronically low-performing 
subgroups of students under proposed Sec.  200.19(a)(3), State and LEA 
report cards would be required to include the name of the subgroup or 
subgroups of students that led to such identification. State and LEA 
report cards would also be required to indicate, for each school 
identified for targeted support and improvement under proposed Sec.  
200.19(b), the reason for such identification (i.e., consistently 
underperforming subgroups or low-performing subgroups) and the subgroup 
or subgroups of students that led to such identification.
    Reasons: Proposed Sec.  200.32 is intended to ensure that parents, 
teachers, principals, and other key stakeholders have access to 
complete and transparent information about school performance and 
progress on the State's accountability system. Under the ESEA, as 
amended by the ESSA, States have the opportunity to develop and 
implement accountability systems that take into account multiple 
indicators of school performance and progress, weighting these 
indicators as they choose, within certain guidelines set by the 
statute, in order to annually differentiate among all schools and 
identify certain schools for comprehensive or targeted support and 
improvement. While this allows for States to develop and implement 
accountability systems that reflect their unique State contexts and 
beliefs about how to hold schools accountable for improving student 
achievement and closing gaps, it also necessitates that States and LEAs 
inform parents, teachers, principals, and other key stakeholders about 
the key components of the accountability system and how they work 
together--and the results of such system for each school--to help 
ensure they can understand and meaningfully contribute to school 
improvement efforts.
    The statute requires each State and LEA report card to describe 
certain elements of the accountability system, and proposed Sec.  
200.32(a) clarifies these elements in order to ensure they reflect the 
proposed regulations in Sec. Sec.  200.13 through 200.24 and provide 
the public with a complete picture of how each required element works 
together in a coherent system of accountability, including the State's: 
Minimum n-size; long-term goals and measurements of interim progress; 
indicators and procedures for averaging data across years or grades; 
system for annual meaningful differentiation, including the weighting 
of each indicator and role of participation rates; methodology to 
identify schools for comprehensive or targeted support and improvement; 
and exit criteria for identified schools.
    Proposed Sec.  200.32(b) also would permit the State or LEA report 
card to link to the State plan or another location on the SEA's Web 
site for certain elements of the accountability system description. The 
Department recognizes that repeating this information on the report 
card may be burdensome and may also undermine the design of a concise 
report card. We also recognize that a detailed description of some of 
the accountability system elements may not add significantly to 
parents' or other stakeholders' understanding. For these reasons, we 
believe it is appropriate to allow the State or LEA to provide a Web 
address for, or direct link to, the State plan or another location on 
the SEA's Web site for detailed information on the accountability 
system description required under 1111(h)(1)(C)(i) (e.g., the minimum 
number of students under proposed Sec.  200.17). We encourage States in 
developing report cards to consider

[[Page 34575]]

the amount of information needed to help parents and other stakeholders 
engage in and understand the State accountability system. For example, 
States may wish to indicate the minimum subgroup size on the report 
card because such information likely facilitates understanding of how 
school performance is measured, and then provide more detailed 
information on how the minimum subgroup size was determined in the 
State plan or another location on the SEA's Web site.
    In addition to a description of the accountability system, proposed 
Sec.  200.32(c) would require school-level accountability results to 
also be included on report cards. Because of the potential complexity 
of multi-indicator State accountability systems under the ESEA, as 
amended by the ESSA, information on a school's performance level on 
each of the individual indicators is critical for parents and 
stakeholders to understand school performance across multiple 
dimensions of success and the relationship of the performance on each 
indicator to how a school is ultimately identified in the State's 
accountability system. Further, knowing a school's single summative 
rating will be important for conveying a school's performance overall, 
in a way that reflects performance across the individual indicators. 
For these reasons, proposed Sec.  200.32(c) would require each LEA 
report card to include each school's performance level on every 
indicator, as well as the summative rating.
    In addition to reporting on the performance levels, proposed Sec.  
200.32(c) would require that State and LEA report cards include, along 
with the number and names of all schools identified for comprehensive 
or targeted support and improvement as required by statute, the 
particular reason for such identification, including, as applicable, 
any subgroup of students whose performance contributed to such 
identification. This information would help parents and the public 
better understand the quality of public schools in their communities 
and bolster the efforts of schools, districts, and States to target 
support, resources, and technical assistance to address specific needs 
of students and schools.

Section 200.33 Calculations for Reporting on Student Achievement and 
Meeting Measurements of Interim Progress

    Statute: Section 1111(h)(1)(C)(ii) of the ESEA, as amended by the 
ESSA, requires State and LEA report cards to include information on 
student achievement on the academic assessments in reading/language 
arts, mathematics, and science described in section 1111(b)(2) at each 
level of achievement (as determined by the State under section 
1111(b)(1)) for all students and disaggregated by each subgroup of 
students described in section 1111(b)(2)(B)(xi), homeless status, 
status as child in foster care, and status as a student with a parent 
who is a member of the Armed Forces (as defined in 10 U.S.C. 101(a)(4)) 
on active duty (as defined in 10 U.S.C. 101(d)(5)) Further, section 
1111(h)(2)(C) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, requires LEA report 
cards to include, for the LEA as a whole, information that shows the 
achievement on the academic assessments described in section 1111(b)(2) 
of students served by the LEA compared to students in the State as a 
whole and, for each school served by the LEA, corresponding information 
for the school's students compared to students served by the LEA and 
the State as a whole. Section 1111(h)(1)(C)(vi) of the ESEA, as amended 
by the ESSA, requires State and LEA report cards to include information 
on the progress of all students and each subgroup of students, as 
defined in section 1111(c)(2), toward meeting the State-designed long-
term goals for academic achievement in reading/language arts and 
mathematics under section 1111(c)(4)(A), including the progress of all 
students and each subgroup of students against the State's measurements 
of interim progress established under such section. Section 
1111(h)(1)(C)(vii) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, requires State 
and LEA report cards to include, for all students and disaggregated by 
each subgroup of students described in section 1111(b)(2)(B)(xi), the 
percentage of students assessed and not assessed.
    Current Regulations: None.
    Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec.  200.33(a) would require State 
and LEA report cards to include the percentages of students performing 
at each level of achievement on the State's academic achievement 
standards, by grade, for all students and disaggregated for each 
subgroup of students, on the reading/language arts, mathematics, and 
science assessments described in section 1111(b)(2), using the 
following two calculation methods: (1) The method used in the State 
accountability system, as described in proposed Sec.  200.15(b)(1), in 
which the denominator includes the greater of--
     95 percent of all students and 95 percent of each subgroup 
of students who are enrolled in the school, LEA, or State, 
respectively; or
     the number of such students participating in these 
assessments;

and (2) a method in which the denominator includes all students with a 
valid test score. Proposed Sec.  200.33(b) would also clarify the 
calculation method used for the statutory requirement that State and 
LEA report cards include an indication of whether all students and each 
subgroup of students described in proposed Sec.  200.16(a)(2) met or 
did not meet the State's measurements of interim progress for academic 
achievement under proposed Sec.  200.13(a). Under proposed Sec.  
200.33(b), the determination of whether all students and each subgroup 
of students met or did not meet these State measurements of interim 
progress (based on the percentage of students meeting or exceeding the 
State's proficient level of achievement) would be calculated using the 
method in proposed Sec.  200.15(b)(1), in which the denominator 
includes the greater of--
     95 percent of all students and 95 percent of each subgroup 
of students who are enrolled in the school, LEA, or State, 
respectively; or
     the number of all such students participating in these 
assessments.
    Finally, proposed Sec.  200.33(c) would clarify that, to meet the 
requirements under section 1111(h)(1)(C)(vii), State and LEA report 
cards would include information on the percentage of all students and 
each subgroup of students assessed and not assessed in reading/language 
arts, mathematics, and science based on a calculation method in which 
the denominator includes all students enrolled in the school, LEA, or 
State, respectively.
    Reasons: Proposed Sec.  200.33(a) is intended to ensure that 
parents, teachers, principals, and other key stakeholders have access 
to information about student academic achievement in schools, LEAs, and 
the State as a whole based on two calculation methods: (1) One 
consistent with the method of calculating student academic achievement 
for accountability purposes; and (2) one that reflects student 
achievement based only on students with a valid test score. Together, 
these two different methods would provide a more nuanced picture of 
school, LEA, and State performance on the assessments required under 
the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. In addition, these two different 
methods would ensure consistency between information that is publicly 
reported on State and LEA report cards and information that is 
considered by the State in making school accountability

[[Page 34576]]

determinations. Similarly, proposed Sec.  200.33(b) would require the 
same method for determining whether or not all students and each 
student subgroup met or did not meet the State's measurements of 
interim progress for academic achievement as is used for measuring 
performance on the Academic Achievement indicator for accountability 
purposes (see proposed Sec.  200.15(b)(1)), which will help create 
stronger alignment between the measurements of interim progress and 
long-term goals and the indicators that are based on those goals. 
Finally, in order for parents and the public to fully understand the 
numerous pieces of information on academic achievement reported on 
State and LEA report cards, the percentage of students assessed and not 
assessed must be clear. With accurate information on the percentage of 
students assessed in the school, LEA, and State as a whole, for all 
students and each subgroup of students, the public will be more likely 
to draw appropriate conclusions about the performance of schools, LEAs, 
and the State. Thus, proposed Sec.  200.33(c) ensures such accuracy.

Sec.  200.34 High School Graduation Rate

    Statute: Section 1111(h)(1)(C)(iii)(II) of the ESEA, as amended by 
the ESSA, requires a State and its LEAs to report four-year adjusted 
cohort graduation rates and, at the State's discretion, extended-year 
adjusted cohort graduation rates on State and LEA report cards. The 
adjusted cohort graduation rates must be reported in the aggregate for 
all students and disaggregated by subgroup at the school, LEA, and 
State levels.
    Section 8101(23) and (25) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, 
requires the State to use a specific definition and process for the 
calculation of the adjusted cohort graduation rate. This section 
specifies that the denominator must consist of students who form the 
original grade 9 cohort, adjusted by adding students into the cohort 
who join later and subtracting students who leave the cohort. The 
section further specifies that the numerator must consist of (1) 
students who earn a regular high school diploma within four years (or 
one or more additional years for any extended-year cohort), and (2) 
students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who are 
assessed using the alternate assessment aligned to alternate academic 
achievement standards and earn an alternate diploma defined by the 
State. This section specifies that the alternate diploma must be 
standards-based, aligned with State requirements for the regular high 
school diploma, and obtained within the time period for which the State 
ensures the availability of a free appropriate public education (FAPE) 
under section 612(a)(1) of the IDEA.
    Section 8101(23) and (25) requires that the State obtain 
documentation to remove a student from the cohort, and specifies that a 
student can be removed from the cohort only if the student transfers 
out, emigrates to another country, transfers to a juvenile justice 
facility or prison, or is deceased. Further, this section requires that 
a student can be transferred out only if the student transfers to 
another school from which the student is expected to receive a regular 
high school diploma or to another educational program from which the 
student is expected to receive a regular high school diploma or 
alternate diploma that meets the statutory requirements. If there is no 
documentation for a student transferring out of the cohort, or if the 
student participates in a program that does not issue or provide credit 
toward diploma types that meet the requirements of this section, such a 
student must remain in the cohort.
    Section 8101(23) and (25) outlines special rules for high schools 
starting after grade 9. It also includes special rules for small 
schools, which apply to section 1111(c)(4) and are not applicable to 
report card requirements under section 1111(h).
    Finally, section 1111(c)(4)(F) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, 
describes how States and LEAs must include students in the adjusted 
cohort graduation rate cohort if they have attended a school for less 
than half of the academic year and leave the school without earning a 
regular high school diploma, or alternate diploma for students with the 
most significant cognitive disabilities, and without transferring to a 
high school that grants such a diploma. The section allows the State to 
decide whether to include such a student in the adjusted cohort for the 
school where the student was enrolled for the greatest proportion of 
school days while enrolled in grades 9 through 12, or the school in 
which the student was most recently enrolled.
    Current Regulations: Section 200.19(b)(1) of the title I 
regulations describes how to calculate an adjusted cohort graduation 
rate. This section defines the phrase ``adjusted cohort'' and describes 
the conditions under which students may be transferred into and out of 
the cohort, including how transfers must be documented and who cannot 
be removed from the cohort. It also defines ``students graduating in 
four years'' and ``regular high school diploma.'' In addition, Sec.  
200.19(b)(1) allows States to propose to the Secretary one or more 
extended-year graduation rates.
    Section 200.19(b)(2) allows States to use a transitional graduation 
rate prior to implementation of the adjusted cohort graduation rate. 
When calculating the transitional graduation rate, Sec.  200.19 
requires States to define ``regular high school diploma'' and 
``standard number of years'' in the same manner they are defined for 
the purpose of calculating an adjusted cohort graduation rate, and does 
not allow dropouts to be included as transfers. Section 200.19(b)(3) 
requires States to set a single graduation rate goal and annual targets 
for all students and for each subgroup of students that reflect 
continuous and substantial improvement toward meeting or exceeding the 
goal. It further requires States to meet or exceed the graduation rate 
goal or target in order to meet AYP.
    Section 200.19(b)(4) requires a State and its LEAs to report the 
four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate on annual report cards at the 
school, LEA, and State levels, in the aggregate and disaggregated by 
each subgroup of students. It also requires a State and its LEAs to 
report separately an extended-year graduation rate, if the State has 
adopted such a rate, beginning with the first year that the State 
calculates such a rate. Prior to the year in which the State implements 
the adjusted cohort graduation rate, this section requires the State to 
use its transitional rate.
    Section 200.19(b)(5) describes the timelines for using the adjusted 
cohort graduation rate for AYP determinations, and the requirements for 
including graduation rates in making AYP determinations prior to the 
use of the adjusted cohort graduation rate. Section 200.19(b)(6) 
requires the State to update its Accountability Workbook with:
     Information about the State's transitional graduation rate 
and plan to transition to the adjusted cohort graduation rate;
     The State's goals and targets and the rationale for how 
they were established;
     Percentiles of its most recent graduation rates; and
     An explanation of how the State chooses to use its 
extended-year graduation rate (if applicable).
    Section 200.19(b)(7) allows the State to request an extension from 
the Secretary if it cannot meet the requirements of the section and can 
submit satisfactory evidence demonstrating why it cannot meet the 
requirements.

[[Page 34577]]

    Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec.  200.34 would revise and 
replace current regulations to align the regulations with the statutory 
requirements in sections 8101(23) and (25) and would clarify statutory 
requirements in section 1111(c)(4)(F) of the ESEA, as amended by the 
ESSA. In addition, proposed Sec.  200.34(a) would clarify that, for 
high schools that start after grade 9, States must calculate and report 
a four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate based on a time period 
shorter than four years. Proposed Sec.  200.34(b) would provide greater 
specificity as to when States can adjust the cohort by requiring that 
States remove students who transfer to a prison or juvenile facility 
from the denominator of the cohort only if such facility provides an 
educational program that culminates in a regular high school diploma or 
State-defined alternate diploma. Proposed Sec.  200.34(c) would clarify 
that the term ``regular high school diploma'' does not include diplomas 
based solely on meeting individualized education program (IEP) goals 
that are not fully aligned with the State's grade-level academic 
content standards. Additionally, it would clarify that the definition 
of a student with significant cognitive disabilities is the same as 
defined in the proposed requirement in Sec.  200.6(d)(1) that was 
subject to negotiated rulemaking under the ESSA and on which the 
negotiated rulemaking committee reached consensus. Additionally, 
proposed Sec.  200.34(d) would limit the length of an extended-year 
adjusted cohort graduation rate to seven years. Proposed Sec.  
200.34(e) would require States to report four-year adjusted cohort 
graduation rates and, if adopted by the State, extended year graduation 
rates on time (i.e., States would be prohibited from delaying the 
reporting of adjusted cohort graduation rates beyond the immediately 
following school year). It would further specify that States that offer 
State-defined alternative diplomas for students with the most 
significant cognitive disabilities within the time period that the 
State ensures the availability of a FAPE cannot delay reporting of the 
four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate and, if adopted by the State, 
extended year graduation rates. Instead, a State would be required to 
report on-time adjusted cohort graduation rates, and then annually 
update their adjusted cohort graduation rates for prior school years to 
include all qualifying students in the numerator. Finally, proposed 
Sec.  200.34(f) would clarify statutory requirements in section 
1111(c)(4)(F) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA with respect to 
reporting on the adjusted cohort graduation rate for students partially 
enrolled within a school year. It would specify that States can use 
either approach allowed by that section but must use the same approach 
across all LEAs.
    Reasons: The current adjusted cohort graduation rate regulations in 
Sec.  200.19(b) require a uniform and accurate measure of student 
graduation in order to hold schools, LEAs, and States accountable for 
increasing the number of students who graduate on time with a regular 
high school diploma and to provide accurate, consistent information to 
the public about the percentage of students graduating on time. 
Proposed Sec.  200.34 would preserve existing regulatory language in 
order to reinforce the important progress made through the current 
regulations to make graduation rates a consistent and comparable 
measure of student success. Further, it would revise the current 
regulations to incorporate new statutory graduation rate requirements, 
including providing States a pathway to recognize graduation outcomes 
for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities.
    Proposed Sec.  200.34(a) would clarify statutory language to ensure 
that the adjusted cohort graduation rate is calculated as intended 
(i.e., that high schools starting after grade 9 would have a graduate 
rate representing a time period that is shorter than 4 year), and would 
clarify that the State would calculate a rate based on the standard 
number of years for that particular school. By clarifying statutory 
language regarding when States may remove students from the cohort if 
they transfer to a prison or juvenile detention facility by specifying 
that such students should be treated in the same way as any other 
transfer, proposed Sec.  200.34(b) would help ensure that this high-
risk population of students would not disappear from a graduation 
cohort so that either the school or facility remains accountable for 
the students' graduation outcome. In clarifying the meaning of the term 
``regular high school diploma,'' proposed Sec.  200.34(c) would exclude 
diplomas based solely on meeting IEP goals that are not fully aligned 
with the State's grade-level academic content standards. This reflects 
the definition of a ``regular high school diploma'' in section 8101(43) 
of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, which states that a regular high 
school diploma does not include a recognized equivalent of a diploma, 
such as a general equivalency diploma, certificate of completion, 
certificate of attendance, or similar lesser credential. Because IEPs 
goals are designed to meet the educational needs that result from a 
child's disability, a diploma based solely on meeting IEP goals that 
are not fully aligned with the State's grade-level academic content 
standards, is a ``lesser credential'' and is not equivalent to a 
regular high school diploma. Under ESSA, an alternate diploma must be 
standards-based and aligned with the State requirements for a regular 
high school diploma; therefore, the alternate diploma may not be based 
solely on meeting IEP goals that are not fully aligned with the State's 
grade-level academic content standards. The Department has not yet 
identified a State with an alternate diploma that meets the 
requirements in proposed Sec.  200.34(c) that such diploma is fully 
aligned to the ESSA requirements for an alternate diploma for students 
with the most significant cognitive disabilities. The Department will 
work to assist States in developing alternate diploma requirements 
consistent with the definition in ESSA to ensure these students are 
held to high standards. Further, proposed Sec.  200.34(d) would cap the 
extended-year rate calculation at seven years, because such a time 
period is consistent with the time period during which a State may 
ensure the availability of FAPE and is the longest extended-year rate 
that the Department has approved under the current regulations.
    Additionally, proposed Sec.  200.34(e) would ensure that families 
and other stakeholders have timely access to comparable adjusted cohort 
graduation rate information by requiring on-time reporting of four-year 
adjusted cohort graduation rates and, if adopted by the State, 
extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rates and specifying that 
States cannot lag reporting of graduation rates for report card 
purposes; they must provide the data for the immediately preceding 
school year. Proposed Sec.  200.34(e) would also clarify reporting 
requirements related to the new statutory language allowing States to 
include students with the most significant cognitive disabilities that 
earn an alternate diploma within the time period in which a State 
ensures the availability of a FAPE. Proposed Sec.  200.34 would not 
allow States to delay reporting until after the time period in which 
the State ensures the availability of a FAPE has ended. States would be 
required to report on all students in a timely manner, but could 
annually update their report cards to reflect students with the most 
significant cognitive disabilities graduating within the time period 
during which the State ensures the availability of a FAPE. This

[[Page 34578]]

would ensure that States and LEAs will be basing decisions on the most 
recent data available and, as a result, that parents and other 
stakeholders have access to timely information on critical outcomes. In 
subsequent years, it also would allow a State and its LEAs to reflect 
graduation outcomes for students with the most significant cognitive 
disabilities who take longer to graduate by updating their graduation 
rates to additionally include those that graduated with an alternate 
diploma within the time period in which a State ensures the 
availability of a FAPE. Proposed Sec.  200.34(e) would also maintain 
language from the current regulations requiring that States adopting 
extended-year graduation rates report them separately from their four-
year rates to maintain transparent reporting on students who graduate 
from high school on time. Proposed Sec.  200.34(f) would clarify the 
language related to partial enrollment to ensure that regardless of the 
approach used by the State, the information on the adjusted cohort 
graduation rate is comparable across districts.
    Taken together, the requirements in proposed Sec.  200.34 would 
generally promote increased consistency in graduation rate reporting 
and support States in implementing new statutory requirements related 
to reporting accurate and timely graduation rates. However, a number of 
commenters responding to the RFI expressed concern that States use 
different criteria for including students in certain subgroups when 
calculating the adjusted cohort graduation rate for inclusion on their 
State and LEA report cards. Accordingly, we are seeking comment on 
whether to regulate to standardize the criteria for including children 
with disabilities, English learners, children who are homeless, and 
children who are in foster care in their corresponding subgroups within 
the adjusted cohort graduation rate. For example, should a student's 
membership in the subgroup be determined only at the time when the 
student is enrolled in the cohort or should a student be included in 
the subgroup if the student is identified as a child with disabilities, 
English learner, homeless child, or child who is in foster care at any 
time during the cohort period? Should the criteria be standardized 
across subgroups, or should different criteria apply to different 
subgroups?

Section 200.35 Per-Pupil Expenditures

    Statute: Section 1111(h)(1)(C)(x) and section 1111(h)(2)(C) of the 
ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, require a State and its LEAs to annually 
report on the State and LEA report cards the per-pupil expenditures of 
Federal, State, and local funds, including actual personnel 
expenditures and actual nonpersonnel expenditures of Federal, State, 
and local funds, disaggregated by source of funds, for each LEA and 
each school in the State for the preceding fiscal year.
    Current Regulations: None.
    Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec.  200.35 would implement the 
statutory provisions requiring a State and its LEAs to annually report 
per-pupil expenditures of Federal, State, and local funds on State and 
LEA report cards, disaggregated by source of funds. It would make clear 
that these provisions require States to develop a single, statewide 
procedure that LEAs must use to calculate and report LEA-level per-
pupil expenditures of Federal, State, and local funds, and a separate 
single, statewide procedure that LEAs must use to calculate and report 
school-level per-pupil expenditures of Federal, State, and local funds. 
A State and its LEAs would also be required to provide on State and LEA 
report cards the Web address or URL of, or direct link to, a 
description of the uniform procedure for calculating per-pupil 
expenditures.
    Proposed Sec.  200.35 would also establish minimum requirements for 
the State and LEA per-pupil expenditure uniform procedure. 
Specifically, in calculating per-pupil expenditures, a State and its 
LEAs would be required to use current expenditures, include or exclude 
in the numerator certain types of expenditures consistent with existing 
Federal expenditure reporting requirements, and use an October 1 
student membership count as the denominator. In addition, a State and 
its LEAs would be required to report per-pupil expenditures in total 
(i.e., including all Federal, State, and local funds) and disaggregated 
by (1) Federal funds, and (2) State and local funds. For disaggregation 
purposes, proposed Sec.  200.35 would require that title VII (Impact 
Aid) funds be included with State and local funds, rather than Federal 
funds. Lastly, proposed Sec.  200.35 would also require a State and its 
LEAs to separately report the current LEA per-pupil expenditures not 
allocated to public schools in the State.
    Reasons: Proposed Sec.  200.35 is intended to clarify the statutory 
reporting requirements for per-pupil expenditures and help facilitate 
State and LEA compliance. Proposed Sec.  200.35 would require the 
development of a single statewide approach for reporting LEA per-pupil 
expenditures and a single statewide approach for reporting per-pupil 
expenditure for schools, consistent with existing Federal expenditure 
reporting requirements. Developing such an approach would be economical 
for a State and its LEAs because it aligns with existing Federal 
expenditure reporting requirements, allowing for more efficient 
administration of new collection and reporting processes. Moreover, a 
statewide approach for calculating per-pupil expenditures increases 
public awareness and accountability for any funding disparities at the 
school level, because it allows for accurate comparisons of resource 
allocations across and within LEAs, increasing transparency around 
State and local budget decisions.
    In addition, the proposed requirement to include title VII (Impact 
Aid) funds as State and local funds, rather than Federal funds, in 
disaggregated reporting is appropriate because these funds compensate 
LEAs for the fiscal impact of Federal activities by partially replacing 
revenues that LEAs do not receive due to the exemption of Federal 
property from local property taxes.
    Overall, proposed Sec.  200.35 would increase the likelihood that 
LEAs within a State will publicly report expenditure data in a manner 
that is informative, accurate, comparable, and timely. It would also 
ensure States and LEAs are able to accurately assess resource 
inequities, as described in proposed Sec. Sec.  200.21, 200.22, and 
200.23, and would provide the public with information needed to analyze 
differences in school spending so they are able to, if necessary, 
demand a more equitable approach to school spending. In addition, by 
requiring States and LEAs to report expenditure data for the preceding 
fiscal year no later than December 31, consistent with proposed 
Sec. Sec.  200.30(e) and 200.31(e), stakeholder awareness of LEA budget 
decisions from the preceding fiscal year would increase, allowing for 
more informed budgetary decisions in the subsequent fiscal year.

Section 200.36 Postsecondary Enrollment

    Statute: Section 1111(h)(1)(C)(xiii) of the ESEA, as amended by the 
ESSA, requires a State and its LEAs to report, where available and 
beginning with the report card prepared for 2017, rates of enrollment 
of high school graduates in the academic year immediately following 
graduation in programs of public postsecondary education in the State 
and, if data are available and to the extent practicable, in programs 
of private postsecondary education in the State or programs of 
postsecondary education outside the State. The

[[Page 34579]]

postsecondary enrollment cohort rate must be reported in the aggregate 
and disaggregated by each subgroup under section 1111(c)(2) of the 
ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, for each high school in the State for the 
immediately preceding school year.
    Current Regulations: None.
    Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec.  200.36 would restate the 
statutory requirement that State and LEA report cards include 
information at the State, LEA, and school level about which students 
graduate from high school and enroll in programs of postsecondary 
education in the academic year immediately following the students' high 
school graduation. Proposed Sec.  200.36 would specify that the term 
``program of postsecondary education'' has the same meaning as the term 
``institution of higher education'' under section 101(a) of the Higher 
Education Act of 1965, as amended (HEA). It also would specify, for the 
purpose of calculating the postsecondary enrollment cohort rate, that a 
State and its LEAs must use as the denominator the number of students 
who in the immediately preceding year graduated with a regular high 
school diploma or State-defined alternate diploma, as those terms are 
defined under proposed Sec.  200.34. Consistent with the statutory 
requirement, proposed Sec.  200.36 would require States and LEAs to 
report postsecondary enrollment information where the information is 
available for programs of public postsecondary education in the State, 
and if available and to the extent practicable, for programs of private 
postsecondary education in the State or programs of postsecondary 
education outside the State. It would specify that such information is 
available if the State is obtaining the information, or if it is 
obtainable, on a routine basis. In addition, States and LEAs that 
cannot meet the reporting requirement under proposed Sec.  200.36 would 
be required to publish on their report cards the school year in which 
they expect to be able to report postsecondary enrollment information.
    Reasons: Proposed Sec.  200.36 would restate the requirements under 
the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, with respect to reporting of 
postsecondary enrollment cohort rates. This would reinforce the 
emphasis on college and career readiness in the ESEA, as amended by the 
ESSA, by providing parents and other stakeholders with timely and 
comparable information about the ability of high schools to prepare 
students to enroll in postsecondary institutions.
    By requiring States to define programs of postsecondary education 
using the definition in section 101(a) of the HEA, proposed Sec.  
200.36 would promote consistency in data reporting, which would allow 
users to compare outcomes across States, LEAs, and schools. Proposed 
Sec.  200.36 would also help advance the Department's goals of raising 
awareness about the differences across States and LEAs in rates of 
enrollment in programs that are offered by accredited two-and four-year 
institutions by increasing the transparency of postsecondary outcomes.
    Proposed Sec.  200.36 would also clarify that the ESEA, as amended 
by the ESSA, requires that, in calculating a postsecondary education 
enrollment rate, the numerator include students who enroll in 
postsecondary education in the academic year immediately following 
their high school graduation, instead of within 16 months after 
receiving a high school diploma, as was the reporting requirement under 
the State Fiscal Stabilization Fund, a program authorized under the 
American Recovery and Reinvestment Act of 2009. Proposed Sec.  200.36 
would also require that the denominator include only students receiving 
a regular high school diploma or an alternate diploma (consistent with 
proposed Sec.  200.34) in the immediately preceding school year. This 
is the easiest population for States to track, as it would already be a 
defined group for reporting on graduation rates. It is also the 
population of students for which high schools in the State are directly 
accountable in a given year. As such, outcomes for that student 
population are the most representative of how successfully public high 
schools have prepared them for postsecondary programs. Finally, by 
requiring a State to report information if it is routinely obtaining 
such information or if the information is obtainable to the State on a 
routine basis, we seek to ensure that as many States as possible make 
postsecondary education enrollment information publicly available. 
According to information from the Data Quality Campaign, 47 States can 
currently produce high school feedback reports, which are reports that 
provide information on a class of high school graduates and their 
postsecondary outcomes.\18\ This indicates that most States will be 
able to meet the requirement to track postsecondary outcomes for some, 
if not all, students in a graduating class. States that could not meet 
the reporting requirement would be required to include on their report 
card the date by when they expect to be able to report the information. 
By requiring States unable to report the information to acknowledge 
this limitation publicly, proposed Sec.  200.36 would encourage those 
States that are not currently able to meet the requirements under this 
proposed section to alter their reporting processes so they can obtain 
and make available this information.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \18\ ``State by State Analysis of High School Feedback 
Reports.'' Data Quality Campaign. 2013. https://dataqualitycampaign.org/find-resources/state-by-state-analysis-of-high-school-feedback-reports/.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Section 200.37 Educator Qualifications

    Statute: Section 1111(h)(1)(C)(ix) of the ESEA, as amended by the 
ESSA, requires State and LEA report cards to include the professional 
qualifications of teachers, including information on the number and 
percentage of: (1) Inexperienced teachers, principals, and other school 
leaders; (2) teachers teaching with emergency or provisional 
credentials; and (3) teachers who are not teaching in the subject or 
field for which the teacher is certified or licensed. This section 
requires that the information be presented in the aggregate and 
disaggregated by high-poverty compared to low-poverty schools.
    Current Regulations: None.
    Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec.  200.37 would implement 
statutory requirements for reporting on educator qualifications in 
State and LEA report cards. In addition, proposed Sec.  200.37 would 
require States to adopt a uniform statewide definition of the term 
``inexperienced'' and the phrase ``not teaching in the subject or field 
for which the teacher is certified or licensed.'' Proposed Sec.  200.37 
would also define ``high poverty school'' as a school in the top 
quartile of poverty in the State and ``low poverty school'' as a school 
in the bottom quartile of poverty in the State.
    Reasons: Proposed Sec.  200.37 is intended to ensure consistency 
and comparability within States with respect to reporting on the 
professional qualifications of teachers, principals, and other school 
leaders, both overall and disaggregated by high- and low-poverty 
schools. Because this information is disaggregated by high-poverty 
compared to low-poverty schools, it will be a key indicator of 
equitable access to non-novice, qualified teachers and school leaders 
in schools across the State. Ensuring that these terms have consistent 
meaning when reported will increase understanding of staffing needs in 
high-poverty and difficult-to-staff schools and will encourage States 
to target efforts to

[[Page 34580]]

recruit, support, and retain excellent educators in these schools. To 
promote consistency, the Department has also proposed that a State use 
the same definitions of ``inexperienced'' and ``not teaching in the 
subject or field for which the teacher is certified or licensed'' that 
it adopts for reporting purposes to meet the proposed State plan 
requirements for educator equity in 299.18(c).

