[Federal Register: March 6, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 44)]
[Notices]
[Page 10166-10177]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr06mr02-29]
[[Page 10166]]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education; Consolidated State
Applications Under Section 9302 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act
AGENCY: Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed requirements and request for comment.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We propose requirements for optional State consolidated
applications submitted under section 9302 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as reauthorized by the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001, Public Law 107-110 (NCLB). Submitting a
consolidated application will allow a State to obtain funds under many
Federal programs through a single application, rather than through
separate applications for each program. To receive fiscal year (FY)
2002 program funds on a timely basis, a State educational agency's
(SEA's) application would need to be received no later than May 28,
2002.
DATES: Please send your comments on or before April 5, 2002.
ADDRESSES: Please address your comments to Marcia Kingman, Office of
Elementary and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, using
one of the following methods:
1. Internet. We encourage you to send your comments through the
Internet to the following address: marcia.kingman@ed.gov. You should
use the term ``ESEA Consolidated Plan'' in the subject line of your
electronic message.
2. Fax Machine. You also may submit your comments by fax at (202)
205-5870.
3. Surface Mail. You may submit your comments via surface mail
addressed to: Marcia Kingman, Office of Elementary and Secondary
Education, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW. room
3E213, Washington, DC 20202-6400.
If you want to comment on the information collection requirements,
you must send your comments to the Department representative named in
this section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marcia Kingman, Office of Elementary
and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland
Avenue, SW. room 3E213, Washington, DC 20202-6400. Telephone: (202)
260-2199.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this document in an
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to the contact person for information identified
in the preceding paragraph.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: The No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Pub.
L. 107-110, NCLB) became law on January 8, 2002, with the President
George W. Bush's signature of H.R. 1. The Act substantially revises the
Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA) in a manner
designed to provide all of America's school children with the
opportunity and means to achieve academic success. It embodies the four
key principles of the President's education reform plan: (1)
Accountability for results, (2) expanded State and local flexibility
and reduced ``red tape,'' (3) expanded choices for parents, and (4)
focusing resources on proven educational methods, particularly in
reading instruction.
These principles are designed to produce fundamental reforms in
classrooms throughout America. The new Act will provide officials and
educators at the school, school district, and State levels substantial
flexibility to plan and implement school programs that will help close
the achievement gap between disadvantaged and minority students and
their peers. At the same time, the reauthorized Act will hold school
officials accountable--to parents, students, and the public--for
achieving results. These and other major changes to the ESEA redefine
the Federal role in K-12 education to better focus on improving the
academic performance of all students.
The full text of this law may be found on the Internet at: http://
www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/esea/index.html.
I. Purpose of Consolidated State Applications
Before they can implement their ESEA education programs, States
need to apply for and receive Federal program funds. Each ESEA program
statute contains detailed requirements for the content of the plan or
application under which States can apply for program funding. In
enacting the ESEA, Congress crafted these individual program plan or
application requirements to reflect a need for the Department to review
critical programmatic information before awarding ESEA funds. However,
recognizing the burden on States of preparing so many individual ESEA
plans or applications, and wanting to encourage States to integrate
individual programs with State and local funds into comprehensive
educational improvement and reform initiatives, Congress retained in
sections 9301 and 9302 provisions that permit each SEA, in consultation
with the Governor, to apply for ESEA program funds on the basis of a
``consolidated State plan or a consolidated State application.''
Under this approach, a State educational agency (SEA) may submit a
consolidated plan or application that responds to an alternative set of
procedures and criteria the Department has established. By statute, a
consolidated application is to include ``only descriptions,
information, assurances, * * * and other materials that are absolutely
necessary for the consideration of the consolidated State plan or
consolidated State application.'' The consolidated application
authority thus can result in a major reduction in State administrative
burden while helping States to meld the various Federal programs into a
more coherent strategy for improving education in the State.
In addition, section 9305 of the ESEA extends similar flexibility
to local educational agencies (LEAs), continuing the authority for LEAs
to receive program funding through submission of consolidated local
plans or applications instead of having to submit a separate
application for each individual program. It also clarifies that SEAs
may not require LEAs to submit individual program plans or applications
if the LEAs wish to submit a consolidated plan or application.
Consistent with the principles embodied in NCLB, consolidated
applications are thus a tool that can promote State and local
flexibility in exchange for greater State and local accountability for
increased student achievement. These applications can be a vehicle for
linking State plans to performance and, specifically, to data States
will include in the performance reports submitted under section 9303 of
the ESEA. The Department's current proposal outlined below, unlike
previous practice, would require States to provide information and data
in their consolidated applications that would be the baseline for State
reporting in their annual performance reports. Moreover, while the
Department would identify major goals against which States would create
program strategies and report performance data, States would have
flexibility to develop targets for measuring progress that fits
individual State contexts. In all cases, the applications and report
would focus on a single objective--student achievement.
[[Page 10167]]
II. The Department's Proposal for the Content of the Consolidated
State Application
The No Child Left Behind Act recognizes that all children can
achieve to the same high standards and must be provided the education
they need to reach those standards. Successful student academic
performance depends upon the opportunity to attend schools that--
Provide instruction to all students that, based on the
findings of solid research, will lead to gains in achievement for all
students;
Have highly qualified teachers and principals;
Provide a learning environment that is safe and drug free,
and conducive to learning; and
Are accountable to the public for results.
The proposed requirements for the consolidated application and
report are guided by these principles.
The Department proposes that consolidated State applications
integrate these principles in two ways. First, in our framework for
ESEA accountability we propose that States adopt (1) six overall
``performance goals'' that cut across the ESEA programs, (2) core
indicators for measuring progress toward these goals, and (3) State
performance targets that define when satisfactory progress occurs.
Second, we propose that States provide certain minimum information that
will confirm their conformance with key requirements of the ESEA
programs they choose to include in their consolidated applications.
III. The Framework for ESEA Accountability.
A. ``ESEA Performance Goals''
The ESEA performance goals reflect overall statements of
expectations arising from the purposes of the ESEA programs. We have
identified in appendix A six ESEA performance goals that the Department
proposes that each SEA submitting a consolidated application would have
to adopt. These are:
1. All students will reach high standards, at a minimum attaining
proficiency or better in reading and mathematics by 2013-2014.
2. By 2013-2014, all students will be proficient in reading by the
end of the third grade.
3. All limited English proficient students will become proficient
in English.
4. By 2005-2006, all students will be taught by highly qualified
teachers.
5. All students will be educated in learning environments that are
safe, drug free, and conducive to learning.
6. All students will graduate from high school.
These ESEA performance goals, like the basic purposes of the ESEA
programs themselves, fall into three areas: (a) Those that address
levels of proficiency that all students would meet; (b) those that
address the special needs of certain populations of students, such as
students who are limited English proficient, who are the special focus
of particular ESEA programs and (c) those that address such factors as
qualified teachers and safety that are critical to a school's success
in enabling student achievement to flourish.
B. ``ESEA Performance Indicators''
States would use performance indicators to measure their progress
in meeting the ESEA performance goals. Along with requiring States to
adopt the six key ESEA performance goals identified above, the
Department would require each SEA that submits a consolidated
application to adopt, at minimum, the Department's core set of
indicators for these six performance goals. For example, as explained
in appendix A, relative to the second ESEA performance goal, ``By 2013-
2014, all students will be proficient in reading by the end of the
third grade,'' the Department would require all States to use the
following indicator:
Example: 2.1 Performance indicator: The percentage of students
in third grade reading at grade level or above. State adoption of
the common core indicators listed in appendix A is critical to the
Department's ability to meet its responsibility under NCLB to ensure
that all States are accountable for implementing the ESEA programs
in ways that contribute significantly to the achievement of all
students. As with the ESEA performance goals, States would be free
to add their own performance indicators to the core set of
indicators that the Department is proposing.
C. ``Performance Targets''
Performance targets define the progress a State expects to make at
specified points in time with respect to each indicator. For example,
for indicator 2.1, ``the percentage of students in third grade reading
at grade level,'' a State might adopt as a target: the percentage of
students in third grade reading at grade level will increase from ``x''
percent in 2001-2002 to ``y'' percent in 2002-2003.
