FR Doc 05-13077
[Federal Register: July 1, 2005 (Volume 70, Number 126)]
[Rules and Regulations]
[Page 38017-38022]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr01jy05-12]
Download: 
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
34 CFR Part 230
RIN 1855-AA04
Innovation for Teacher Quality
AGENCY: Office of Innovation and Improvement, Department of Education.
ACTION: Final regulations.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary issues regulations prescribing criteria to be
used in selecting eligible members of the Armed Forces to participate
in the Troops-to-Teachers program and receive financial assistance.
These regulations implement section 2303(c) of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (Act). The regulations also
define the terms ``high-need local educational agency'' (high-need LEA)
and ``public charter school'' in which a participant must agree to be
employed under section 2304(a)(1)(B) of the Act. In addition, the
regulations define the term ``children from families with income below
the poverty line'' which is used in the definition of high-need LEA.
DATES: These regulations are effective September 15, 2005.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Thelma Leenhouts, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 4W302, FOB6, Washington, DC
20202-6140. Telephone: (202) 260-0223 or via Internet:
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may
call the Federal Relay Service (FRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
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 listed FOR FURTHER
INFORMATION CONTACT.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: These regulations implement section 2303(c)
of Title II, Part C, Subpart 1, Chapter A of the Act, as amended by the
No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (NCLB) (Pub. L. 107-110), enacted
January 8, 2002. Subpart 1, Transitions to Teaching, of Chapter A
authorizes the Troops-to-Teachers program. This program provides
assistance, including stipends of up to $5,000, to eligible members of
the Armed Forces so that they can obtain certification or licensing as
elementary school teachers, secondary school teachers, or vocational/
technical teachers and become highly qualified teachers. In addition,
the program helps participants find employment in high-need LEAs or
public charter schools.
With respect to participation agreements under section
2304(a)(1)(B) of the Act signed on or after September 15, 2005, only
full-time employment in a ``high-need LEA'' or ``public charter
school'' as defined in 34 CFR 230.2 will satisfy the Act's service
requirement. Participation agreements signed prior to September 15,
2005 are not subject to the new definitions.
On January 14, 2005 the Secretary published a notice of proposed
rulemaking (NPRM) for this program in the Federal Register (70 FR
2582). The NPRM proposed regulations implementing section 2303(c)(1) of
the Act, which directs the Secretary to prescribe criteria to be used
to select eligible members of the Armed Forces to participate in the
program. The NPRM also proposed regulations to resolve an ambiguity in
the Act regarding the definitions of a ``high-need local educational
agency'' and ``public charter school.''
Analysis of Comments and Changes
In response to the Secretary's invitation in the NPRM,
approximately 100 parties submitted comments on the proposed
regulations. An analysis of the comments and of the changes in the
regulations since publication of the NPRM follows.
We discuss substantive issues under the sections of the regulations
to which they pertain. Generally, we do not address technical and other
minor changes--and suggested changes the law does not authorize the
Secretary to make.
Section 230.1
Comment: One commenter stated that Sec. 230.1, which is simply a
brief general description of the Troops-to-Teachers program, does not
provide an accurate context for the proposed regulations that follow it
because, according to the commenter, that section inaccurately stated
that bonuses may be paid to teachers agreeing to serve in ``high-
poverty schools'' when in fact the Act specifies teachers in a ``high-
need school''. According to this comment, the Department's alleged
failure to recognize the distinction between low income and high
poverty established an inaccurate context for all of the proposed
regulations that followed the brief program description.
Discussion: The legal standard for schools in which service will
satisfy the service requirement for bonuses is set forth unambiguously
in section 2304(d)(3) of the Act. ``High-need school,'' which is
defined by the Act, is a distinct term unrelated to the term high-need
LEA, which is not defined in the Act. In the proposed regulations,
``high-poverty schools'' was used as a shorthand description of one
technical provision of the Act in the general description of the
Troops-to-Teachers program in Sec. 230.1. By its nature, such a brief
description is not intended to substitute for the Act, address every
aspect of the Act, or provide a detailed discussion of each of the
Act's technical provisions. However, the Secretary has concluded that
the regulation can be improved by adhering closely to the statutory
language on bonuses, and the regulation has been changed accordingly.
Change: Section 230.1 has been amended to specify in the last
sentence that, in lieu of a stipend, the Defense Activity for Non-
Traditional Education Support (DANTES) may pay a bonus of $10,000 to a
participant who agrees to teach in a high-need school.
Section 230.2
Comments: Virtually every commenter opposed the proposed definition
of high-need LEA in Sec. 230.2. Many commenters asserted that the
proposed definition would seriously injure the Troops-to-Teachers
program, the schools and students it serves, and service members who
have sacrificed greatly to serve their country. Several commenters
stated that the effect of the proposed definition would be to remove
strong teacher candidates from the classrooms that need them most.
Commenters presented examples of instances where they believed that the
most needy schools would be
[[Page 38018]]
disqualified under the proposal. For example, one commenter asserted
that the Texas LEAs serving Fort Hood would not be high-need LEAs under
the proposed definition, but have been commended for making that
military installation one of the few locations where service personnel
can obtain the full range of special educational services for their
families.
One commenter urged the Secretary to establish the policy that
three years of service as a full-time classroom teacher in any public
or charter school classroom satisfies the service commitment under the
Act.
Many commenters asserted that the number of eligible LEAs in their
State would be severely and inappropriately restricted under the
proposed definition. For example, according to one commenter, whereas
80 percent of Colorado's LEAs are currently classified as high-need
LEAs, under the proposal the number would shrink to six (1.6 percent).
According to another commenter, there would be a 67 percent reduction
in the number of high-need LEAs in North Carolina. Numerous other
commenters presented similar statistics for their States.