Section 299.13 Overview of State Plan Requirements

    Statute: In order to receive Federal funding, the ESEA, as amended 
by the ESSA, requires each State to submit plans or applications for 
the following formula grant programs: Part A of title I (Improving 
Basic Programs Operated by LEAs); part C of title I (Education of 
Migratory Children); part D of title I (Prevention and Intervention 
Programs for Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-
Risk); part A of title II (Supporting Effective Instruction); part A of 
title III (English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and 
Academic Advisement Act); part A of title IV (Student Support and 
Academic Enrichment Grants); part B of title IV (21st Century Community 
Learning Centers); and subpart 2 of part B of title V (Rural and Low-
Income School program). Section 8302 of the ESEA, as amended by the 
ESSA, permits each SEA, in consultation with the Governor, to apply for 
program funds through the submission of a consolidated State plan or a 
consolidated State application.
    Current Regulations: On May 22, 2002, the Department published in 
the Federal Register a notice of final requirements (2002 NFR) (67 FR 
35967), announcing the final requirements for optional consolidated 
State applications submitted under section 9302 of the ESEA, as amended 
by NCLB. The 2002 NFR specified that States could elect to submit 
individual program State plans or a consolidated State application and 
outlined the process for submitting a consolidated State application. 
The 2002 NFR also described the public participation requirements for 
submitting a consolidated State application, the documentation 
requirements for demonstrating compliance with program requirements, 
and the authority for LEAs to receive funding by submitting a 
consolidated local plan to the SEA.
    Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec.  299.13 would outline the 
general requirements for State plans authorized under the ESEA, as 
amended by the ESSA. The requirements in proposed Sec.  299.13 would 
apply whether a State submits a consolidated State plan under proposed 
Sec.  299.14 or an individual program State plan consistent with Sec.  
299.13. The proposed regulations would create new procedural 
requirements for submitting and revising a State plan, including 
proposed deadlines for submission and proposed consultation 
requirements. The proposed regulations would also codify and update the 
requirements in the 2002 NFR for optional State consolidated 
applications submitted under section 9302 of the ESEA, as amended by 
NCLB, in order to align with the final requirements in the ESEA, as 
amended by the ESSA.
    Proposed Sec.  299.13(b) would require SEAs to engage in timely and 
meaningful consultation, including notification and outreach 
requirements, with required stakeholders in the development of a 
consolidated State plan or individual program State plans. 
Specifically, proposed Sec.  299.13(b) would require SEAs to engage 
stakeholders during the design and development of the State plan, 
following the completion of the State plan, and prior to the submission 
of any revisions or amendments to the State plan. Additionally, 
proposed Sec.  299.13(b) would require an SEA to meet the requirements 
of section 8540 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, regarding 
consultation with the Governor during the development of a consolidated 
State plan or individual title I or title II State plan and prior to 
submitting that State plan to the Secretary.
    Proposed Sec.  299.13(c) would describe the assurances all SEAs 
would submit to the Secretary in order to receive Federal funds whether 
submitting an individual program State plan or a consolidated State 
plan. In addition to the assurances required in section 8304 of the 
ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, proposed Sec.  299.13(c) would specify 
that the SEA would need to meet new assurances that address the 
requirements in title I, part A regarding partial school enrollment 
consistent with proposed Sec.  200.34(f) and transportation of children 
in foster care to their school of origin under section 1112(c)(5)(B); 
part A of title III regarding English learners; and subpart 2 of part b 
of title V regarding the Rural and Low-Income School Program.
    Proposed Sec.  299.13(d) would specify the process for submitting a 
consolidated State plan or an individual program State plan including 
the specific timelines for submission and requirements for periodic 
review of State plans that SEAs must follow. Proposed Sec.  
299.13(d)(2)(i) would clarify that the Secretary has the authority to 
establish a deadline for submission of a consolidated State plan or 
individual program State plan. Proposed Sec.  299.13(d)(2)(ii) would 
clarify that an SEA's consolidated State plan or individual program 
State plan would be considered to be received by the Secretary for the 
purpose of making a determination under sections 1111(a)(4)(A)(v) or 
8451 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, on the deadline date 
established by the Secretary if it addresses all of the requirements in 
Sec.  299.14 or all statutory and regulatory application requirements. 
Proposed Sec.  299.13(d)(2)(iii) would require each SEA to submit 
either a consolidated State plan or an individual program State plan 
for all of the programs in proposed Sec.  299.13(i) in a single 
submission. Proposed Sec.  299.13(d)(3) would allow an SEA to request a 
two-year extension if it is unable to calculate and report the educator 
equity data outlined in proposed Sec.  299.18(c)(3), which requires 
student-level data to be used in calculating disparities in access to 
certain types of teachers for students from low-income families and 
minority students, at the time it submits its initial consolidated 
State plan or title I, part A individual program State plan for 
approval.
    Proposed Sec.  299.13(e) would provide an SEA the opportunity to 
revise its initial consolidated State plan or its individual program 
State plan in response to a preliminary written determination by the 
Secretary. While the SEA revises its plan, the period for Secretarial 
review under sections 1111(a)(4)(A)(v) or 8451 of the ESEA, as amended 
by the ESSA, would be suspended. If an SEA failed to submit revisions 
to its plan within 45 days of receipt of the preliminary written 
determination, proposed Sec.  299.13(e) clarifies that the Secretary 
would be able to issue a final written determination under sections 
1111(a)(4)(A)(v) or 8451 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA.
    Proposed Sec.  299.13(f) would require each SEA to publish its 
approved consolidated State plan or its individual program State plans 
on the SEA's Web site. Proposed Sec.  299.13(g) would require an SEA 
that makes a significant change to its State plan to submit an 
amendment to the Secretary for review and approval after engaging in 
timely and meaningful consultation as defined in proposed Sec.  
299.13(b). Proposed Sec.  299.13(h) would also require each SEA to 
periodically review and revise its consolidated State plan or 
individual program State plans, at a minimum, every four years after 
engaging in timely and meaningful consultation. Each State

[[Page 34581]]

would submit its State plan revisions to the Department.
    In addition to the programs that may be included in a consolidated 
State plan under section 8002(11) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, 
proposed Sec.  299.13(j) would include two additional programs 
consistent with the Secretary's authority in section 8302 of the ESEA, 
as amended by the ESSA: Section 1201 of title I, part B (Grants for 
State Assessments and Related Activities) and the Education for 
Homeless Children and Youths program under subtitle B of title VII of 
the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act (McKinney-Vento).
    Proposed Sec.  299.13(k) would describe the requirements an SEA 
would have to meet if it chose to submit individual program State plans 
for one or more of the programs listed in proposed Sec.  299.13(j) 
instead of including the program in a consolidated State plan. In doing 
so, an SEA would address all individual State plan or application 
requirements established in the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA for the 
individual programs not included in its consolidated State plan, 
including all required assurances and any applicable regulations. 
Additionally, the proposed regulations would require SEAs submitting 
individual program State plans to meet requirements described as part 
of the consolidated State plan in three places: (1) Proposed Sec.  
299.18(c) regarding educator equity when addressing section 
1111(g)(1)(B) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA; (2) proposed Sec.  
299.19(c)(1) regarding the SEA's process and criteria for approving 
waivers of the 40-percent poverty threshold to operate schoolwide 
programs; and (3) proposed Sec.  299.19(c)(3) regarding English 
learners when addressing section 3113(b)(2) of the ESEA, as amended by 
the ESSA.
    Reasons: Proposed Sec.  299.13 would establish the general 
requirements governing the development and submission of consolidated 
State plans and individual program State plans. Proposed Sec.  299.13 
is designed to ensure SEA compliance with the ESEA, as amended by the 
ESSA, by codifying existing requirements and providing additional 
clarification including with respect to consultation with stakeholders 
and parameters for the periodic review and revision of State plans. 
Proposed Sec.  299.13(a) is necessary to establish the basic statutory 
framework for consolidated State plans and individual program State 
plans.
    Section 299.13(b) proposes specific requirements to ensure timely 
and meaningful consultation with stakeholders when developing, 
revising, or amending a State plan. The proposed regulations would 
clarify that timely and meaningful consultation includes both 
notification and outreach. The proposed regulations align with the 
consultation, public review, and public comment requirements in 
sections 1111(a)(1), 1111(a)(5), 1111(a)(8), 1111(g), 1304(c), 2101(d), 
and 3113(d) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. Specifically, the 
proposed regulations would require each SEA to engage stakeholders 
during the design and development of the State plan, prior to the 
submission of the initial State plan, and prior to the submission of 
any revisions or amendments to the State plan. The proposed regulations 
would require an SEA to conduct outreach at more than one stage of 
State plan development because stakeholders should have an opportunity 
to ensure that the concerns raised during public comment are adequately 
considered and addressed prior to submission of a consolidated State 
plan or individual program State plans. Proposed Sec.  299.13(b)(4) 
also codifies the statutory requirements in section 8540 of the ESEA, 
as amended by the ESSA, regarding consultation with the Governor in 
order to ensure that the SEA includes the Governor's office during the 
development of and prior to the submission of its consolidated State 
plan or individual title I or title II State plan.
    Proposed Sec.  299.13(c) would require an SEA, whether submitting a 
consolidated State plan or an individual program State plan, to submit 
to the Secretary specific assurances for certain covered programs, in 
addition to those assurances described in section 8304 of the ESEA, as 
amended by the ESSA. These additional assurances are essential for 
clarifying the steps all SEAs would need to implement to successfully 
meet statutory requirements and ensure public transparency and 
protections for vulnerable student populations. Consistent with section 
8304 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, an SEA submitting a 
consolidated State plan would not have to submit the individual 
programmatic assurances included in the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, 
for programs included in its consolidated State plan. However, 
consistent with proposed Sec.  299.13(l), an SEA would be required to 
maintain documentation of compliance with all statutory requirements, 
including programmatic assurances whether submitting a consolidated 
State plan or an individual program State plan.
    Proposed Sec.  299.13(d)(2) would clarify that the Secretary will 
establish a deadline for submission of consolidated State plans or 
individual program State plans on a specific date and time. We intend 
to establish two deadlines by which each SEA would choose to submit 
either a consolidated State plan or individual program State plans: 
March 6 or July 5, 2017. Developing thoughtful State plans that 
consider stakeholder feedback in response to timely and meaningful 
consultation takes a substantial amount of time. Those States already 
engaging in timely and meaningful consultation and developing plans 
that align with the proposed requirements in Sec.  299.14 and relevant 
program requirements included in the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, 
would have the opportunity to submit plans in March. A second, later 
deadline in July 2017 would ensure that all States have sufficient time 
to develop thorough State plans that consider stakeholder feedback and 
meet the proposed requirements of Sec.  299.14 or relevant program 
requirements, as applicable. The Secretary plans to request that SEAs 
file an optional notice of intent to submit indicating which of the two 
deadlines the SEA is planning towards in order to assist the Department 
in designing a high quality peer review process.
    We recognize that some States may not have the ability to calculate 
and report the data outlined in proposed Sec.  299.18(c)(3) related to 
educator equity. Proposed Sec.  299.13(d)(3) would offer each State a 
one-time extension if it is unable to calculate and report the data 
outlined in proposed Sec.  299.18(c)(3) at the student level at the 
time it submits its consolidated State plan or individual title I, part 
A program State plan for approval. We anticipate that the majority of 
States, including those that have received funds from the Department 
through the State Longitudinal Data System grant program, would not 
need to request such an extension.
    Proposed Sec.  299.13(e) would provide an SEA the opportunity to 
revise its initial consolidated State plan or its individual program 
State plan in response to a preliminary written determination by the 
Secretary regarding whether the State plan meets statutory and 
regulatory requirements based on comments from the required peer review 
process under sections 1111(a)(4) and 8451 of the ESEA, as amended by 
the ESSA. While the SEA revises its plan, the period of Secretarial 
review would be suspended. This would ensure an SEA has sufficient time 
to follow its process for review and revision prior to any final 
written determination by the Secretary under

[[Page 34582]]

sections 1111(a)(4)(A)(v) or 8451 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA.
    Proposed Sec.  299.13(f) would require each SEA to publish its 
approved consolidated State plan or individual program State plans on 
the SEA's Web site. Section 1111(a)(5) of the ESEA, as amended by the 
ESSA, requires the Secretary to publish information regarding the 
approval of State plans on the Department's Web site to ensure 
transparency. Publication of the approved consolidated State plan or 
individual program State plans on each SEA's Web site will ensure that 
stakeholders have access to the valuable information in each SEA's 
State plan to ensure ongoing meaningful consultation with stakeholders 
regarding implementation of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA.
    Section 1111(a)(6)(B) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, requires 
States to periodically review and revise State plans and submit 
revisions or amendments when there are significant changes to the plan. 
Under section 1111(a)(6)(B)(i), significant changes include the 
adoption of new challenging State academic standards, academic 
assessments or changes to its accountability system. Proposed Sec.  
299.13(g) would require an SEA to submit amendments to its State plan 
that reflect these changes in order to ensure transparency and 
compliance with statutory requirements. Consistent with section 
1111(a)(6)(A)(ii) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, proposed Sec.  
299.13(h) would require each SEA to periodically review all components 
and revise as necessary its consolidated State plan or individual 
program State plans, at a minimum, every four years, and submit its 
revisions to the Secretary. Four years is a reasonable time period 
because it will allow SEAs and LEAs sufficient time to implement 
strategies and activities outlined in its consolidated State plan or 
individual program State plans; collect and use data, including input 
from stakeholders to assess the quality of implementation; monitor SEA 
and LEA implementation; and continuously improve SEA and LEA strategies 
to ensure high-quality implementation of programs and activities under 
the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. In addition, proposed Sec.  
299.13(b)(2)(iii), (g) and (h) would require a State to engage in 
timely and meaningful consultation prior to submitting any amendments 
or revisions to the Department. Soliciting stakeholder feedback on 
significant changes or revisions is necessary to improve implementation 
and ensure progress towards State and local goals. Finally, this 
amendment, review and submission process would ensure that each State 
and the Department have the most up to date State plan information 
ensuring transparency and compliance with statutory requirements.
    Proposed Sec.  299.13(j) would identify the programs that may be 
included in a consolidated State plan under section 8302 of the ESEA, 
as amended by the ESSA, including section 1201 of title I, part B 
(Grants for State Assessments and Related Activities) and the McKinney-
Vento program. Consistent with the 2002 NFR, section 1201 of title I, 
part B of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA (previously section 6111 of 
the ESEA, as amended by NCLB), directly relates to the goals of other 
covered programs in that it supports State efforts to build high-
quality assessment systems that are essential for informing State 
accountability systems and the identification of needs for subgroups of 
students. Proposed Sec.  299.13(j) also would include the McKinney-
Vento program because it closely aligns with the title I, part D 
program that is included as a covered program. Both programs--McKinney-
Vento and title I, part-D--serve particularly vulnerable populations 
and have similar program goals.
    Proposed Sec.  299.13(k) would require an SEA that chooses to 
submit an individual program State plan for title I, part A to also 
meet the State plan requirements for consolidated State plans in 
proposed Sec.  299.18(c) related to educator equity and proposed Sec.  
299.19(c)(1) related to schoolwide waivers of the 40-percent poverty 
threshold. An SEA that chooses to submit an individual program State 
plan for title III, part A must meet the State plan requirements in 
proposed Sec.  299.19(c)(3) related to English learners. It is 
essential for all State plans to address these requirements as they 
provide necessary clarifications for each SEA as it addresses new 
statutory requirements included in the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. 
Additional rationales for those sections are included in Sec.  
299.18(c) and Sec.  299.19(c)(3).
    Consistent with the 2002 NFR, proposed Sec.  299.13(l) would 
emphasize the requirement that each SEA must administer all programs in 
accordance with all applicable statutes, regulations, program plans, 
and applications, and maintain documentation of this compliance.

Sections 299.14 Through 299.19 Consolidated State Plans

    Statute: Section 8302 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, permits 
the Secretary to establish procedures and criteria under which, after 
consultation with the Governor, an SEA may submit a consolidated State 
plan or a consolidated State application in order to simplify the 
application requirements and reduce burden for SEAs. The Secretary must 
establish, for each covered program under section 8302 of the ESEA, as 
amended by the ESSA, and additional programs designated by the 
Secretary, the descriptions, information, assurances, and other 
material required to be included in a consolidated State plan or 
consolidated State application.
    Current Regulations: The 2002 NFR outlines the requirements for a 
consolidated State application under section 9302 of the ESEA, as 
amended by NCLB.
    Proposed Regulations: Proposed Sec. Sec.  299.14 through 299.19 
would outline the requirements for consolidated State plans authorized 
under section 8302 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. These sections 
would identify those requirements that are essential for implementation 
of the included programs, and would eliminate duplication and 
streamline requirements across the included programs. Except as noted 
below, all of the requirements outlined in proposed Sec. Sec.  299.14 
through 299.19 are taken directly from the ESEA, as amended by the 
ESSA, and applicable regulations, including proposed regulations.
Proposed Sec.  299.14 Requirements for the Consolidated State Plan
    Proposed Sec.  299.14(b) would establish the framework for a 
consolidated State plan. The Department has identified five overarching 
components and corresponding elements that cut across all of the 
included programs. Each SEA would address each component in its 
consolidated State plan. Within each component, each SEA would be 
required to provide descriptions, strategies, timelines, and funding 
sources, if applicable, related to implementation of the programs 
included in the consolidated State plan. The proposed components, as 
reflected in proposed Sec. Sec.  299.15 through 299.19 are:
     Consultation and Coordination (proposed Sec.  299.15);
     Challenging Academic Standards and Academic Assessments 
(proposed Sec.  299.16);
     Accountability, Support, and Improvement for Schools 
(proposed Sec.  299.17);
     Supporting Excellent Educators (proposed Sec.  299.18); 
and
     Supporting All Students (proposed Sec.  299.19).

[[Page 34583]]

    Under proposed Sec.  299.14(c), for all of the components, except 
Consultation and Coordination, each SEA would be required to provide a 
description, including strategies and timelines, of its system of 
performance management of implementation of State and LEA plans. This 
description would include the SEA's process for supporting the 
development, review, and approval of the activities in LEA plans; 
monitoring SEA and LEA implementation; continuously improving 
implementation; and the SEA's plan to provide differentiated technical 
assistance to LEAs and schools.
Proposed Sec.  299.15: Consultation and Coordination
    Proposed Sec.  299.15 would combine requirements across all 
included programs for each SEA to engage in timely and meaningful 
consultation with relevant stakeholders, consistent with proposed Sec.  
299.13(b), and coordinate its plans across all programs under the ESEA, 
as amended by the ESSA, as well as other Federal programs such as the 
IDEA in order to ensure all children receive a fair, equitable, and 
high-quality education. SEAs that submit a consolidated State plan 
would address how they consulted with stakeholders for the following 
components of the consolidated State plan: Challenging Academic 
Standards and Assessments; Accountability, Support, and Improvement for 
Schools; Supporting Excellent Educators; and Supporting All Students.
Proposed Sec.  299.16: Challenging Academic Standards and Academic 
Assessments
    Proposed Sec.  299.16 would outline the State plan requirements for 
challenging academic standards and academic assessments consistent with 
section 1111(b) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. Proposed Sec.  
299.16(a) would include the requirements related to challenging State 
academic standards under section 1111(b)(1) of the ESEA, as amended by 
the ESSA. Specifically, this section would require each SEA to provide 
evidence demonstrating that: It has adopted challenging academic 
content standards and aligned academic achievement standards in the 
required subjects and grades; its alternate academic achievement 
standards for students with the most significant cognitive disabilities 
meet the requirements of section 1111(b)(1)(E) of the ESEA, as amended 
by the ESSA; and it has adopted English language proficiency standards 
consistent with the requirements of section 1111(b)(1)(F) of the ESEA, 
as amended by the ESSA. Proposed Sec.  299.16(b) would require SEAs to 
describe how the State is meeting the requirements related to academic 
assessments under section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA, as amended by the 
ESSA, and the proposed requirements in Sec. Sec.  200.2 to 200.6 that 
were subject to negotiated rulemaking under the ESSA and on which the 
negotiated rulemaking committee reached consensus. Specifically, each 
SEA would identify the high-quality student academic assessments it is 
implementing in the required grades and subjects, including any 
alternate assessments aligned to alternate academic achievement 
standards for students with the most significant cognitive 
disabilities, the annual assessment of English proficiency for all 
English learners, any approved locally selected nationally recognized 
high school assessments consistent with Sec.  200.3, and any 
assessments used under the exception for advanced middle school 
mathematics. Each SEA would not be required to submit information and 
evidence that is collected as part of the Department's assessment peer 
review process in its State plan. Each SEA would also meet the 
requirements related to assessments in languages other than English 
consistent with proposed Sec.  200.6 and describe how it will ensure 
all students have the opportunity to take advanced coursework in 
mathematics consistent with proposed Sec.  200.5. Finally, each SEA 
would provide a description of how they intend to use the formula grant 
funds awarded under section 1201 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA to 
support assessment and assessment-related activities. These activities 
may include ensuring that assessments are high-quality, result in 
actionable, objective information about students' knowledge and skills; 
time-limited; fair for all students and used to support equity; and 
fully transparent to students and parents.
Proposed Sec.  299.17: Accountability, Support, and Improvement for 
Schools
    Proposed Sec.  299.17 would include the State plan requirements 
related to statewide accountability systems and school support and 
improvement activities consistent with the requirements in section 
1111(c) and 1111(d) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, and proposed 
Sec. Sec.  200.12 through 200.24. Proposed Sec.  299.17(a) would 
require each SEA to provide its State-determined long-term goals and 
measurements of interim progress for academic achievement, graduation 
rates, and English language proficiency under section 1111(c)(4)(A) of 
the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, and proposed Sec.  200.13. Consistent 
with section 1111(c) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, and proposed 
Sec. Sec.  200.12 through 200.20, proposed Sec.  299.17(b) and (c) 
would require each SEA to describe its statewide accountability system 
that: Is based on challenging State academic standards for reading/
language arts and mathematics; includes all indicators under proposed 
Sec.  200.14 and meets the participation rate requirements under 
proposed Sec.  200.15; meaningfully differentiates all public schools 
in the State on an annual basis under proposed Sec.  200.18; and 
identifies schools for comprehensive and targeted support and 
improvement under proposed Sec.  200.19.
    Proposed Sec.  299.17(d) would require each SEA to describe its 
State support and improvement activities for low-performing schools. 
Each SEA would describe how it will allocate funds consistent with the 
requirements under section 1003 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, 
and proposed Sec.  200.24, and the supports it is providing to LEAs 
with schools identified for comprehensive and targeted support and 
improvement under proposed Sec. Sec.  200.21 through 200.23 in order to 
improve student academic achievement and school success. Proposed Sec.  
299.17(e) would require each SEA to describe its processes for 
approving, monitoring, and periodically reviewing LEA comprehensive 
support and improvement plans for identified schools consistent with 
section 1111(d)(1)(B) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, and proposed 
Sec.  200.21. Further, each SEA would describe additional activities to 
support continued improvement consistent with proposed Sec.  200.23, 
including State review of resource allocation, technical assistance for 
LEAs with schools identified for comprehensive and targeted support and 
improvement, and additional State action to support LEA improvement.
Proposed Sec.  299.18: Supporting Excellent Educators
    Proposed Sec.  299.18 would require each SEA to provide key 
descriptions, strategies, and funding sources outlining the State's 
approach to supporting excellent educators for all students. Proposed 
Sec.  299.18(a) would require each SEA to describe its educator 
development, retention, and advancement systems consistent with the 
requirements in sections 2101 and 2102 of the ESEA, as amended by the 
ESSA. Further, in proposed Sec.  299.18(b), each SEA would describe how 
it intends

[[Page 34584]]

to use title II, part A funds, as well as funds from other included 
programs, to support State-level strategies to develop, retain, and 
advance excellent educators in order to improve student outcomes and 
increase teacher and leader effectiveness. Each SEA would also describe 
how it will work with LEAs in the State to develop or implement State 
or local teacher and principal or other school leader evaluation and 
support systems, and how it will improve educator preparation programs 
if it chooses to use funds from one or more of the programs included in 
its consolidated State plan for these purposes.
    Proposed Sec.  299.18(c) would clarify the steps for each State to 
take in order to meet the statutory requirement in section 
1111(g)(1)(B) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, that low-income 
students and minority students are not taught at disproportionate rates 
by ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers. The 
definitions that would be required under proposed Sec.  299.18(c)(2) 
ensure that calculations of disproportionality can be conducted and 
reported statewide using data that is similar across districts. 
Proposed Sec.  299.18(c)(3) would clarify that the calculation required 
under proposed Sec.  299.18(c)(1) must be conducted using student level 
data, subject to appropriate privacy protections. Proposed Sec.  
299.18(c)(4) and (5) would clarify the publishing and reporting 
expectations and specify that data on disproportionality must be 
reported annually to ensure transparency for parents and stakeholders 
regarding progress towards closing equity gaps. Proposed Sec.  
299.18(c)(6)(i) and (ii) would clarify the steps a State must take if 
it demonstrates under proposed Sec.  299.18(c)(3) that low income or 
minority students enrolled in schools receiving funds under title I, 
part A of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, are taught at 
disproportionate rates by ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced 
teachers. These steps would include a description of the root cause 
analysis, including the level of disaggregation (e.g., Statewide, 
between districts, within district, and within school), that identifies 
the factor or factors causing or contributing to the disproportionate 
rates and providing its strategies to eliminate the disproportionate 
rates. Proposed Sec.  299.18(c)(7)(i) would clarify that an SEA may 
direct an LEA to use a portion of its title II, part A funds, 
consistent with allowable uses of those funds, to support LEAs' work to 
eliminate disproportionalities consistent with section 1111(g)(1)(B) of 
the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. Proposed Sec.  299.18(c)(7)(ii) would 
also clarify that an SEA may deny an LEA's application for title II, 
part A funds if an LEA fails to describe how it will address identified 
disproportionalities or fails to meet other local application 
requirements applicable to title II, part A.
Proposed Sec.  299.19: Supporting All Students
    Proposed Sec.  299.19 would require each SEA to describe how it 
will ensure that all children have a significant opportunity to meet 
the State's challenging academic standards and attain a regular high 
school diploma. In proposed Sec.  299.19(a)(1), each SEA would describe 
its strategies, rationale, timelines, and funding sources that address 
the continuum of a student's education from preschool through grade 12, 
equitable access to a well-rounded education and rigorous coursework, 
school conditions to support student learning, effective use of 
technology, parent and family engagement, and the accurate 
identification of English learners and children with disabilities. In 
developing these strategies, each SEA must consider the unique needs of 
all subgroups of students included in proposed Sec.  299.19(a)(2)(i) 
and the information and data from a resource equity review as described 
in proposed Sec.  299.19(a)(3), including the data that is collected 
and reported consistent with section 1111(h) of the ESEA, as amended by 
ESSA and proposed Sec.  200.35 and Sec.  200.37. Proposed Sec.  
299.19(a)(4) would require each SEA to describe how it will leverage 
title IV, part A and part B funds, along with other Federal funds, to 
support its State-level strategies described in proposed Sec.  
299.19(a)(1) and the process it will use to award subgrants authorized 
under included programs, as applicable.
    In addition to the performance management and technical assistance 
requirements in proposed Sec.  299.14(c), each SEA would describe how 
it uses the data described in proposed Sec.  299.19(a)(3) to inform its 
review and approval of local applications for ESEA program funds.
    Under proposed Sec.  299.19(c), each SEA would be required to 
address essential program-specific requirements to ensure compliance 
with statutory requirements for particular programs included in the 
consolidated State plan. Proposed Sec.  299.19(c)(1) would require each 
SEA to describe the process and criteria it will use under section 
1114(a)(1)(B) of the Act to grant waivers of the 40-percent poverty 
threshold required to operate a schoolwide program. The Department is 
not proposing to limit State discretion to grant such waivers, but 
believes it is important that each State develop and implement a 
process for approving requested waivers of the 40-percent schoolwide 
program poverty threshold that is consistent with the purposes of a 
schoolwide program and that protects the interests of students most at 
risk of not meeting challenging State academic standards.
    Proposed Sec.  299.19(c)(3) includes the new requirement in section 
3113(b)(2) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, for each State to 
establish standardized statewide entrance and exit procedures for 
English learners under title III. The proposed regulations would 
clarify that this statutory provision requires State procedures for 
both entrance and exit of English learners to include uniform criteria 
that are applied statewide.
    Reasons: Proposed Sec. Sec.  299.14 through 299.19 would ensure 
that each SEA provides the descriptions, information, assurances, and 
other materials necessary for consideration of the consolidated State 
plan consistent with the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, and applicable 
regulations. Consistent with the principles in the ESEA, as amended by 
the ESSA, consolidated State plans are intended to address requirements 
across included programs, rather than addressing specific requirements 
individually for each program, many of which overlap. The proposed 
regulations would significantly reduce burden on each SEA choosing to 
submit a consolidated State plan rather than individual program State 
plans for the included programs outlined in proposed Sec.  299.13(i) by 
eliminating duplication and streamlining requirements. The proposed 
regulations aim to encourage each State to think comprehensively about 
implementation of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, and leverage 
funding across the included programs. Further, proposed Sec. Sec.  
299.14 through 299.19 would help remove ``silos'' between different 
funding streams and support collaboration and efficiency across 
multiple programs to ensure that all children have a significant 
opportunity to receive a fair, equitable, and high-quality education 
and that each SEA continues to close achievement gaps.
    In developing the framework for the consolidated State plan 
outlined in proposed Sec.  299.14, we seek to improve teaching and 
learning by encouraging greater cross-program coordination, planning, 
and service delivery; provide greater flexibility to State and local 
authorities through consolidated plans and reporting; and enhance the

[[Page 34585]]

integration of programs under the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, with 
State and local programs. The components outlined in proposed Sec.  
299.14(b) encompass the essential statutory programmatic requirements 
of the included programs under the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, and 
represent the core goals of equity and excellence for all students.
    The proposed Performance Management and Technical Assistance 
requirements in Sec.  299.14(c) are grounded in the SEA's 
responsibilities to support the development of, review, and approval of 
LEA plans; monitor SEA and LEA implementation; continuously improve 
implementation; and provide technical assistance to support 
implementation across the included programs. Proposed Sec.  299.14(c) 
would focus on how the SEA will coordinate planning, monitoring, and 
use of data and stakeholder feedback to improve State and local plans 
if they are not leading to satisfactory progress towards improved 
student outcomes. Further, each SEA would describe how it will provide 
technical assistance to LEAs and schools to support and improve 
implementation and build capacity to support sustained improvement in 
student outcomes.
    The consultation requirements in proposed Sec.  299.15(a) are 
essential to ensuring that each SEA solicits input in the development 
of each component of its consolidated State plan. These requirements 
are consistent with the requirements for timely and meaningful 
consultation under proposed Sec.  299.13(b). In addition, by requiring 
each SEA to describe how it is coordinating across programs with 
respect to each of the components, proposed Sec.  299.15(b) would help 
to ensure that each SEA is thinking holistically about implementation 
across all programs to close achievement gaps and support all children.
    Proposed Sec.  299.16 would require each SEA to demonstrate that it 
is meeting the requirements in the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA and to 
have challenging academic standards and a high-quality, annual 
statewide assessment system that includes all students. Such a system 
is essential to provide local leaders, educators, and parents with the 
information they need to identify the resources and supports that are 
necessary to help every student succeed and continue the work toward 
equity and closing achievement gaps among subgroups of historically 
underserved students by holding all students to the same high 
expectations. An SEA would not be required to submit information 
required under proposed Sec.  299.16(a) and (b)(2) with its initial 
consolidated State plan because each SEA is required to submit such 
information as part of the separate peer review of State assessment 
systems.
    The requirements in proposed Sec.  299.17(a)-(c) would ensure 
accountability and support for all subgroups of students and all public 
schools consistent with the requirements for accountability systems in 
section 1111(c) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, and the related 
regulations in proposed Sec. Sec.  200.12 through 200.20. Proposed 
Sec.  299.17(d) would require an SEA to describe how it will meet the 
statutory requirements outlined in sections 1003 and 1111(d) of the 
ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, and the related regulations proposed in 
Sec. Sec.  200.21 through 200.24 related to school support and 
improvement. Finally, proposed Sec.  299.17(e) would include specific 
performance management and technical assistance requirements consistent 
with proposed Sec.  200.23. Please see proposed Sec. Sec.  200.12 
through 200.24 for a detailed discussion of the rationale of the 
proposed regulations.
    Proposed Sec.  299.18 would require each SEA to include key 
descriptions, strategies, and applicable funding sources to outline the 
State's approach to supporting excellent educators. These descriptions 
are necessary to provide stakeholders and the public with a complete 
understanding of each State's plan, coupled with the resources that 
each State intends to make available, for ensuring that educators have 
the necessary training, support, and advancement opportunities at each 
stage of their career to best support all subgroups of students and 
improve student outcomes. Proposed Sec.  299.18(a) would require each 
SEA to describe its systems of educator development, retention, and 
advancement systems consistent with the requirements in sections 2101 
and 2102 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, and in doing so, would 
help to ensure that such systems are designed and implemented with the 
stakeholder awareness and input that will ultimately yield success in 
implementation. Proposed Sec.  299.18(b) would support implementation 
of the systems described in proposed Sec.  299.18(a) by requiring each 
SEA to describe how it intends to use title II, part A funds, as well 
as funds from other included programs, to fund strategies to support 
and develop excellent educators in order to improve student outcomes 
and increase teacher and leader effectiveness for all students. If it 
chooses to use funds from one or more of the programs included in its 
consolidated State plan for these purposes, each State would also 
describe how it will work with LEAs in the State to develop or 
implement State or local teacher and principal or other school leader 
evaluation and support systems and how it will improve educator 
preparation programs. For States and LEAs that elect to implement such 
systems, teacher and principal evaluation and support systems provide 
rich data that enable educators to improve throughout their career. 
Further, high-quality educator preparation programs are essential for 
ensuring that all educators have the skills they need to serve student 
populations with unique academic and non-academic needs.
    Proposed Sec.  299.18(c) would clarify the steps each State must 
take to meet the statutory requirement in section 1111(g)(1)(B) of the 
ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, that low-income students and minority 
students are not taught at disproportionate rates by ineffective, out-
of-field, or inexperienced teachers. These requirements align with the 
work all States have been doing in recent years to develop and 
implement State Plans to Ensure Equitable Access to Excellent Educators 
(Educator Equity Plans). The definitions that would be required under 
proposed Sec.  299.18(c)(2) ensure that calculations of 
disproportionality would be conducted and reported statewide using data 
that is similar across districts. The definitions must be different 
from each other and based on distinct criteria so that each provides 
useful information about educator equity and disproportionality rates. 
Proposed Sec.  299.18(c)(3) would clarify that the calculations 
required under proposed Sec.  299.18(c)(1) must be conducted using 
student level data, subject to appropriate privacy protections. Such 
transparency is critical to enable stakeholders and the public to 
understand how each State is meeting its statutory obligation under 
section 1111(g)(1)(B) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. Student-
level data are essential to illuminate within-school 
disproportionalities that a school-level analysis would necessarily 
obscure. Nevertheless, we recognize that not all States may be prepared 
to calculate these data at the student level by submission of their 
initial consolidated State plan; therefore, as described in proposed 
Sec.  299.13(d)(3), we provide an opportunity for a one-time extension, 
if necessary. Proposed Sec.  299.18(c)(4) and (5) would clarify the 
publishing and