Under our proposal, while each State would have to adopt the core
set of ESEA performance goals and performance indicators that the
Department had established, the State would define and adopt its own
performance targets. (See appendix A for the ESEA goals and indicators
that the Department would require States submitting consolidated
applications to adopt, and some examples of performance targets that
States might choose to use.)
Finally, the accountability system relies upon collection of data
that explain how well States are succeeding in meeting their
performance targets. States would describe in their consolidated
applications their timelines and benchmarks for securing these data, as
well as their data sources. States also would provide their ``baseline
data.'' For example, a State that adopted the performance target
described in the preceding paragraph would identify the percentage of
students in third grade reading at grade level at the end of the 2001-
2002 school year (i.e., the ``x'' percent).
In their annual performance reports, States would provide updated
data on their progress in meeting their performance targets, as well as
other data the Department needs to assess both State progress in
improving student achievement and the contributions of the Federal
programs to that effort.
Where applicable, States may include html references, electronic
files, or other existing documentation to comply with the requirements
listed in the application.
IV. Other Requirements for the Consolidated Application
In addition to the framework for ESEA accountability, the
consolidated application also would include:
A. A description of key strategies States would use to implement
the ESEA programs in order to accomplish the purposes of those programs
(appendix B);
B. Key programmatic and fiscal information that the Department has
determined it needs before it awards FY 2002 funds in order to ensure
the integrity of programs States include in their consolidated
applications (appendix C). This information is a small part of what the
individual ESEA program statutes would have States otherwise provide in
individual program plans or applications; and
C. Assurances of the State's adherence to all requirements of the
programs included in the application (appendix D). In the final
application package for the consolidated application, and, on its
website, the Department plans to include a list of particular
requirements of individual programs that, while covered by these
general assurances, the
[[Page 10168]]
Department believes warrant special State attention.
V. Documentation of Compliance With All Program Requirements
States will be held accountable by policymakers, parents, and
students, as well as the Department, for how they plan for and use
Federal funds. As part of Federal accountability, we would continue to
require States to maintain documentation of their compliance with all
program requirements--both those the ESEA expresses as (1) descriptive
content or specific assurances to be included in individual program
plans or applications, and (2) those that otherwise govern program
planning, public input, implementation, or evaluation. To the extent
consistent with State ``open records'' statutes, these documents
evidencing adherence to ESEA requirements would be available to
parents, policymakers, and other members of the public.
VI. Consolidation of Federal Funds
Title VI of the ESEA contains a number of important flexibility
provisions that permit States and LEAs to treat funds received under
some programs as if received under others. Moreover, sections 9201-9203
continue to permit the SEAs and LEAs to consolidate administrative
funds under specified programs. However, beyond the flexibility that
these provisions offer, the Department's approval of a consolidated
State application neither authorizes a State or LEA to combine or
commingle program funds nor eliminates State or LEA responsibilities to
keep separate records on the use of each program's funds.
VII. Data Management Reform
During 2002 and beyond, the Department will work with LEAs and SEAs
to establish data standards for performance indicators and other
information collected from States and districts. The Department will
also confer with LEA and SEA officials, the research community,
information technology vendors, and other interested parties on ways in
which States, LEAs, and schools can collect and electronically record
useful baseline and follow-up data through an internet-based format.
The new format should accommodate the measurement of success relative
to the various indicators that the Department and States have adopted.
Future application and reporting guidelines, therefore, will stress
electronic reporting and provide States with additional options in
fulfilling federal information requests.
VIII. Other Considerations
NCLB makes significant changes to the ESEA that are designed to
give school officials, educators, and parents the tools they need to
ensure that all students can achieve. However, in several instances
this Act also builds upon school reform strategies that were previously
begun under other Federal and State initiatives. In this regard,
provided that the content of a State's consolidated application is
consistent with Department requirements, the States would be able to
draw upon information and data that it developed under the ESEA as
previously authorized.
In addition, to gauge the success of the Nation in implementing
NCLB, it is important that, where possible, States report their
assessment data using common formats and measures. Hence, the
Department intends to work with States on the development of these
consistent formats and measures.
IX. Proposed Process for Submitting a Consolidated State
Application
Information States would submit by May 2002 is proposed in the
following discussion. Given the January enactment of the NCLB, States
will have a limited period of time to prepare full consolidated
applications before they will need to submit them for Departmental
review prior to the awarding of ESEA funds in early July of 2002. In
some cases, this period of time will be shortened further as a result
of State procedural requirements, including those for securing
approvals by State boards or other reviewing officials of applications
for Federal funding before SEAs submit them to the Department.
On the other hand, the ESEA goals and performance indicators the
Department proposes to establish are very basic to the ESEA programs,
and many States already collect data on performance targets for these
kinds of indicators. Moreover, if in the absence of consolidated
applications SEAs were to submit to the Department the individual plans
or applications that the ESEA program statutes otherwise require, they
would by law be required to provide the Department this spring not only
the limited amount of program information identified in appendix C, but
also much more.
In balancing these factors, we propose that each SEA that chooses
to submit a consolidated application submit to the Department by May of
this year at least the following:
A. A statement that it (a) has adopted the minimum core ESEA goals
and performance indicators that the Department will establish, and (b)
agrees to adopt (for inclusion in the following year's consolidated
application) its own performance targets for these indicators;
B. A description of the key activities and initiatives the State
will carry out with ESEA State-level, administrative and activity
funds, including activities to help achieve their performance targets:
i.e., information about the State's standards, assessments and
accountability system (of which for certain items we propose that
States submit timelines in May 2002 and other information and evidence
at a later date as specified), subgranting processes, technical
assistance, monitoring, professional development, and coordination
activities (appendix B); and
C. The individual ESEA program descriptions that the Department
determines are needed in order to ensure program integrity (appendix
C), and the required statutory assurances (appendix D).
States that already have adopted performance targets that link to
these performance indicators (including indicator 1.3, which
incorporates the NCLB definition of annual yearly progress under
section 1111(b)(3)), would be encouraged to submit them with their
applications, along with any baseline data they already use (and an
identification of the data sources).
If SEAs do not submit their ESEA performance targets and associated
baseline data in the consolidated applications provided to the
Department in May 2002, SEAs would have to submit them to the
Department no later than May 2003 in order that the Department can
review and approve this information in time to make timely awards of FY
2003 ESEA program funds. (SEAs would submit any information for which
either the ESEA or the Department establishes a later submission date
in accordance with that other schedule.)
X. Programs That May Be Included in a Consolidated Application
Section 9101(13) of the ESEA, which defines the term ``covered
program,'' and section 9302, which governs consolidated State plans and
applications, permit an SEA to seek funding under any of the programs
authorized by the following titles and parts through a consolidated
State application:
Title I, Part A: Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local
Educational Agencies.
[[Page 10169]]
Title I, Part B, Subpart 3: Even Start Family Literacy.
Title I, Part C: Education of Migrant Children.
Title I, Part D: Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children
and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk.
Title I, Part F: Comprehensive School Reform.
Title II, Part A: Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting
Fund.
Title II, Part D: Enhancing Education Through Technology.
Title III, Part A: English Language Acquisition, Language
Enhancement, and Academic Achievement.
Title IV, Part A, Subpart 1: Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities.
Title IV, Part A, Subpart 2: Community Service Grants.
Title IV, Part B: 21st Century Community Learning Centers.
Title V, Part A: Innovative Programs.
Title VI, Part B, Subpart 2: Rural and Low-Income Schools.
Other Programs the Secretary May Designate
The Secretary has decided to designate both the formula and
discretionary components of the programs supporting development of
State assessments, authorized in sections 6111 and 6112 of Title VI, as
programs that SEAs may include in their consolidated applications.
(Section 6111 provides formula grants to States for development of
State assessments and related activities. Section 6112 provides
competitive grants to States for development of ``enhanced assessment
instruments.'' SEAs that choose to apply for the competitive grant
program (see appendix E) would submit their applications by September
15, 2002.)
The competitive Enhanced Assessment Instruments program, authorized
in section 6112 of the ESEA, is not the only competitive program that
section 9302 might permit an SEA to include in a consolidated
application. On the other hand, applications for competitive grant
programs present special challenges for consolidated applications; in
particular, they must be reviewed against competitive selection
criteria and are typically processed over a longer timeframe than is
needed for formula grant programs. Given the close relationship of the
competitive Enhanced Assessment Instruments program to the development
of a State system of accountability for student achievement that is at
the heart of Title I, Part A program, the Secretary has decided, to
permit States, notwithstanding these factors, to apply for this one
competitive program through the consolidated application. The
Department's proposed selection criteria and other requirements to
govern the initial competition under this program are contained in
appendix E. Given the difficulties of using consolidated applications
as the vehicle with which SEAs would apply for competitive grant
programs, the Secretary does not propose to invite States to include
other competitive programs in them.