[[Page 34586]]

reporting expectations and timelines for updating the data calculations 
described in proposed Sec.  299.18(c)(3) to ensure transparency and a 
continued focus on closing any equity gaps. Additionally, proposed 
Sec.  299.18(c)(6) would list the steps that would be required if a 
State demonstrates that low-income or minority students are taught at 
disproportionate rates by ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced 
teachers, including conducting a root cause analysis, which is critical 
to help States identify the underlying causes or contributing factors 
of any disproportionalities that exist, and describing the strategies, 
timelines, and funding sources the State will use to eliminate the 
identified disproportionality. Disproportionality may exist at many 
different levels (e.g., statewide, between districts, within districts, 
within schools), and the root cause analysis should disaggregate data 
sufficiently to identify the source(s) of the disproportionality. 
Finally, proposed Sec.  299.18(c)(7) would clarify that an SEA may, in 
order to meet the requirements of section 1111(g)(1)(B) of the ESEA, as 
amended by the ESSA, direct an LEA to use a portion of its title II, 
part A funds to eliminate disproportionalities consistent with section 
1111(g)(1)(B) and deny an LEA's application for title II, part A funds 
if an LEA fails to describe how it will address identified 
disproportionalities. Proposed Sec.  299.18(c)(7) also clarifies the 
SEA's authority to deny an LEA's application if the LEA fails to meet 
other local application requirements applicable to title II, part A. 
Consistent with section 432 of the General Education Provisions Act, if 
an SEA were to deny an LEA's application, an LEA would be entitled to 
an appeal of that decision to the Secretary. This clarification is 
necessary to enable SEAs to ensure that LEAs have adequate resources 
available to address existing disproportionalities.
    To encourage SEAs and LEAs to think comprehensively about how to 
implement strategies and interventions to improve student outcomes, 
proposed Sec.  299.19 would focus on support for all students, rather 
than separately for individual subgroups of students under each 
included program in order to ensure all students meet the State's 
challenging academic standards and attain a regular high school diploma 
that will prepare them to succeed in college and careers. Each SEA 
would describe its strategies, timelines, and funding sources for each 
of the requirements included in proposed Sec.  299.19(a)(1). Requiring 
a State to consider a student's education from preschool through grade 
12 would support that State's efforts to ensure that all students, 
beginning at the earliest stage in their education and continuing 
through high school, have the opportunity to acquire the skills and 
abilities necessary to earn a high school diploma, which is critical to 
allow them to pursue postsecondary education or a career of their 
choosing. Because these skills and abilities increase over the course 
of a child's schooling, it is essential for States to consider 
equitable access across a student's educational experience, beginning 
in preschool and ensure that all subgroups of students have access to a 
well-rounded education, including accelerated and advanced coursework. 
Proposed Sec.  299.19(a)(1)(iii) would emphasize school conditions for 
student learning consistent with the requirement in section 
1111(g)(1)(C) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, so all students have 
access to a safe and healthy learning environment. Each SEA would also 
describe strategies for the effective use of technology to improve 
academic achievement and digital literacy so all students have the 
skills they need to participate in the global economy. Finally, 
proposed Sec.  299.19(a)(1)(v) and (vi) would require each State to 
include strategies for meaningful and active parent and family 
engagement in their children's education and ensure the accurate 
identification of English learners and children with disabilities.
    When developing the strategies in Sec.  299.19(a)(1), each State 
would be required to consider all dimensions of schooling, including 
both academic and nonacademic factors, for each subgroup of students 
and the data and information from its review of resource equity 
consistent with proposed Sec.  299.19(a)(3). An SEA may describe 
strategies that address all or a portion of the subgroups of students, 
or specific strategies based on the unique needs of particular student 
groups. Proposed Sec.  299.19(a)(3) would require each SEA to use 
information and data on resource equity that section 1111(h) of the 
ESEA, as amended by the ESSA and proposed Sec.  200.35 and Sec.  
200.37, requires them to publically report. This will help each State 
identify inequities that may hinder a student's educational success at 
any point in terms of access to the well-rounded education necessary 
for them to meet the State's challenging academic standards and earn a 
high school diploma.
    Proposed Sec.  299.19(b) would require each SEA to describe how it 
will utilize the resource equity data and information in proposed Sec.  
299.19(a)(3) to inform the review and approval of LEA plans and 
technical assistance to LEAs. This review is essential to ensure that 
local plans meet the unique needs of each LEA and school and SEAs 
target technical assistance to those LEAs and schools most in need.
    In developing the consolidated State plan, we recognized that a 
number of covered programs include specific statutory requirements that 
are unique and essential to the implementation and oversight of those 
programs. Therefore, proposed Sec.  299.19(c) captures those 
requirements to ensure each SEA provides sufficient detail to award 
funds for title I, part A; title I, part C; title III, part A; title V, 
part B, subpart 2; and the McKinney-Vento Act to supplement the 
descriptions, strategies, and timelines it provides in its consolidated 
State plan. Regarding title I, part A, proposed 299.19(c)(1) would not 
limit State discretion to grant such waivers, but we believe it is 
important that each State develop and implement a process for approving 
requested waivers of the 40-percent schoolwide program poverty 
threshold that is consistent with the purposes of a schoolwide program 
and that protects the interests of students most at risk of not meeting 
challenging State academic standards. Regarding the title III entrance 
and exit procedures required by section 3113(b)(2) of the ESEA, as 
amended by the ESSA, proposed Sec.  299.19(c)(3) would clarify that 
this statutory provision requires a State to set uniform procedures 
that include criteria for both entrance into and exit from the English 
learner subgroup that are applied statewide, and prohibits a ``local 
option,'' which cannot be standardized and under which LEAs could have 
widely varying criteria. We consider this clarification essential so 
that each State will adopt uniform procedures that will increase 
transparency around how students are identified, ensure consistency 
within a State with respect to which students are identified as English 
learners, and promote better outcomes for English learners. 
Specifically, the proposed regulations would clarify that exit 
procedures must include objective, valid, and reliable criteria, 
including a score of proficient on the State's annual English language 
proficiency assessment, to ensure each State implements the statutory 
requirement regarding exit from the English learner subgroup and to 
ensure consistency with civil rights obligations for English 
learners.\19\ Though performance on

[[Page 34587]]

content assessments may be affected by a student's level of English 
language proficiency, content assessments are not valid and reliable 
measures of English language proficiency. Relying on content 
assessments may result in students being included in the English 
learner subgroup beyond the point when they are actually English 
learners, which may lead to negative academic outcomes for an 
individual student, and, if a student held in English learner status is 
denied the opportunity to meaningfully participate in the full 
curriculum, may constitute a civil rights violation. Thus, the proposed 
regulations would make it clear that scores on content assessments 
cannot be included as part of a State's exit criteria. Finally, to 
ensure consistency in reporting and accountability, the proposed 
regulations would clarify that the State's exit criteria must be 
applied to both the title I subgroup and title III services, such that 
a student who exits English learner status based on the statewide 
standardized exit criteria must be considered to have exited English 
learner status for both title I and title III purposes. The proposed 
regulations would provide broad parameters, but also retain the 
flexibility for each State to choose its specific entrance and exit 
procedures.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \19\ See, for example, U.S. Department of Education and U.S. 
Department of Justice joint Dear Colleague Letter, English Learner 
Students and Limited English Proficient Parents, January 7, 2015. 
www.ed.gov/ocr/letters/colleague-el-201501.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Executive Orders 12866 and 13563

Regulatory Impact Analysis

    Under Executive Order 12866, the Secretary must determine whether 
this regulatory action is ``significant'' and, therefore, subject to 
the requirements of the Executive order and subject to review by the 
OMB. Section 3(f) of Executive Order 12866 defines a ``significant 
regulatory action'' as an action likely to result in a rule that may--
    (1) Have an annual effect on the economy of $100 million or more, 
or adversely affect a sector of the economy, productivity, competition, 
jobs, the environment, public health or safety, or State, local, or 
tribal governments or communities in a material way (also referred to 
as an ``economically significant'' rule);
    (2) Create serious inconsistency or otherwise interfere with an 
action taken or planned by another agency;
    (3) Materially alter the budgetary impacts of entitlement grants, 
user fees, or loan programs or the rights and obligations of recipients 
thereof; or
    (4) Raise novel legal or policy issues arising out of legal 
mandates, the President's priorities, or the principles stated in the 
Executive order.
    This proposed regulatory action is an economically significant 
regulatory action subject to review by OMB under section 3(f) of 
Executive Order 12866.
    We have also reviewed these regulations 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 upon 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 practicable, 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 
behavioral changes.''
    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.
    We have assessed the potential costs and benefits of this 
regulatory action. The potential costs associated with the proposed 
regulations are those resulting from statutory requirements and those 
we have determined as necessary for administering these programs 
effectively and efficiently. Elsewhere in this section under Paperwork 
Reduction Act of 1995, we identify and explain burdens specifically 
associated with information collection requirements.
    In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative 
and qualitative--of these proposed regulations, we have determined that 
the benefits would justify the costs.
    The Department believes that the majority of the changes proposed 
in this regulatory action would not impose significant costs on States, 
LEAs, or other entities that participate in programs addressed by this 
regulatory action. For example, the proposed regulatory framework for 
State accountability systems, which primarily incorporates statutory 
requirements, closely parallels current State systems, which include 
long-term goals and measurements of interim progress; multiple 
indicators, including indicators of academic achievement, graduation 
rates, and other academic indicators selected by the State; annual 
differentiation of school performance; the identification of low-
performing schools, and the implementation of improvement plans for 
identified schools. In addition, the proposed regulations, consistent 
with the requirements of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, provide 
considerable flexibility to States and LEAs in determining the specific 
approaches to meeting new requirements, including the rigor of long-
term goals and measurements of interim progress, the timeline for 
meeting those goals, the selection and weighting of indicators of 
student and school progress, the criteria for identification of schools 
for improvement, and the development and implementation of improvement 
plans. For example, this flexibility allows States and LEAs to build on 
existing measures, systems, and interventions rather than creating new 
ones, and to determine the most cost-efficient and least burdensome 
means of meeting proposed regulatory requirements, instead of a 
standardized set of prescriptive requirements.
    The proposed regulations also reflect certain statutory changes to 
the accountability systems and school improvement requirements of the 
ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, which would result in a significant 
reduction in costs and administrative burdens for States and LEAs. 
First, the current regulations, which are based on the core goal of 
ensuring 100 percent proficiency in reading and mathematics for all 
students and all subgroups, potentially result in the identification of 
the overwhelming majority of participating title I schools for 
improvement,

[[Page 34588]]

corrective action, or restructuring. Such an outcome would produce 
unsustainable demands on State and local capacity to develop, fund, 
implement, and monitor school improvement plans and related school 
improvement supports. Indeed, it was the immediate prospect of this 
outcome that drove the development of, and rapid voluntary requests 
for, waivers of certain accountability and school improvement 
requirements under ESEA flexibility prior to enactment of the ESSA. The 
proposed accountability regulations instead would require, consistent 
with the requirements of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, more 
flexible, targeted systems of differentiated accountability and school 
improvement focused on the lowest-performing schools in each State, 
including the bottom five percent of schools based on the performance 
of all students, as well as other schools identified for consistently 
underperforming subgroups. Based on the experience of ESEA flexibility, 
the Department estimates that States would identify a total of 10,000-
15,000 schools for school improvement--of which the Department 
estimates 4,000 will be identified for comprehensive support and 
improvement--nationwide under the proposed regulations, compared with 
as many as 50,000 under the current regulations in the absence of 
waivers. While the costs of carrying out required school improvement 
activities under the current regulations varies considerably across 
schools, LEAs, and States depending on a combination of factors, 
including the stage of improvement and locally selected interventions, 
it is clear that the proposed regulations would dramatically decrease 
potential school improvement burdens for all States and LEAs.
    Second, under the proposed regulations, LEAs also would not be 
required to make available SES to students from low-income families who 
attend schools identified for improvement. This means that States would 
not be required to develop and maintain lists of approved SES 
providers, review provider performance, monitor LEA implementation of 
SES requirements, or set aside substantial amounts of title I, part A 
funding for SES. States and LEAs also would no longer be required to 
report on either student participation or expenditures related to 
public school choice or SES. While States participating in ESEA 
flexibility generally already have benefited from waivers of the 
statutory and regulatory requirements related to public school choice 
and SES, the proposed regulations would extend this relief to all 
States and LEAs without the additional burden of seeking waivers.
    Third, the proposed regulations would eliminate requirements for 
State identification of LEAs for improvement and the development and 
implementation of LEA improvement and corrective action plans. As would 
be the case for schools, the current regulations would require such 
plans for virtually all participating title I LEAs; the proposed 
regulations would no longer require identification of LEAs for 
improvement and related actions.
    While most of the elements and requirements of State accountability 
systems required by the proposed regulations involve minimal or even 
significantly reduced costs compared to the requirements of the current 
regulations, there are certain proposed changes that could entail 
additional costs, as described below.
Goals and Indicators
    Proposed Sec.  200.13 would require States to establish a uniform 
procedure for setting long-term goals and measurements of interim 
progress for English learners that can be applied consistently and 
equitably to all students and schools for accountability purposes and 
that consider individual student characteristics (e.g., grade level, 
English language proficiency level) in determining the most appropriate 
timeline and goals for attaining English language proficiency for each 
English learner. We estimate that each State would, on average, require 
80 hours of staff time to develop the required uniform procedure. 
Assuming a cost of $40 per hour for State staff, the proposed 
regulation would result in a one-time cost, across 50 states, the 
District of Columbia, and Puerto Rico would be $166,400. We believe 
that the development of a uniform, statewide procedure would minimize 
additional costs and administrative burdens at the LEA level, and that 
any additional modest costs would be outweighed by the benefits of the 
proposed regulation, which would allow differentiation of goals for an 
individual English learner based on his or her language and educational 
background, thereby recognizing the varied needs of the English learner 
population. Setting the same long-term goals and measurements of 
interim progress for all English learners in the State would fail to 
account for these differences in the English learner population and 
would result in goals that are inappropriate for at least some students 
and schools.
    Proposed Sec.  200.14(b)(5) would require States to develop at 
least one indicator of School Quality or Student Success that measures 
such factors as student access to and completion of advanced 
coursework, postsecondary readiness, school climate and safety, student 
engagement, educator engagement, or any other measure the State 
chooses. Proposed Sec.  200.14(c) would specify that measures within 
School Quality and Student Success indicators must, among other 
requirements, be valid, reliable, and comparable across all LEAs in the 
State and support meaningful differentiation of performance among 
schools. We recognize that the development and implementation of new 
School Quality and Student Success indicators, which may include the 
development of instruments to collect and report data on one or more 
such measures, could impose significant additional costs on a State 
that elects to develop an entirely new measure. However, the Department 
also believes, based in part on its experience in reviewing waiver 
requests under ESEA flexibility, that all States currently collect data 
on one or more measures that may be suitable as a measure of school 
quality and student success consistent with the requirements of 
proposed Sec.  200.14(b)(5). Consequently, we believe that all, or 
nearly all, States will choose to adapt a current measure to the 
purposes of proposed Sec.  200.14(b)(5), rather than developing an 
entirely new measure, and thus that the proposed regulation would not 
impose significant new costs or administrative burdens on States and 
LEAs.
Participation Rate
    Proposed Sec.  200.15(c)(2) would require an LEA with a significant 
number of schools that fail to assess at least 95 percent of all 
students or 95 percent of students in any subgroup to develop and 
implement an improvement plan that includes support for school-level 
plans to improve participation rates that must be developed under 
proposed Sec.  200.15(c)(1). Proposed Sec.  200.15(c)(2) would further 
require States to review and approve these LEA plans.
    These proposed requirements are similar to current regulations that 
require States to: Annually review the progress of each LEA in making 
AYP; identify for improvement any LEA that fails to make AYP for two 
consecutive years, including any LEA that fails to make AYP as a result 
of not assessing 95 percent of all students or each subgroup of 
students; and provide technical assistance and other support related to 
the development and implementation of LEA improvement

[[Page 34589]]

plans. Current regulations also require States to take certain 
corrective actions in LEAs that miss AYP for four or more consecutive 
years, including LEAs that miss AYP due to not assessing 95 percent of 
all students or each subgroup of students. As noted previously, the 
proposed regulations would no longer require annual State review of LEA 
progress; State identification of LEAs for improvement; or the 
development, preparation, or implementation of LEA improvement or 
corrective action plans. This significant reduction in State burden 
more than offsets the proposed regulations related to reviewing and 
approving LEA plans to address low assessment participation rates in 
their schools. In addition, State discretion to define the threshold 
for ``a significant number of schools'' that would trigger the 
requirement for LEA plans related to missing the 95 percent 
participation rate would provide States a measure of control over the 
burden of complying with the proposed regulations. Consequently, the 
Department believes that the proposed regulations would not increase 
costs or administrative burdens significantly for States, as compared 
to the current regulations. Moreover, we believe that these proposed 
requirements would have the significant benefit of helping to ensure 
that the plans include effective interventions that will improve 
participation in assessments, facilitate transparent information for 
families and educators on student progress, and assist schools in 
supporting high-quality instruction and meeting the demonstrated 
educational needs of all students.
School Improvement Process
    The school improvement requirements proposed in this regulatory 
action generally are similar to those required under the current 
regulations. The current regulations require identification of schools 
for multiple improvement categories, State and LEA notification of 
identified schools, the development and implementation of improvement 
plans with stakeholder involvement, State support for implementation of 
improvement plans, LEA provision of public school choice and SES 
options (the latter of which also imposes significant administrative 
burdens on States), and more rigorous actions for schools that do not 
improve over time. However, the current regulations include a 
prescriptive timeline under which schools that do not improve must 
advance to the next stage of improvement, typically only after a year 
or two of implementation at the previous stage (e.g., a school is given 
only one year for corrective action to prove successful before 
advancing to restructuring). The current regulations also do not 
consistently allow for a planning year prior to implementation of the 
required improvement plans. The proposed regulations, consistent with 
the statute, would provide more flexibility around the timeline for 
identifying schools (e.g., once every three years for comprehensive 
support and improvement schools), up to a full year to develop 
comprehensive support and improvement and targeted support and 
improvement plans, and more time for full and effective implementation 
of improvement plans based on State- and LEA-determined timelines for 
meeting improvement benchmarks. The proposed regulations also would 
eliminate the public school choice and SES requirements, which impose 
substantial administrative costs and burdens on LEAs that are not 
directly related to turning around low-performing schools. We believe 
that the proposed regulations would thus significantly reduce the 
administrative burdens and costs imposed by key school improvement 
requirements in the current regulations.
    The proposed regulations would clarify certain elements of the 
school improvement process required by the ESEA, as amended by the 
ESSA, including the needs assessment for schools identified for 
comprehensive support and improvement, the use of evidence-based 
interventions in schools identified for both comprehensive support and 
improvement and targeted support and improvement, and the review of 
resource inequities required for schools identified for comprehensive 
support and improvement as well as for schools identified for 
additional targeted support and improvement under proposed Sec.  
200.19(b)(2). Proposed Sec.  200.21 would require an LEA with such a 
school to carry out, in partnership with stakeholders, a comprehensive 
needs assessment that takes into account, at a minimum, the school's 
performance on all indicators used by the State's accountability system 
and the reason(s) the school was identified. The proposed regulations 
also would require the LEA to develop a comprehensive support and 
improvement plan that is based on the needs assessment and that 
includes one or more evidence-based interventions. These proposed 
requirements are similar to the requirements in the current 
regulations, under which LEAs with schools identified for improvement 
must develop improvement plans that include consultation with 
stakeholders. Thus we believe that the proposed regulations related to 
conducting a needs assessment and the use of evidence-based 
interventions would not increase costs or administrative burdens 
significantly for LEAs, as compared to the current regulations. 
Moreover, we believe that these proposed requirements would have the 
significant benefit of helping to ensure that the required improvement 
plans include effective interventions that meet the demonstrated 
educational needs of students in identified schools, and ultimately 
could improve outcomes for those students.
    Proposed Sec.  200.21 also would require LEAs with schools 
identified for comprehensive support and improvement, as well as 
schools identified for additional targeted support and improvement 
under proposed Sec.  200.19(b)(2), to identify and address resource 
inequities, including any disproportionate assignment of ineffective, 
out-of-field, or inexperienced teachers and possible inequities related 
to the per-pupil expenditures of Federal, State, and local funds. While 
this is not a new requirement, it would involve an additional use of 
data and methods that LEAs would be required to develop and apply to 
meet other requirements in the proposed regulations, including 
requirements related to ensuring that low-income and minority students 
are not taught at disproportionate rates by ineffective, out-of-field, 
or inexperienced teachers, the inclusion of per-pupil expenditure data 
on State and LEA report cards, and the use of per-pupil expenditure 
data to meet the title I supplement not supplant requirement. In 
addition, the proposed regulations would not specify how an LEA must 
address any resource inequities identified through its review. We 
believe it is critically important to ensure equitable access to 
effective teachers, and that the fair and equitable allocation of other 
educational resources is essential to ensuring that all students, 
particularly the low-achieving, disadvantaged, and minority students 
who are the focus of ESEA programs, have equitable access to the full 
range of courses, instructional materials, educational technology, and 
programs that help ensure positive educational outcomes.\20\ 
Consequently, we believe that the benefits of the required review of 
resource inequities outweigh the

[[Page 34590]]

minimal additional costs that may be imposed by the proposed 
regulation.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \20\ See, for example, U.S. Department of Education, Office for 
Civil Rights Dear Colleague Letter, Resource Comparability, October 
1, 2014. https://www.ed.gov/ocr/letters/colleague-resourcecomp-201410.pdf.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Sec.  200.21 would establish a new requirement for State 
review and approval of each comprehensive support and improvement plan 
developed by LEAs with one or more schools identified for comprehensive 
support and improvement, as well as proposed amendments to previously 
approved plans. This proposed requirement would potentially impose 
additional costs compared to the requirements in the current 
regulations. The Department estimates that States would identify 
approximately 4,000 schools for comprehensive support and improvement 
under the proposed regulations, and that it would take, on average, 20 
hours for a State to review and approve each LEA comprehensive support 
and improvement plan, including any necessary revisions to an initial 
plan. Assuming a cost of $40 per hour for State staff, the proposed 
review and approval process would cost an estimated total of 
$3,200,000. Over the course of the four-year authorization of the law, 
this cost is expected to be incurred twice. We note that under the 
proposed regulations, States would incur these costs once every three 
years, when they identify schools for comprehensive support and 
improvement. We also note that this cost represents less than 2 percent 
of the funds that States are authorized to reserve annually for State-
level administrative and school improvement activities under part A of 
title I of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. Given the critical 
importance of ensuring that LEAs implement rigorous improvement plans 
in their lowest-performing comprehensive support and improvement 
schools, and that a significant proportion of the approximately $1 
billion that States will reserve annually under section 1003 of the 
ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, will be used to support effective 
implementation of these plans, we believe that the potential benefits 
of State review and approval of comprehensive support and improvement 
plans would far outweigh the costs. Moreover, those costs would be 
fully paid for with formula grant funds made available through the 
ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, including the 1 percent administrative 
reservation under title I, part A and the 5 percent State-level share 
of section 1003 school improvement funds.
    The proposed regulations also would require that the State monitor 
and periodically review each LEA's implementation of approved 
comprehensive support and improvement plans. We believe that this 
proposed requirement is essentially the same as the current requirement 
for States to ensure that LEAs carry out their school improvement 
responsibilities related to schools identified for improvement, 
corrective action, and restructuring, as well as State-level monitoring 
requirements under the School Improvement Grants program. In addition, 
section 1003 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, which requires States 
to reserve a total of approximately $1 billion annually to support 
implementation of comprehensive support and improvement and targeted 
support and improvement plans, permits States to use up to 5 percent of 
these funds for State-level activities, including ``monitoring and 
evaluating the use of funds'' by LEAs using such funds for 
comprehensive support and improvement plans. For these reasons, we 
believe that the proposed requirement to monitor and periodically 
review each LEA's implementation of approved comprehensive support and 
improvement plans would impose few, if any, additional costs compared 
to current regulatory requirements, and that any increased costs would 
be paid for with Federal funding provided for this purpose.
    States also would be required to establish exit criteria for 
schools implementing comprehensive support and improvement plans and 
for certain schools identified for additional targeted support under 
proposed Sec.  200.19(b)(2) and implementing enhanced targeted support 
and improvement plans. In both cases, the proposed regulations would 
require that the exit criteria established by the State ensure that a 
school (1) has improved student outcomes and (2) no longer meets the 
criteria for identification. Schools that do not meet exit criteria 
following a State-determined number of years would be identified for 
additional improvement actions (as outlined by an amended comprehensive 
support and improvement plan for schools already implementing such 
plans, and a comprehensive support and improvement plan for schools 
previously identified for additional targeted support). We believe that 
the proposed requirement for States to establish exit criteria for 
schools implementing comprehensive support and improvement plans, as 
well as additional targeted support plans, would be minimally 
burdensome and entail few, if any, additional costs for States. 
Moreover, most States already have developed similar exit criteria for 
their priority and focus schools under ESEA flexibility, and would be 
able to easily adapt existing criteria for use under the proposed 
regulations. Rigorous exit criteria linked to additional improvement 
actions are essential for ensuring that low-performing schools, and, 
more importantly, the students who attend them, do not continue to 
underperform for years without meaningful and effective interventions. 
Moreover, the additional improvement actions primarily involve revision 
of existing improvement plans, which would be less burdensome, for 
example, than moving from corrective action to restructuring under 
current regulations, which requires the creation of an entirely new 
plan involving significantly different interventions. For these 
reasons, we believe that the benefits of the proposed regulations would 
outweigh the minimal costs.
    In addition to requiring States to review and approve comprehensive 
support and improvement plans, monitor implementation of those plans, 
and establish exit criteria, the proposed regulations would require 
States to provide technical assistance and other support to LEAs 
serving a significant number of schools identified either for 
comprehensive support and improvement or targeted support and 
improvement.
    Proposed Sec.  200.23 would require each State to review resource 
allocations periodically between LEAs and between schools. The proposed 
regulations also would require each State to take action, to the extent 
practicable, to address any resource inequities identified during its 
review. These reviews would not require the collection of new data and, 
in many cases, would likely involve re-examining information and 
analyses provided to States by LEAs during the process of reviewing and 
approving comprehensive support and improvement plans and meeting title 
I requirements regarding disproportionate assignment of low-income and 
minority students to ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced 
teachers. In addition, the proposed regulations would give States 
flexibility to identify the LEAs targeted for resource allocation 
reviews. Consequently, we believe that the proposed regulations 
regarding State resource allocation reviews would be minimally 
burdensome and entail few if any new costs, while contributing to the 
development of statewide strategies for addressing resource inequities 
that can help improve outcomes for students served under ESEA programs.
    Similarly, proposed Sec.  200.23(b) would require each State to 
describe in its State

[[Page 34591]]

plan the technical assistance it will provide to each of its LEAs 
serving a significant number of schools identified for either 
comprehensive support and improvement or targeted support and 
improvement. The proposed regulations would also specify minimum 
requirements for such technical assistance, including a requirement 
that the State describe how it will assist LEAs in developing and 
implementing comprehensive support and improvement plans and targeted 
support and improvement plans, conducting school-level needs 
assessments, selecting evidence-based interventions, and reviewing and 
addressing resource inequities. We believe that the proposed 
regulations related to State-provided technical assistance to certain 
LEAs would be better differentiated, more reflective of State capacity 
limits, and significantly less burdensome and costly than current 
regulatory requirements related to LEA improvement and corrective 
action and the operation of statewide systems of support for schools 
and LEAs identified for improvement. Moreover, given the schools that 
would be targeted for technical assistance, most costs could be paid 
for with the State share of funds reserved for school improvement under 
section 1003 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA.
Data Reporting
    The ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, expanded reporting requirements 
for States and LEAs in order to provide parents, practitioners, policy 
makers, and public officials at the Federal, State, and local levels 
with actionable data and information on key aspects of our education 
system and the students served by that system, but in particular those 
students served by ESEA programs. The proposed regulations would 
implement these requirements primarily by clarifying definitions and, 
where possible, streamlining and simplifying reporting requirements 
consistent with the purposes of the ESEA. Although the proposed 
regulatory changes in Sec. Sec.  200.30 through 200.37 involve new 
requirements that entail additional costs for States and LEAs, we 
believe the costs are reasonable in view of the potential benefits, 
which include a more comprehensive picture of the structure and 
performance of our education system under the new law. Importantly, the 
ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, gives States and LEAs considerable new 
flexibility to develop and implement innovative, evidence-based 
approaches to addressing local educational needs, and the proposed 
regulations would help ensure that the comprehensive data reporting 
requirements of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, capture the shape and 
results of that innovation without imposing unreasonable burdens on 
program participants.
    The Department estimates that, to meet new data reporting 
requirements in the proposed regulations, it would impose a one-time 
increased burden of 230 hours per State. Assuming an average cost of 
$40 an hour for State staff, we estimate a total one-time cost of 
$478,400 for meeting the new State report card requirements. The 
Department further estimates that the preparation and dissemination of 
LEA report cards would require a new one-time burden of 80 hours per 
respondent in the first year and annual burden of 10 hours per 
respondent, resulting in a one-time total burden across 16,970 LEAs of 
1,357,600 hours and annual burden of 169,700 hours per LEA.\21\ 
Assuming an average cost of $35 an hour for LEA staff, we estimate the 
one-time total cost to be $47,516,000 and a total annual cost of 
$5,939,500. The annual burden on LEAs for creating and publishing their 
report cards would remained unchanged at 16 hours per LEA, posing no 
additional costs relative to the costs associated with the current 
statutory and regulatory requirements. The Department believes these 
additional costs are reasonable for collecting essential information 
regarding the students, teachers, schools, and LEAs served through 
Federal programs authorized by the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, that 
currently award more than $23 billion annually to States and LEAs.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    \21\ 16,790 is, according to NCES data, the total number of 
operating school districts of all types, except supervisory unions 
and regional education service agencies; including these types would 
result in double-counting. We note that the number of LEAs 
fluctuates annually.
---------------------------------------------------------------------------

    A key challenge faced by States in meeting current report card 
requirements has been developing clear, effective formats for the 
timely delivery of complex information to a wide range of customers. 
Proposed Sec. Sec.  200.30 and 200.31 specifies requirements intended 
to promote improvements in this area, including a required overview 
aimed at ensuring essential information is provided to parents in a 
manageable, easy-to-understand format; definitions for key elements; 
dissemination options; accessible formats; and deadlines for 
publication. We believe the benefits of this proposed regulation are 
significant and include transparency, timeliness, and wide 
accessibility of data to inform educational improvement and 
accountability.
    Proposed Sec.  200.32 would streamline reporting requirements 
related to State and local accountability systems by permitting States 
and LEAs to meet those requirements by referencing or obtaining data 
from other existing documents and descriptions created to meet other 
requirements in the proposed regulations. For example, proposed Sec.  
200.32 would allow States and LEAs to meet the requirement relating to 
a description of State accountability systems through a link to a Web 
address, rather than trying to condense a complex, lengthy description 
of a statewide accountability system into an accessible, easy-to-
understand ``report card'' format. Proposed Sec.  200.33 would clarify 
calculations and reporting of data on student achievement and other 
measures of progress, primarily through modifications to existing 
measures and calculations. These proposed changes would help ensure 
that State and local report cards serve their intended purpose of 
providing the public with information on a variety of measures in a 
State's accountability system that conveys a complete picture of 
school, LEA, and State performance. The proposed regulations would have 
a key benefit of requiring all LEA report cards to include results from 
all State accountability system indicators for all schools served by 
the LEA to ensure that parents, teachers, and other key stakeholders 
have access to the information for which schools are held accountable.
    A critical new requirement in the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, is 
the collection and reporting of per-pupil expenditures. Proposed Sec.  
200.35 includes requirements and definitions aimed at helping States 
and LEAs collect and report reliable, accurate, comparable data on 
these expenditures. We believe that these data will be essential in 
helping districts meet their obligations under the supplement, not 
supplant requirement in Title I-A, which requires districts to develop 
a methodology demonstrating that federal funds are used to supplement 
state and local education funding. In addition, making such data widely 
available has tremendous potential to highlight disparities in resource 
allocations that can have a significant impact on both the effective 
use of Federal program funds and educational opportunity and outcomes 
for the students served by ESEA programs. Broader knowledge and 
understanding of such disparities among educators, parents, and the 
public can lead to a more informed debate about how to improve the

[[Page 34592]]

performance of our education system, and the ESEA, as amended by the 
ESSA, highlights the importance of resource allocation considerations 
by making them a key component of school improvement plans.
    Proposed Sec.  200.36 would provide specifications for the newly 
required collection of information on student enrollment in 
postsecondary education, including definitions of key data elements. 
Proposed Sec. Sec.  200.34 and 200.37 would clarify guidelines for 
calculating graduation rates and reporting on educator qualifications, 
respectively, and reflect a change to existing reporting requirements 
in current regulations rather than new items (e.g. requirements related 
to the reporting of highly-qualified teachers, a term that no longer 
exists in the ESEA, as amended by ESSA).
Optional Consolidated State Plans
    We believe that the proposed State plan regulations in Sec. Sec.  
299.13 to 299.19 generally would not impose significant costs on 
States. As discussed in the Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995 section of 
this document, we estimate that States would need on average 1,200 
additional hours to carry out the requirements in the proposed State 
plan regulations. At $40 per hour, the average additional State cost 
associated with these requirements would accordingly be an estimated 
$48,000, resulting in a total cost across 52 States of $2,496,000. We 
expect that States would generally use the Federal education program 
funds they reserve for State administration to cover these costs, and 
that any costs not met with Federal funds would generally be minimal.
    Moreover, the proposed regulations would implement statutory 
provisions expressly intended to reduce burden on States by simplifying 
the process for applying for Federal education program funds. Section 
8302 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, allows States to submit a 
consolidated State plan in lieu of multiple State plans for individual 
covered programs. The Department anticipates, based on previous 
experience, that all States will take advantage of the option in 
proposed Sec.  299.13 to submit a consolidated State plan, and we 
believe that the content areas and requirements proposed for those 
plans in Sec. Sec.  299.14 to 299.19 are appropriately limited to those 
needed to ensure that States and their LEAs provide all children 
significant opportunity to receive a fair, equitable, and high-quality 
education and close achievement gaps, consistent with the purpose of 
title I of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA.
    As discussed elsewhere in this document, section 8302(a)(1) of the 
ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, permits the Department to designate 
programs for inclusion in consolidated State plans in addition to those 
covered by the statute. In Sec.  299.13, the Department proposes adding 
to the covered programs the Grants for State Assessments and Related 
Activities in section 1201 of title I, part B of the ESEA, as amended 
by the ESSA, and the Education for Homeless Children and Youths program 
in subpart B of title VII of the McKinney-Vento Act. Inclusion of these 
programs in a consolidated State plan would further reduce the burden 
on States in applying for Federal education program funds.
    In general, the Department believes that the costs of the proposed 
State plan regulations (which are discussed in more detail in the 
following paragraphs) are clearly outweighed by their benefits, which 
include, in addition to reduced burden on States: Increased flexibility 
in State planning, improved stakeholder engagement in plan development 
and implementation, better coordination in the use of Federal education 
program funds and elimination of funding ``silos'', and a sustained 
focus on activities critical to providing all students with equitable 
access to a high-quality education.
    Proposed Sec.  299.13 would establish the procedures and timelines 
for State plan submission and revision, including requirements for 
timely and meaningful consultation with stakeholders that are based on 
requirements in titles I, II, and III of the ESEA, as amended by the 
ESSA. The Department does not believe that the proposed consultation 
requirements would impose significant costs on States. We expect that, 
as part of carrying out their general education responsibilities, 
States will have already developed procedures for notifying the public 
and for conducting outreach to, and soliciting input from, 
stakeholders, as the regulations would require. In the Department's 
estimation, States would not incur significant costs in implementing 
those procedures for the State plans.
    Proposed Sec. Sec.  299.14 to 299.19 would establish requirements 
for the content of consolidated State plans (i.e., the ``necessary 
materials'' discussed in section 8302(b)(3) of the ESEA, as amended by 
the ESSA). Proposed Sec.  299.14 would establish five content areas of 
consolidated State plans, including: Consultation and coordination (the 
requirements for which are specified in proposed Sec.  299.15); 
challenging academic standards and assessments (in proposed Sec.  
299.16); accountability, support, and improvement for schools (proposed 
Sec.  299.17); supporting excellent educators (proposed Sec.  299.18); 
and supporting all students (proposed Sec.  299.19). We believe that, 
in general, the proposed requirements for these content areas would 
minimize burden on States insofar as they consolidate duplicative 
requirements and eliminate unnecessary requirements from State plans 
for individual covered programs.
    Proposed Sec.  299.15 would require States to describe how they 
engaged in timely and meaningful consultation with specified 
stakeholder groups in consolidated State plan development and how they 
are coordinating administration of covered programs and other Federal 
education programs. We estimate that the costs of complying with the 
proposed requirements in this section would be minimal.
    Proposed Sec.  299.16 would require States to demonstrate that 
their academic standards and assessments meet the requirements in 
section 1111(b) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, and to describe 
how they will use Grants for State Assessments and Related Activities 
program funds to develop and administer such assessments or carry out 
other allowable activities. These proposed requirements would not 
impose significant new costs on States, which are already separately 
engaged in a review of their standards and assessment systems that 
would satisfy the applicable proposed requirements in this section.
    The Department believes that the proposed requirements in 
Sec. Sec.  299.17 and 299.18 would similarly not involve significant 
new costs for most States. Proposed Sec.  299.17 would establish 
consolidated State plan requirements for describing the State's long-
term goals, accountability system, school identifications, and support 
for low-performing schools, consistent with the requirements in section 
1111(c) and (d) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. Proposed Sec.  
299.18 would require States to describe their educator development, 
retention, and advancement systems and their use of Federal education 
program funds for State-level activities to improve educator quality 
and effectiveness, and to demonstrate that low-income and minority 
students in title I-participating schools are not taught at 
disproportionate rates by ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced 
teachers compared to their peers, consistent with the requirements in 
sections 1111(g), 2101, and 2102 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. 
The Department anticipates that, in complying with proposed

[[Page 34593]]

Sec. Sec.  299.17 and 299.18, States would rely to some degree on 
existing State ESEA flexibility requests and Educator Equity Plans. 
Accordingly, the proposed regulations should generally not result in 
significant new costs for States.
    Finally, proposed Sec.  299.19 would require States to describe how 
they and their LEAs are using Federal and other funds to close 
achievement gaps and provide all students equitable access to a high-
quality education, and would include program-specific requirements 
necessary to ensure that such access is provided to particularly 
vulnerable student groups, including migrant students, English 
learners, and homeless children and youths. We believe that the 
proposed requirements in this section would accomplish this purpose 
with minimal burden on, and cost to, States, consistent with section 
8302(b)(3) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA.
    The major benefit of these proposed regulations, taken in their 
totality, is a more flexible, less complex and costly accountability 
framework for the implementation of the ESEA that respects State and 
local decision-making while continuing to ensure that States and LEAs 
use ESEA funds to ensure that all students have significant opportunity 
to receive a fair, equitable, and high-quality education, and to close 
educational achievement gaps.

Accounting Statement

    As required by OMB Circular A-4 (available at www.whitehouse.gov/sites/default/files/omb/assets/omb/circulars/a004/a-4.pdf), in the 
following table we have prepared an accounting statement showing the 
classification of the expenditures associated with the provisions of 
these proposed regulations. This table provides our best estimate of 
the changes in annual monetized costs, benefits as a result of the 
proposed regulations. The transfers reflect appropriations for the 
affected programs. We note that the regulatory baselines differ within 
the table; the cost estimates are increments over and above what would 
be spent under ESEA if it had not been amended with ESSA, whereas the 
transfers (appropriations) are totals, rather than increments relative 
to ESEA. We further note that, although we refer to appropriations 
amounts as transfers, where they pay for new activities they would 
appropriately be categorized as costs.

      Accounting Statement Classification of Estimated Expenditures
------------------------------------------------------------------------
 
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Category                                             Benefits
------------------------------------------------------------------------
More flexible and less complex and       Not Quantified.
 costly accountability framework with
 uniform procedures.
More transparency and actionable data    Not Quantified.
 and information with uniform
 definitions, all of which provide a
 more comprehensive picture of
 performance and other key measures.
Less burden on States through            Not Quantified.
 simplified process for applying and
 planning for Federal education program
 funds.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Category                              Costs
                                           (over 4-year authorization)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Uniform procedure for setting long-term  $166,400.
 goals and measurements of interim
 progress for English learners.
Review and approval of LEA               $6,400,000.
 comprehensive support and improvement
 plans.
State Report Cards.....................  $478,400.
LEA Report Cards.......................  $65,334,500.
Consolidated State Plans...............  $2,496,000.
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                Category                            Transfers
                                           (over 4-year authorization;
                                                 based on FY 2016
                                                  appropriations)
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Title I, part A: Improving Basic         $59,639,208,000.
 Programs Operated by State and Local
 Educational Agencies.
Title I, part B: Grants for State        $1,512,000,000.
 Assessments.
Title I, part C: Education of Migratory  $1,499,004,000.
 Children.
Title I, part D: Prevention and          $190,456,000.
 Intervention Programs for Children and
 Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent,
 or At-Risk.
Title II, part A: Supporting Effective   $9,399,320,000.
 Instruction.
Title III, part A: Language Instruction  $2,949,600,000.
 for English Learners and Immigrant
 Students.
Title IV, part A: Student Support and    $6,450,000,000 (no FY 2016
 Academic Enrichment Grants.              funding; reflects
                                          authorization of
                                          appropriations).
Title IV, part B: 21st Century           $4,666,692,000.
 Community Learning Centers.
Title V, part B, Subpart 2: Rural and    $351,680,000.
 Low-Income School Program.
Education for Homeless Children and      $280,000,000.
 Youths program under subtitle B of
 title VII of the McKinney-Vento
 Homeless Assistance Act.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

Clarity of the Regulations

    Executive Order 12866 and the Presidential memorandum ``Plain 
Language in Government Writing'' require each agency to write 
regulations that are easy to understand.
    The Secretary invites comments on how to make these proposed 
regulations easier to understand, including answers to questions such 
as the following:
     Are the requirements in the proposed regulations clearly 
stated?
     Do the proposed regulations contain technical terms or 
other wording that interferes with their clarity?
     Does the format of the proposed regulations (grouping and 
order of sections, use of headings, paragraphing, etc.) aid or reduce 
their clarity?

[[Page 34594]]

     Would the proposed regulations be easier to understand if 
we divided them into more (but shorter) sections? (A ``section'' is 
preceded by the symbol ``Sec.  '' and a numbered heading: for example, 
Sec.  361.1 Purpose.)
     Could the description of the proposed regulations in the 
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION section of this preamble be more helpful in 
making the proposed regulations easier to understand? If so, how?
     What else could we do to make the proposed regulations 
easier to understand?
    To send any comments that concern how the Department could make 
these proposed regulations easier to understand, see the instructions 
in the ADDRESSES section.

Unfunded Mandates Reform Act

    Under the Unfunded Mandates Reform Act (UMRA) (2 U.S.C. 1531), an 
agency must assess the effects of its regulatory actions on State, 
local, and tribal governments. The Department has set forth that 
assessment in the Regulatory Impact Analysis. The UMRA in Sec.  1532 
also requires that an agency provide a written statement regarding any 
regulation that would involve a Federal mandate. These proposed 
regulations do not involve a Federal mandate as defined in Sec.  658 of 
UMRA because the duties imposed upon State, local, or tribal 
governments in these regulations are a condition of those governments' 
receipt of Federal formula grant funds under the ESEA.

Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification

    The Secretary certifies that these proposed requirements would not 
have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small 
entities. Under the U.S. Small Business Administration's Size 
Standards, small entities include small governmental jurisdictions such 
as cities, towns, or school districts (LEAs) with a population of less 
than 50,000. Although the majority of LEAs that receive ESEA funds 
qualify as small entities under this definition, the requirements 
proposed in this document would not have a significant economic impact 
on these small LEAs because the costs of implementing these 
requirements would be covered by funding received by these small LEAs 
under ESEA formula grant programs, including programs that provide 
funds exclusively for such small LEAs (e.g., the Rural and Low-Income 
School program authorized under subpart 2 of part B of title V). The 
Department believes the benefits provided under this proposed 
regulatory action outweigh the burdens on these small LEAs of complying 
with the proposed requirements. In particular, the proposed 
requirements would help ensure that State plans for using ESEA formula 
grant funds, as well as State-provided technical assistance and other 
support intended to promote the effective and coordinated use of 
Federal, State, and local resources in ensuring that all students meet 
challenging State standards and graduate high school college- and 
career-ready, reflect the unique needs and circumstances of small LEAs 
and ensure the provision of educational resources that otherwise may 
not be available to small and often geographically isolated LEAs. The 
Secretary invites comments from small LEAs as to whether they believe 
the requirements proposed in this document would have a significant 
economic impact on them and, if so, requests evidence to support that 
belief.

Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995

    As part of its continuing effort to reduce paperwork and respondent 
burden, the Department provides 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.
    Sections 200.30, 200.31, 200.32, 200.33, 200.34, 200.35, 200.36, 
200.37, and 299.13 contain information collection requirements. Under 
the PRA the Department has submitted a copy of these sections to OMB 
for its review.
    A Federal agency may not conduct or sponsor a collection of 
information unless OMB approves the collection under the PRA and the 
corresponding information collection instrument displays a currently 
valid OMB control number. Notwithstanding any other provision of law, 
no person is required to comply with, or is subject to penalty for 
failure to comply with, a collection of information if the collection 
instrument does not display a currently valid OMB control number. In 
the final regulations, we will display the OMB control numbers assigned 
by OMB to any information collection requirement in the proposed 
regulations and adopted in the final regulations.
    The proposed regulations would affect two currently approved 
information collections, 1810-0576 and 1810-0581. Under 1810-0576, 
Consolidated State Application, the Department is approved to collect 
information from States. We will replace the previously authorized 
consolidated State application with the consolidated State plan, 
authorized under section 8302 of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA. The 
consolidated State plan seeks to encourage greater cross-program 
coordination, planning, and service delivery; to enhance program 
integration; and to provide greater flexibility and less burden for 
States. We will use the information from the consolidated State plan as 
the basis for approving funding under the covered programs. Under the 
proposed regulations, a State would be required to update its 
consolidated State plan at least every four years.
    Proposed Sec.  299.13 would permit a State to submit a consolidated 
State plan, instead of individual program applications. Each 
consolidated State plan must meet the requirements described in 
proposed Sec. Sec.  299.14 to 299.19.
    States may choose not to submit consolidated State plans; however, 
for purposes of estimating the burden, we will assume all States will 
choose to submit consolidated State plans. We estimate that over the 
three-year period for which we seek information collection approval, 
each of the 52 grantees will spend 1,200 additional hours developing 
the accountability systems to be described in the consolidated State 
plans, reporting on all elements that must be described in the 
consolidated State plans, and making any optional amendments to the 
consolidated State plans. Accordingly, we anticipate the total 
additional burden over three years to be 62,400 hours for all 
respondents, resulting in an increased annual burden of 20,800 hours 
under current information collection 1810-0576. Overall, the total 
burden under OMB 1810-0576 will be 23,200.

[[Page 34595]]



      Collection of Information From SEAs: Consolidated State Plan
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     OMB Control No. and
     Regulatory section           Information        estimated change in
                                   collection              burden
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   299.13..............  This proposed          OMB 1810-0576. The
                              regulatory provision   burden would
                              would allow States     increase by 20,800
                              to submit              hours.
                              consolidated State
                              plans.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Under 1810-0581, State Educational Agency, Local Educational 
Agency, and School Data Collection and Reporting Under ESEA, Title I, 
Part A, the Department is approved to require States and LEAs to 
collect and disseminate information. The information collection 
currently authorizes the Department to require States and LEAs to 
develop and disseminate report cards, as well as information previously 
required through ESEA flexibility. The proposed regulations in 
Sec. Sec.  200.30 to 200.37 would require additional burden, as they 
would require States and LEAs to revise the current report cards to 
include additional elements. However, the revised information 
collection would also reduce some of the existing burden, due to the 
elimination of currently approved reporting requirements and 
adjustments in the estimated time required to report on other required 
elements.
    Section 1111(h) of the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, requires 
States and LEAs to prepare and disseminate annual report cards; these 
report cards provide essential information to school communities 
regarding activities under title I of the ESEA.
    Proposed Sec.  200.30(a) would require each State to prepare and 
disseminate an annual State report card, and proposed 200.30(c) would 
require each annual State report card to be accessible. Currently, 
under 1810-0581, the Department estimates that the preparation and 
dissemination of State report cards requires 370 hours per respondent, 
resulting in a total burden across 52 States of 19,240 hours annually. 
On an annual basis, the Department estimates that the preparation and 
dissemination of accessible State report cards will continue to take 
370 hours per respondent. However, as described below, the Department 
also anticipates a one-time increase in burden relating to some report 
card elements, based upon the changes in the proposed regulations.
    Proposed Sec.  200.30(b)(2) would require each State to add an 
overview to each report card. We anticipate that these requirements 
would require a one-time increase in burden for each State of 80 hours, 
for a total increase in burden across 52 grantees of 4,160 hours. Over 
the three-year period for which we seek approval for this information 
collection, this would result in an annual increase in burden of 1,387 
hours.
    Proposed Sec.  200.30(e) would require each State that is unable to 
update its State and LEA report cards to reflect the proposed 
regulations by the established deadline to request an extension of the 
deadline, and to submit a plan to the Secretary addressing the steps 
the State will take to update the report cards. We anticipate the 
development of such a plan would require a one-time increase in burden 
for 15 States of 50 hours, for a total increase in burden of 750 hours. 
Over the three-year period for which we seek approval for this 
information collection, this would result in an annual increase in 
burden of 250 hours.
    Proposed Sec.  200.32(a) would require each State to describe 
provide a description of the State's accountability system. We 
anticipate that this requirement would add a one-time increase in 
burden for each State of 30 hours, for a total increase in burden 
across 52 grantees of 1,560 hours. Over the three-year period for which 
we seek approval for this information collection, this would result in 
an annual increase in burden of 520 hours.
    Proposed Sec. Sec.  200.32(c), 200.33, 200.34, 200.35, 200.36 and 
200.37 would establish new requirements regarding the ways in which 
States calculate and report elements that are required on the State and 
LEA report cards. In total, we anticipate that these requirements would 
require a one-time increase in burden for each State to adjust its data 
system to address these requirements of 120 hours, for a total increase 
in burden across 52 grantees of 6,240 hours. Over the three-year period 
for which we seek approval for this information collection, this would 
result in an annual increase in burden of 2,080 hours.
    Additionally, under 1810-0581, the Department is authorized to 
collect information regarding SES providers and ESEA flexibility. As 
SES is not required, and ESEA flexibility is not applicable, under the 
ESEA, as amended by the ESSA, we intend to reduce the burden 
attributable to these elements. The Department also includes burden 
estimates for some reporting requirements that we now intend to reduce, 
because these elements include data system adjustments that have 
already been completed. These changes decrease the annual burden for 
SEAs by 35,426 hours. Overall, the total burden for SEAs under 1810-
0581 is reduced by 31,189 hours.

            Collection of Information From SEAs: Report Cards
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     OMB Control No. and
     Regulatory section           Information        estimated change in
                                   collection              burden
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   200.30(a); Sec.       The proposed           OMB 1810-0581. No
 200.30(c); Sec.              regulatory             changes. The
 200.30(d).                   provisions would       current information
                              require States to      collection assumes
                              prepare and            that each State
                              disseminate widely     will require 370
                              an annual State        hours to report the
                              report card, and to    results of its
                              ensure that the        accountability
                              report cards are       systems, for a
                              accessible.            total burden of
                                                     19,240 hours. The
                                                     proposed
                                                     regulations do not
                                                     affect this
                                                     estimate.
Sec.   200.30(b)(2)........  The proposed           OMB 1810-0581. We
                              regulatory provision   estimate that the
                              would require State    burden would
                              report cards to        increase by 1,387
                              include an overview.   hours.
Sec.   200.30(e)...........  The proposed           OMB 1810-0581. We
                              regulatory provision   estimate the burden
                              would require any      would increase by
                              State that is          250 hours.
                              unable, to update
                              its State or LEA
                              report cards with
                              required elements by
                              the deadline to
                              develop and submit
                              plans for updating
                              the report cards.
Sec.   200.32(a)...........  The proposed           OMB 1810-0581. We
                              regulatory             estimate that the
                              provisions would       burden would
                              require State report   increase by 520
                              cards to include a     hours.
                              description of the
                              State's
                              accountability
                              system.

[[Page 34596]]

 
Sec.   200.32(c); Sec.       The proposed           OMB 1810-0581. The
 200.33; Sec.   200.34;       regulatory             burden would
 Sec.   200.35; Sec.          provisions would       increase by 2,080
 200.36; Sec.   200.37.       establish              hours.
                              requirements
                              regarding the ways
                              in which States
                              calculate certain
                              data elements
                              required on report
                              cards.
None.......................  Due to statutory       OMB 1810-0581. The
                              changes under the      burden would
                              Act, the Department    decrease by 35,426
                              reduces the burden     hours.
                              estimates, as the
                              Department will no
                              longer collect
                              previously approved
                              information, as
                              described above.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    Proposed Sec. Sec.  200.21(d)(6) and 200.22(d)(2) would require 
each LEA to make publicly available, including by notifying parents 
under proposed Sec. Sec.  200.21(b) and 200.22(b), the comprehensive 
and targeted support and improvement plans, including any amendments, 
for all identified schools served by the LEA to help ensure that plans 
may be developed in partnership with parents, teachers, and principals 
and other school leaders. We estimate that the resulting burden for 
each LEA will be 30 hours, on average, resulting in a total burden for 
16,970 LEAs of 509,100 hours. Over the three-year period for which we 
seek approval, this would result in an annual increase in burden of 
169,700 hours.
    Proposed Sec.  200.31(a) would require each LEA to prepare and 
disseminate an annual LEA report card, and proposed Sec.  200.31(c) 
would require each annual LEA report card to be accessible. Currently, 
under 1810-0581, the Department estimates that the preparation and 
dissemination of LEA report cards requires 16 hours per respondent; we 
do not anticipate that the annual burden for each respondent will 
change, based upon the proposed regulations. However, we are changing 
the burden estimate, based upon an increase in the number of LEAs 
according to the most recently available data; there are currently 
16,970 LEAs, an increase of 3,883 LEAs from the last estimate. As a 
result, we increase the estimated annual burden for preparation and 
dissemination of LEA report cards by 16 hours for each of these LEAs 
not previously incorporated, or 62,128 hours.
    Proposed Sec.  200.31(b)(2) would require each LEA to add an 
overview to each report card. We anticipate that these requirements 
would require a one-time increase in burden for each LEA of 80 hours, 
for a total increase in burden across 16,970 LEAs of 1,357,600 hours. 
Over the three-year period for which we seek approval, this would 
result in an annual increase in burden of 452,533 hours.
    Proposed Sec. Sec.  200.32 to 200.37 would establish requirements 
regarding the ways in which LEAs calculate and report elements that are 
currently required on the LEA report cards. However, we expect that the 
increase in burden resulting from these required changes would be 
addressed by similar required changes in the State's data system. 
Therefore, we do not anticipate an increase in the burden on LEAs 
resulting from these requirements.
    Additionally, under 1810-0581, the Department is authorized to 
collect information regarding requirements from the ESEA, as amended by 
the NCLB, which are no longer applicable, such as restructuring plans 
for schools that do not meet AYP. The Department also includes in this 
information collection burden estimates for some reporting requirements 
that we now intend to reduce, because these elements include data 
system adjustments that have already happened. These changes result in 
a total decrease in annual burden for LEAs of 1,261,039 hours. Overall, 
based on the addition of new burden and the removal of burden that is 
no longer applicable, the total burden for LEAs under 1810-0581 is 
reduced by 786,070 hours.

 Collection of Information From LEAs: Report Cards and Public Reporting
------------------------------------------------------------------------
                                                     OMB Control No. and
     Regulatory section           Information        estimated change in
                                   collection              burden
------------------------------------------------------------------------
Sec.   200.21(b); Sec.       The proposed           OMB 1810-0581. The
 200.21(d)(6); Sec.           regulatory             burden would
 200.22(b); Sec.              provisions would       increase by 169,700
 200.22(d)(2).                require LEAs with      hours.
                              schools identified
                              for comprehensive or
                              targeted support and
                              improvement to make
                              publicly available
                              the resulting plans
                              and any amendments
                              to these plans,
                              including notifying
                              parents of the
                              identification.
Sec.   200.31(a); Sec.       Adjusted estimate      OMB 1810-0581. The
 200.31(c); Sec.              regarding the burden   burden would
 200.31(d).                   hours for              increase by 62,128
                              preparation and        hours.
                              dissemination of LEA
                              report cards,
                              including the
                              requirement these
                              reports cards are
                              accessible to
                              parents.
Sec.   200.31(b)...........  The proposed           OMB 1810-0581. The
                              regulatory             burden would
                              provisions would       increase by 452,533
                              require LEAs to        hours.
                              develop an overview
                              of the report cards.
None.......................  Adjusted burden        OMB 1810-0581. The
                              estimate, based upon   burden would
                              changes to the         decrease by 786,070
                              reporting              hours.
                              requirements from
                              the ESEA, as amended
                              by the NCLB, to the
                              ESEA, as amended by
                              the ESSA.
------------------------------------------------------------------------

    We have prepared an Information Collection Request (ICR) for these 
collections. If you want to review and comment on the ICR please follow 
the instructions listed under the ADDRESSES section of this document. 
Please note the Office of Information and Regulatory Affairs (OMB) and 
the Department review all comments on an ICR that are posted at 
www.regulations.gov. In preparing your comments you may want to review 
the ICR in www.regulations.gov or in www.reginfo.gov. The comment 
period will run concurrently with the comment period for the proposed 
regulations. When commenting on the information collection 
requirements, we consider your comments on these collections of 
information in--

[[Page 34597]]

     Deciding whether the collections are 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 collections, 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 collections of 
information contained in these proposed regulations 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 by June 30, 2016. This 
does not affect the deadline for your comments to us on the proposed 
regulations.
ADDRESSES: Comments submitted in response to this document should be 
submitted electronically through the Federal eRulemaking Portal at 
www.regulations.gov by selecting Docket ID ED-2016-OESE-0032 or via 
postal mail commercial delivery, or hand delivery. Please specify the 
Docket ID number and indicate ``Information Collection Comments'' on 
the top of your comments if your comment relates to the information 
collections for the proposed regulations. Written requests for 
information or comments submitted by postal mail or delivery should be 
addressed to the Director of the Information Collection Clearance 
Division, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., 
Mailstop L-OM-2-2E319LBJ, Room 2E115, Washington, DC 20202-4537. 
Comments submitted by fax or email and those submitted after the 
comment period will not be accepted.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Electronically mail 
ICDocketMgr@ed.gov. Please do not send comments here.

Intergovernmental Review

    This program is not subject to Executive Order 12372 and the 
regulations in 34 CFR part 79.

Assessment of Educational Impact

    In accordance with section 411 of the General Education Provisions 
Act, 20 U.S.C. 1221e-4, the Secretary particularly requests comments on 
whether these proposed regulations would require transmission of 
information that any other agency or authority of the United States 
gathers or makes available.
    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 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. (Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number does 
not apply.)

List of Subjects

34 CFR Part 200

    Elementary and secondary education, Grant programs--education, 
Indians--education, Infants and children, Juvenile delinquency, Migrant 
labor, Private schools, Reporting and recordkeeping requirements

34 CFR Part 299

    Administrative practice and procedure, Elementary and secondary 
education, Grant programs--education, Private schools, Reporting and 
recordkeeping requirements.

    Dated: May 23, 2016.
John B. King, Jr.,
Secretary of Education.

    For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary of 
Education proposes to amend parts 200 and 299 of title 34 of the Code 
of Federal Regulations as follows:

PART 200--TITLE I--IMPROVING THE ACADEMIC ACHIEVEMENT OF THE 
DISADVANTAGED

0
1. The authority citation for part 200 is revised to read as follows:

    Authority:  20 U.S.C. 6301 through 6376, unless otherwise noted.


Sec.  200.7  [Removed and Reserved]

0
2. Remove and reserve Sec.  200.7.
0
3. Section 200.12 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  200.12  Single statewide accountability system.

    (a)(1) Each State must describe in its State plan under section 
1111 of the Act that the State has developed and will implement, 
beginning no later than the 2017-2018 school year, a single, statewide 
accountability system that meets all requirements under paragraph (b) 
of this section in order to improve student academic achievement and 
school success among all public elementary and secondary schools, 
including public charter schools.
    (2) A State that submits an individual program State plan for 
subpart A of this part under Sec.  299.13(j) must meet all application 
requirements in Sec.  299.17.
    (b) The State's accountability system must--
    (1) Be based on the challenging State academic standards under 
section 1111(b)(1) of the Act and academic assessments under section 
1111(b)(2) of the Act, and include all indicators under Sec.  200.14;
    (2) Be informed by the State's long-term goals and measurements of 
interim progress under Sec.  200.13;
    (3) Take into account the achievement of all public elementary and 
secondary school students, consistent with Sec. Sec.  200.15 through 
200.17 and 200.20;
    (4) Be the same accountability system the State uses to annually 
meaningfully differentiate all public schools in the State under Sec.  
200.18, and to identify schools for comprehensive and targeted support 
and improvement under Sec.  200.19; and
    (5) Include the process the State will use to ensure effective 
development and implementation of school support and improvement plans, 
including evidence-based interventions, to hold all public schools 
accountable for student academic achievement and school success 
consistent with Sec. Sec.  200.21 through 200.24.
    (c) The accountability provisions under this section must be 
overseen for public charter schools in accordance with State charter 
school law.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6311(c); 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3)

0
4. Remove the undesignated center heading ``Adequate Yearly Progress 
(AYP)'' following Sec.  200.12.
0
5. Section 200.13 is revised to read as follows:

[[Page 34598]]

Sec.  200.13  Long-term goals and measurements of interim progress.

    In designing its statewide accountability system under Sec.  
200.12, each State must establish long-term goals and measurements of 
interim progress for, at a minimum, each of the following:
    (a) Academic achievement. (1) Each State must describe in its State 
plan under section 1111 of the Act how it has established ambitious 
State-designed long-term goals and measurements of interim progress for 
improved academic achievement, as measured by grade-level proficiency 
on the annual assessments required under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of 
the Act, for all students and separately for each subgroup of students 
described in Sec.  200.16(a)(2).
    (2) In establishing the long-term goals and measurements of interim 
progress under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, a State must--
    (i) Apply the same high standards of academic achievement to all 
public school students in the State, except as provided for students 
with the most significant cognitive disabilities consistent with 
section 1111(b)(1) of the Act;
    (ii) Set the same multi-year timeline to achieve the State's long-
term goals for all students and for each subgroup of students;
    (iii) Measure achievement separately for reading/language arts and 
for mathematics; and
    (iv) Take into account the improvement necessary for each subgroup 
of students described in Sec.  200.16(a)(2) to make significant 
progress in closing statewide proficiency gaps, such that the State's 
measurements of interim progress require greater rates of improvement 
for subgroups of students that are lower-achieving.
    (b) Graduation rates. (1) Each State must describe in its State 
plan under section 1111 of the Act how it has established ambitious 
State-designed long-term goals and measurements of interim progress for 
improved graduation rates for all students and separately for each 
subgroup of students described in Sec.  200.16(a)(2).
    (2) A State's long-term goals and measurements of interim progress 
under paragraph (b)(1) of this section must include--
    (i) The four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate consistent with 
Sec.  200.34(a); and
    (ii) If a State chooses to use an extended-year adjusted cohort 
graduation rate as part of its Graduation Rate indicator under Sec.  
200.14(b)(3), the extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate 
consistent with Sec.  200.34(d), except that a State must set more 
rigorous long-term goals for such graduation rate, as compared to the 
long-term goals for the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate.
    (3) In establishing the long-term goals and measurements of interim 
progress under paragraph (b)(1) of this section, a State must--
    (i) Set the same multi-year timeline to achieve the State's long-
term goals for all students and for each subgroup of students; and
    (ii) Take into account the improvement necessary for each subgroup 
of students described in Sec.  200.16(a)(2) to make significant 
progress in closing statewide graduation rate gaps, such that a State's 
measurements of interim progress require greater rates of improvement 
for subgroups that graduate high school at lower rates.
    (c) English language proficiency. (1) Each State must describe in 
its State plan under section 1111 of the Act how it has established 
ambitious State-designed long-term goals and measurements of interim 
progress for English learners toward attaining English language 
proficiency, as measured by the English language proficiency assessment 
required in section 1111(b)(2)(G) of the Act.
    (2) The goals and measurements of interim progress under paragraph 
(c)(1) of this section--
    (i) Must set expectations that each English learner will--
    (A) Make annual progress toward attaining English language 
proficiency; and
    (B) Attain English language proficiency within a period of time 
after the student's identification as an English learner, except that 
an English learner that does not attain English language proficiency 
within such time must not be exited from English learner services or 
status; and
    (ii) Must be determined using a State-developed uniform procedure 
applied consistently to all English learners in the State that takes 
into consideration, at the time of a student's identification as an 
English learner, the student's English language proficiency level, and 
may take into consideration, at a State's discretion, one or more of 
the following student characteristics:
    (A) Time in language instruction educational programs.
    (B) Grade level.
    (C) Age.
    (D) Native language proficiency level.
    (E) Limited or interrupted formal education, if any.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6311(c); 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3)

0
6. Section 200.14 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  200.14  Accountability indicators.