As stated in the ``Invitation to Comment'' section of this notice,
the public is invited to suggest other grant programs that the
Secretary should designate for inclusion in a consolidated State
application and to describe how that application can best accommodate
these other programs.
XI. Public Participation Requirements
Section 9304(a)(7) of the ESEA provides for public comment on the
State application by requiring, as one of the SEA's general assurances,
that ``before the [consolidated application] was submitted to the
Secretary, the State afforded a reasonable opportunity for public
comment on the application and considered such comment.'' We believe
that the procedures under which SEAs would secure adequate public
participation are to be determined under State law.
XII. Consolidated Local Plans or Applications
Section 9305(a) of the ESEA authorizes LEAs to receive funding from
the SEA under more than one ``covered program'' through consolidated
local plans or applications. Section 9305(c) and (d) requires the SEA,
in consultation with the Governor, to collaborate with LEAs in
establishing procedures for submission of these plans or applications,
and to require ``only descriptions, information, assurances, and other
material that are absolutely necessary for the consideration of the
[LEA] plan or application.''
These provisions closely mirror provisions in section 9302 of the
ESEA that govern the content and procedures for consolidated State
applications. Consistent with the statutory language, we believe that
SEAs have wide discretion in fashioning (in consultation with the
Governor and LEAs) procedures and content for these plans or
applications that make sense in terms of the student achievement and
other goals imbedded in the ESEA. We stress that LEAs submitting
consolidated local plans or applications must still implement all of
the requirements--including record-keeping requirements--of the
statutes whose programs those plans or applications include.
XIII. Voluntary Submission of Consolidated State Applications
Development of a consolidated State application is voluntary. It is
the SEA's decision whether to submit a consolidated application, which
of the eligible programs to include in it if one is submitted, and
whether to add, in later submissions, programs that are not included in
the consolidated application submitted this May for purposes of receipt
of FY 2002 funds. (Should an SEA choose to submit an individual
application under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities
program, the program statute (Title IV, Part A, Subpart 1) permits SEAs
to submit an ``interim'' application in FY 2002, and a comprehensive
application by FY 2003. Proposed rules for this interim program
application are included in appendix F.) Moreover, an SEA that submits
a consolidated application for FY 2002 funds that does not contain all
of the information requested could later decide not to submit that
outstanding information and instead submit individual program plans or
applications that the ESEA, as amended by NCLB, requires.
XIV. Response to the January 4, 2002 Notice of the Department's
Preliminary Plans for the Consolidated State Application
On January 4, 2002, we published a notice in the Federal Register
(67 FR 571) that described our working model for the content and
procedures to govern the consolidated State application, and requested
early public comment. This notice included our initial thoughts about
the kind of ESEA accountability system the consolidated State
application (and annual performance report) might encompass, and
proposed that States submit their consolidated State applications
through a series of phased submissions.
In response to this notice, the Department received 27 written
comments, including 17 from State officials across the Nation. While
offering suggestions in a number of areas to improve the overall
effectiveness of both the consolidated application and the overall
accountability system, these comments generally were very supportive of
the Department's proposal.
In this regard, many commenters made recommendations for how the
content of performance goals, indicators, and State-defined targets
that
[[Page 10170]]
SEAs would address in their consolidated applications might fit with
their own State accountability systems. Others commented on the
proposal to permit SEAs to submit their consolidated applications in
phases. These individuals generally agreed that a phase-in process
would be needed, urged that the Department have all data submitted no
later than the beginning of the 2003-04 school year, and recommended
that after submitting their initial applications this spring, SEAs
submit follow-up information on a schedule that reflects their States'
own needs and unique circumstances. Still other commenters raised
questions about specific ESEA programs, questions the Department will
address in individual program guidance. We considered all of these
suggestions and questions in formulating the details of this current
proposal.
Invitation To Comment
The Secretary invites comments from all interested members of the
public on this proposal for the content and procedures to govern
consolidated State applications. In view of the late enactment of the
NCLB and the time needed subsequently to prepare this notice, the
Department will need to publish a notice of final requirements as
quickly as possible in order to ensure that it can make formula grant
awards to States in the beginning of July. For this reason, while we
will carefully consider all comments received during the 30-day comment
period, we request those wishing to comment to send their comments to
the individual identified in the ADDRESSES section of this notice by
March 25 if possible.
As we observed in our January 4 initial proposal, consolidated
State applications can provide the Department with important
information on how the State intends ESEA programs included in the
application to promote increased achievement of all students. However,
the principal importance of applications (and reports) is the
opportunity they provide SEAs to communicate to the public,
policymakers, and others in each State the basis on which the State
officials responsible for implementing the new law propose to hold
themselves accountable for ensuring that no child is left behind.
In both of these contexts, we are interested in receiving public
comment and reaction to all aspects of this proposal. However, in
formulating your comments we ask that you pay particular attention to
the following questions:
A. The proposed ESEA system of accountability. Do the ESEA
performance goals and performance indicators, which the Department
would have all States adopt as a minimum core for a sound
accountability system (see appendix A), reflect a reasonable mix of
those critical elements on which student achievement and the purposes
of ESEA programs rest? Would the data reporting requirements included
in this package be compatible with States' own efforts to collect,
analyze, and report data on educational outcomes and the effectiveness
of education programs? How can the Department assist States in creating
systems to manage data associated with ESEA performance indicators?
What baseline data do States already have to measure their success in
meeting these performance targets? When in calendar year 2003 could
States reasonably provide baseline data to the Department?
B. Timeline for submitting data for appendix B or C. Aside from
information that appendix B or C would permit States to submit on
another schedule--
Does appendix B or C solicit any program descriptions or fiscal
information that States could not provide by May of this year? In
responding to this question, please remember that absent submission of
a consolidated application, the ESEA would require States, as a
condition of receiving their fiscal year 2002 ESEA funding, to submit
individual program plans or applications that meet each of the
requirements of the applicable ESEA program statute.
Except for requirements of Title I, Part A that do not become
effective until later, is it feasible to have all required
information--including baseline data for performance targets and
information about standards, assessments, and accountability systems
required by Title I--submitted to the Department by May 2003? If not,
why not? If this is not feasible, what flexibility might the Department
consider providing to States that can demonstrate a need for a bit more
time to adopt performance targets relative to the required indicators
proposed in appendix A, and at the same time hold States accountable
for providing baseline data?
C. Individual program information. Do any aspects of the
programmatic or fiscal information that the Department would have
States submit in their consolidated applications seem either
unnecessary or ill-defined? Which ones?
D. Possible designation of other programs. Section 9302(a)(2) of
the ESEA authorizes the Secretary to designate other programs for
inclusion in a consolidated State application. Are there other programs
that the Secretary should designate?
E. Other questions. Are there criteria and procedures for
consolidated State applications that, consistent with the requirements
of sections 9301 and 9302 of the ESEA, would better promote
accountability for increased academic achievement of all students and
other objectives of the No Child Left Behind Act? What are they? How
should they be reflected in the procedures and content for consolidated
State applications that the Department establishes? Alternatively, is
the Department's proposal reasonable and clearly presented? Which
aspects need to be modified or revised?
All comments submitted in response to this notice will be available
for public inspection, during and after the comment period, in room
3W300, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC 20202-6400.
Executive Order 12866
This notice has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order
12866. Under the terms of the order, we have assessed the potential
costs and benefits of this regulatory action.
The potential costs associated with the notice are those associated
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as
necessary for administering this program effectively and efficiently.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative
and qualitative--of this notice, we have determined that the benefits
justify the costs.
We have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
Summary of Potential Costs and Benefits: It is not anticipated that
the application requirements proposed in this notice will impose any
significant costs on applicants. These proposed requirements provide a
basis for the Secretary to award funds from a number of different
federal programs under a single application. Therefore, the
requirements would not impose any unfounded mandates on States. The
benefits of the program are described in the SUMMARY section of this
application.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that the requirements in this notice would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The entities affected by these requirements would be SEAs. In
[[Page 10171]]
addition, these requirements are minimal and are necessary to ensure
effective program management.