    (a) In its statewide accountability system under Sec.  200.12, each 
State must, at a minimum, include four distinct indicators for each 
school that--
    (1) Measure performance for all students and separately for each 
subgroup of students under Sec.  200.16(a)(2); and
    (2) Use the same measures within each indicator for all schools in 
the State, except as provided in paragraph (c)(2) of this section.
    (b) A State must annually measure the following indicators 
consistent with paragraph (a) of this section:
    (1) For all schools, an Academic Achievement indicator which--
    (i) Must equally measure grade-level proficiency on the annual 
reading/language arts and mathematics assessments required under 
section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the Act;
    (ii) Must include the performance of at least 95 percent of all 
students and 95 percent of all students in each subgroup consistent 
with Sec.  200.15(b)(1); and
    (iii) For high schools, may also measure, at the State's 
discretion, student growth based on the reading/language arts and 
mathematics assessments required under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of 
the Act.
    (2) For elementary and secondary schools that are not high schools, 
an Academic Progress indicator, which must include either--
    (i) A measure of student growth based on the annual assessments 
required under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the Act; or
    (ii) Another academic measure that meets the requirements of 
paragraph (c) of this section.
    (3) For high schools, a Graduation Rate indicator, which--
    (i) Must measure the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate 
consistent with Sec.  200.34(a); and
    (ii) May measure, at the State's discretion, the extended-year 
adjusted cohort graduation rate consistent with Sec.  200.34(d).
    (4) For all schools, a Progress in Achieving English Language 
Proficiency indicator, based on English learner performance on the 
annual English language proficiency assessment required under section 
1111(b)(2)(G) of the Act in each of grades 3 through 8 and in grades 
for which English learners are otherwise assessed under section 
1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I)(bb) of the Act, that--
    (i) Takes into account students' English language proficiency level 
and,

[[Page 34599]]

at a State's discretion, one or more student characteristics in the 
same manner in which the State determines its long-term goals for 
English learners under Sec.  200.13(c)(2)(ii);
    (ii) Uses objective and valid measures of progress such as student 
growth percentiles;
    (iii) Is aligned with the State-determined timeline for attaining 
English language proficiency under Sec.  200.13(c)(2)(i)(B); and
    (iv) May also include a measure of proficiency (e.g., an increase 
in percentage of English learners scoring proficient on the English 
language proficiency assessment required under section 1111(b)(2)(G) of 
the Act compared to the prior year).
    (5) One or more indicators of School Quality or Student Success 
that meets the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section, which may 
vary by each grade span and include indicators of one or more of the 
following:
    (i) Student access to and completion of advanced coursework.
    (ii) Postsecondary readiness
    (iii) School climate and safety.
    (iv) Student engagement.
    (v) Educator engagement.
    (vi) Any other indicator the State chooses that meets the 
requirements of paragraph (c) of this section.
    (c) A State must demonstrate in its State plan under section 1111 
of the Act that each measure it selects to include within an indicator 
under this section--
    (1) Is valid, reliable, and comparable across all LEAs in the 
State;
    (2) Is calculated in the same way for all schools across the State, 
except that measures within the indicator of Academic Progress and 
within any indicator of School Quality or Student Success may vary by 
each grade span;
    (3) Is able to be disaggregated for each subgroup of students 
described in Sec.  200.16(a)(2); and
    (4) Is used no more than once in its system of annual meaningful 
differentiation under Sec.  200.18.
    (d) A State must demonstrate in its State plan under section 1111 
of the Act that each measure it selects to include within the 
indicators of Academic Progress and School Quality or Student Success 
is supported by research that performance or progress on such measures 
is likely to increase student achievement or, for measures within 
indicators at the high school level, graduation rates.
    (e) A State must demonstrate in its State plan under section 1111 
of the Act that each measure it selects to include within the 
indicators of Academic Progress and School Quality or Student Success 
aids in the meaningful differentiation of schools under Sec.  200.18 by 
demonstrating varied results across all schools in the State.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6311(c); 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3)

0
7. Section 200.15 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  200.15  Participation in assessments and annual measurement of 
achievement.

    (a)(1) Each State must annually measure the achievement of at least 
95 percent of all students, and 95 percent of all students in each 
subgroup of students under Sec.  200.16(a)(2), who are enrolled in each 
public school on the assessments required under section 
1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the Act.
    (2) Each State must measure participation rates under paragraph 
(a)(1) of this section separately in reading/language arts and 
mathematics.
    (b) For purposes of annual meaningful differentiation under Sec.  
200.18 and identification of schools under Sec.  200.19, a State must--
    (1) Calculate any measure in the Academic Achievement indicator 
under Sec.  200.14(b)(1) so that the denominator of such measure, for 
all students and for all students in each subgroup, includes the 
greater of--
    (i) 95 percent of all such students in the grades assessed who are 
enrolled in the school; or
    (ii) The number of all such students enrolled in the school who are 
participating in the assessments required under section 
1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the Act; and
    (2) Factor the requirement for 95 percent student participation in 
assessments under paragraph (a) of this section into its system of 
annual meaningful differentiation so that missing such requirement, for 
all students or for any subgroup of students in a school, results in at 
least one of the following actions:
    (i) A lower summative rating in the State's system of annual 
meaningful differentiation under Sec.  200.18(b)(4).
    (ii) The lowest performance level on the Academic Achievement 
indicator in the State's system of annual meaningful differentiation 
under Sec.  200.18(b)(3).
    (iii) Identification for, and implementation of, a targeted support 
and improvement plan consistent with the requirements under Sec.  
200.22.
    (iv) Another equally rigorous State-determined action described in 
its State plan under section 1111 of the Act that will result in a 
similar outcome for the school in the system of annual meaningful 
differentiation and will improve the school's participation rate so 
that the school meets the requirements under paragraph (a) of this 
section. (c) To support the State in meeting the requirements of 
paragraph (a) of this section--
    (1) A school that fails to assess at least 95 percent of all 
students or 95 percent of each subgroup of students must develop and 
implement an improvement plan that--
    (i) Is developed in partnership with stakeholders (including 
principals and other school leaders, teachers, and parents);
    (ii) Includes one or more strategies to address the reason or 
reasons for low participation rates in the school and improve 
participation rates in subsequent years;
    (iii) Is approved by the LEA prior to implementation; and
    (iv) Is monitored, upon submission and implementation, by the LEA; 
and
    (2) An LEA with a significant number of schools that fail to assess 
at least 95 percent of all students or 95 percent of each subgroup of 
students must develop and implement an improvement plan that includes 
additional actions to support effective implementation of the school-
level plans developed under paragraph (c)(1) and that is reviewed and 
approved by the State.
    (3) If a State chooses to identify a school for targeted support 
and improvement under paragraph (b)(2)(iii) of this section, the 
requirement for such a school to develop and implement a targeted 
support and improvement plan consistent with Sec.  200.22 fulfills the 
requirements of this paragraph.
    (d)(1) A State must provide a clear and understandable explanation 
of how it has met the requirements of paragraph (b) of this section in 
its State plan under section 1111 of the Act and in its description of 
the State's system for annual meaningful differentiation of schools on 
its State report card pursuant to section 1111(h)(1)(C)(i)(IV) of the 
Act.
    (2) A State, LEA, or school may not systematically exclude students 
in any subgroup of students under Sec.  200.16(a) from participating in 
the assessments required under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the Act.
    (3) To count a student who is assessed based on alternate academic 
achievement standards described in section 1111(b)(1)(E) of the Act as 
a participant for purposes of meeting the requirements of this section, 
the State must have guidelines that meet the requirements described in 
section 1111(b)(2)(D)(ii) of the Act and must ensure that its LEAs 
adhere to such guidelines.
    (4) A State may count a recently arrived English learner as defined 
in section 1111(b)(3)(A) of the Act as a

[[Page 34600]]

participant in the State assessment in reading/language arts for 
purposes of meeting the requirements in paragraph (a) of this section 
if he or she takes either the State's English language proficiency 
assessment under section 1111(b)(2)(G) of the Act or reading/language 
arts assessment under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the Act.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)-(c); 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3)

0
8. Section 200.16 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  200.16  Subgroups of students.

    (a) In general. In establishing long-term goals and measurements of 
interim progress under Sec.  200.13, measuring performance on each 
indicator under Sec.  200.14, annually meaningfully differentiating 
schools under Sec.  200.18, and identifying schools under Sec.  200.19, 
each State must include the following categories of students consistent 
with the State's minimum number of students under Sec.  200.17(a)(1):
    (1) All public school students.
    (2) Each of the following subgroups of students, separately:
    (i) Economically disadvantaged students.
    (ii) Students from each major racial and ethnic group.
    (iii) Children with disabilities, as defined in section 8101(4) of 
the Act.
    (iv) English learners, as defined in section 8101(20) of the Act.
    (b) English learners. (1) With respect to a student previously 
identified as an English learner who has achieved English language 
proficiency consistent with the standardized, statewide entrance and 
exit procedures in section 3111(b)(2)(A) of the Act--
    (i) A State may include such a student's performance within the 
English learner subgroup under paragraph (a)(2)(iv) of this section for 
not more than four years after the student ceases to be identified as 
an English learner for purposes of calculating the Academic Achievement 
indicator if the State develops a uniform statewide procedure for doing 
so that includes all such students and includes them--
    (A) For the same State-determined period of time; and
    (B) In determining if a school meets the State's minimum number of 
students for the English learner subgroup under Sec.  200.17(a)(1).
    (ii) A State may not include such a student within the English 
learner subgroup under paragraph (a)(2)(iv) of this section for--
    (A) Any purpose in the accountability system, except as described 
in paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section; or
    (B) Purposes of reporting information on State and LEA report cards 
under section 1111(h) of the Act, except for providing information on 
each school's level of performance on the Academic Achievement 
indicator consistent with Sec.  200.18(b)(3).
    (2) With respect to an English learner with a disability for whom 
there are no appropriate accommodations for one or more domains of the 
English language proficiency assessment required under section 
1111(b)(2)(G) of the Act because the disability is directly related to 
that particular domain (e.g., a non-verbal English learner who cannot 
take the speaking portion of the assessment) as determined by the 
student's individualized education program (IEP) team or 504 team on an 
individualized basis, a State must, in measuring performance against 
the Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency indicator, 
include such a student's performance on the English language 
proficiency assessment based on the remaining domains in which it is 
possible to assess the student.
    (3) With respect to a recently arrived English learner as defined 
in section 1111(b)(3)(A) of the Act, a State must include such an 
English learner's results on the assessments under section 
1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the Act upon enrollment in a school in one of 
the 50 States or the District of Columbia (hereafter ``a school in the 
United States'') in calculating long-term goals and measurements of 
interim progress under Sec.  200.13(a), annually meaningfully 
differentiating schools under Sec.  200.18, and identifying schools 
under Sec.  200.19, except that the State may either--
    (i)(A) Exempt such an English learner from the first administration 
of the reading/language arts assessment;
    (B) Exclude such an English learner's results on the assessments 
under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) and 1111(b)(2)(G) of the Act in 
calculating the Academic Achievement and Progress in Achieving English 
Language Proficiency indicators in the first year of such an English 
learner's enrollment in a school in the United States; and
    (C) Include such an English learner's results on the assessments 
under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) and 1111(b)(2)(G) of the Act in 
calculating the Academic Achievement and Progress in Achieving English 
Language Proficiency indicators in the second year of such an English 
learner's enrollment in a school in the United States and every year of 
enrollment thereafter; or
    (ii)(A) Assess, and report the performance of, such an English 
learner on the assessments under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the Act 
in each year of such an English learner's enrollment in a school in the 
United States;
    (B) Exclude such an English learner's results on the assessments 
under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the Act in calculating the 
Academic Achievement indicator in the first year of such an English 
learner's enrollment in a school in the United States;
    (C) Include a measure of such an English learner's growth on the 
assessments under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the Act in calculating 
the Academic Progress indicator, in the case of an elementary or middle 
school, and the Academic Achievement indicator, in the case of a high 
school, in the second year of such an English learner's enrollment in a 
school in the United States; and
    (D) Include a measure of such an English learner's proficiency on 
the assessments under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the Act in 
calculating the Academic Achievement indicator in the third year of 
such an English learner's enrollment in a school in the United States 
and every year of enrollment thereafter.
    (4) A State may choose one of the exceptions described in 
paragraphs (b)(3)(i) or (ii) of this section for recently arrived 
English learners and must--
    (i)(A) Apply the same exception to all recently arrived English 
learners in the State; or
    (B) Develop and consistently implement a uniform statewide 
procedure for all recently arrived English learners that, in 
determining whether such an exception is appropriate for an English 
learner, considers the student's English language proficiency level and 
that may, at a State's discretion, consider one or more of the student 
characteristics under Sec.  200.13(c)(2)(ii)(B) through (E); and
    (ii) Report on State and LEA report cards under section 1111(h) of 
the Act the number and percentage of recently arrived English learners 
who are exempted from taking such assessments or whose results on such 
assessments are excluded from any indicator under Sec.  200.14 on the 
basis of each exception described in paragraphs (b)(3)(i) and (ii) of 
this section.
    (c) State plan. Each State must describe in its State plan under 
section 1111 of the Act how it has met the requirements of this 
section, including by describing any subgroups of students used in the 
accountability system in addition to those in paragraph (a)(2) of this 
section, its uniform procedure for including former English learners 
under paragraph (b)(1)(i) of this section, and

[[Page 34601]]

its uniform procedure for including recently arrived English learners 
under paragraph (b)(4) of this section, if applicable.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6311(b)-(c), (h); 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3)

0
9. Section 200.17 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  200.17  Disaggregation of data.

    (a) Statistically sound and reliable information. (1) Based on 
sound statistical methodology, each State must determine the minimum 
number of students sufficient to--
    (i) Yield statistically reliable information for each purpose for 
which disaggregated data are used, including purposes of reporting 
information under section 1111(h) of the Act or for purposes of the 
statewide accountability system under section 1111(c) of the Act; and
    (ii) Ensure that, to the maximum extent practicable, each student 
subgroup in Sec.  200.16(a)(2) is included at the school level for 
annual meaningful differentiation and identification of schools under 
Sec. Sec.  200.18 and 200.19.
    (2) Such number--
    (i) Must be the same number for all students and for each subgroup 
of students in the State described in Sec.  200.16(a)(2);
    (ii) Must be the same number for all purposes of the statewide 
accountability system under section 1111(c) of the Act, including 
measuring school performance for each indicator under Sec.  200.14;
    (iii) Must not exceed 30 students, unless the State provides a 
justification for doing so in its State plan under section 1111 of the 
Act consistent with paragraph (a)(3)(v) of this section; and
    (iv) May be a lower number for purposes of reporting under section 
1111(h) under the Act than for purposes of the statewide accountability 
system under section 1111(c) of the Act.
    (3) A State must include in its State plan under section 1111 of 
the Act--
    (i) A description of how the State's minimum number of students 
meets the requirements of paragraphs (a)(1) of this section;
    (ii) An explanation of how other components of the statewide 
accountability system, such as the State's uniform procedure for 
averaging data under Sec.  200.20(a), interact with the State's minimum 
number of students to affect the statistical reliability and soundness 
of accountability data and to ensure the maximum inclusion of all 
students and each student subgroup under Sec.  200.16(a)(2);
    (iii) A description of the strategies the State uses to protect the 
privacy of individual students for each purpose for which disaggregated 
data is required, including reporting under section 1111(h) of the Act 
and the statewide accountability system under section 1111(c) of the 
Act, as required in paragraph (b) of this section;
    (iv) Information regarding the number and percentage of all 
students and students in each subgroup described in Sec.  200.16(a)(2) 
for whose results schools would not be held accountable in the State 
accountability system for annual meaningful differentiation under Sec.  
200.18; and
    (v) If applicable, a justification, including data on the number 
and percentage of schools that would not be held accountable for the 
results of students in each subgroup under Sec.  200.16(a)(2) in the 
accountability system, that explains how a minimum number of students 
exceeding 30 promotes sound, reliable accountability determinations.
    (b) Personally identifiable information. (1) A State may not use 
disaggregated data for one or more subgroups under Sec.  200.16(a) to 
report required information under section 1111(h) of the Act if the 
results would reveal personally identifiable information about an 
individual student, teacher, principal, or other school leader.
    (2) To determine whether the collection and dissemination of 
disaggregated information would reveal personally identifiable 
information about an individual student, teacher, principal, or other 
school leader, a State must apply the requirements under section 444 of 
the General Education Provisions Act (the Family Educational Rights and 
Privacy Act of 1974).
    (3) Nothing in paragraph (b)(1) or (2) of this section may be 
construed to abrogate the responsibility of a State to implement the 
requirements of section 1111(c) of the Act to annually meaningfully 
differentiate among all public schools in the State on the basis of the 
performance of all students and each subgroup of students under section 
1111(c)(2) of the Act on all indicators under section 1111(c)(4)(B) of 
the Act.
    (4) Each State and LEA must implement appropriate strategies to 
protect the privacy of individual students in reporting information 
under section 1111(h) of the Act and in establishing annual meaningful 
differentiation of schools in its statewide accountability system under 
section 1111(c) of the Act on the basis of disaggregated subgroup 
information.
    (c) Inclusion of subgroups in assessments. If a subgroup under 
Sec.  200.16(a) is not of sufficient size to produce statistically 
sound and reliable results, a State must still include students in that 
subgroup in its State assessments under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(i) of the 
Act.
    (d) Disaggregation at the LEA and State. If the number of students 
in a subgroup is not statistically sound and reliable at the school 
level, a State must include those students in disaggregated information 
at each level for which the number of students is statistically sound 
and reliable (e.g., the LEA or State level).

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6311(c), (h); 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3)

0
10. Section 200.18 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  200.18  Annual meaningful differentiation of school performance.

    (a) In its State plan under section 1111 of the Act each State must 
describe how its statewide accountability system under Sec.  200.12 
establishes a system for annual meaningful differentiation for all 
public schools.
    (b) A State must define annual meaningful differentiation in a 
manner that--
    (1) Includes the performance of all students and each subgroup of 
students in a school, consistent with Sec. Sec.  200.16, 200.17, and 
200.20(c), on each of the indicators described in Sec.  200.14;
    (2) Includes, for each indicator, at least three distinct levels of 
school performance that are consistent with attainment of the long-term 
goals and measurements of interim progress under Sec.  200.13 and that 
are clear and understandable to the public;
    (3) Provides information on a school's level of performance on each 
indicator described in Sec.  200.14, separately, as part of the 
description of the State's system for annual meaningful differentiation 
on LEA report cards under Sec.  200.32;
    (4) Results in a single rating from among at least three distinct 
rating categories for each school, based on a school's level of 
performance on each indicator, to describe a school's summative 
performance as part of the description of the State's system for annual 
meaningful differentiation on LEA report cards under Sec. Sec.  200.31 
and 200.32;
    (5) Meets the requirements of Sec.  200.15 to annually measure the 
achievement of at least 95 percent of all students and 95 percent of 
all students in each subgroup of students on the assessments described 
in section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the Act; and
    (6) Informs the State's methodology described in Sec.  200.19 for 
identifying schools for comprehensive support and

[[Page 34602]]

improvement and for targeted support and improvement.
    (c) In providing annual meaningful differentiation among all public 
schools in the State, including providing a single summative rating for 
each school, a State must--
    (1) Afford substantial weight to each of the following indicators, 
as applicable, under Sec.  200.14--
    (i) Academic Achievement indicator.
    (ii) Academic Progress indicator.
    (iii) Graduation Rate indicator.
    (iv) Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency indicator;
    (2) Afford, in the aggregate, much greater weight to the indicators 
in paragraph (c)(1) of this section than to the indicator or indicators 
of School Quality or Student Success under Sec.  200.14(b)(5), in the 
aggregate; and
    (3) Within each grade span, afford the same relative weight to each 
indicator among all schools consistent with paragraph (e)(3) of this 
section.
    (d) To show that its system of annual meaningful differentiation 
meets the requirements of paragraph (c) of this section, a State must--
    (1) Demonstrate that performance on the indicator or indicators of 
School Quality or Student Success may not be used to change the 
identity of schools that would otherwise be identified for 
comprehensive support and improvement under Sec.  200.19(a) unless such 
a school is also making significant progress, for all students 
consistent with Sec.  200.16(a)(1), on at least one of the indicators 
described in paragraph (c)(1)(i) through (iii) of this section;
    (2) Demonstrate that performance on the indicator or indicators of 
School Quality or Student Success may not be used to change the 
identity of schools that would otherwise be identified for targeted 
support and improvement under Sec.  200.19(b), unless such a school is 
also making significant progress, for each consistently underperforming 
or low-performing subgroup of students, on at least one of the 
indicators described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section; and
    (3) Demonstrate, based on the performance of all students and each 
subgroup of students, that a school performing in the lowest 
performance level under paragraph (b)(2) of this section on any of the 
indicators described in paragraph (c)(1) of this section receives a 
different summative rating than a school performing in the highest 
performance level on all indicators under Sec.  200.14; and
    (e)(1) A State must demonstrate in its State plan under section 
1111 of the Act how it has met the requirements of paragraphs (c) and 
(d) of this section, including a description of how a State calculates 
the performance levels on each indicator and a summative rating for 
each school.
    (2) In meeting the requirement in paragraph (c)(1) of this section 
to afford substantial weight to certain indicators, a State is not 
required to afford each such indicator the same substantial weight.
    (3) If a school does not meet the State's minimum number of 
students under Sec.  200.17(a)(1) for the English learner subgroup, a 
State must--
    (i) Exclude the Progress in Achieving English Language Proficiency 
indicator from the annual meaningful differentiation for such a school 
under paragraph (b) of this section; and
    (ii) Afford the Academic Achievement, Academic Progress, Graduation 
Rate, and School Quality or Student Success indicators the same 
relative weights in such a school as are afforded to such indicators in 
a school that meets the State's minimum number of students for the 
English learner subgroup.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6311(c), (h); 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3)

0
11. Section 200.19 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  200.19  Identification of schools.

    (a) Schools identified for comprehensive support and improvement. 
Based on its system for annual meaningful differentiation under Sec.  
200.18, each State must establish and describe in its State plan under 
section 1111 of the Act a methodology to identify one statewide 
category of schools for comprehensive support and improvement under 
Sec.  200.21, which must include, at a minimum, the following three 
types of schools:
    (1) Lowest-performing. The lowest-performing five percent of 
elementary, middle, and high schools in the State participating under 
subpart A of this part, based on each school's summative rating among 
all students and consistent with the requirements of Sec.  200.18(c), 
over no more than three years consistent with Sec.  200.20(a).
    (2) Low high school graduation rate. Any public high school in the 
State with a four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate, as calculated 
under Sec.  200.34(a), below 67 percent, or below a higher percentage 
selected by the State, over no more than three years consistent with 
Sec.  200.20(a).
    (3) Chronically low-performing subgroup. Any school participating 
under subpart A of this part and identified pursuant to paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section that has not improved, as defined by the State, 
after implementing a targeted support and improvement plan over no more 
than three years consistent with paragraph (d)(1)(i) of this section.
    (b) Schools identified for targeted support and improvement. Based 
on its system for annual meaningful differentiation under Sec.  200.18, 
each State must establish and describe in its State plan under section 
1111 of the Act a methodology to identify schools for targeted support 
and improvement under Sec.  200.22, which must include, at a minimum, 
the following two types of schools:
    (1) Consistently underperforming subgroup. Any school with one or 
more consistently underperforming subgroups of students, as defined in 
paragraph (c) of this section and consistent with Sec. Sec.  200.16 and 
200.17, including at the State's discretion, any school identified due 
to assessment participation rates under Sec.  200.15(b)(2)(iii) 
consistent with Sec.  200.24(a)(1).
    (2) Low-performing subgroup receiving additional targeted support. 
Any school in which one or more subgroups of students is performing at 
or below the summative level of performance of all students in any 
school identified under paragraph (a)(1) of this section.
    (c) Methodology to identify consistently underperforming subgroups. 
The State's methodology to identify schools with one or more 
consistently underperforming subgroups of students under paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section must--
    (1) Consider each school's performance among each subgroup of 
students in the school consistent with Sec. Sec.  200.16 and 200.17, 
over no more than two years consistent with Sec.  200.20(a);
    (2) Take into account the indicators under Sec.  200.14 used for 
annual meaningful differentiation under Sec.  200.18 consistent with 
the requirements for weighting of indicators described in Sec.  
200.18(c); and
    (3) Define a consistently underperforming subgroup of students in a 
uniform manner across all LEAs in the State, which must include one or 
more of the following:
    (i) A subgroup of students that is not meeting the State's 
measurements of interim progress or is not on track to meet the State-
designed long-term goals under Sec.  200.13.
    (ii) A subgroup of students that is performing at the lowest 
performance level under Sec.  200.18(b)(3) in the system of annual 
meaningful differentiation on at least one indicator under Sec.  
200.14, or is particularly low performing on a measure within an 
indicator (e.g.,

[[Page 34603]]

student proficiency on the State mathematics assessments).
    (iii) A subgroup of students that is performing at or below a 
State-determined threshold as compared to the average performance among 
all students, or the highest-performing subgroup of students, in the 
State.
    (iv) A subgroup of students that is performing significantly below 
the average performance among all students, or the highest-performing 
subgroup, in the State, such that the performance gap is among the 
largest in the State.
    (v) Another definition that the State demonstrates in its State 
plan meets the requirements of paragraphs (c)(1) and (2) of this 
section.
    (d) Timeline. (1)(i) A State must identify each type of school for 
comprehensive support and improvement under paragraphs (a)(1) through 
(3) of this section at least once every three years, beginning with 
identification for the 2017-2018 school year, except that 
identification of schools with chronically low-performing subgroups 
under paragraph (a)(3) of this section is not required for the 2017-
2018 school year.
    (ii) A State must identify schools with one or more consistently 
underperforming subgroups of students for targeted support and 
improvement under paragraph (b) of this section annually, beginning 
with identification for the 2018-2019 school year.
    (iii) A State must identify schools with one or more low-performing 
subgroups of students for targeted support and improvement under 
paragraph (b)(2) of this section at least once every three years, with 
such identification occurring in each year, consistent with paragraph 
(d)(1)(i) of this section, that the State identifies schools under for 
comprehensive support and improvement, beginning with identification 
for the 2017-2018 school year.
    (2) A State must identify schools for comprehensive and targeted 
support and improvement by the beginning of each school year, with the 
year of identification defined as the school year immediately following 
the most recent school year in which the State measured the school's 
performance on the indicators under Sec.  200.14 that resulted in the 
school's identification (e.g., data from the 2016-2017 school year 
inform identification for the 2017-2018 school year).

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6311(c) and (d); 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3)

0
12. Section Sec.  200.20 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  200.20  Data procedures for annual meaningful differentiation and 
identification of schools.

    (a) Averaging data. For the purposes of meeting the requirements 
for annual meaningful differentiation under Sec.  200.18 and 
identification of schools under Sec.  200.19, a State may establish a 
uniform procedure that includes one or both of the following:
    (1) Averaging data across school years. (i) A State may average 
data across up to three school years.
    (ii) If a State averages data across school years for these 
purposes, the State must--
    (A) Use the same uniform procedure for averaging data from the 
school year for which the identification is made with data from one or 
two school years immediately preceding that school year for all public 
schools;
    (B) Report data for a single school year, without averaging, on 
report cards under section 1111(h) of the Act; and
    (C) Explain its uniform procedure for averaging data in its State 
plan under section 1111 of the Act and specify that such procedure is 
used in its description of the indicators used for annual meaningful 
differentiation on the State report card pursuant to section 
1111(h)(1)(C)(i)(III) of the Act.
    (2) Combining data across grades. (i) A State may combine data 
across grades in a school.
    (ii) If a State combines data across grades for these purposes, the 
State must--
    (A) Use the same uniform procedure for combining data for all 
public schools;
    (B) Report data for each grade in the school on report cards under 
section 1111(h) of the Act; and
    (C) Explain its uniform procedure for combining data in its State 
plan under section 1111 of the Act, and specify that such procedure is 
used in its description of the indicators used for annual meaningful 
differentiation in its accountability system on the State report card 
pursuant to section 1111(h)(1)(C)(i)(III) of the Act.
    (b) Partial enrollment. (1) In calculating school performance on 
each of the indicators for the purposes of annual meaningful 
differentiation under Sec.  200.18 and identification of schools under 
Sec.  200.19, a State must include all students who were enrolled in 
the same school within an LEA for at least half of the academic year.
    (2) A State may not use the performance of a student who has been 
enrolled in the same school within an LEA for less than half of the 
academic year in its system of annual meaningful differentiation and 
identification of schools, except that--
    (i) An LEA must include such student in calculating the Graduation 
Rate indicator under Sec.  200.14(b)(3), if applicable;
    (ii) If such student exited a high school without receiving a 
regular high school diploma and without transferring to another high 
school that grants a regular high school diploma during such school 
year, the LEA must assign such student, for purposes of calculating the 
Graduation Rate indicator and consistent with the approach established 
by the State under Sec.  200.34(f), to either--
    (A) The high school in which such student was enrolled for the 
greatest proportion of school days while enrolled in grades 9 through 
12; or
    (B) The high school in which the student was most recently 
enrolled; and
    (iii) All students, regardless of their length of enrollment in a 
school within an LEA during the academic year, must be included for 
purposes of reporting on the State and LEA report cards under section 
1111(h) of the Act for such school year.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6311(c); 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3)

0
13. Section 200.21 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  200.21  Comprehensive support and improvement.

    (a) In general. A State must notify each LEA in the State that 
serves one or more schools identified for comprehensive support and 
improvement under Sec.  200.19(a) of such identification no later than 
the beginning of the school year for which such school is identified.
    (b) Notice. Upon receiving the notification from the State under 
paragraph (a) of this section, an LEA must promptly notify the parents 
of each student enrolled in the school of the school's identification 
for comprehensive support and improvement, including, at a minimum, the 
reason or reasons for the identification under Sec.  200.19(a) (e.g., 
low performance of all students, low graduation rate, chronically low-
performing subgroup), and an explanation of how parents can become 
involved in the needs assessment under paragraph (c) of this section 
and in developing and implementing the comprehensive support and 
improvement plan described in paragraph (d) of this section. Such 
notice must--
    (1) Be in an understandable and uniform format;

[[Page 34604]]

    (2) Be, to the extent practicable, written in a language that 
parents can understand or, if it is not practicable to provide written 
translations to a parent with limited English proficiency, be orally 
translated for such parent; and
    (3) Be, upon request by a parent or guardian who is an individual 
with a disability as defined by the Americans with Disabilities Act, 42 
U.S.C. 12102, provided in an alternative format accessible to that 
parent.
    (c) Needs assessment. For each identified school, an LEA must 
conduct, in partnership with stakeholders (including principals and 
other school leaders, teachers, and parents), a comprehensive needs 
assessment that examines, at a minimum--
    (1) Academic achievement data on each of the assessments required 
under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v) of the Act for all students in the 
school, including for each subgroup of students described in Sec.  
200.16(a)(2);
    (2) The school's performance, including among subgroups of students 
described in Sec.  200.16(a)(2), on the indicators and long-term goals 
and measurements of interim progress described in Sec. Sec.  200.13 and 
200.14;
    (3) The reason or reasons the school was identified for 
comprehensive support and improvement under Sec.  200.19(a); and
    (4) At the LEA's discretion, the school's performance on 
additional, locally selected indicators that are not included in the 
State's system of annual meaningful differentiation under Sec.  200.18 
and that affect student outcomes in the identified school.
    (d) Comprehensive support and improvement plan. Each LEA must, with 
respect to each school identified by the State for comprehensive 
support and improvement, develop and implement a comprehensive support 
and improvement plan for the school to improve student outcomes that--
    (1) Is developed in partnership with stakeholders (including 
principals and other school leaders, teachers, and parents), as 
demonstrated, at a minimum, by describing in the plan how--
    (i) Early stakeholder input was solicited and taken into account in 
the development of the plan, including the changes made as a result of 
such input; and
    (ii) Stakeholders will participate in an ongoing manner in the 
plan's implementation;
    (2) Includes and is based on the results of the needs assessment 
described in paragraph (c) of this section;
    (3) Includes one or more interventions (e.g., increasing access to 
effective teachers or adopting incentives to recruit and retain 
effective teachers; increasing or redesigning instructional time; 
interventions based on data from early warning indicator systems; 
reorganizing the school to implement a new instructional model; 
strategies designed to increase diversity by attracting and retaining 
students from varying socioeconomic backgrounds; replacing school 
leadership; in the case of an elementary school, increasing access to 
high-quality preschool; converting the school to a public charter 
school; changing school governance; closing the school; and, in the 
case of a public charter school, revoking or non-renewing the school's 
charter by its authorized public chartering agency consistent with 
State charter school law) to improve student outcomes in the school 
that--
    (i) Meet the definition of ``evidence-based'' under section 
8101(21) of the Act;
    (ii) Are supported, to the extent practicable, by evidence from a 
sample population or setting that overlaps with the population or 
setting of the school to be served;
    (iii) Are supported, to the extent practicable, by the strongest 
level of evidence that is available and appropriate to meet the needs 
identified in the needs assessment under paragraph (c) of this section; 
and
    (iv) May be selected from among any State-established evidence-
based interventions or a State-approved list of evidence-based 
interventions, consistent with State law and Sec.  200.23(c)(2) and 
(3);
    (4) Identifies and addresses resource inequities, by--
    (i) Including a review of LEA and school-level resources among 
schools and, as applicable, within schools with respect to--
    (A) Disproportionate rates of ineffective, out-of-field, or 
inexperienced teachers identified by the State and LEA consistent with 
sections 1111(g)(1)(B) and 1112(b)(2) of the Act; and
    (B) Per-pupil expenditures of Federal, State, and local funds 
required to be reported annually consistent with section 
1111(h)(1)(C)(x) of the Act; and
    (ii) Including, at the LEA's discretion, a review of LEA- and 
school-level budgeting and resource allocation with respect to 
resources described in paragraph (d)(4)(i) of this section and the 
availability and access to any other resource provided by the LEA or 
school, such as--
    (A) Advanced coursework;
    (B) Preschool programs; and
    (C) Instructional materials and technology;
    (5) Must be fully implemented in the school year for which such 
school is identified, except that an LEA may have a planning year 
during which the LEA must carry out the needs assessment required under 
paragraph (c) of this section and develop the comprehensive support and 
improvement plan to prepare for successful implementation of 
interventions required under the plan on, at the latest, the first full 
day of the school year following the school year for which the school 
was identified;
    (6) Must be made publicly available by the LEA, including to 
parents consistent with the requirements under paragraphs (b)(1) 
through (3) of this section; and
    (7) Must be approved by the school identified for comprehensive 
support and improvement, the LEA, and the State.
    (e) Plan approval and monitoring. The State must, upon receipt from 
an LEA of a comprehensive support and improvement plan under paragraph 
(d) of this section--
    (1) Review such plan against the requirements of this section and 
approve the plan in a timely manner, as determined by the State, taking 
all actions necessary to ensure that the school and LEA are able to 
meet all of the requirements of paragraphs (a) through (d) of this 
section to develop and implement the plan within the required 
timeframe; and
    (2) Monitor and periodically review each LEA's implementation of 
such plan.
    (f) Exit criteria. (1) To ensure continued progress to improve 
student academic achievement and school success, the State must 
establish uniform statewide exit criteria for each school implementing 
a comprehensive support and improvement plan under this section. Such 
exit criteria must, at a minimum, require that the school--
    (i) Improve student outcomes; and
    (ii) No longer meet the criteria for identification under Sec.  
200.19(a) within a State-determined number of years (not to exceed four 
years).
    (2) If a school does not meet the exit criteria established under 
paragraph (f)(1) of this section within the State-determined number of 
years, the State must, at a minimum, require the LEA to conduct a new 
comprehensive needs assessment that meets the requirements under 
paragraph (c) of this section.
    (3) Based on the results of the new needs assessment, the LEA must, 
with respect to each school that does not meet the exit criteria, amend 
its

[[Page 34605]]

comprehensive support and improvement plan described in paragraph (d) 
of this section, in partnership with stakeholders consistent with the 
requirements in paragraph (d)(1) of this section, to--
    (i) Address the reasons the school did not meet the exit criteria, 
including whether the school implemented the interventions with 
fidelity and sufficient intensity, and the results of the new needs 
assessment;
    (ii) Update how it will continue to address previously identified 
resource inequities and to identify and address any newly identified 
resource inequities consistent with the requirements in paragraph 
(d)(4) of this section; and
    (iii) Include implementation of additional interventions in the 
school that may address school-level operations (which may include 
staffing, budgeting, and changes to the school day and year) and that 
must--
    (A) Be determined by the State, which may include requiring an 
intervention from among any State-established evidence-based 
interventions or a State-approved list of evidence-based interventions, 
consistent with State law and Sec.  200.23(c)(2) and (3);
    (B) Be more rigorous such that one or more evidence-based 
interventions in the plan are supported by strong or moderate evidence, 
consistent with section 8101(21)(A) of the Act; and
    (C) Be supported, to the extent practicable, by evidence from a 
sample population or setting that overlaps with the population or 
setting of the school to be served.
    (4) Each LEA must--
    (i) Make the amended comprehensive support and improvement plan 
described in paragraph (f)(3) of this section publicly available, 
including to parents consistent with paragraphs (b)(1) through (3) of 
this section; and
    (ii) Submit the amended plan to the State in a timely manner, as 
determined by the State.
    (5) After the LEA submits the amended plan to the State, the State 
must--
    (i) Review and approve the amended plan, and any additional 
amendments to the plan, consistent with the review process required 
under paragraph (e)(1) of this section; and
    (ii) Increase its monitoring, support, and periodic review of each 
LEA's implementation of such plan.
    (g) State discretion for certain high schools. With respect to any 
high school in the State identified for comprehensive support and 
improvement under Sec.  200.19(a)(2), the State may--
    (1) Permit differentiated improvement activities consistent with 
paragraph (d)(3) of this section as part of the comprehensive support 
and improvement plan, including in schools that predominantly serve 
students--
    (i) Returning to education after having exited secondary school 
without a regular high school diploma; or
    (ii) Who, based on their grade or age, are significantly off track 
to accumulate sufficient academic credits to meet high school 
graduation requirements, as established by the State; and
    (2) In the case of such a school that has a total enrollment of 
less than 100 students, permit the LEA to forego implementation of 
improvement activities required under this section.
    (h) Public school choice. Consistent with section 1111(d)(1)(D) of 
the Act, an LEA may provide all students enrolled in a school 
identified by the State for comprehensive support and improvement under 
Sec.  200.19(a) with the option to transfer to another public school 
that is served by the LEA and that is not identified for comprehensive 
support and improvement under Sec.  200.19(a), unless such an option is 
prohibited by State law or inconsistent with a Federal desegregation 
order, in which case the LEA must petition and obtain court approval 
for such transfers.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6311(d); 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3)

0
14. Section 200.22 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  200.22  Targeted support and improvement.

    (a) In general. With respect to each school that the State 
identifies under Sec.  200.19(b) as a school requiring targeted support 
and improvement, each State must--
    (1) Notify, no later than the beginning of the school year for 
which such school is identified, each LEA serving such school of the 
identification; and
    (2) Ensure such LEA provides notification to each school identified 
for targeted support and improvement, including the reason for 
identification (i.e., the subgroup or subgroups under Sec.  
200.16(a)(2) that are identified as consistently underperforming under 
Sec.  200.19(b)(1), including, at the State's discretion, the subgroup 
or subgroups that are identified under Sec.  200.15(b)(2)(iii), or the 
subgroup or subgroups that are low-performing under Sec.  
200.19(b)(2)), no later than the beginning of the school year for which 
such school is identified.
    (b) Notice. (1) Upon receiving the notification from the State 
under paragraph (a)(1) of this section, the LEA must promptly notify 
the parents of each student enrolled in the school of the school's 
identification for targeted support and improvement, consistent with 
the requirements under Sec.  200.21(b)(1) through (3).
    (2) The notice must include--
    (i) The reason or reasons for the identification under Sec.  
200.19(b) (i.e., which subgroup or subgroups are consistently 
underperforming under Sec.  200.19(b)(1), including any subgroup or 
subgroups identified under Sec.  200.15(b)(2)(iii) if the State chooses 
to require such schools to implement targeted support and improvement 
plans, or which subgroup or subgroups are low-performing under Sec.  
200.19(b)(2)); and
    (ii) An explanation of how parents can become involved in 
developing and implementing the targeted support and improvement plan 
described in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (c) Targeted support and improvement plan. Upon receiving the 
notification from the LEA under paragraph (a)(2) of this section, each 
school must develop and implement a school-level targeted support and 
improvement plan to address the reason or reasons for identification 
and improve student outcomes for the lowest-performing students in the 
school that--
    (1) Is developed in partnership with stakeholders (including 
principals and other school leaders, teachers, and parents) as 
demonstrated by, at a minimum, describing in the plan how--
    (i) Early stakeholder input was solicited and taken into account in 
the development of each component of the plan, including the changes 
made as a result of such input; and
    (ii) Stakeholders will have an opportunity to participate in an 
ongoing manner in such plan's implementation;
    (2) Is designed to improve student performance for the lowest-
performing students on each of the indicators under Sec.  200.14 that 
led to the identification of the school for targeted support and 
improvement or, in the case of schools implementing targeted support 
and improvement plans consistent with Sec.  200.15(b)(2)(iii), to 
improve student participation in the assessments required under section 
1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the Act;
    (3) Takes into consideration--
    (i) The school's performance on the indicators and long-term goals 
and measurements of interim progress described in Sec. Sec.  200.13 and 
200.14, including student academic achievement on each of the 
assessments required under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v) of the Act; and

[[Page 34606]]

    (ii) At the school's discretion, the school's performance on 
additional, locally selected indicators that are not included in the 
State's system of annual meaningful differentiation under Sec.  200.18 
and that affect student outcomes in the identified school;
    (4) Includes one or more interventions to address the reason or 
reasons for identification and improve student outcomes for the lowest-
performing students in the school that--
    (i) Meet the definition of ``evidence-based'' under section 
8101(21) of the Act;
    (ii) Are supported, to the extent practicable, by evidence from a 
sample population or setting that overlaps with the population or 
setting of the school to be served;
    (iii) May be selected from among a State-approved list of evidence-
based interventions, consistent with Sec.  200.23(c)(2); and
    (iv) Are supported, to the extent practicable, by the strongest 
level of evidence that is available and appropriate to improve student 
outcomes for the lowest-performing students in the school;
    (5) Must be fully implemented in the school year for which such 
school is identified, except that a school identified under Sec.  
200.19(b)(2) or (c) may have a planning year during which the school 
must develop the targeted support and improvement plan and complete 
other activities necessary to prepare for successful implementation of 
interventions required under the plan on, at the latest, the first full 
day of the school year following the school year for which the school 
was identified;
    (6) Is submitted to the LEA for approval, pursuant to paragraph (d) 
of this section;
    (7) In the case of a school with low-performing subgroups as 
described in Sec.  200.19(b)(2), identifies and addresses resource 
inequities and their effect on each low-performing subgroup in the 
school by--
    (i) Including a review of LEA and school-level resources among 
schools and, as applicable, within schools with respect to--
    (A) Disproportionate rates of ineffective, out-of-field, or 
inexperienced teachers identified by the State and LEA consistent with 
sections 1111(g)(1)(B) and 1112(b)(2) of the Act; and
    (B) Per-pupil expenditures of Federal, State, and local funds 
required to be reported annually consistent with section 
1111(h)(1)(C)(x) of the Act; and
    (ii) Including, at the school's discretion, a review of LEA and 
school-level budgeting and resource allocation with respect to 
resources described in paragraph (c)(7)(i) of this section and the 
availability and access to any other resource provided by the LEA or 
school, such as--
    (A) Advanced coursework;
    (B) Preschool programs; and
    (C) Instructional materials and technology; and
    (8) For any school operating a schoolwide program under section 
1114 of the Act, addresses the needs identified by the needs assessment 
required under section 1114(b)(6) of the Act.
    (d) Plan approval and monitoring. The LEA must, upon receipt of a 
targeted support and improvement plan under paragraph (c) of this 
section from a school--
    (1) Review each plan against the requirements of this section and 
approve such plan in a timely manner, taking all actions necessary to 
ensure that each school is able to meet all of the requirements under 
paragraphs (a) through (c) of this section within the required 
timeframe;
    (2) Make the approved plan, and any amendments to the plan, 
publicly available, including to parents consistent with the 
requirements under Sec.  200.21(b)(1) through (3); and
    (3) Monitor the school's implementation of the plan.
    (e) Exit criteria. Except with respect to schools described in 
paragraph (f) of this section, the LEA must establish and make publicly 
available, including to parents consistent with the requirements under 
Sec.  200.21(b)(1) through (3), uniform exit criteria for schools 
identified by the State under Sec.  200.19(b)(1) and use such criteria 
to make one of the following determinations with respect to each such 
school after a number of years as determined by the LEA:
    (1) The school has successfully implemented its targeted support 
and improvement plan such that it no longer meets the criteria for 
identification and has improved student outcomes for its lowest-
performing students, including each subgroup of students that was 
identified as consistently underperforming under Sec.  200.19(c), or, 
in the case of a school implementing a targeted support and improvement 
plan consistent with Sec.  200.15(b)(2)(iii), has met the requirement 
under Sec.  200.15(a) for student participation in the assessments 
required under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the Act, and may exit 
targeted support and improvement status.
    (2) The school has unsuccessfully implemented its targeted support 
and improvement plan such that it has not improved student outcomes for 
its lowest-performing students, including each subgroup of students 
that was identified as consistently underperforming under Sec.  
200.19(c), or, in the case of a school implementing a targeted support 
and improvement plan consistent with Sec.  200.15(b)(2)(iii), has 
failed to meet the requirement under Sec.  200.15(a) for student 
participation in the assessments required under section 
1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the Act, in which case the LEA must 
subsequently--
    (i) Require the school to amend its targeted support and 
improvement plan to include additional actions that continue to meet 
all requirements under paragraph (c) of this section and address the 
reasons the school did not meet the exit criteria, and encourage 
interventions that either meet a higher level of evidence under 
paragraph (c)(4) of this section than the interventions included in the 
school's original plan or increase the intensity of effective 
interventions in the school's original plan;
    (ii) Review and approve the school's amended plan consistent with 
the review process required under paragraph (d)(1) of this section; and
    (iii) Increase its monitoring and support of such school's 
implementation of the plan.
    (f) Special rule for schools with low-performing subgroups. (1) 
With respect to any school participating under subpart A of this part 
that has one or more low-performing subgroups as described in Sec.  
200.19(b)(2), the State must establish uniform statewide exit criteria 
that, at a minimum, ensure each such school--
    (i) Improves student outcomes for its lowest-performing students, 
including each subgroup identified as low-performing under Sec.  
200.19(b)(2); and
    (ii) No longer meets the criteria for identification under Sec.  
200.19(b)(2).
    (2) If a school does not satisfy the exit criteria established 
under paragraph (f)(1) of this section, the State must identify the 
school for comprehensive support and improvement under Sec.  
200.19(a)(3), consistent with the requirement under Sec.  
200.19(d)(1)(i) for States to identify such schools at least once every 
three years.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6311(d); 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3)

0
15. Add Sec.  200.23 to read as follows:


Sec.  200.23  State responsibilities to support continued improvement.

    (a) State support. Each State must, with respect to each LEA in the 
State serving a significant number of schools identified for 
comprehensive support

[[Page 34607]]

and improvement under Sec.  200.19(a) and each LEA in the State serving 
a significant number of schools identified for targeted support and 
improvement under Sec.  200.19(b), periodically review resource 
allocation between LEAs and between schools, consider any inequities 
identified under Sec. Sec.  200.21(d)(4) and 200.22(c)(7), and, to the 
extent practicable, address any identified inequities in resources.
    (b) State technical assistance. Each State must include in its 
State plan under section 1111 of the Act a description of technical 
assistance it will provide to each LEA in the State serving a 
significant number of schools identified for comprehensive or targeted 
support and improvement, including, at a minimum, a description of how 
it will provide technical assistance to LEAs to ensure the effective 
implementation of evidence-based interventions and support and increase 
their capacity to successfully--
    (1) Develop and implement comprehensive support and improvement 
plans that meet the requirements of Sec.  200.21;
    (2) Ensure schools develop and implement targeted support and 
improvement plans that meet the requirements of Sec.  200.22; and
    (3) Develop or use tools related to--
    (i) Conducting a school-level needs assessment consistent with 
Sec.  200.21(c);
    (ii) Selecting evidence-based interventions consistent with 
Sec. Sec.  200.21(d)(3) and 200.22(c)(4); and
    (iii) Reviewing resource allocation and identifying strategies for 
addressing any identified resource inequities consistent with 
Sec. Sec.  200.21(d)(4) and 200.22(c)(7).
    (c) Additional improvement actions. The State may--
    (1) Take action to initiate additional improvement in any LEA, or 
in any authorized public chartering agency consistent with State 
charter school law, with a significant number of schools that are 
consistently identified for comprehensive support and improvement under 
Sec.  200.19(a) and are not meeting exit criteria established under 
Sec.  200.21(f) or a significant number of schools identified for 
targeted support and improvement under Sec.  200.19(b), including 
school-level actions such as reorganizing a school to implement a new 
instructional model; replacing school leadership; converting a school 
to a public charter school; changing school governance; closing a 
school; or, in the case of a public charter school, revoking or non-
renewing the school's charter consistent with State charter school law;
    (2) Establish an exhaustive or non-exhaustive list of State-
approved, evidence-based interventions consistent with the definition 
of evidenced-based under section 8101(21) of the Act for use in schools 
implementing comprehensive or targeted support and improvement plans 
under Sec. Sec.  200.21 and 200.22;
    (3) Consistent with State law, establish evidence-based State-
determined interventions consistent with the definition of ``evidenced-
based'' under section 8101(21) of the Act that can be used by LEAs in a 
school identified for comprehensive support and improvement under Sec.  
200.19(a), which may include whole-school reform models; and
    (4) Request that LEAs submit to the State for review and approval, 
in a timely manner, the amended targeted support and improvement plan 
for each school in the LEA described in Sec.  200.22(e)(2) prior to the 
approval of such plan by the LEA.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6311(d); 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3)

0
16. Add Sec.  200.24 to read as follows:


Sec.  200.24  Resources to support continued improvement.

    (a) In general. (1) A State must allocate school improvement funds 
that it reserves under section 1003(a) of the Act to LEAs to serve 
schools implementing comprehensive or targeted support and improvement 
plans under Sec. Sec.  200.21 and 200.22, except that such funds may 
not be used to serve schools implementing targeted support and 
improvement plans consistent with Sec.  200.15(b)(2)(iii).
    (2) An LEA may apply for school improvement funds if--
    (i) It has one or more schools identified for comprehensive support 
and improvement under Sec.  200.19(a) or targeted support and 
improvement under Sec.  200.19(b); and
    (ii) It applies to serve each school in the LEA identified for 
comprehensive support and improvement that it has sufficient capacity 
to serve before applying to serve any school in the LEA identified for 
targeted support and improvement.
    (b) LEA application. To receive school improvement funds under 
paragraph (a) of this section, an LEA must submit an application to the 
State to serve one or more schools identified for comprehensive or 
targeted support and improvement. In addition to any other information 
that the State may require, such an application must include each of 
the following:
    (1) A description of one or more evidence-based interventions that 
are based on strong, moderate, or promising evidence under section 
8101(21)(A) of the Act and that will be implemented in each school the 
LEA proposes to serve.
    (2) A description of how the LEA will carry out its 
responsibilities under Sec. Sec.  200.21 and 200.22 for schools it will 
serve with funds under this section, including how the LEA will--
    (i) Develop and implement a comprehensive support and improvement 
plan that meets the requirements of Sec.  200.21 for each school 
identified under Sec.  200.19(a), for which the LEA receives school 
improvement funds to serve; and
    (ii) Support each school identified under Sec.  200.19(b), for 
which the LEA receives school improvement funds to serve, in developing 
and implementing a targeted support and improvement plan that meets the 
requirements of Sec.  200.22.
    (3) A budget indicating how it will allocate school improvement 
funds among schools identified for comprehensive and targeted support 
and improvement that it commits to serve.
    (4) The LEA's plan to monitor schools for which the LEA receives 
school improvement funds, including the LEA's plan to increase 
monitoring of a school that does not meet the exit criteria consistent 
with Sec.  200.21(f) or Sec.  200.22(e) and (f).
    (5) A description of the rigorous review process the LEA will use 
to recruit, screen, select, and evaluate any external partners with 
which the LEA will partner in carrying out activities supported with 
school improvement funds.
    (6) A description of how the LEA will align other Federal, State, 
and local resources to carry out the activities supported with school 
improvement funds, and sustain effective activities in schools after 
funding under this section is complete.
    (7) As appropriate, a description of how the LEA will modify 
practices and policies to provide operational flexibility, including 
with respect to school budgeting and staffing, that enables full and 
effective implementation of comprehensive targeted support and 
improvement plans.
    (8) For any LEA that plans to use the first year of its school 
improvement funds for planning activities in a school that it will 
serve, a description of the activities that will be supported with 
school improvement funds, the timeline for implementing those 
activities, how such timeline will ensure full implementation of the 
comprehensive or targeted support and improvement

[[Page 34608]]

plan consistent with Sec. Sec.  200.21(d)(5) and 200.22(c)(5), and how 
those activities will support successful implementation of 
comprehensive or targeted support and improvement plans.
    (9) An assurance that each school the LEA proposes to serve will 
receive all of the State and local funds it would have received in the 
absence of funds received under this section.
    (c) Allocation of school improvement funds to LEAs. (1) A State 
must review, in a timely manner, an LEA application for school 
improvement funds that meets the requirements of this section.
    (2) In awarding school improvement funds under this section, a 
State must--
    (i) Award the funds on a competitive or formula basis;
    (ii) Make each award of sufficient size, with a minimum award of 
$500,000 per year for each school identified for comprehensive support 
and improvement to be served and a minimum award of $50,000 per year 
for each school identified for targeted support and improvement to be 
served, to enable the LEA to effectively implement all requirements of 
a support and improvement plan under Sec.  200.21 or Sec.  200.22, as 
applicable, including selected evidence-based interventions, except 
that a State may determine that an award of less than the minimum award 
amount is appropriate if the LEA demonstrates, in its application, that 
such lesser amount will be sufficient to support effective 
implementation of such plan; and
    (iii) Make awards not to exceed four years, which may include a 
planning year consistent with paragraph (b)(7) of this section during 
which the LEA must plan to carry out activities that will be supported 
with school improvement funds by, at the latest, the beginning of the 
school year following the school year for which the school was 
identified, and that will support the successful implementation of 
interventions required under Sec. Sec.  200.21 and 200.22, as 
applicable.
    (3) If a State permits an LEA to have a planning year for a school 
under paragraph (c)(2)(iii) of this section, prior to renewing the 
LEA's school improvement award with respect to such school, the State 
must review the performance of the LEA in supporting such school during 
the planning year against the LEA's approved application and determine 
that the LEA will be able to ensure such school fully implements the 
activities and interventions that will be supported with school 
improvement funds by the beginning of the school year following the 
planning year.
    (4) If a State has insufficient school improvement funds to award a 
grant of sufficient size to each LEA that submits an approvable 
application consistent with paragraph (c)(1) of this section, the State 
must, whether awarding funds through a formula or competition--
    (i) Award funds to an LEA applying to serve a school identified for 
comprehensive support and improvement before awarding funds to an LEA 
applying to serve a school identified for targeted support and 
improvement;
    (ii) Give priority in funding to an LEA that demonstrates the 
greatest need for such funds, as determined by the State, and based, at 
a minimum, on--
    (A) The number or percentage of elementary and secondary schools in 
the LEA implementing plans under Sec. Sec.  200.21 and 200.22;
    (B) The State's review of resource allocation among and within LEAs 
under Sec.  200.23(a); and
    (C) Current academic achievement and student outcomes in the school 
or schools the LEA is proposing to serve.
    (iii) Give priority in funding to an LEA that demonstrates the 
strongest commitment to use such funds to enable the lowest-performing 
schools to improve academic achievement and student outcomes, taking 
into consideration, with respect to the school or schools to be 
served--
    (A) The proposed use of evidence-based interventions that are 
supported by the strongest level of evidence available; and
    (B) Commitment to family and community engagement.
    (iv) Take into consideration geographic diversity within the State.
    (d) State responsibilities. (1) Each State must--
    (i) Establish the method described in paragraph (c) of this section 
that the State will use to allocate school improvement funds to LEAs;
    (ii) Monitor the use of funds by LEAs receiving school improvement 
funds;
    (iii) Evaluate the use of school improvement funds by LEAs 
receiving such funds including by, at a minimum--
    (A) Engaging in ongoing efforts to analyze the impact of the 
evidence-based interventions implemented using funds allocated under 
this section on student outcomes or other relevant outcomes; and
    (B) Disseminating on a regular basis the State's findings on 
effectiveness of the evidence-based interventions to LEAs with schools 
identified under Sec.  200.19;
    (iv) Prior to renewing an LEA's award of school improvement funds 
with respect to a particular school each year and consistent with 
paragraph (c)(2)(ii) of this section, determine that--
    (A) The school is making progress on the State's long-term goals 
and measurements of interim progress and accountability indicators 
under Sec. Sec.  200.13 and 200.14; and
    (B) The school is implementing evidence-based interventions with 
fidelity to the LEA's application and the requirements under Sec. Sec.  
200.21 and 200.22, as applicable; and
    (v) As appropriate, reduce barriers and provide operational 
flexibility for each school in an LEA receiving funds under this 
section, including flexibility around school budgeting and staffing.
    (2) A State may--
    (i) Set aside up to five percent of the school improvement funds 
the State reserves under section 1003(a) of the Act to carry out the 
activities under paragraph (d)(1) of this section; and
    (ii) Directly provide for school improvement activities funded 
under this section or arrange for their provision in a school through 
external partners such as school support teams, educational service 
agencies, or nonprofit or for-profit entities with expertise and a 
record of success in implementing evidence-based strategies to improve 
student achievement, instruction, and schools if the State has the 
authority under State law to take over the school or, if the State does 
not have such authority, with LEA approval with respect to each such 
school, and--
    (A) The State undertakes a rigorous review process in recruiting, 
screening, selecting, and evaluating any external partner the State 
uses to carry out activities directly with school improvement funds; 
and
    (B) The external provider has demonstrated success implementing the 
evidence-based intervention or interventions that are based on strong, 
moderate, or promising evidence consistent with section 8101(21)(A) of 
the Act that it will implement.
    (e) Reporting. The State must include on its State report card 
required under section 1111(h)(1) of the Act a list of all LEAs, and 
schools served by such LEAs, that received funds under this section, 
including the amount of funds each LEA received to serve each such 
school and the types of interventions implemented in each such school 
with the funds.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 6303; 20 U.S.C. 6311(d); 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3)

0
17. Revise the undesignated center heading following Sec.  200.29 to 
read as follows:

State and LEA Report Cards

0
18. Section 200.30 is revised to read as follows:

[[Page 34609]]

Sec.  200.30  Annual State report card.

    (a) State report cards in general. (1) A State that receives funds 
under subpart A of this part must prepare and disseminate widely to the 
public, consistent with paragraph (d) of this section, an annual State 
report card for the State as a whole that meets the requirements of 
this section.
    (2) Each State report card must include, at a minimum--
    (i) The information required under section 1111(h)(1)(C) of the 
Act;
    (ii) As applicable, for each authorized public chartering agency in 
the State--
    (A) How the percentage of students in each subgroup defined in 
section 1111(c)(2) of the Act for each charter school authorized by 
such agency compares to such percentage for the LEA or LEAs from which 
the charter school draws a significant portion of its students, or the 
geographic community within the LEA in which the charter school is 
located, as determined by the State; and
    (B) How academic achievement under Sec.  200.30(b)(2)(i)(A) for 
students in each charter school authorized by such agency compares to 
that for students in the LEA or LEAs from which the charter school 
draws a significant portion of its students, or the geographic 
community within the LEA in which the charter school is located, as 
determined by the State; and
    (iii) Any additional information that the State believes will best 
provide parents, students, and other members of the public with 
information regarding the progress of each of the State's public 
elementary schools and secondary schools, which may include the number 
and percentage of students requiring remediation in postsecondary 
education and the number and percentage of students attaining career 
and technical proficiencies.
    (b) Format. (1) The State report card must be concise and presented 
in an understandable and uniform format that is developed in 
consultation with parents. Additionally, a State may choose to meets 
its cross-tabulation requirements under section 1111(g) of the Act 
through its State report cards.
    (2) The State report card must begin with a clearly labeled 
overview section that is prominently displayed and includes the 
following statewide information for the most recent school year:
    (i) For all students and disaggregated, at a minimum, for each 
subgroup of students under Sec.  200.16(a)(2), results on--
    (A) Each of the academic assessments in reading/language arts, 
mathematics, and science under section 1111(b)(2) of the Act, including 
the number and percentage of students at each level of achievement;
    (B) Each measure included within the Academic Progress indicator 
under Sec.  200.14(b)(2) for students in public elementary schools and 
secondary schools that are not high schools;
    (C) The four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate and, if adopted 
by the State, any extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate 
consistent with Sec.  200.34; and
    (D) Each measure included within the School Quality or Student 
Success indicator under Sec.  200.14(b)(5).
    (ii) The number and percentage of English learners achieving 
English language proficiency, as measured by the English language 
proficiency assessments under section 1111(b)(2)(G) of the Act.
    (3) If the overview section required under paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section does not include disaggregated data for each subgroup required 
under section 1111(h)(1)(C) of the Act, a State must ensure that the 
disaggregated data not included in the overview section are otherwise 
included on the State report card.
    (c) Accessibility. Each State report card must be in a format and 
language, to the extent practicable, that parents can understand in 
compliance with the requirements under Sec.  200.21(b)(1) through (3).
    (d) Dissemination and availability. (1) A State must--
    (i) Disseminate widely to the public the State report card by, at a 
minimum, making it available on a single page of the SEA's Web site; 
and
    (ii) Include on the SEA's Web site--
    (A) The report card required under Sec.  200.31 for each LEA in the 
State; and
    (B) The annual report to the Secretary required under section 
1111(h)(5) of the Act.
    (e) Timing of report card dissemination. (1) Beginning with report 
cards based on information from the 2017-2018 school year, a State must 
annually disseminate report cards required under this section for the 
preceding school year no later than December 31.
    (2) If a State cannot meet the December 31, 2018, deadline for 
reporting some or all of the newly required information under section 
1111(h)(1)(C) of the Act for the 2017-2018 school year, the State may 
request from the Secretary a one-time, one-year extension for reporting 
on those To receive an extension, a State must submit to the Secretary, 
by July 1, 2018--
    (i) Evidence satisfactory to the Secretary demonstrating that the 
State cannot meet the deadline in paragraph (e)(1) of this section; and
    (ii) A plan and timeline addressing the steps the State will take 
to disseminate, as expeditiously as possible, report cards for the 
2017-2018 school year consistent with this section.
    (f) Disaggregation of data. (1) For the purpose of reporting 
disaggregated data under section 1111(h) of the Act, the following 
definitions apply:
    (i) The term ``migrant status'' means status as a ``migratory 
child'' as defined in section 1309(3) of the Act, which means a child 
or youth who made a qualifying move in the preceding 36 months--
    (A) As a migratory agricultural worker or a migratory fisher; or
    (B) With, or to join, a parent or spouse who is a migratory 
agricultural worker or a migratory fisher.
    (ii) The term ``homeless status'' means status as ``homeless 
children and youths'' as defined in section 725 of the McKinney-Vento 
Homeless Assistance Act, which means individuals who lack a fixed, 
regular, and adequate nighttime residence (within the meaning of 
section 103(a)(1) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act) and 
includes--
    (A) Children and youths who are--
    (1) Sharing the housing of other persons due to loss of housing, 
economic hardship, or a similar reason;
    (2) Living in motels, hotels, trailer parks, or camping grounds due 
to the lack of alternative adequate accommodations;
    (3) Living in emergency or transitional shelters; or
    (4) Abandoned in hospitals;
    (B) Children and youths who have a primary nighttime residence that 
is a public or private place not designed for or ordinarily used as a 
regular sleeping accommodation for human beings (within the meaning of 
section 103(a)(2)(C) of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act);
    (C) Children and youths who are living in cars, parks, public 
spaces, abandoned buildings, substandard housing, bus or train 
stations, or similar settings; and
    (D) Migratory children (as defined in this paragraph) who qualify 
as homeless for the purposes of this section because they are living in 
circumstances described in paragraph (f)(1)(ii)(A) through (C) of this 
section.
    (iii) With respect to the term ``status as a child in foster 
care,'' the term ``foster care'' has the same meaning as defined in 45 
CFR 1355(a), which means 24-hour substitute care for children

[[Page 34610]]

placed away from their parents and for whom the title IV-E agency has 
placement and care responsibility. This includes, but is not limited 
to, placements in foster family homes, foster homes of relatives, group 
homes, emergency shelters, residential facilities, child care 
institutions, and preadoptive homes. A child is in foster care in 
accordance with this definition regardless of whether the foster care 
facility is licensed and payments are made by the State, tribal, or 
local agency for the care of the child, whether adoption subsidy 
payments are being made prior to the finalization of an adoption, or 
whether there is Federal matching of any payments that are made.
    (iv) With respect to the term ``student with a parent who is a 
member of the Armed Forces on active duty,'' the terms ``Armed Forces'' 
and ``active duty'' have the same meanings as defined in 10 U.S.C. 
101(a)(4) and 101(d)(1):
    (A) ``Armed Forces'' means the Army, Navy, Air Force, Marine Corps, 
and Coast Guard.
    (B) ``Active duty'' means full-time duty in the active military 
service of the United States, including full-time training duty, annual 
training duty, and attendance, while in the active military service, at 
a school designated as a service school by law or by the Secretary of 
the military department concerned. Such term does not include full-time 
National Guard duty.
    (2) A State is not required to report disaggregated data for 
information required on report cards under section 1111(h) of the Act 
if the number of students in the subgroup is insufficient to yield 
statistically sound and reliable information or the results would 
reveal personally identifiable information about an individual student, 
consistent with Sec.  200.17.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3; 6311(h))

0
19. Section Sec.  200.31 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  200.31  Annual LEA report card.