Federalism
Executive Order 13132 requires us to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local elected officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism implications.
``Federalism implications'' means substantial direct effects on the
States, on the relationship between the National Government and the
States, or on the distribution of power and responsibilities among the
various levels of government. Although we do not believe these proposed
requirements would have federalism implications as defined in Executive
Order 13132, we encourage State and local elected officials to review
them and to provide comments.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
The Department is currently drafting a consolidated State
application package that would contain the data collection requirements
proposed in this document. The feedback received on these proposed data
collection requirements will be considered when we develop the final
notice and the final application package. At that time, we will request
Office of Management and Budget approval of the final application
package on an emergency basis.
We invite your comments on the proposed collection requirements. In
view of the late enactment of the NCLB and the time needed subsequently
to prepare this notice, the Department will need to publish a notice of
final requirements as quickly as possible in order to ensure that it
can make formula grant awards to States in the beginning of July. For
this reason, while we will carefully consider all comments received
during the 30-day comment period, we request those wishing to comment
to send their comments to the individual identified in the ADDRESSES
section of this notice.
Intergovernmental Review
These programs are subject to Executive Order 12372 and the
regulations in 34 CFR part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive
order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened
federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State
and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal
financial assistance.
This document is intended to provide early notification of our
specific plans and actions for this program.
Electronic Access to This Document
You may view this document, as well as all other Department of
Education documents published in the Federal Register, in Text or Adobe
Portable Document Format (PDF) on the Internet at the following site:
http://www.ed.gov/legislation/FedRegister.
To use PDF you must have Adobe Acrobat Reader, which is available
free at this site. If you have questions about using PDF, call the U.S.
Government Printing Office (GPO), toll free at 1-888-293-6498; or in
the Washington, DC area at (202) 512-1530.
Note: The official version of this document is the document
published in the Federal Register. Free Internet access to the
official edition of the Federal Register and the Code of Federal
Regulations is available on GPO Access at: http://
www.access.gpo.gov/nara/index.html.
Program Authority: Section 9302 of the ESEA, as amended by the
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Pub. L. 107-110).
Susan B. Neuman,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
Marina Tse,
Acting Director for English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement,
and Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students.
Appendix A: ESEA Performance Goals, Performance Indicators, and State
Performance Targets
State and local accountability for the academic achievement of
all students is central to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The
system of accountability on which the consolidated State application
rests, a system intended to help the public understand how well the
State is meeting its student achievement goals for all students, is
built around several key elements:
1. ESEA ``Performance goals'' that the Department has
established. These goals reflect the basic purposes of the ESEA and
the programs included in the consolidated application.
2. ESEA ``Performance indicators'' that the Department has
established for each ESEA performance goal. States would use these
indicators to measure their progress in meeting the ESEA performance
goals.
3. ``Performance targets'' that each State would establish. The
performance targets define the progress a State expects to make at
specified points in time with respect to each indicator. For
example, for the indicator ``the percentage of students in third
grade reading at grade level,'' the performance target might be:
``the percentage of students in third grade reading at grade level
will increase from ``x'' percent in 2001-2002 to ``y'' percent in
2002-2003.''
We identify the following six ESEA performance goals that are
central to the purposes of the ESEA programs, and performance
indicators for each of these performance goals. Each State must
adopt this set of six performance goals and corresponding
performance indicators. However, a State may include additional
performance goals and indicators in its application if it desires to
do so.
Performance goal 1: All students will reach high standards, at a
minimum attaining proficiency or better in reading and mathematics
by 2013-2014.
1.1 Performance indicator: The percentage of students in Title
I schools, in the aggregate and for each subgroup, who are at or
above the proficient level in reading on the State's assessment.
(Note: Subgroups are those defined in Section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v))
1.1.1 Example of a State performance target: State assessments
will show that the percentage of students in Title I schools, in the
aggregate and in each subgroup, who are at or above the proficient
level in reading will increase consistent with the annual measurable
objectives determined by the computations for ``adequate yearly
progress'; these annual measurable objectives are ``x'' for 2002-03,
``y'' for 2003-04, etc.
1.2 Performance indicator: The percentage of students in Title
I schools, in the aggregate and in each subgroup, who are at or
above the proficient level in mathematics on the State's assessment.
1.3 Performance indicator: The percentage of Title I schools
that make adequate yearly progress in reading and mathematics.
1.3.1 Example of a State performance target: The percentage of
schools that make adequate yearly progress will increase from the
baseline established in 2001-2002 by ``x'' percent each subsequent
year.
1.4 Performance indicator: The percentage of migrant students
who are enrolled in schools in need of improvement.
1.5 Performance indicator: The percentage of students that meet
or exceed State standards for student literacy in technology.
Performance goal 2: By 2013-2014, all students will be
proficient in reading by the end of the third grade.
2.1 Performance indicator: The percentage of students in third
grade reading at grade level or above.
Performance goal 3: All limited English proficient students will
become proficient in English.
3.1 Performance indicator: The percentage of children
identified as limited English proficient who have attained English
proficiency by the end of the school year.
Performance goal 4: By 2005-2006, all students will be taught by
highly qualified teachers.
4.1 Performance indicator: The percentage of classes being
taught by ``highly qualified'' teachers (as the term is defined in
section 9101(23) of the ESEA), in the aggregate and in ``high-
poverty'' schools (as the term is defined in section
1111(h)(1)(C)(viii) of the ESEA).
4.1.1. Example of a State performance target: The percentage of
classes being taught by highly qualified teachers, in the aggregate
and in high-poverty schools, will increase from the baseline of
``x'' percent in 2001-2002 to ``y'' percent in 2002-2003, ``z''
percent in 2003-2004, etc.
[[Page 10172]]
4.2 Performance indicator: The percentage of teachers receiving
high-quality professional development (See definition of
``professional development'' in section 9101 (34)).
4.3 Performance indicator: The percentage of teachers qualified
to use technology for instruction.
Performance goal 5: All students will be educated in learning
environments that are safe, drug free, and conducive to learning.
5.1 Performance indicator: The percentage of students who
carried a weapon (for example, a gun, knife, or club) on school
property (in the 30 days prior to the survey).
5.2 Performance indicator: The percentage of students who
engaged in a physical fight on school property (in the 12 months
preceding the survey).
5.3 Performance indicator: The percentage of students offered,
sold, or given an illegal drug on school property (in the 12 months
preceding the survey).
5.4 Performance indicator: The number of persistently dangerous
schools, as defined by the State.
5.5 Performance indicator: The number of schools in which all
students are able to work from a networked computer.
Performance Goal 6: All students will graduate from high school.
6.1 Performance indicator: The percentage of students who
complete high school, disaggregated by poverty, limited English
proficient and migrant status, and major ethnic and racial group
membership.
6.2 Performance indicator: The number of students who drop out
of school after entering grades 7 through 12, disaggregated by the
poverty, limited English proficient and migrant status, and major
ethnic and racial group membership.
Note: During 2002 and beyond, the Department will work with
LEAs and SEAs to establish data standards for performance indicators
and other information collected from States and districts. The
Department will also confer with LEA and SEA officials, the research
community, information technology vendors, and other interested
parties on ways in which States, LEAs, and schools can collect and
electronically record useful baseline and follow-up data through an
internet-based format. The new format should accommodate the
measurement of success relative to the various indicators that the
Department and States have adopted. Future application and reporting
guidelines, therefore, will stress electronic reporting and provide
States with additional options in fulfilling federal information
requests.
Appendix B: State Activities To Implement ESEA Programs
States will conduct a number of activities to ensure effective
implementation of the ESEA programs included in their consolidated
applications. Many of the activities may serve multiple programs.
For example, a State may develop a comprehensive approach to
monitoring and technical assistance that would be used for several
(or all) programs. In responding to the items in this section, SEAs
would indicate the ESEA programs that will benefit from the
activities it describes. Where applicable, States may include html
references, electronic files, or other existing documentation to
comply with the requirements listed in the application.
1. Describe the State's system of standards, assessments, and
accountability and provide evidence that it meets the requirements
of the ESEA. In doing so--
a. Provide evidence that the State has adopted challenging
content standards in mathematics and reading/language arts in
accordance with Title I, Part A of the ESEA, where not previously
submitted. If the State has modified its currently approved content
standards in mathematics, reading, or language arts, submit evidence
that the modified standards meet the requirements of section
1111(b)(1). (Note: A number of items request that States provide
``evidence.'' The Department will issue guidance on what kind of
evidence it will expect to see.)
b. Provide evidence that the State has adopted challenging
academic content standards in science that meet the requirements of
section 1111(b)(1) or, if these standards have yet to be adopted,
submit a timeline for their development and submit evidence when it
is available, but no later than May 2005.
c. Provide a detailed timeline for the development and
implementation, in consultation with LEAs, of assessments that meet
the requirements of section 1111(b)(3) in the required subjects and
grade levels. When assessments are in place, provide evidence that
they meet those requirements. Provide this evidence as early as it
is available, but no later than indicated in the following schedule.
Assessments
Subject: Mathematics.
Grades: 3-8.
Implement by: 2005-06.
Submit evidence by: December 2006.
Subject: Reading/Language Arts.
Grades: 3-8.
Implement by: 2005-06.
Submit evidence by: December 2006.
Subject: Science.
Grades: Elementary (3-5); Middle (6-9); High School (10-12).
Implement by: 2007-2008.
Submit evidence by: December 2008.
d. Provide a detailed timeline for setting, in consultation with
LEAs, academic achievement standards in mathematics, reading or
language arts, and science that meet the requirements of section
1111(b)(1). When academic achievement standards have been set,
provide evidence that they have been adopted and meet those
requirements. Provide such evidence as early as it is available, but
no later than indicated in the following schedule.
Academic Achievement Standards
Subject: Mathematics.
Grades: 3-8.
Implement by: 2005-06.
Submit evidence by: December 2006.
Subject: Reading/Language Arts.
Grades: 3-8.
Implement by: 2005-06.
Submit evidence by: December 2006.
Subject: Science.
Grades: Elementary (3-5); Middle (6-9); High School (10-12).
Implement by: 2007-2008.
Submit evidence by: December 2008.
e. Describe how the State defines its adequate yearly progress
``starting point'' for the percentage of students meeting or
exceeding the State's proficient level (or provide a timeline for
defining the starting point and for submitting this information).
f. Provide the State's definition of adequate yearly progress
(or provide a timeline for determining the definition and for
submitting the definition) including--
i. For the percentage of students meeting or exceeding the
State's proficient level, provide--
The starting point percentage;
The intermediate goals;
The timeline; and
Annual objectives.
ii. Current high school graduation rate and target rate.
iii. One other academic indicator, applicable to elementary
schools, and its target.
iv. Any other (optional) indicators and their targets.
g. Provide evidence that the State has a single accountability
system that uses the same criteria, based primarily on assessments
consistent with section 1111(b), for determining whether a school
has made adequate yearly progress, regardless of whether the school
receives Title I, Part A or other Federal funds.
h. Identify the languages present in the student population to
be assessed, languages in which the State administers assessments,
and languages in which the State will need to administer
assessments.
i. Provide evidence that, beginning not later than the school
year 2002-2003, LEAs will provide for an annual assessment of
English proficiency that meets the requirements of section
1111(b)(7).
j. Describe the status of the State's effort to establish
standards and annual measurable achievement objectives that relate
to the development and attainment of English proficiency by limited
English proficient children. These standards and objectives must be
derived from the domains of speaking, listening, reading, writing,
and comprehension, and be aligned with the State academic content
and student academic achievement standards as required by section
1111(b)(1) of the ESEA. If they are not yet established, describe
the State's plan and timeline for completing the development of
these standards and achievement objectives.
2. Describe key procedures, selection criteria, and priorities
the State will use to award competitive subgrants (or contracts) to
the entities and for the activities required by the program statutes
of applicable programs included in the consolidated application.
States should include a description of how, for each program, these
selection criteria and priorities will promote improved academic
achievement. Applicable included programs are:
Even Start Family Literacy (Title I, Part B).
Education of Migrant Children (Title I, Part C).
[[Page 10173]]
Prevention and Intervention for Children Who Are
Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk--Local Agency Programs (Title I,
Part D, Subpart 2).
Comprehensive School Reform (Title I, Part F).
Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund--
subgrants to eligible partnerships (Title II, Part A, Subpart 3).
Enhanced Education Through Technology (Title II, Part
D).
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities--reservation
for the Governor (Title IV, Part A, section 4112).
Community Service Grants (Title IV, Part A, section
4126).
21st Century Community Learning Centers (Title IV, Part
B).
3. Describe how the State will monitor and provide professional
development and technical assistance to LEAs, schools, and other
subgrantees to help them implement their programs and meet the
States' (and those entities' own) performance goals and objectives.
This should include a description of assistance the SEA will provide
to LEAs, schools, and other subgrantees in identifying and
implementing effective instructional programs and practices based on
scientific research.
4. Describe the Statewide system of support under section 1117
to ensure that all schools meet the State's academic content and
student achievement standards, including how the State will provide
assistance to low-performing schools.
5. Describe the activities the State will conduct to--
a. Help Title I schools make effective use of schoolwide
programs to improve the achievement of all students;
b. Ensure that all teachers, particularly those in high-poverty
areas and those in schools in need of improvement, are highly
qualified. This description should include the help States will
provide to LEAs and schools to--
(i) Conduct effective professional development activities;
(ii) Recruit and hire highly qualified teachers, including those
licensed or certified through alternative routes; and
(iii) Retain highly qualified teachers.
Help LEAs with a high need for technology, high
percentages or numbers of children in poverty, and low-performing
schools to form partnerships with other LEAs, institutions of higher
education (IHEs), libraries, and other private and public profit and
non-profit entities with technology expertise to improve the use of
technology in instruction.
Promote parental and community participation in
schools.
Secure the baseline and follow-up data discussed in the
``Framework for ESEA Accountability'' section of the foregoing
Supplementary Information.
6. Briefly describe how State officials and staff will
coordinate the various ESEA-funded programs and State-level
activities the State administers, and how the State will coordinate
with other organizations, such as businesses, IHEs, nonprofit
organizations and other State agencies, and with other Federal
programs (including those authorized by Individuals with
Disabilities Education Act, the Perkins Vocational and Technical
Education Act, the Head Start Act, the Adult Education and Family
Literacy Act, and the McKinney-Vento Homeless Assistance Act).
7. Describe the strategies the State will use to determine, on a
regular basis, whether LEAs, schools, and other subgrantees are
making satisfactory progress in meeting State and local goals and
desired program outcomes. In doing so, the SEA should also describe
how it will use data it gathers from subgrantees on how well they
are meeting State performance targets, and the actions the State
will take to determine or revise interventions for any LEAs,
schools, and other subgrantees that are not making substantial
progress.
Appendix C: Key Programmatic and Fiscal Information
The Department has an overall responsibility for ensuring the
programmatic and fiscal integrity of the ESEA programs. To met this
responsibility, the Department proposes that before it would award
FY 2002 program funds on the basis of a consolidated application, it
would need to review and approve information on how the State would
comply with a few key requirements of the individual ESEA programs
included in the application. In particular, the Department would
need the SEA to respond to the following:
I. Key Program Requirements
1. Title I, Part B, Subpart 3--Even Start Family Literacy
a. Describe how the SEA will use its indicators of program
quality to monitor, evaluate, and improve its projects, and to
decide whether to continue operating them.
b. Describe what constitutes sufficient program progress when
the SEA makes continuation awards.
c. Explain how the State's Even Start projects will provide
assistance to low-income families participating in the program to
help children in those families to achieve to the applicable State
content and student achievement standards.
2. Title I, Part C--Education of Migrant Children
a. Describe the process the State will use to develop,
implement, and document a comprehensive needs assessment that
identifies the special educational and related needs of migrant
children.
b. Describe the State's priorities for the use of migrant
education program funds in order to meet the State's performance
targets for indicators 1.1, 1.2, and 2.1 as appendix A (as well as
1.4, 6.1, and 6.2 that expressly include migrant students), and how
they relate to the State's assessment of needs for services.
c. Describe how the State will determine the amount of any
subgrants the State will award to local operating agencies, taking
into account the numbers and needs of migratory children, the
statutory priority for service in section 1304(d), and the
availability of funds from other Federal, State, and local programs.
d. Describe how the State will promote continuity of education
and the interstate and intrastate coordination of services for
migratory children.
e. Describe the State's plan to evaluate the effectiveness of
its migrant education program and projects.