    (a) LEA report cards in general. (1) An LEA that receives funds 
under subpart A of this part must prepare and disseminate to the 
public, consistent with paragraph (d) of this section, an annual LEA 
report card that meets the requirements of this section and includes 
information on the LEA as a whole and each school served by the LEA.
    (2) Each LEA report card must include, at a minimum, the 
information required under section 1111(h)(2)(C) of the Act.
    (b) Format. (1) The LEA report card must be concise and presented 
in an understandable and uniform format that is developed in 
consultation with parents.
    (2) Each LEA report card must begin with, for the LEA as a whole 
and for each school served by the LEA, a clearly labeled overview 
section that is prominently displayed and includes the following 
information for the most recent school year:
    (i) For all students and disaggregated, at a minimum, for each 
subgroup of students required under Sec.  200.16(a)(2)--
    (A) All information required under Sec.  200.30(b)(2);
    (B) For the LEA, how academic achievement under Sec.  
200.30(b)(2)(i)(A) compares to that for students in the State as a 
whole; and
    (C) For each school, how academic achievement under Sec.  
200.30(b)(2)(i)(A) compares to that for students in the LEA and the 
State as a whole.
    (ii) For each school--
    (A) The summative rating of the school consistent with Sec.  
200.18(b)(4);
    (B) Whether the school is identified for comprehensive support and 
improvement under Sec.  200.19(a) and, if so, the reason for such 
identification (e.g., lowest-performing school, low graduation rates); 
and
    (C) Whether the school is identified for targeted support and 
improvement under Sec.  200.19(b) and, if so, each consistently 
underperforming or low-performing subgroup for which it is identified.
    (iii) Identifying information, including, but not limited to, the 
name, address, phone number, email, student membership count, and 
status as a participating Title I school.
    (3) Each LEA must ensure that the overview section required under 
paragraph (b)(2) of this section for each school served by the LEA can 
be distributed to parents, consistent with paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this 
section, on a single piece of paper.
    (4) If the overview section required under paragraph (b)(2) of this 
section does not include disaggregated data for each subgroup required 
under section 1111(h)(1)(C) of the Act, an LEA must ensure that the 
disaggregated data not included in the overview section are otherwise 
included on the LEA report card.
    (c) Accessibility. Each LEA report card must be in a format and 
language, to the extent practicable, that parents can understand in 
compliance with the requirements under Sec.  200.21(b)(1) through (3).
    (d) Dissemination and availability. (1) An LEA report card must be 
accessible to the public.
    (2) At a minimum the LEA report card must be made available on the 
LEA's Web site, except that an LEA that does not operate a Web site may 
provide the information to the public in another manner determined by 
the LEA.
    (3) An LEA must provide the information described in paragraph 
(b)(2) of this section to the parents of each student enrolled in each 
school in the LEA--
    (i) Directly, through such means as regular mail or email, except 
that if an LEA does not have access to individual student addresses, it 
may provide information to each school for distribution to parents; and
    (ii) In a timely manner, consistent with the requirements under 
paragraph (e) of this section.
    (e) Timing of report card dissemination. (1) Beginning with report 
cards based on information from the 2017-2018 school year, an LEA must 
annually disseminate report cards under this section for the preceding 
school year no later than December 31.
    (2) If an LEA cannot meet the December 31, 2018, deadline for 
reporting some or all of the newly required information under section 
1111(h)(2)(C) of the Act for the 2017-2018 school year, a State may 
request from the Secretary a one-time, one-year extension for reporting 
on those elements on behalf of the LEA consistent with the requirements 
under Sec.  200.30(e)(2).
    (f) Disaggregation of data. For the purpose of reporting 
disaggregated data under section 1111(h)(2)(C) of the Act, the 
requirements under Sec.  200.30(f) apply to LEA report cards.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3; 6311(h))

0
20. Section 200.32 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  200.32  Description and results of a State's accountability 
system.

    (a) Accountability system description. Each State and LEA report 
card must include a clear and concise description of the State's 
current accountability system under Sec. Sec.  200.12 to 200.24. Each 
accountability system description must include--
    (1) The minimum number of students that the State establishes under 
Sec.  200.17 for use in the accountability system;
    (2) The long-term goals and measurements of interim progress that 
the State establishes under Sec.  200.13 for all students and for each 
subgroup of students, as described in Sec.  200.16(a)(2);
    (3) The indicators used by the State under Sec.  200.14 to annually 
meaningfully

[[Page 34611]]

differentiate among all public schools, including, if applicable, the 
State's uniform procedure for averaging data across years or combining 
data across grades consistent with Sec.  200.20;
    (4) The State's system for annually meaningfully differentiating 
all public schools in the State under Sec.  200.18, including--
    (i) The specific weight, consistent with Sec.  200.18(c), of each 
indicator described in Sec.  200.14(b) in such differentiation;
    (ii) The way in which the State factors the requirement for 95 
percent student participation in assessments under Sec.  200.15(a) into 
its system of annual meaningful differentiation described in Sec. Sec.  
200.15(b) and 200.18(b)(5);
    (iii) The methodology by which the State differentiates all such 
schools under Sec.  200.18(b), including information on the performance 
levels and summative ratings provided by the State consistent with 
Sec.  200.18(b)(3) and (4);
    (iv) The methodology by which the State identifies a school for 
comprehensive support and improvement as described in Sec.  200.19(a); 
and
    (v) The methodology by which the State identifies a school with one 
or more consistently underperforming subgroups of students for targeted 
support and improvement as described in Sec.  200.19(c), including the 
time period used by the State to determine consistent underperformance 
of a subgroup; and
    (5) The exit criteria established by the State under Sec. Sec.  
200.21(f) and 200.22(f), including the number of years by which a 
school must meet the exit criteria.
    (b) Reference to State plan. To the extent that a State plan or 
another location on the SEA's Web site provides a description of the 
accountability system elements required in paragraph (a)(1) through (5) 
of this section that complies with the requirements under Sec.  
200.21(b)(1) through (3), a State or LEA may provide the Web address or 
URL of, or a direct link to, such State plan or location on the SEA's 
Web site to meet the reporting requirement for such accountability 
system elements.
    (c) Accountability system results. (1) Each State and LEA report 
card must include, as applicable, the number and names of each public 
school in the State or LEA identified by the State for--
    (i) Comprehensive support and improvement under Sec.  200.19(a); or
    (ii) Targeted support and improvement under Sec.  200.19(b).
    (2) For each school identified by the State for comprehensive 
support and improvement under Sec.  200.19(a), the State and LEA report 
card must indicate which of the following reasons led to such 
identification:
    (i) Lowest-performing school under Sec.  200.19(a)(1).
    (ii) Low graduation rates under Sec.  200.19(a)(2).
    (iii) One or more chronically low-performing subgroups under Sec.  
200.19(a)(3), including the subgroup or subgroups that led to such 
identification.
    (3) For each school identified by the State for targeted support 
and improvement under Sec.  200.19(b), the State and LEA report card 
must indicate--
    (i) Which subgroup or subgroups led to the school's identification; 
and
    (ii) Whether the school has one or more low-performing subgroups, 
consistent with Sec.  200.19(b)(2).
    (4) Each LEA report card must include, for each school served by 
the LEA, the school's performance level consistent with Sec.  
200.18(b)(3) on each indicator in Sec.  200.14(b) and the school's 
summative rating consistent with Sec.  200.18(b)(4).
    (5) If a State includes more than one measure within any indicator 
under Sec.  200.14(b), the LEA report card must include each school's 
results on each individual measure and the single performance level for 
the indicator overall, across all such measures.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3; 6311(c), (h))

0
21. Section 200.33 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  200.33  Calculations for reporting on student achievement and 
progress toward meeting long-term goals.

    (a) Calculations for reporting student achievement results. (1) 
Consistent with paragraph (a)(3) of this section, each State and LEA 
report card must include the percentage of students performing at each 
level of achievement under section 1111(b)(1)(A) of the Act (e.g., 
proficient, advanced) on the academic assessments under section 
1111(b)(2) of the Act, by grade.
    (2) Consistent with paragraph (a)(3) of this section, each LEA 
report card must also--
    (i) Compare the results under paragraph (a)(1) of this section for 
students served by the LEA with students in the State as a whole; and
    (ii) For each school served by the LEA, compare the results under 
paragraph (a)(1) of this section for students enrolled in the school 
with students served by the LEA and students in the State as a whole.
    (3) Each State and LEA must include, with respect to each reporting 
requirement under paragraphs (a)(1) and (2) of this section--
    (i) Information for all students;
    (ii) Information disaggregated by--
    (A) Each subgroup of students in Sec.  200.16(a)(2);
    (B) Migrant status;
    (C) Gender;
    (D) Homeless status;
    (E) Status as a child in foster care; and
    (F) Status as a student with a parent who is a member of the Armed 
Forces on active duty; and
    (iii) Results based on both--
    (A) The percentage of students at each level of achievement, in 
which the denominator includes the greater of--
    (1) 95 percent of all students, or 95 percent of each subgroup of 
students, who are enrolled in the school, LEA, or State, respectively; 
or
    (2) The number of all such students enrolled in the school, LEA, or 
State, respectively, who participate in the assessments required under 
section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v) of the Act; and
    (B) The percentage of students at each level of achievement, in 
which the denominator includes all students with a valid test score.
    (b) Calculation for reporting on the progress of all students and 
each subgroup of students toward meeting the State-designed long-term 
academic achievement goals. (1) Each State and LEA report card must 
indicate whether all students and each subgroup of students described 
in Sec.  200.16(a)(2) met or did not meet the State measurements of 
interim progress for academic achievement under Sec.  200.13(a).
    (2) To meet the requirements of paragraph (b)(1) of this section, 
each State and LEA must calculate the percentage of students who are 
proficient and above on the State assessments required under section 
1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the Act based on a denominator that includes the 
greater of--
    (i) 95 percent of all students, and 95 percent of each subgroup of 
students, who are enrolled in the school, LEA, or State, respectively; 
or
    (ii) The number of all such students enrolled in the school, LEA, 
or State, respectively who participate in the assessments required 
under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v)(I) of the Act.
    (c) Calculation for reporting the percentage of students assessed 
and not assessed. (1) Each State and LEA report card must include the 
percentage of all students, and the percentage of students 
disaggregated by each subgroup of students described in Sec.  
200.16(a)(2), gender, and migrant status, assessed and not assessed on 
the assessments required under section 1111(b)(2)(B)(v) of the Act.

[[Page 34612]]

    (2) To meet the requirements of paragraph (c)(1) of this section, 
each State and LEA must include in the denominator of the calculation 
all students enrolled in the school, LEA, or State, respectively, at 
the time of testing.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3; 6311(c), (h))

0
22. Section 200.34 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  200.34  High school graduation rate.

    (a) Four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate. A State must 
calculate a four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate for each public 
high school in the State in the following manner:
    (1) The numerator must consist of the sum of--
    (i) All students who graduate in four years with a regular high 
school diploma; and
    (ii) All students with the most significant cognitive disabilities 
in the cohort, assessed using an alternate assessment aligned to 
alternate academic achievement standards under section 1111(b)(2)(D) of 
the Act and awarded a State-defined alternate diploma.
    (2) The denominator must consist of the number of students who form 
the adjusted cohort of entering first-time students in grade 9 enrolled 
in the high school no later than the date by which student membership 
data is collected annually by the State for submission to the National 
Center for Education Statistics.
    (3) For those high schools that start after grade 9, the cohort 
must be calculated based on the earliest high school grade students 
attend.
    (b) Adjusting the cohort. (1) ``Adjusted cohort'' means the 
students who enter grade 9 (or the earliest high school grade) plus any 
students who transfer into the cohort in grades 9 through 12, and minus 
any students removed from the cohort.
    (2) ``Students who transfer into the cohort'' means the students 
who enroll after the beginning of the date of the determination of the 
cohort, up to and including in grade 12.
    (3) To remove a student from the cohort, a school or LEA must 
confirm in writing that the student--
    (i) Transferred out, such that the school or LEA has official 
written documentation that the student enrolled in another school or 
educational program that culminates in the award of a regular high 
school diploma, or a State-defined alternate diploma for students with 
the most significant cognitive disabilities;
    (ii) Emigrated to another country;
    (iii) Transferred to a prison or juvenile facility and participates 
in an educational program that culminates in the award of a regular 
high school diploma, or State-defined alternate diploma for students 
with the most significant cognitive disabilities; or
    (iv) Is deceased.
    (4) A student who is retained in grade, enrolls in a general 
equivalency diploma program or other alternative education program that 
does not issue or provide credit toward the issuance of a regular high 
school diploma or a State-defined alternate diploma, or leaves school 
for any reason other than those described in paragraph (b)(3) of this 
section may not be counted as having transferred out for the purpose of 
calculating the graduation rate and must remain in the adjusted cohort.
    (c) Definition of terms. For the purposes of calculating an 
adjusted cohort graduation rate under this section--
    (1) ``Students who graduate in four years'' means students who earn 
a regular high school diploma at the conclusion of their fourth year, 
before the conclusion of their fourth year, or during a summer session 
immediately following their fourth year.
    (2) ``Regular high school diploma'' means the standard high school 
diploma awarded to the preponderance of students in the State that is 
fully aligned with State standards, or a higher diploma, except that a 
regular high school diploma shall not be aligned to the alternate 
academic achievement standards described in section 1111(b)(1)(E) of 
the ESEA, as amended by the ESSA; and does not include a general 
equivalency diploma, certificate of completion, certificate of 
attendance, or any similar or lesser credential, such as a diploma 
based on meeting individualized education program (IEP) goals that are 
not fully aligned with the State's grade-level academic content 
standards.
    (3) ``Alternate diploma'' means a diploma for students with the 
most significant cognitive disabilities, consistent with the State's 
definition under the proposed requirement in Sec.  200.6(d)(1) that was 
subject to negotiated rulemaking under the ESSA and on which the 
negotiated rulemaking committee reached consensus, who are assessed 
with a State's alternate assessment aligned to alternate academic 
achievement standards under section 1111(b)(2)(D) of the Act and is--
    (i) Standards-based;
    (ii) Aligned with the State's requirements for a regular high 
school diploma; and
    (iii) Obtained within the time period for which the State ensures 
the availability of a free appropriate public education under section 
612(a)(1) of the Individuals with Disabilities Education Act (20 U.S.C. 
11412(a)(1)).
    (d) Extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate. In addition to 
calculating a four-year adjusted cohort graduation rate, a State may 
calculate and report an extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate.
    (1) ``Extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rate'' means the 
number of students who graduate in one or more additional years beyond 
the fourth year of high school with a regular high school diploma or a 
State-defined alternate diploma, divided by the number of students who 
form the adjusted cohort for the four-year adjusted cohort graduation 
rate, provided that the adjustments account for any students who 
transfer into the cohort by the end of the year of graduation being 
considered minus the number of students who transfer out, emigrate to 
another country, transfer to a prison or juvenile facility, or are 
deceased, as described in paragraph (b)(3) of this section.
    (2) A State may calculate one or more extended-year adjusted cohort 
graduation rates, except that no extended-year adjusted cohort 
graduation rate may be for a cohort period longer than seven years.
    (e) Reporting on State and LEA report cards. (1) A State and LEA 
report card must include, at the school, LEA, and State levels--
    (i) Four-year adjusted cohort graduation rates and, if adopted by 
the State, extended-year adjusted cohort graduation rates for all 
students and disaggregated by each subgroup of students in Sec.  
200.16(a)(2), homeless status, and status as a child in foster care.
    (ii) Whether all students and each subgroup of students described 
in Sec.  200.16(a)(2) met or did not meet the State measurements of 
interim progress for graduation rates under Sec.  200.13(b).
    (2) A State and its LEAs must report the four-year adjusted cohort 
graduation rate and, if adopted by the State, extended-year adjusted 
cohort graduation rate that reflects results of the immediately 
preceding school year.
    (3) If a State adopts an extended-year adjusted cohort graduation 
rate, the State and its LEAs must report the extended-year adjusted 
cohort graduation rate separately from the four-year adjusted cohort 
graduation rate.
    (4) A State that offers an alternate diploma for students with the 
most significant cognitive disabilities within the time period for 
which the State ensures the availability of a free appropriate public 
education must--

[[Page 34613]]

    (i) Not delay the timely reporting of graduation rates under 
paragraph (e)(2) of this section; and
    (ii) Annually update the four-year adjusted cohort graduation rates 
and, if adopted by the State, extended-year adjusted cohort graduation 
rates reported for a given year to include in the numerator any 
students with the most significant cognitive disabilities who obtain a 
State-defined alternate diploma within the time period for which the 
State ensures the availability of a free appropriate public education.
    (f) Partial school enrollment. Each State must apply the same 
approach in all LEAs to determine whether students who are enrolled in 
the same school for less than half of the academic year as described in 
Sec.  200.20(b) who exit high school without a regular high school 
diploma and do not transfer into another high school that grants a 
regular high school diploma are counted in the denominator for 
reporting the adjusted cohort graduation rate--
    (1) At the school in which such student was enrolled for the 
greatest proportion of school days while enrolled in grades 9 through 
12; or
    (2) At the school in which the student was most recently enrolled.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3; 6311(h); 7801(23), (25))

0
23. Section 200.35 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  200.35  Per-pupil expenditures.

    (a) State report card requirements. (1) Each State report card must 
include the following:
    (i) Current expenditures per pupil from Federal, State, and local 
funds, for the preceding fiscal year, consistent with the timeline in 
Sec.  200.30(e), for each LEA in the State, and for each school served 
by each LEA--
    (A) In the aggregate; and
    (B) Disaggregated by source of funds, including--
    (1) Federal funds; and
    (2) State and local funds combined (including Impact Aid funds), 
which must not include funds received from private sources.
    (ii) The Web address or URL of, or direct link to, a description of 
the uniform procedure required under paragraph (c) of this section that 
complies with the requirements under Sec.  200.21(b)(1) through (3).
    (2) Each State report card must also separately include, for each 
LEA, the amount of current expenditures per pupil that were not 
allocated to public schools in the LEA.
    (b) LEA report card requirements. (1) Each LEA report card must 
include the following:
    (i) Current expenditures per pupil from Federal, State, and local 
funds, for the preceding fiscal year, consistent with the timeline in 
Sec.  200.31(e), for the LEA and each school served by the LEA--
    (A) In total (Federal, State, and local funds); and
    (B) Disaggregated by source of funds, including--
    (1) Federal funds; and
    (2) State and local funds combined (including Impact Aid funds), 
which must not include funds received from private sources.
    (ii) The Web address or URL of, or direct link to, a description of 
the uniform procedure required under paragraph (c) of this section.
    (2) Each LEA report card must also separately include the amount of 
current expenditures per pupil that were not allocated to public 
schools in the LEA.
    (c) Uniform procedures. A State must develop a single statewide 
procedure to calculate LEA current expenditures per pupil and a single 
statewide procedure to calculate school-level current expenditures per 
pupil, such that--
    (1) The numerator consists of current expenditures, which means 
actual personnel costs (including actual staff salaries) and actual 
nonpersonnel expenditures of Federal, State, and local funds, used for 
public education--
    (i) Including, but not limited to, expenditures for administration, 
instruction, instructional support, student support services, pupil 
transportation services, operation and maintenance of plant, fixed 
charges, and preschool, and net expenditures to cover deficits for food 
services and student body activities; but
    (ii) Not including expenditures for community services, capital 
outlay, and debt service; and
    (2) The denominator consists of the aggregate number of students in 
elementary and secondary schools to whom the State and LEA provide free 
public education on October 1, consistent with the student membership 
data collected annually by States for submission to the National Center 
for Education Statistics.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3; 6311(h))

0
24. Section 200.36 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  200.36  Postsecondary enrollment.

    (a) Reporting information on postsecondary enrollment. (1) Each 
State and LEA report card must include the information at the SEA, LEA 
and school level on postsecondary enrollment required under section 
1111(h)(1)(C)(xiii) of the Act, where available, consistent with 
paragraph (c) of this section. This information must include, for each 
high school in the State (in the case of a State report card) and for 
each high school in the LEA (in the case of an LEA report card), the 
cohort rate (for all students and each subgroup of students under 
section Sec.  200.16(a)(2)) at which students who graduate from high 
school enroll in programs of postsecondary education, including--
    (i) Programs of public postsecondary education in the State; and
    (ii) If data are available and to the extent practicable, programs 
of private postsecondary education in the State or programs of 
postsecondary education outside the State.
    (2) For the purposes of this section, ``programs of postsecondary 
education'' has the same meaning as the term ``institution of higher 
education'' under section 101(a) of the Higher Education Act of 1965, 
as amended.
    (b) Calculating postsecondary enrollment. To meet the requirements 
of paragraph (a) of this section, each State and each LEA must 
calculate the cohort rate in the following manner:
    (1) The numerator must consist of the number of students who enroll 
in a program of postsecondary education in the academic year 
immediately following the students' high school graduation.
    (2) The denominator must consist of the number of students who 
graduated with a regular high school diploma or a State-defined 
alternate diploma from each high school in the State, in accordance 
with Sec.  200.34, in the immediately preceding school year.
    (c) Information availability. (1) For the purpose of paragraph (a) 
of this section, information is ``available'' if either--
    (i) The State is routinely obtaining the information; or
    (ii) The information is obtainable by the State on a routine basis.
    (2) If the postsecondary enrollment information described in 
paragraph (a) of this section is not available or is partially 
available, the State and LEA report cards must include the school year 
in which such information is expected to be fully available.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1001; 1221e-3; 6311(h))

0
25. Section 200.37 is revised to read as follows:


Sec.  200.37  Educator qualifications.

    (a) Professional qualifications of educators in the State. Each 
State and LEA report card must include, in the aggregate and 
disaggregated by high-

[[Page 34614]]

poverty and low-poverty schools, the number and percentage of the 
following:
    (1) Inexperienced teachers, principals, and other school leaders;
    (2) Teachers teaching with emergency or provisional credentials; 
and
    (3) Teachers who are not teaching in the subject or field for which 
the teacher is certified or licensed.
    (b) Uniform definitions. To meet the requirements of paragraph (a) 
of this section--
    (1) ``High-poverty schools'' means schools in the top quartile of 
poverty in the State and ``low-poverty schools'' means schools in the 
bottom quartile of poverty in the State; and
    (2) Each State must adopt, and the State and each LEA in the State 
must use, a statewide definition of the term ``inexperienced'' and of 
the phrase ``not teaching in the subject or field for which the teacher 
is certified or licensed.''

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3; 6311(h))

Sec. Sec.  200.38 through 200.42   [Removed and Reserved]

0
26. Remove and reserve Sec. Sec.  200.38 through 200.42.
0
27. Add an undesignated center heading following reserved Sec.  200.42 
to read as follows:

Other State Plan Provisions


Sec.  200.43  [Removed]

0
28. Remove Sec.  200.43.


Sec.  200.58  [Redesignated as Sec.  200.43]

0
29. Redesignate Sec.  200.58 as Sec.  200.43.


Sec. Sec.  200.44 through 200.47   [Removed and Reserved]

0
30. Remove and reserve Sec. Sec.  200.44 through 200.47.
0
31. Add an undesignated center heading following reserved Sec.  200.47 
to read as follows:

Local Educational Agency Plans


Sec.  200.48  [Removed]

0
32. Remove Sec.  200.48.


Sec.  200.61  [Redesignated as 200.48]

0
33. Redesignate Sec.  200.61 as Sec.  200.48.


Sec. Sec.  200.49 through 200.53  [Removed and Reserved]

0
34. Remove and reserve Sec. Sec.  200.49 through 200.53.
0
35. Add an undesignated center heading following reserved Sec.  200.54 
to read as follows:

Participation of Eligible Children in Private Schools


Sec. Sec.  200.55 through 200.57  [Removed and Reserved]

0
36. Remove Sec. Sec.  200.55 through 200.57.


Sec. Sec.  200.62 through 200.64  [Redesignated as Sec. Sec.  200.55 
through 200.57]

0
37. Redesignate Sec. Sec.  200.62 through 200.64 as Sec. Sec.  200.55 
through 200.57.


Sec. Sec.  200.58 through 200.60  [Removed]

0
38. Remove Sec. Sec.  200.58 through 200.60.


Sec.  200.65  [Redesignated as Sec.  200.58]

0
39. Redesignate Sec.  200.65 as Sec.  200.58.


Sec. Sec.  200.66 through 200.67  [Redesignated as Sec. Sec.  200.59 
through 200.60]

0
40. Redesignate Sec. Sec.  200.66 through 200.67 as Sec. Sec.  200.59 
through 200.60.


Sec.  200.61  [Reserved]

0
41. Add reserved Sec. Sec.  200.61.


Sec.  200.62  [Removed and Reserved]

0
42. Remove and reserve Sec.  200.62.
0
43. Add an undesignated center heading following reserved Sec.  200.62 
to read as follows:

Allocations to LEAs


Sec. Sec.  200.63 through 200.67  [Removed]

0
44. Remove Sec. Sec.  200.63 through 200.67.


Sec. Sec.  200.70 through 200.75  [Redesignated as Sec. Sec.  200.63 
through 200.68]

0
45. Redesignate Sec. Sec.  200.70 through 200.75 as Sec. Sec.  200.63 
through 200.68.
0
46. Add an undesignated center heading following reserved Sec.  200.69 
to read as follows:

Procedures for the Within-District Allocation of LEA Program Funds


Sec. Sec.  200.77 and 200.78  [Redesignated as Sec. Sec.  200.70 and 
200.71]

0
47. Redesignate Sec. Sec.  200.77 and 200.78 as Sec. Sec.  200.70 and 
200.71.
0
48. Add an undesignated center heading following Sec.  200.71 to read 
as follows:

Fiscal Requirements


Sec.  200.79  [Redesignated as Sec.  200.73]

0
49. Redesignate Sec.  200.79 as Sec.  200.73.


Sec.  200.79  [Reserved]

0
50. Add reserved Sec.  200.79.

PART 299--GENERAL PROVISIONS

0
51. The authority citation for part 299 is revised to read as follows:

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3(a)(1), unless otherwise noted)

0
52. Add Subpart G to read as follows:
Subpart G--State Plans
Sec.
299.13 Overview of State Plan Requirements.
299.14 Requirements for the consolidated State plan.
299.15 Consultation and coordination.
299.16 Challenging academic standards and academic assessments.
299.17 Accountability, support, and improvement for schools.
299.18 Supporting excellent educators.
299.19 Supporting all students.

Subpart G--State Plans


Sec.  299.13  Overview of State plan requirements.

    (a) In general. In order to receive a grant under a program 
identified in paragraph (j) of this section, an SEA must submit a State 
plan that meets the requirements in this section and:
    (1) Consolidated State plan requirements detailed in Sec. Sec.  
299.14 to 299.19; or
    (2) Individual program application requirements under the Act 
(hereinafter ``individual program State plan'') as detailed in 
paragraph (k) of this section.
    (b) Timely and meaningful consultation. In developing, revising, or 
amending a consolidated State plan or an individual program State plan, 
an SEA must engage in timely and meaningful consultation with 
stakeholders. To satisfy its obligations under this paragraph, each SEA 
must--
    (1) Provide public notice, in a format and language, to the extent 
practicable, that the public can access and understand in compliance 
with the requirements under Sec.  200.21(b)(1) through (3), of the 
SEA's processes and procedures for developing and adopting its 
consolidated State plan or individual program State plan.
    (2) Conduct outreach to, and solicit input from, the individuals 
and entities listed in Sec.  299.15(a) for submission of a consolidated 
State plan or the individuals and entities listed in the applicable 
statutes for submission of an individual program State plan--
    (i) During the design and development of the SEA's plan to 
implement the programs included in paragraph (j) of this section;
    (ii) Prior to submission of the consolidated State plan or 
individual program State plan by making the plan available for public 
comment for a period of not less than 30 days; and
    (iii) Prior to the submission of any revisions or amendments to the 
consolidated State plan or individual program State plan.
    (3) Describe how the consultation and public comment were taken 
into account in the consolidated State plan or individual program State 
plan submitted for approval, including--
    (i) How the SEA addressed the issues and concerns raised through 
consultation and public comment; and
    (ii) Any changes made as a result of consultation and public 
comment.
    (4) Meet the requirements under section 8540 of the Act regarding

[[Page 34615]]

consultation with the Governor, or appropriate officials from the 
Governor's office, including consultation during the development of a 
consolidated State plan or individual title I or title II State plan 
and prior to submission of such plan to the Secretary and procedures 
regarding the signature of such plan.
    (c) Assurances. An SEA that submits either a consolidated State 
plan or an individual program State plan must submit to the Secretary 
the assurances included in section 8304 of the Act. An SEA also must 
include the following assurances when submitting either a consolidated 
State plan or an individual program State plan for the following 
programs:
    (1) Title I, part A. (i) The SEA will assure that, in applying the 
same approach in all LEAs to determine whether students who are 
enrolled in the same school for less than half of the academic year as 
described in Sec.  200.20(b) who exit high school without a regular 
high school diploma and do not transfer into another high school that 
grants a regular high school diploma are counted in the denominator for 
reporting the adjusted cohort graduation rate using one of the 
following:
    (A) At the school in which such student was enrolled for the 
greatest proportion of school days while enrolled in grades 9 through 
12; or
    (B) At the school in which the student was most recently enrolled.
    (ii) The SEA will ensure that an LEA receiving funds under title I, 
part A of the Act will provide children in foster care transportation, 
as necessary, to and from their schools of origin, consistent with the 
procedures developed by the LEA in collaboration with the State or 
local child welfare agency under section 1112(c)(5)(B) of the Act, even 
if the LEA and local child welfare agency do not agree on which agency 
or agencies will pay any additional costs incurred to provide such 
transportation.
    (2) Title III, part A. In establishing the statewide entrance 
procedures required under section 3113(b)(2) of the Act, the SEA will 
ensure that:
    (i) All students who may be English learners are assessed for such 
status using a valid and reliable instrument within 30 days after 
enrollment in a school in the State;
    (ii) It has established procedures for the timely identification of 
English learners after the initial identification period for students 
who were enrolled at that time but were not previously identified; and
    (iii) It has established procedures for removing the English 
learner designation from any student who was erroneously identified as 
an English learner, which must be consistent with Federal civil rights 
obligations.
    (3) Title V, part b, subpart 2. The SEA will assure that, no later 
than March of each year, it will submit data to the Secretary on the 
number of students in average daily attendance for the preceding school 
year in kindergarten through grade 12 for LEAs eligible for funding 
under the Rural and Low-Income School program, as described under 
section 5231 of the Act.
    (d) Process for submitting an initial consolidated State plan or 
individual program State plan. When submitting an initial consolidated 
State plan or an individual program State plan, an SEA must adhere to 
the following timeline and process.
    (1) Assurances. In order to receive Federal allocations for the 
programs included in paragraph (j) of this section for fiscal year 
2017, no later than March 6, 2017, the SEA must submit the required 
assurances described in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (2) Submission deadlines. (i) Each SEA must submit to the 
Department either a consolidated State plan or individual program State 
plan for each program in paragraph (j) of this section on a date and 
time established by the Secretary.
    (ii) A consolidated State plan or an individual program State plan 
is considered to be submitted on the date and time established by the 
Secretary if it is received by the Secretary on or prior to that date 
and time and addresses all of the required components in Sec.  299.14 
for a consolidated State plan or all statutory and regulatory 
application requirements for an individual program State plan.
    (iii) Each SEA must submit either a consolidated State plan or an 
individual program State plan for all of the programs in paragraph (j) 
in a single submission on the date and time established by the 
Secretary consistent with paragraph (d)(2)(i) of this section.
    (3) Extension for educator equity student-level data calculation. 
If an SEA cannot calculate and report the data required under paragraph 
Sec.  299.18(c)(3)(i) when submitting its initial consolidated State 
plan or individual title I, part A State plan, the SEA may request a 
two-year extension from the Secretary.
    (i) To receive an extension, the SEA must submit to the Secretary, 
by eight weeks after the effective date of this section--
    (A) Evidence satisfactory to the Secretary demonstrating that the 
State cannot calculate and report the data described under paragraph 
Sec.  299.18(c)(3)(i) when it submits either its initial consolidated 
State plan or individual title I, part A program State plan; and
    (B) A detailed plan and timeline addressing the steps the SEA will 
take to calculate and report, as expeditiously as possible but no later 
than two years from the date it submits its initial consolidated State 
plan or individual title I, part A program State plan, the data 
required under Sec.  299.18(c)(3)(i).
    (ii) An SEA that receives an extension under paragraph (d)(3) of 
this section must, when it submits either its initial consolidated 
State plan or individual title I, part A program State plan, still 
calculate and report disproportionalities based on school-level data 
for each of the groups listed in Sec.  299.18(c)(2) and describe how 
the SEA will eliminate any disproportionate rates consistent with Sec.  
299.18(c)(6).
    (e) Opportunity to revise initial State plan. An SEA may revise its 
initial consolidated State plan or its individual program State plan in 
response to a preliminary written determination by the Secretary. The 
period for Secretarial review of a consolidated State plan or an 
individual program State plan under sections 1111(a)(4)(A)(v) or 8451 
of the Act is suspended while the SEA revises its plan. If an SEA fails 
to resubmit revisions to its plan within 45 days of receipt of the 
preliminary written determination, the Secretary may issue a final 
written determination under sections 1111(a)(4)(A)(v) or 8451 of the 
Act.
    (f) Publication of State plan. After the Secretary approves a 
consolidated State plan or an individual program State plan, an SEA 
must publish its approved consolidated State plan or individual program 
State plan on the SEA's Web site in a format and language, to the 
extent practicable, that the public can access and understand in 
compliance with the requirements under Sec.  200.21(b)(1) through (3).
    (g) Amendments and Significant Changes. If an SEA makes significant 
changes to its approved consolidated State plan or individual program 
State plan at any time, such as the adoption of new academic 
assessments under section 1111(b)(2) of the Act or changes to its 
accountability system under section 1111(c) of the Act, such 
information shall be submitted to the Secretary in the form of an 
amendment to its State plan for review and approval. Prior to 
submitting an amendment to its consolidated State plan or individual 
program State plan, the SEA must engage in timely and

[[Page 34616]]

meaningful consultation, consistent with paragraph (b) of this section.
    (h) Revisions. At least once every four years, an SEA must review 
and revise its approved consolidated State plan or individual program 
State plans. The SEA must submit its revisions to the Secretary for 
review and approval. In reviewing and revising its consolidated State 
plan or individual program State plan, each SEA must engage in timely 
and meaningful consultation, consistent with paragraph (b) of this 
section.
    (i) Optional consolidated State plan. An SEA may submit either a 
consolidated State plan or an individual program State plan for any 
program identified in paragraph (j) of this section. An SEA that 
submits a consolidated State plan is not required to submit an 
individual program State plan for any of the programs to which the 
consolidated State plan applies.
    (j) Programs that may be included in a consolidated State plan. (1) 
Under section 8302 of the Act, an SEA may include in a consolidated 
State plan any programs authorized by--
    (i) Title I, part A: Improving Basic Programs Operated by State and 
Local Educational Agencies;
    (ii) Title I, part C: Education of Migratory Children;
    (iii) Title I, part D: Prevention and Intervention Programs for 
Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk;
    (iv) Title II, part A: Supporting Effective Instruction;
    (v) Title III, part A: Language Instruction for English Learners 
and Immigrant Students;
    (vi) Title IV, part A: Student Support and Academic Enrichment 
Grants;
    (vii) Title IV, part B: 21st Century Community Learning Centers; 
and
    (viii) Title V, part B, Subpart 2: Rural and Low-Income School 
Program.
    (2) In addition to the programs identified in paragraph (j)(1) of 
this section, under section 8302(a)(1)(B) of the Act, an SEA may also 
include in the consolidated State plan the following programs as 
designated by the Secretary--
    (i) The Grants for State Assessments and Related Activities program 
under section 1201 of title I, part B of the Act.
    (ii) The Education for Homeless Children and Youths program under 
subtitle B of title VII of the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act 
(McKinney-Vento).
    (k) Individual program State plan requirements. An SEA that submits 
an individual program State plan for one or more of the programs listed 
in paragraph (j) of this section must address all State plan or 
application requirements applicable to such programs as outlined in the 
Act and applicable regulations, including all required statutory 
programmatic assurances. In addition to addressing the statutory and 
regulatory plan or application requirements for each individual 
program, an SEA that submits an individual program State plan--
    (1) For title I, part A, must:
    (i) Meet the educator equity requirements in Sec.  299.18(c) in 
order to address section 1111(g)(1)(B) of the Act; and
    (ii) Meet the schoolwide waiver requirements in Sec.  299.19(c)(1) 
in order to implement section 1114(a)(1)(B) of the Act; and
    (2) For title III, must meet the English learner requirements in 
Sec.  299.19(c)(2) in order to address section 3113(b)(2) of the Act.
    (l) Compliance with program requirements. Each SEA must administer 
all programs in accordance with all applicable statutes, regulations, 
program plans, and applications, and maintain documentation of this 
compliance.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 7801(11), 7842, 7844, 7845)

Sec.  299.14  Requirements for the consolidated State plan.