3. Title I, Part D--Children and Youth Who Are Neglected,
Delinquent, or At-Risk
a. Describe the program goals, performance indicators,
performance objectives, and data sources that the State has
established for its use in assessing the effectiveness of the
program in improving the academic and vocational and technical
skills of students participating in the program.
b. Describe how the SEA is assisting projects funded under the
program in facilitating the transition of children and youth from
correctional facilities to locally operated programs.
4. Title I, Part F--Comprehensive School Reform
a. Describe the process the State educational agency will use to
ensure that programs funded include and integrate all eleven
required components of a comprehensive school reform program.
b. Describe the percentage of schools that participate in the
Comprehensive School Reform program (CSR) meeting or exceeding the
proficient level of performance on State assessments in reading and
mathematics.
5. Title II, Part A--Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting
Fund
a. If not fully addressed in the State's response to the
information on performance goals, indicators, and targets in
Appendix A, describe the remainder of the State's annual measurable
objectives under section 1119(a)(2).
b. Describe how the SEA will hold LEAs accountable both for (1)
meeting the annual measurable objectives described in section
1119(a)(2) of the ESEA, and (2) ensuring that the professional
development the LEAs offer their teachers and other instructional
staff is consistent with the definition of ``professional
development'' in section 9101(34).
6. Title II, Part D--Enhanced Education Through Technology
a. Provide a brief summary of the SEA's long-term strategies for
improving student academic achievement, including technology
literacy, through the effective use of technology in the classroom,
and the capacity of teachers to integrate technology effectively
into curricula and instruction.
b. Describe key activities that the SEA will conduct or sponsor
with the funds it retains at the State level. These may include such
activities as provision of distance learning in rigorous academic
courses or curricula; the establishment or support of public-private
initiatives for the acquisition of technology by high-need LEAs; and
the development of performance measurement systems to determine the
effectiveness of educational technology programs.
c. Provide a brief description of how--
i. The SEA will ensure that students and teachers, particularly
those in the schools of high-need LEAs, have increased access to
technology, and
[[Page 10174]]
ii. The SEA will coordinate the application and award process
for State discretionary grant and formula grant funds under this
program.
7. Title III, Part A--English Language Acquisition and Language
Enhancement
a. Describe how the SEA will ensure that subgrantees use program
funds only to carry out activities that reflect scientifically based
research on the education of limited English proficient children
while allowing those grantees flexibility (to the extent permitted
under State law) to select and implement such activities in a manner
that they determine best reflects local needs and circumstances.
b. Describe how the SEA will hold subgrantees accountable for
meeting all annual measurable achievement objectives for limited
English proficient children, and making adequate yearly progress for
limited English proficient children.
8. Title IV, Part A--Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities
a. Describe the key strategies in the State's comprehensive plan
for the use of funds by the SEA and the Governor of the State to
provide safe, orderly, and drug-free schools and communities through
programs and activities that--
i. Complement and support activities of LEAs under section
4115(b) of the ESEA;
ii. Comply with the principles of effectiveness under section
4115(a); and
iii. Otherwise are in accordance with the purpose of Title IV,
Part A.
Note: The reauthorized provisions of the Safe and Drug-Free
Schools and Communities (SDFSC) Program clearly emphasize well-
coordinated SEA and Governors Program activities. The statute
requires that significant parts of the program application be
developed for each State's program, not for the SEA and Governors
Programs individually. For this reason, each State must submit a
single application for SDFSC SEA and Governors Program funds. States
may choose to apply for SDFSC funding through this consolidated
application or through a program-specific application.
9. Title VI, Part B, Subpart 2--Rural and Low-Income School Program
a. Describe how the State elects to make awards under the Rural
and Low-Income School Program:
i. By formula proportionate to the numbers of students in
eligible districts;
ii. Competitively (please explain any priorities for the
competition); or
iii. By a State-designed formula that results in equal or
greater assistance being awarded to school districts that serve
higher concentrations of poor students.
Note: If a State elects this option, the formula must be
submitted for ED approval. States that elect this option may submit
their State-designed formulas for approval as part of this
submission.
II. Key Fiscal Information
1. Consolidated Administrated Funds
a. Does the SEA plan to consolidate State-level administrative
funds?
If yes, please provide information and analysis concerning
Federal and other funding that demonstrates that Federal funds
constitute less than half of the funds used to support the SEA.
If yes, are there any programs whose funds are available for
administration that the SEA will not consolidate?
b. Please describe your plans for any additional uses of funds
2. Transferability
Does the State plan to transfer non-administrative State-level
ESEA funds under the provisions of the State and Local
Transferability Act (sections 6121 to 6123 of the ESEA)? If so,
please list the funds and the amounts and percentages to be
transferred, the program from which funds are to be transferred, and
the program into which funds are to be transferred.
Note: If the State elects to notify ED of the transfer in this
document, the plan described in response to provisions of appendix B
should be that in effect after the transfer. If the State does not
plan to transfer funds at this time, it may do so at a later date.
To do so, the State must (1) establish an effective date for the
transfer, (2) notify the Department (at least 30 days before the
effective date of the transfer) of its intention to transfer funds,
and (3) submit the resulting changes to the plan as discussed in
this appendix C by 30 days after the effective date of the transfer.
3. Program Specific Fiscal Information
a. Title I, Part A--Improving Basic Programs Operated By LEAs
i. Identify the amount of the reservation in section 1003(a) for
school improvement that the State will use for State-level
activities and describe those activities.
ii. For the 95 percent of the reservation in section 1003(a)
that must be made available to LEAs, describe how the SEA will
allocate funds to assist LEAs in complying with the school
improvement, corrective action, and restructuring requirements of
section 1116 and identify any SEA requirements for use of those
funds.
iii. Identify what part, if any, of State administrative funds
the SEA will use for assessment development under section 1004 of
the ESEA, and describe how those funds will be used.
iv. Describe the State's procedures for distributing funds for
schools to use for supplemental services under section 1116(e)(7),
and identify the amount of funds those schools will receive.
v. Describe how the State will use funds awarded under section
6113(b)(1) for the development and implementation of State
assessments in accordance with section 6111(b)(1).
b. Title I, Part B--Even Start Family Literacy
Identify the amount of the reservation under subsection 1233(a)
that the State will use for each category of State-level activities
listed in that section, and describe how the SEA will carry out
those activities.
c. Title I, Part C--Education of Migratory Children
Identify the amount of funds that the SEA will retain from its
Migrant Education Program (MEP) allocation, under section 200.41 of
the Title I regulations (34 CFR 200.41), to carry out administrative
and program functions that are unique to the MEP, and describe how
the SEA will use those funds.
d. Title I, Part D--Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent,
or At-Risk
Describe how the funds reserved under section 1418 will be used
for transition services for students leaving institutions for
schools served by LEAs, or postsecondary institutions or vocational
and technical training programs.
e. Title II, Part A--Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting
Fund.
i. Identify the amount of the State's total allocation for Title
II, Part A funds that would be reserved for administration and
planning (administration) costs under section 2113(d) and the amount
of those funds that would be provided to the SEA and State agency
for higher education (SAHE), respectively. The total amount that a
State may reserve for administration may not exceed 1 percent of the
State's total allocation under Part A of Title II.
Note: While the statute authorizes an SEA and SAHE to reserve
program funds for administrative expenses, it does not prescribe how
those funds are to be apportioned between the SEA and SAHE. The
Department is proposing that the two entities determine together how
much of the State's total administrative set-aside each entity would
receive. The Department also proposes that it would not award any of
the Title II, Part A funds available to the State for administration
unless the Department receives information that identifies (1) the
total amount that the State would reserve for administrative costs;
(2) the amount that would be made available to the SEA and the SAHE,
respectively, for administration; and (3) an assurance that named
senior officers of the SEA and the SAHE have agreed to the
apportionment of State administrative funds.