    (a) Purpose. Pursuant to section 8302 of the Act, the Department 
defines the procedures under which an SEA may submit a consolidated 
State plan for any or all of the programs listed in Sec.  299.13(j).
    (b) Framework for the consolidated State plan. Each consolidated 
State plan must address the requirements in Sec. Sec.  299.15 through 
299.19 for the following five components and their corresponding 
elements:
    (1) Consultation and coordination.
    (2) Challenging academic standards and academic assessments.
    (3) Accountability, support, and improvement for schools.
    (4) Supporting excellent educators.
    (5) Supporting all students.
    (c) Performance management and technical assistance. In its 
consolidated State plan, each State must describe its system of 
performance management for implementation of State and LEA plans for 
each component required under Sec. Sec.  299.16 through 299.19. This 
description must include--
    (1) The SEA's process for supporting the development of, review, 
and approval of the activities in LEA plans in accordance with 
statutory and regulatory requirements, including a description of how 
the SEA will determine if LEA activities are aligned with the specific 
needs of the LEA and the State's strategies described in its 
consolidated State plan.
    (2) The SEA's plan, including strategies and timelines, to--
    (i) Collect and use data and information, including input from 
stakeholders, to assess the quality of SEA and LEA implementation of 
strategies and progress toward improving student outcomes and meeting 
the desired program outcomes;
    (ii) Monitor SEA and LEA implementation of included programs using 
the data in paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section to ensure compliance 
with statutory and regulatory requirements; and
    (iii) Continuously improve implementation of SEA and LEA strategies 
and activities that are not leading to satisfactory progress toward 
improving student outcomes and meeting the desired program outcomes; 
and
    (3) The SEA's plan, including strategies and timelines, to provide 
differentiated technical assistance to LEAs and schools to support 
effective implementation of SEA, LEA, and other subgrantee strategies.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 7842)

Sec.  299.15  Consultation and coordination.

    (a) Consultation. In its consolidated State plan, each SEA must 
describe how it engaged in timely and meaningful consultation 
consistent with Sec.  299.13(b) with stakeholders in the development of 
each of the four components identified in Sec. Sec.  299.16 through 
299.19 of its consolidated plan. The stakeholders must include the 
following individuals and entities and must reflect the geographic 
diversity of the State:
    (1) The Governor, or appropriate officials from the Governor's 
office;
    (2) Members of the State legislature;
    (3) Members of the State board of education (if applicable);
    (4) LEAs, including LEAs in rural areas;
    (5) Representatives of Indian tribes located in the State;
    (6) Teachers, principals, other school leaders, paraprofessionals, 
specialized instructional support personnel, and organizations 
representing such individuals;
    (7) Charter school leaders, if applicable;
    (8) Parents and families;
    (9) Community-based organizations;
    (10) Civil rights organizations, including those representing 
students with disabilities, English learners, and other historically 
underserved students;

[[Page 34617]]

    (11) Institutions of higher education (IHEs);
    (12) Employers; and
    (13) The public.
    (b) Coordination. In its consolidated State plan, each SEA must 
describe how it is coordinating its plans for administering the 
included programs, other programs authorized under the ESEA, as amended 
by the ESSA, and IDEA, the Rehabilitation Act, the Carl D. Perkins 
Career and Technical Education Act of 2006, the Workforce Innovation 
and Opportunity Act, the Head Start Act, the Child Care and Development 
Block Grant Act of 1990, the Education Sciences Reform Act of 2002, the 
Education Technical Assistance Act of 2002, the National Assessment of 
Educational Progress Authorization Act, and the Adult Education and 
Family Literacy Act.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 6311, 7842)


Sec.  299.16  Challenging academic standards and academic assessments.

    (a) Challenging State academic standards. In its consolidated State 
plan, each SEA must--
    (1) Provide evidence at such time and in such manner specified by 
the Secretary that the State has adopted challenging academic content 
standards and aligned academic achievement standards in the required 
subjects and grades consistent with section 1111(b)(1)(A)-(D) of the 
Act;
    (2) If the State has adopted alternate academic achievement 
standards for students with the most significant cognitive 
disabilities, provide evidence at such time and in such manner 
specified by the Secretary that those standards meet the requirements 
of section 1111(b)(1)(E) of the Act; and
    (3) Provide evidence at such time and in such manner specified by 
the Secretary that the State has adopted English language proficiency 
standards under section 1111(b)(1)(F) of the Act that--
    (i) Are derived from the four recognized domains of speaking, 
listening, reading, and writing;
    (ii) Address the different proficiency levels of English learners; 
and
    (iii) Are aligned with the State's challenging academic standards.
    (b) Academic assessments. In its consolidated State plan, each SEA 
must--
    (1) Identify the high-quality student academic assessments that the 
State is implementing under section 1111(b)(2) of the Act, including:
    (A) High-quality student academic assessments in mathematics, 
reading or language arts, and science consistent with the requirements 
under section 1111(b)(2)(B) of the Act;
    (B) Any assessments used under the exception for advanced middle 
school mathematics under section 1111(b)(2)(C)(iii) of the Act;
    (C) Alternate assessments aligned with the challenging State 
academic standards and alternate academic achievement standards for 
students with the most significant cognitive disabilities;
    (D) Uniform statewide assessment of English language proficiency, 
including reading, writing, speaking, and listening skills consistent 
with Sec.  200.6(f)(3); and
    (E) Any approved locally selected nationally recognized high school 
assessments consistent with Sec.  200.3;
    (2) Provide evidence at such time and in such manner specified by 
the Secretary that the State's assessments identified in paragraph 
(b)(1) of this section meet the requirements of section 1111(b)(2) of 
the Act;
    (3) Describe its strategies to provide all students in the State 
the opportunity to be prepared for and to take advanced mathematics 
coursework in middle school consistent with section 1111(b)(2)(C) and 
Sec.  200.5;
    (4) Describe the steps it has taken to incorporate the principles 
of universal design for learning, to the extent feasible, in the 
development of its assessments, including any alternate assessments 
aligned with alternate academic achievement standards that the State 
administers consistent with sections 1111(b)(2)(B)(xiii) and 
1111(b)(2)(D)(i)(IV) of the Act;
    (5) Consistent with Sec.  200.6, describe how it will ensure that 
the use of appropriate accommodations, if applicable, do not deny an 
English learner--
    (A) The opportunity to participate in the assessment; and
    (B) Any of the benefits from participation in the assessment that 
are afforded to students who are not English learners;
    (6) Describe how it is complying with the requirements in Sec.  
200.6(f)(1)(ii)(B) through (E) related to assessments in languages 
other than English;
    (7) Describe how the State will use formula grant funds awarded 
under section 1201 of the Act to pay the costs of development of the 
high-quality State assessments and standards adopted under section 
1111(b) of the Act or, if a State has developed those assessments, to 
administer those assessments or carry out other assessment activities 
consistent with section 1201(a) of the Act.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 6311(b), 7842)


Sec.  299.17  Accountability, support, and improvement for schools.

    (a) Long-term goals. In its consolidated State plan, each SEA must 
describe its long-term goals, including how it established its 
ambitious long-term goals and measurements of interim progress for 
academic achievement, graduation rates, and English language 
proficiency, including its State-determined timeline for attaining such 
goals, consistent with the requirements in Sec.  200.13 and section 
1111(c)(4)(A) of the Act.
    (b) Accountability system. In its consolidated State plan, each SEA 
must describe its statewide accountability system consistent with the 
requirements of section 1111(c) of the Act and Sec.  200.12, 
including--
    (1) The measures included in each of the indicators and how those 
measures meet the requirements described in Sec.  200.14(c) through (e) 
and section 1111(c)(4)(B) of the Act for all students and separately 
for each subgroup of students used to meaningfully differentiate all 
public schools in the State;
    (2) The subgroups of students from each major racial and ethnic 
group, consistent with Sec.  200.16(a)(2);
    (3) If applicable, the statewide uniform procedures for:
    (i) Former English learners consistent with Sec.  200.16(b)(1), and
    (ii) Recently arrived English learners in the State to determine if 
an exception is appropriate for an English learner consistent with 
section 1111(b)(3) of the Act and Sec.  200.16(b)(4);
    (4) The minimum number of students that the State determines are 
necessary to be included in each of the subgroups of students 
consistent with Sec.  200.17(a)(3);
    (5) The State's system for meaningfully differentiating all public 
schools in the State, including public charter schools, consistent with 
the requirements of section 1111(c)(4)(C) of the Act and Sec.  200.18, 
including--
    (i) The distinct levels of school performance, and how they are 
calculated, under Sec.  200.18(b)(3) on each indicator in the statewide 
accountability system;
    (ii) The weighting of each indicator, including how certain 
indicators receive substantial weight individually and much greater 
weight in the aggregate, consistent with Sec.  200.18(c) and (d); and
    (iii) The summative ratings, including how they are calculated, 
that are provided to schools under Sec.  200.18(b)(4);
    (6) How the State is factoring the requirement for 95 percent 
student participation in assessments into its

[[Page 34618]]

system of annual meaningful differentiation of schools consistent with 
the requirements of Sec.  200.15;
    (7) The State's uniform procedure for averaging data across school 
years and combining data across grades as defined in Sec.  200.20(a), 
if applicable;
    (8) If applicable, how the State includes all public schools in the 
State in its accountability system if it is different from the 
methodology described in paragraph (b)(5), including--
    (i) Schools in which no grade level is assessed under the State's 
academic assessment system (e.g., P-2 schools), although the State is 
not required to administer a formal assessment to meet this 
requirement;
    (ii) Schools with variant grade configurations (e.g., P-12 
schools);
    (iii) Small schools in which the total number of students that can 
be included on any indicator under Sec.  200.14 is less than the 
minimum number of students established by the State under Sec.  
200.17(a)(1), consistent with a State's uniform procedures for 
averaging data under Sec.  200.20(a), if applicable;
    (iv) Schools that are designed to serve special populations (e.g., 
students receiving alternative programming in alternative educational 
settings, students living in local institutions for neglected or 
delinquent children, students enrolled in State public schools for the 
blind, recently arrived English learners); and
    (v) Newly opened schools that do not have multiple years of data, 
consistent with a State's uniform procedure for averaging data under 
Sec.  200.20(a), if applicable.
    (c) Identification of schools. In its consolidated State plan, each 
SEA must describe--
    (1) The methodologies by which the State identifies schools for 
comprehensive support and improvement under section 1111(c)(4)(D)(i) of 
the Act and Sec.  200.19(a), including:
    (i) Lowest-performing schools;
    (ii) Schools with low high school graduation rates; and
    (iii) Schools with chronically low-performing subgroups;
    (2) The uniform statewide exit criteria for schools identified for 
comprehensive support and improvement established by the State under 
section 1111(d)(3)(A)(i) of the Act and consistent with the 
requirements in Sec.  200.21(f)(1), including the number of years over 
which schools are expected to meet such criteria;
    (3) The State's methodology for identifying schools with 
``consistently underperforming'' subgroups of students, including the 
definition and time period used by the State to determine consistent 
underperformance, under Sec.  200.19(b)(1) and (c);
    (4) The State's methodology for identifying additional targeted 
support schools with low-performing subgroups of students under Sec.  
200.19(b)(2); and
    (5) The uniform exit criteria for schools requiring additional 
targeted support due to low-performing subgroups established by the 
State consistent with the requirements in Sec.  200.22(f).
    (d) State support and improvement for low-performing schools. In 
its consolidated State plan, each SEA must describe--
    (1) Its process for making grants to LEAs under section 1003 of the 
Act consistent with the requirements of Sec.  200.24 to serve schools 
implementing comprehensive or targeted support and improvement plans 
under section 1111(d) of the Act and consistent with the requirements 
in Sec. Sec.  200.21 and 200.22;
    (2) Its process to ensure effective development and implementation 
of school support and improvement plans, including evidence-based 
interventions, to hold all public schools accountable for student 
academic achievement and school success consistent with Sec. Sec.  
200.21 through 200.24, and, if applicable, the list of State-approved, 
evidence-based interventions for use in schools implementing 
comprehensive or targeted support and improvement plans;
    (3) The more rigorous interventions required for schools identified 
for comprehensive support and improvement that fail to meet the State's 
exit criteria within a State-determined number of years consistent with 
section 1111(d)(3)(A)(i) of the Act and Sec.  200.21(f);
    (4) Its process, consistent with the requirements in section 
1111(d)(3)(A)(ii) of the Act and Sec.  200.23(a), for periodically 
reviewing and addressing resource allocation to ensure sufficient 
support for school improvement in each LEA in the State serving a 
significant number of schools identified for comprehensive support and 
improvement and in each LEA serving a significant number of schools 
implementing targeted support and improvement plans; and
    (5) Other State-identified strategies, including timelines and 
funding sources from included programs consistent with allowable uses 
of funds provided under those programs, as applicable, to improve low-
performing schools.
    (e) Performance management and technical assistance. In addition to 
the requirements in Sec.  299.14(c), each SEA must describe--
    (1) Its process to approve, monitor, and periodically review LEA 
comprehensive support and improvement plans consistent with the 
requirements in section 1111(d)(1)(B)(v) and (vi) of the Act and Sec.  
200.21(e); and
    (2) The technical assistance it will provide to each LEA in the 
State serving a significant number of schools identified for 
comprehensive and targeted support and improvement, including technical 
assistance related to selection of evidence-based interventions, 
consistent with the requirements in section 1111(d)(3)(A)(iii) of the 
Act and Sec.  200.23(b).
    (3) Any additional improvement actions the State may take 
consistent with Sec.  200.23(c), including additional supports for or 
interventions in LEAs, or in any authorized public chartering agency 
consistent with State charter school law, with a significant number of 
schools identified for comprehensive support and improvement that are 
not meeting exit criteria or a significant number of schools identified 
for targeted support or improvement.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 6303, 6311(c), (d), 7842)


Sec.  299.18  Supporting excellent educators.

    (a) Systems of educator development, retention, and advancement. In 
its consolidated State plan, consistent with sections 2101 and 2102 of 
the Act, each SEA must describe its educator development, retention, 
and advancement systems, including, at a minimum--
    (1) The State's system of certification and licensing of teachers 
and principals or other school leaders;
    (2) The State's system to ensure adequate preparation of new 
educators, particularly for low-income and minority students; and
    (3) The State's system of professional growth and improvement, 
which may include the use of an educator evaluation and support system, 
for educators that addresses induction, development, compensation, and 
advancement for teachers, principals, and other school leaders if the 
State has elected to implement such a system. Alternatively, the SEA 
must describe how it will ensure that each LEA has and is implementing 
a system of professional growth and improvement for teachers, 
principals, and other school leaders that addresses induction, 
development, compensation, and advancement.
    (b) Support for educators. (1) In its consolidated State plan, each 
SEA must

[[Page 34619]]

describe how it will use title II, part A funds and funds from other 
included programs, consistent with allowable uses of funds provided 
under those programs, to support State-level strategies designed to:
    (i) Increase student achievement consistent with the challenging 
State academic standards;
    (ii) Improve the quality and effectiveness of teachers and 
principals or other school leaders;
    (iii) Increase the number of teachers and principals or other 
school leaders who are effective in improving student academic 
achievement in schools; and
    (iv) Provide low-income and minority students greater access to 
effective teachers, principals, and other school leaders consistent 
with the provisions described in paragraph (c) of this section.
    (2) In its consolidated State plan, each SEA must describe--
    (i) How the SEA will improve the skills of teachers, principals, or 
other school leaders in identifying students with specific learning 
needs and providing instruction based on the needs of such students 
consistent with section 2101(d)(2)(J) of the Act, including strategies 
for teachers of, and principals or other school leaders in schools 
with:
    (A) Low-income students;
    (B) Lowest-achieving students;
    (C) English learners;
    (D) Children with disabilities;
    (E) Children and youth in foster care;
    (F) Migratory children, including preschool migratory children and 
migratory children who have dropped out of school;
    (G) Homeless children and youths;
    (H) Neglected, delinquent, and at-risk children identified under 
title I, part D of the Act;
    (I) Immigrant children and youth;
    (J) Students in LEAs eligible for grants under the Rural and Low-
Income School Program under section 5221 of the Act;
    (K) American Indian and Alaska Native students;
    (L) Students with low literacy levels; and
    (M) Students who are gifted and talented;
    (ii) If the SEA or its LEAs plan to use funds under one or more of 
the included programs for this purpose, how the SEA will work with LEAs 
in the State to develop or implement State or local teacher, principal 
or other school leader evaluation and support systems consistent with 
section 2101(c)(4)(B)(ii) of the Act; and
    (iii) If the SEA plans to use funds under one or more of the 
included programs for this purpose, how the State will improve educator 
preparation programs consistent with section 2101(d)(2)(M) of the Act.
    (3) In its consolidated State plan, each SEA must describe its 
rationale for, and its timeline for the design and implementation of, 
the strategies identified under paragraph (b)(1) and (2) of this 
section.
    (c) Educator equity. (1) Each SEA must demonstrate, consistent with 
section 1111(g)(1)(B) of the Act, whether low-income and minority 
students enrolled in schools that receive funds under title I, part A 
of the Act are taught at disproportionate rates by ineffective, out-of-
field, or inexperienced teachers compared to non-low-income and non-
minority students enrolled in schools not receiving funds under title 
I, part A of the Act in accordance with paragraph (c)(3) of this 
section.
    (2) For the purposes of this section, each SEA must establish and 
provide in its State plan different definitions, using distinct 
criteria so that each provides useful information about educator equity 
and disproportionality rates, for each of the terms included in 
paragraphs (c)(2)(i) through (iii) of this section--
    (i) A statewide definition of ``ineffective teacher'', or statewide 
guidelines for LEA definitions of ``ineffective teacher'', that 
differentiates between categories of teachers;
    (ii) A statewide definition of ``out-of-field teacher'' consistent 
with Sec.  200.37;
    (iii) A statewide definition of ``inexperienced teacher'' 
consistent with Sec.  200.37;
    (iv) A statewide definition of ``low-income student'';
    (v) A statewide definition of ``minority student'' that includes, 
at a minimum, race, color, and national origin, consistent with title 
VI of the Civil Rights Act of 1964; and
    (vi) Such other definitions for any other key terms that a State 
elects to define and use for the purpose of making the demonstration 
required under paragraph (c)(1) of this section.
    (3) For the purpose of making the demonstration required under 
paragraph (c)(1) of this section--
    (i) Rates. Each SEA must annually calculate and report, such as 
through a State report card, statewide based on student level data, 
except as permitted under Sec.  299.13(d)(3), the rates at which--
    (A) Low-income students enrolled in schools receiving funds under 
title I, part A of the Act, are taught by--
    (1) Ineffective teachers;
    (2) Out-of-field teachers; and
    (3) Inexperienced teachers; and
    (B) Non-low-income students enrolled in schools not receiving funds 
under title I, part A of the Act, are taught by--
    (1) Ineffective teachers;
    (2) Out-of-field teachers; and
    (3) Inexperienced teachers;
    (C) Minority students enrolled in schools receiving funds under 
title I, part A of the Act are taught by--
    (1) Ineffective teachers;
    (2) Out-of-field teachers; and
    (3) Inexperienced teachers; and
    (D) Non-minority students enrolled in schools not receiving funds 
under title I, part A of the Act are taught by--
    (1) Ineffective teachers;
    (2) Out-of-field teachers; and
    (3) Inexperienced teachers;
    (ii) Other rates. Each SEA may annually calculate and report 
statewide at the student level, except as permitted under Sec.  
299.13(d)(3), the rates at which students represented by any other key 
terms that a State elects to define and use for the purpose of this 
section are taught by ineffective teachers, out-of-field teachers, and 
inexperienced teachers.
    (iii) Disproportionate Rates. Each SEA must calculate and report 
the differences, if any, between the rates calculated in paragraph 
(c)(3)(A) and (B), and between the rates calculated in paragraph 
(c)(3)(C) and (D) of this section.
    (4) Each SEA must publish and annually update--
    (i) The rates and disproportionalities required under paragraph 
(c)(3) of this section;
    (ii) The percentage of teachers categorized in each LEA at each 
effectiveness level established as part of the definition of 
``ineffective teacher'' under paragraph (c)(2)(i) of this section, 
consistent with applicable State privacy policies;
    (iii) The percentage of teachers categorized as out-of-field 
teachers consistent with Sec.  200.37; and
    (iv) The percentage of teachers categorized as inexperienced 
teachers consistent with Sec.  200.37.
    (v) The information required under paragraphs (c)(4)(i) through 
(iv) of this section in a manner that is easily accessible and 
comprehensible to the general public, available at least on a public 
Web site, and, to the extent practicable, provided in a language that 
parents of students enrolled in all schools in the State can 
understand, in compliance with the requirements under Sec.  
200.21(b)(1) through (3). If the information required under paragraphs 
(c)(4)(i) through (iv) is made available in ways other than on a public 
Web site, it must be provided in compliance with the requirements under 
Sec.  200.21(b)(1) through (3).

[[Page 34620]]

    (5) Each SEA must describe where it will publish and annually 
update the rates and disproportionalities calculated under paragraph 
(c)(3) of this section and report on the rates and disproportionalities 
in the manner described in paragraph (c)(4)(v) of this section.
    (6) Each SEA that demonstrates, under paragraph (c)(1) of this 
section, that low-income or minority students enrolled in schools 
receiving funds under title I, part A of this Act are taught at 
disproportionate rates by ineffective, out-of-field, or inexperienced 
teachers must--
    (i) Describe the root cause analysis, including the level of 
disaggregation of disproportionality data (e.g., statewide, between 
districts, within district, and within school), that identifies the 
factor or factors causing or contributing to the disproportionate rates 
demonstrated under paragraph (c)(1) of this section; and
    (ii) Provide its strategies, including timelines and funding 
sources, to eliminate the disproportionate rates demonstrated under 
paragraph (c)(1) of this section that--
    (A) Is based on the root cause analysis required under paragraph 
(c)(6)(i) of this section; and
    (B) Focuses on the greatest or most persistent rates of 
disproportionality demonstrated under paragraph (c)(1) of this section, 
including by prioritizing strategies to support any schools identified 
for comprehensive or targeted support and improvement under Sec.  
200.19 that are contributing to those disproportionate rates.
    (7) To meet the requirements of paragraph (c)(6) of this section, 
an SEA may--
    (i) Direct an LEA, including an LEA that contributes to the 
disproportionality demonstrated by the SEA in paragraph (c)(1) of this 
section, to use a portion of its title II, part A, funds in a manner 
that is consistent with allowable activities identified in section 
2103(b) of the Act to provide low-income and minority students greater 
access to effective teachers and principals or other school leaders, 
and
    (ii) Require an LEA to describe in its title II, part A plan or 
consolidated local plan how it will use title II, part A funds to 
address disproportionality in educator equity as described in this 
paragraph (c) and deny an LEA's application for title II, part A funds 
if an LEA fails to describe how it will address identified 
disproportionalities or fails to meet other local application 
requirements applicable to title II, part A.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 6311(g), 6601, 6611(d), 8302)

Sec.  299.19  Supporting all students.

    (a) Well-rounded and supportive education for students. (1) In its 
consolidated State plan, each SEA must describe its strategies, its 
rationale for the selected strategies, timelines, and how it will use 
funds under the programs included in its consolidated State plan and 
support LEA use of funds to ensure that all children have a significant 
opportunity to meet challenging State academic standards and career and 
technical standards, as applicable, and attain, at a minimum, a regular 
high school diploma consistent with Sec.  200.34, for, at a minimum, 
the following:
    (i) The continuum of a student's education from preschool through 
grade 12, including transitions from early childhood education to 
elementary school, elementary school to middle school, middle school to 
high school, and high school to post-secondary education and careers, 
in order to support appropriate promotion practices and decrease the 
risk of students dropping out;
    (ii) Equitable access to a well-rounded education and rigorous 
coursework in subjects such as English, reading/language arts, writing, 
science, technology, engineering, mathematics, foreign languages, 
civics and government, economics, history, geography, computer science, 
music, career and technical education, health, physical education, and 
any other subjects in which female students, minority students, English 
learners, children with disabilities, and low-income students are 
underrepresented;
    (iii) School conditions for student learning, including activities 
to reduce--
    (A) Incidents of bullying and harassment;
    (B) The overuse of discipline practices that remove students from 
the classroom, such as out-of-school suspensions and expulsions; and
    (C) The use of aversive behavioral interventions that compromise 
student health and safety;
    (iv) The effective use of technology to improve the academic 
achievement and digital literacy of all students;
    (v) Parent, family, and community engagement;
    (vi) The accurate identification of English learners and children 
with disabilities; and
    (vii) Other State-identified strategies.
    (2) In describing the strategies, rationale, timelines, and funding 
sources in paragraph (a)(1) of this section, each SEA must consider--
    (i) The academic and non-academic needs of subgroups of students 
including--
    (A) Low-income students.
    (B) Lowest-achieving students.
    (C) English learners.
    (D) Children with disabilities.
    (E) Children and youth in foster care.
    (F) Migratory children, including preschool migratory children and 
migratory children who have dropped out of school.
    (G) Homeless children and youths.
    (H) Neglected, delinquent, and at-risk students identified under 
title I, part D of the Act.
    (I) Immigrant children and youth.
    (J) Students in LEAs eligible for grants under the Rural and Low-
Income School program under section 5221 of the Act.
    (K) American Indian and Alaska Native students.
    (ii) Data and information on resource equity consistent with 
paragraph (a)(3) of this section.
    (3) In its consolidated State plan, the SEA must use information 
and data on resource equity collected and reported under section 
1111(h) of the Act and Sec. Sec.  200.35 and 200.37 including a review 
of LEA-level budgeting and resource allocation related to--
    (A) Per-pupil expenditures of Federal, State, and local funds;
    (B) Educator qualifications as described in Sec.  200.37;
    (C) Access to advanced coursework; and
    (D) The availability of preschool.
    (4) In its consolidated State plan, each SEA must describe how it 
will use title IV, part A and part B funds, and other Federal funds--
    (i) To support the State-level strategies described in paragraph 
(a)(1) of this section and other State-level strategies, as applicable; 
and
    (ii) To ensure that, to the extent permitted under applicable law 
and regulations, the processes, procedures, and priorities used to 
award subgrants under an included program are consistent with the 
requirements of this section.
    (b) Performance management and technical assistance. In addition to 
the requirements in Sec.  299.14(c), each SEA must describe how it will 
use the information and data described in paragraph (a)(3) of this 
section to inform review and approval of LEA applications and technical 
assistance in the implementation of LEA plans.
    (c) Program-specific requirements--(1) Title I, part A. Each SEA 
must describe the process and criteria it will use to waive the 40 
percent schoolwide

[[Page 34621]]

poverty threshold under section 1114(a)(1)(B) of the Act submitted by 
an LEA on behalf of a school, including how the SEA will ensure that 
the schoolwide program will best serve the needs of the lowest-
achieving students in the school.
    (2) Title I, part C. In its consolidated State plan, each SEA must 
describe--
    (i) How the SEA and its local operating agencies (which may include 
LEAs) will--
    (A) Establish and implement a system for the proper identification 
and recruitment of eligible migratory children on a statewide basis, 
including the identification and recruitment of preschool migratory 
children and migratory children who have dropped out of school, and how 
the SEA will verify and document the number of eligible migratory 
children aged 3 through 21 residing in the State on an annual basis;
    (B) Assess the unique educational needs of migratory children, 
including preschool migratory children and migratory children who have 
dropped out of school, and other needs that must be met in order for 
migratory children to participate effectively in school;
    (C) Ensure that the unique educational needs of migratory children, 
including preschool migratory children and migratory children who have 
dropped out of school, and other needs that must be met in order for 
migratory children to participate effectively in school, are identified 
and addressed through the full range of services that are available for 
migratory children from appropriate local, State, and Federal 
educational programs; and
    (D) Use funds received under title I, part C to promote interstate 
and intrastate coordination of services for migratory children, 
including how the State will provide for educational continuity through 
the timely transfer of pertinent school records, including information 
on health, when children move from one school to another, whether or 
not such move occurs during the regular school year;
    (ii) The unique educational needs of the State's migratory 
children, including preschool migratory children and migratory children 
who have dropped out of school, and other needs that must be met in 
order for migratory children to participate effectively in school, 
based on the State's most recent comprehensive needs assessment;
    (iii) The current measurable program objectives and outcomes for 
title I, part C, and the strategies the SEA will pursue on a statewide 
basis to achieve such objectives and outcomes;
    (iv) How it will ensure there is consultation with parents of 
migratory children, including parent advisory councils, at both the 
State and local level, in the planning and operation of title I, part C 
programs that span not less than one school year in duration consistent 
with section 1304(c)(3) of the Act;
    (v) Its processes and procedures for ensuring that migratory 
children who meet the statutory definition of ``priority for services'' 
are given priority for title I, part C services, including--
    (A) The specific measures and sources of data used to determine 
whether a migratory child meets each priority for services criteria;
    (B) The delegation of responsibilities for documenting priority for 
services determinations and the provision of services to migratory 
children determined to be priority for services; and
    (C) The timeline for making priority for services determinations, 
and communicating such information to title I, part C service 
providers.
    (3) Title III, part A. Each SEA must describe its standardized 
entrance and exit procedures for English learners, consistent with 
section 3113(b)(2) of the Act. These procedures must include valid and 
reliable, objective criteria that are applied consistently across the 
State. At a minimum, the standardized exit criteria must--
    (i) Include a score of proficient on the State's annual English 
language proficiency assessment;
    (ii) Be the same criteria used for exiting students from the 
English learner subgroup for title I reporting and accountability 
purposes;
    (iii) Not include performance on an academic content assessment; 
and
    (iv) Be consistent with Federal civil rights obligations.
    (4) Title V, part B, subpart 2. In its consolidated State plan, 
each SEA must provide its specific measurable program objectives and 
outcomes related to activities under the Rural and Low-Income School 
program, if applicable.
    (5) McKinney-Vento Education for Homeless Children and Youths 
program. In its consolidated State plan, each SEA must describe--
    (i) The procedures it will use to identify homeless children and 
youths in the State and assess their needs;
    (ii) Programs for school personnel (including liaisons designated 
under section 722(g)(1)(J)(ii) of the McKinney-Vento Act, principals 
and other school leaders, attendance officers, teachers, enrollment 
personnel, and specialized instructional support personnel) to heighten 
the awareness of such school personnel of the specific needs of 
homeless children and youths, including such children and youths who 
are runaway and homeless youths;
    (iii) Its procedures to ensure that--
    (A) Disputes regarding the educational placement of homeless 
children and youths are promptly resolved;
    (B) Youths described in section 725(2) of the McKinney-Vento Act 
and youths separated from the public school are identified and accorded 
equal access to appropriate secondary education and support services, 
including by identifying and removing barriers that prevent youths 
described in this paragraph from receiving appropriate credit for full 
or partial coursework satisfactorily completed while attending a prior 
school, in accordance with State, local, and school polices;
    (C) Homeless children and youths have access to public preschool 
programs, administered by the SEA or LEA, as provided to other children 
in the State;
    (D) Homeless children and youths who meet the relevant eligibility 
criteria do not face barriers to accessing academic and extracurricular 
activities; and
    (E) Homeless children and youths who meet the relevant eligibility 
criteria are able to participate in Federal, State, and local nutrition 
programs; and
    (iv) Its strategies to address problems with respect to the 
education of homeless children and youths, including problems resulting 
from enrollment delays and retention, consistent with section 
722(g)(1)(H) and (I) of the McKinney-Vento Act.

(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 6311(d), (g), 6394, 6823, 7113(c), 
7842; 42 U.S.C. 11432(g))

[FR Doc. 2016-12451 Filed 5-26-16; 8:45 am]
 BILLING CODE 4000-01-P