The Department will provide further guidance on within-State
allocations of Title II, Part funds reserved for administration in
the Title II, Part A nonregulatory guidance it is developing for the
program.
ii. Describe how the SEA will use funds reserved for State
activities described in section 2113(c) of the ESEA to meet the
teacher professional development and paraprofessional requirements
in section 1119.
f. Title III, Part A--English Language Acquisition and Language
Enhancement
In order that the Department may make FY 2002 State program
allocations, provide the most recent data available on--
i. A total amount not to exceed 5 percent of the State's
allotment may be reserved by the State under section 3111(b)(2) to
carry out one or more of the following categories
[[Page 10175]]
of State-level activities: professional development; planning,
evaluation, administration, and interagency coordination; technical
assistance; and providing recognition to subgrantees that have
exceeded their annual measurable achievement objectives. Specify the
percentage of the State's allotment that the State will reserve and
the percentage of the reserved funds that the State will use for
each of the categories of activities.
ii. A total amount not to exceed 15 percent of the State's
allotment must be reserved by the State under section 3114(d)(1) to
award subgrants to eligible entities that have experienced a
significant increase in the percentage or number of immigrant
children and youth. Specify the percentage of the State's allotment
that the State will reserve for these subgrants.
iii. The number of limited English proficient children in the
State. (See definitions of ``child'' in section 3301(1), and
``limited English proficient'' in section 9101(25).)
vi. The most recent data available on the number of immigrant
children and youth in the State. (See definition of ``immigrant
children and youth'' in section 3301(6).)
Note: Section 3111 of the ESEA requires that State allocations
for the Language Acquisition State grants be calculated on the basis
of the number of limited English proficient children in the State
compared to the number of such children in all States (80 percent)
and the number of immigrant children and youth in the State compared
to the number of such children and youth in all States (20 percent).
The Department plans to use data from the 2000 Census Bureau to
calculate State shares of limited English proficient students.
However, these data on limited English proficient students will not
be available for all States until September 2002. To ensure that
States have access to funds as soon as they are available, the
Department proposes, for FY 2002 only, to provide an initial
distribution of 50 percent of the funds under the limited English
proficient portion of the formula based on State-reported data. As
soon as Census data become available, the Department will
recalculate and make final State allocations using Census data.
For the 20 percent of formula funds distributed to States based
on State shares of immigrant children and youth, the Department
intends to use State-reported data in allocating these funds. Census
does not collect data that can be used to calculate State
allocations for this part of the formula.
g. Title IV, Part A, Subpart 1, Section 4112(a)--Safe and Drug-Free
Schools and Communities: Reservation of State Funds for the Governor
i. The Governor may reserve up to 20 percent of the State's
allocation under this program to award competitive grants or
contracts. Indicate the percentage of the State's allocation that is
to be reserved for the Governor's program.
ii. The Governor may administer these funds directly or
designate an appropriate State agency to receive the funds and
administer this allocation. Provide the name of the entity
designated to receive these funds, contact information for that
entity (the name of the head of the designated agency, address,
telephone number) and the ``DUNS'' number that should be used to
award these funds.
h. Title IV, Part A, Subpart 2, Section 4126--Safe and Drug-Free
Schools and Communities: Community Service Grants
The statute provides for grants to States to carry out programs
under which students expelled or suspended from school are required
to perform community service. The Department proposes to award funds
available under this program to State educational agencies, after
they have consulted with their Governors. SEAs and LEAs in some
States are already implementing community service activities for
students, and we believe that awards to SEAs are most likely to
result in the integration of these program funds into a more
comprehensive, coordinated strategy. Although the statutory language
for this program would permit the Department to award grants to a
Governor, or to another entity designated by the Governor, we
believe that most students eligible to benefit from this program are
likely to be served by SEAs or LEAs. We would like to receive
comments on our tentative plan for awarding grants under this
program.
Describe how funds will be used by the designated
entity(ies) to develop and implement a community service program for
suspended and expelled students.
i. Title V, Part A--Innovative Programs
i. In accordance with section 5112(a)(1) of the ESEA, provide
the SEA's formula for distributing program funds to LEAs. Include
information on how the SEA will adjust its formula to provide higher
per-pupil allocations to LEAs that have the greatest numbers or
percentages of children whose education imposes a higher-than-
average cost per child, such as--
Children living in areas with concentrations of
economically disadvantaged families;
Children from economically disadvantaged families; and
Children living in sparsely populated areas.
ii. Identify the amount the State will reserve for State-level
activities under section 5121, and describe those activities.
Appendix D: Assurances
1. General and Cross-Cutting Assurances. Section 9304(a)
requires States to have on file with the Secretary, as part of their
consolidated application, a single set of assurances, applicable to
each program included in the consolidated application, that provide
that--
a. Each such program will be administered in accordance with all
applicable statutes, regulations, program plans, and applications;
b.i. The control of funds provided under each such program and
title to property acquired with program funds will be in a public
agency, a nonprofit private agency, institution, or organization, or
an Indian tribe, if the law authorizing the program provides for
assistance to those entities; and
ii. The public agency, nonprofit private agency, institution, or
organization, or Indian tribe will administer those funds and
property to the extent required by the authorizing law;
c. The State will adopt and use proper methods of administering
each such program, including--
i. The enforcement of any obligations imposed by law on
agencies, institutions, organizations, and other recipients
responsible for carrying out each program;
ii. The correction of deficiencies in program operations that
are identified through audits, monitoring, or evaluation; and
iii. The adoption of written procedures for the receipt and
resolution of complaints alleging violations of law in the
administration of the programs;
d. The State will cooperate in carrying out any evaluation of
each such program conducted by or for the Secretary or other Federal
officials;
e. The State will use such fiscal control and fund accounting
procedures as will ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting
for, Federal funds paid to the State under each such program;
f. The State will--
i. Make reports to the Secretary as may be necessary to enable
the Secretary to perform the Secretary's duties under each such
program; and
ii. Maintain such records, provide such information to the
Secretary, and afford such access to the records as the Secretary
may find necessary to carry out the Secretary's duties; and
g. Before the plan or application was submitted to the
Secretary, the State afforded a reasonable opportunity for public
comment on the plan or application and considered such comment.
2. ESEA Specific Assurances and Crosscutting Declaration. Each
SEA that submits a consolidated application also must provide an
assurance that they will--
a. Comply with all requirements of the ESEA programs included in
their consolidated applications, whether or not the program statute
identifies these requirements as a description or assurance that
States would have addressed, absent this consolidated application,
in a program-specific plan or application, and
b. Maintain records of their compliance with each of those
requirements.
Note: For the Safe and Drug-Free Schools programs, the SEA must
have all appropriate assurances from the Governor on record.
Through this general assurance and assurance (1) in section
9304(a), the SEA agrees to comply with all requirements of the ESEA
and other applicable program statutes. While all requirements are
important, we have identified a number of those to which we believe
SEAs should pay particular attention in order to ensure the
effective use of ESEA program funds in promoting increased student
achievement. The Department will include in the application package
for the consolidated application and on its website a list of these
requirements of individual programs that the SEA, through its
assurances, is agreeing to meet. At the same
[[Page 10176]]
time we stress that the list of program-specific requirements that
the SEA is assuring the Department it will meet is not meant to be
exhaustive and that States are accountable for all program
requirements.
3. Cross-Cutting Declaration: Certification of Compliance with
Unsafe School Choice Option Requirements. The State certifies that
it has established and implemented a Statewide policy requiring that
students attending persistently dangerous public elementary or
secondary schools, as determined by the State (in consultation with
a representative sample of local educational agencies), or who
become victims of violent criminal offenses, as determined by State
law, while in or on the grounds of public elementary and secondary
schools that the students attend, be allowed to choose to attend a
different, safe public elementary or secondary school (which may
include a public charter school) within the local educational
agency.
Appendix E: Enhanced Assessment Instruments Competitive Grant Program
(Title VI, section 6112)--Program Information and Proposed Selection
Criteria
Overview. Proficiency on State assessments required under Title
I, Part A of the ESEA is the primary indicator in the ESEA of
student academic achievement and, hence, the primary measure of
State success in meeting the goals of No Child Left Behind. In view
of the critical importance of these State assessments, section 6112
of the ESEA authorizes the Secretary to make competitive grant
awards to State educational agencies (SEAs) to help them enhance the
quality of assessment and accountability systems.
Because of the close relationship between this program and Title
I, Part A, section 6112 requires States wishing to apply for these
grants to include their applications in the State plans they prepare
under Title I, Part A. For this reason, the Secretary has designated
this program for voluntary inclusion in a State's ESEA consolidated
application even though it is not a formula grant program. In doing
so, the Secretary proposes the following procedures and requirements
to be used under this competition.
Eligible applicants. By law, all eligible applicants must be
SEAs or consortia of SEAs. An application from a consortium of SEAs
must designate one SEA as the fiscal agent.
Proposed Award Amounts and Timelines. The statute requires that
any funds appropriated in excess of the required amount for State
assessment formula allocations (section 6111) be allocated as
competitive grants. From the amount appropriated, approximately $17
million is available for the upcoming fiscal year 2002 competition.
Subject to the minimum size of award provided in section
6113(b)(2)(A)(ii) (which is based on a State's enrollment of
students ages 5-17), the Department estimates that it will make 20
awards ranging from $300,000 to $2,000,000, with an average size of
$850,000.
The Department expects to require that all applications be
submitted on or before September 15, 2002, and to make awards by
December 1, 2002. Project periods would run until September 30,
2004.
Application requirements. Section 6112(a) requires that all
funded applications demonstrate that States (or consortia of States)
will--
1. Collaborate with institutions of higher education, other
research institutions, or other organizations to improve the
quality, validity, and reliability of State academic assessments
beyond the requirements for the assessments described in section
1111(b)(3) of Title I, Part A;
2. Measure student academic achievement using multiple measures
of student academic achievement from multiple sources;
3. Chart student progress over time; or
4. Evaluate student academic achievement through the development
of comprehensive academic assessment instruments, such as
performance and technology-based academic assessments.
Proposed competitive preferences. There is a great need for
enhancing assessment instruments so that they take into
consideration alternatives for assessing students with disabilities
and limited English proficient students. In addition, we believe
that collaborative efforts between and among States and effective
dissemination of project results will yield procedures that can be
applied in varied contexts, reinforcing the flexibility of the
statute while increasing the likelihood that projects will result in
significant improvement of State assessment systems.
For these reasons, the Secretary proposes the following
competitive preferences and would award up to 35 points to an
applicant based on how well its application meets these preferences.
These preference points would be in addition to points an applicant
earns under the selection criteria.
1. Alternate assessments. (20 points)
Applications that can be expected to advance practice
significantly in the area of assessment of students with
disabilities or limited English proficiency, or both, including
strategies for test design, administration with accommodations,
scoring, and reporting.
2. Collaborative efforts. (10 points)
Applications that are sponsored by a consortium of States.
3. Dissemination. (5 points)
Applications that include an effective plan for dissemination of
results.
Proposed selection criteria. The Secretary proposes to use the
following criteria and weights authorized by sections 75.209-210 of
the Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR):
1. Need for the Project (10 Points)
The magnitude and severity of the problem to be
addressed by the proposed project;
The extent to which the proposed project will provide
services or otherwise address the needs of students at risk of
educational failure; and
The extent to which the proposed project will focus on
serving or otherwise addressing the needs of disadvantaged
individuals.
2. Scope (10 Points)
The extent to which the goals and objectives to be
achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and
measurable, and
The extent to which the goals and objectives are
sufficiently broad to be likely to result in significant change or
improvement of one or more State assessment systems.
3. Significance (15 Points)
The potential contribution of the proposed project to
increased knowledge or understanding of educational problems,
issues, or effective strategies;
The potential contribution of the proposed project to
the development and advancement of theory, knowledge, and practices
in the field of study;
The extent to which the proposed project is likely to
yield findings that may be used by other appropriate agencies and
organizations; and
The extent to which the proposed project involves the
development or demonstration of promising new strategies that build
on, or are alternatives to, existing strategies.
4. Quality of Project Design (30 Points)
The extent to which there is a conceptual framework
underlying the proposed research or demonstration activities, and
the quality of that framework;
The quality of the proposed design and procedures for
documenting project activities and results;
The extent to which the design for implementing and
evaluating the proposed project will result in information to guide
possible replication of project activities or strategies, including
information about the effectiveness of the approach or strategies
employed by the project;
The extent to which the proposed project is designed to
build capacity and yield results that will extend beyond the period
of Federal financial assistance;
The extent to which the design of the proposed project
reflects up-to-date knowledge from research and effective practice;
The extent to which the proposed project represents an
exceptional approach for meeting statutory purposes and
requirements; and
The quality of the methodology to be employed by the
proposed project.
5. Quality of the Management Plan (5 Points)
The adequacy of the management plan to achieve the
objectives of the proposed project on time and within budget,
including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and
milestones for accomplishing project tasks; and
The extent to which the time commitments of the project
director and principal investigator and other key project personnel
are appropriate and adequate to meet the objectives of the proposed
project.
6. Quality of Project Personnel (10 Points)
The extent to which the applicant encourages
applications for employment from persons who are members of groups
that have traditionally been underrepresented
[[Page 10177]]
based on race, color, national origin, gender, age, or disability;
The qualifications, including relevant training and
experience, of the project director or principal investigator;
The qualifications, including relevant training and
experience, of key project personnel; and
The qualifications, including relevant training and
experience, of project consultants or subcontractors.
7. Adequacy of Resources (10 Points)
The adequacy of support, including facilities,
equipment, supplies, and other resources from the SEA or the lead
applicant SEA;
The relevance and demonstrated commitment of each
partner in the proposed project to the implementation and success of
the project; and
The extent to which the budget is adequate to support
the proposed project.
8. Quality of Evaluation Plan (10 Points)
The extent to which the methods of evaluation are
thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives, and
outcomes of the proposed project;
The extent to which the methods of evaluation are
appropriate to the context within which the project operates;
The extent to which the methods of evaluation include
the use of objective performance measures that are clearly related
to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce
quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible; and
The extent to which the evaluation will provide
guidance about effective strategies suitable for replication or
testing in other situations.
Appendix F--Optional Interim Application for FY 2002 Funds Under the
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants Program (Title
IV, Part A, Subpart 1)
The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants
program authorizes States that desire to submit a program-specific
application for FY 2002 funds to do so in either of two ways. A
State may either submit (1) the comprehensive State application
described in section 4113(a) of the ESEA or (2) an interim
application that, under section 4113(b), offers the State an
opportunity to fully develop and submit the comprehensive
application prior to its receipt of fiscal year 2003 funds under the
program. Section 4113(b)(1) provides that the content of the interim
application must be consistent with the requirements of that section
of the law and contain the information that ``the Secretary may
specify in regulations.'' So that States may understand their
various options for applying for Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities State Grants program, the Department is using the
vehicle of this notice to propose rules for this interim program
application for FY 2002 funds.
The Department proposes that States that desire to use this
interim application to apply for FY 2002 Safe and Drug-Free Schools
and Communities State Grants program funds be required to submit the
following:
A description of how the SEA will coordinate the
agency's activities under this subpart with the chief executive
office's drug and violence prevention programs and with the
prevention efforts of other State agencies and other programs, as
appropriate.
The State's performance measures for drug and violence
prevention programs and activities to be funded under this subpart,
which will be focused on student behavior and attitudes, derived
from the State's needs assessment in section 4113(a)(9), developed
through consultation between the State and local officials, and
include levels of performance for each indicator.
The State must submit performance measures for the following
indicators, as well as for other indicators that it identifies as
appropriate based on its analysis of need and its comprehensive plan
for use of funds:
Performance indicator 1: The percentage of students who carried
a weapon (for example, a gun, knife, or club) on school property (in
the 30 days prior to the survey).
Performance indicator 2: The percentage of students who engaged
in a physical fight on school property (in the 12 months preceding
the survey).
Performance indicator 3: The percentage of students offered,
sold, or given an illegal drug on school property (in the 12 months
preceding the survey).
Performance indicator 4: The number of persistently dangerous
schools, as defined by the State.
A description of how the State educational agency will
review applications from local educational agencies, including how
the agency will receive input from parents in such review.
A description of how the State educational agency will
monitor the implementation of activities, and provide technical
assistance for local educational agencies, community-based
organizations, other public entities, and private organizations.
A description of how the chief executive officer of the
State will award funds under section 4112(a) and implement a plan
for monitoring the performance of, and providing technical
assistance to grant recipients.
[FR Doc. 02-5345 Filed 3-5-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-U