According to a comment filed by a representative of DANTES, which
administers the program under a memorandum of agreement with the
Department, on a national basis about 39 percent of LEAs would qualify
under the proposed definition (compared with 70 percent under the
standard DANTES currently uses).
One commenter stated that, unlike other educational career
transition programs, the Troops-to-Teachers program has as its primary
emphasis assistance to retiring members of the military. In addition,
according to this comment, the Congress has historically recognized
that this program's participants are located throughout the world in
locations that do not permit them to anticipate with any certainty
where they will be seeking employment as teachers at the conclusion of
their military careers. The comment urges the Secretary to recognize
this unique aspect of the program in defining high-need LEAs in which
participants can satisfy their service obligation.
Several commenters asserted that the proposed definition conflicts
with the basic purpose of the Troops-to-Teachers program, which they
asserted is to facilitate the employment of former service members in
LEAs that receive grants under Part A of Title I of the Act. One
commenter stated that ``high-need LEA'' should be defined in terms of
low-income students in the same manner as Part A of Title I, rather
than using the criteria in the proposed definition. Numerous commenters
argued that the current definition of high-need LEA, which is based on
free and reduced price lunch (FRPL) eligibility, is consistent with
section 2302(b)(2)(a)(i) of the Act, which states that the program is
authorized to facilitate the employment of service members in LEAs or
public charter schools receiving grants under part A of Title I as the
result of having concentrations of children from low-income families.
According to these comments, the phrase ``concentrations of children
from low-income families'' has been operationally defined by DANTES to
mean LEAs with 20 percent or more of their students eligible for a free
or reduced price lunch.
Several commenters questioned the use of census poverty data for
determining whether an LEA has enough children from families with
incomes below the poverty line to be considered a high-need LEA,
because of concerns about the reliability of those data. Another
commenter suggested that FRPL data available from the Food and
Nutrition Service in the U.S. Department of Agriculture (USDA) may be a
more accurate measure of poverty and should be used for determining
whether an LEA has enough children from low-income families to be
considered a high-need school district.
Under the proposed regulation, the term ``high-need local
educational agency'' would have meant an LEA: (1) That serves not fewer
than 10,000 children from families with incomes below the poverty line;
(2) for which not less than 20 percent of the children served by the
agency are from families below the poverty line; or (3) for which not
less than 15 nor more than 19 percent of the children served by the
agency are from families below the poverty line and that assigns all
teachers funded by the Troops-to-Teachers Program to high-need schools.
Several commenters suggested alternative definitions of high-need
LEA. Several suggested that the definition of high-need LEA be changed
to be identical to the statutory definition for high-need school in
section 2304(d)(3) of the Act. Under section 2304(d) of the Act, a
Troops-to-Teachers program participant must agree to teach in a high-
need school in a high-need LEA in order to qualify for a bonus in lieu
of a stipend. Another commenter suggested that the proposed definition
be changed slightly so that the first tier of the definition applies to
an LEA with 7,500 rather than 10,000 children from families with
incomes below the poverty line and that the range for qualification for
the third tier of LEAs be amended to between 10 and 19 percent rather
than between 15 and 19 percent while retaining the proviso that all
Troops-to-Teachers program participants in that tier of LEAs be
assigned to high-need schools.
Finally, one commenter questioned whether the intent of the
proposed definition is to reduce the cost of the program by reducing
the number of participants who can gain employment in a high-need LEA.
Discussion: The suggestion that the Secretary establish the policy
that service in any LEA or public charter school will meet the service
obligation under the Act is contrary to the evident intent of the Act.
While the Act failed to define the terms ``high-need LEA'' and ``public
charter school,'' the Act does make a distinction between them and
other LEAs, and this distinction must be given effect. The Act's
requirement in section 2304(a)(1)(B) that participants agree to serve
in those entities rather than in LEAs generally (if they are to receive
financial assistance) makes it clear that not every LEA can provide
employment that will satisfy the Act. Therefore, the Secretary rejects
this suggestion.
As noted in the NPRM, the proposed definition was not motivated by
a desire to realize cost savings for the program. To the contrary, the
Administration, through its budget policy, has been very supportive of
Troops-to-Teachers. The definition was intended to balance the need to
provide program participants with reasonable opportunities to satisfy
their teaching commitments under the program with the need to target
recruitment assistance to LEAs with the greatest need for that
assistance.
The Secretary acknowledges that the nature of military service
introduces uncertainty for program participants, particularly for those
stationed overseas upon enrollment in the program. These participants
may be unable to anticipate where they ultimately will be seeking
employment as teachers. The Secretary notes that the Troops-to-Teachers
program has its historical antecedents under prior statutes that placed
primary emphasis on the placement of retiring service members and
comparatively little emphasis on ensuring that resources were targeted
to high-need LEAs. Not surprisingly, these statutes did not require
service in a ``high-need LEA.'' In contrast, the Act now requires such
service, signifying that, unlike under prior law, some greater degree
of targeting of resources is required. Moreover, the Act as a whole, of
which the Troops-to-Teachers statute is a part, evidences Congressional
intent to target
[[Page 38019]]
resources to LEAs in need. Specifically, by more precisely directing
funds, under programs like Title I grants to LEAs, Teacher Quality
State grants, and Educational Technology State grants to LEAs with high
concentrations of child poverty, Congress not only made NCLB a vehicle
for holding LEAs accountable for teaching all children to high
standards, but also targeted funding through the Act to those LEAs with
the greater need for assistance in achieving that objective. The
amendments made to the Troops-to-Teachers program by NCLB were
consistent with that more general thrust of the Act.
While the Secretary is not free to ignore the imperative that
resources be targeted, with the benefit of the public comments in
response to the NPRM, the Secretary has concluded that some adjustment
of the definition of ``high-need LEA'' is necessary to balance the
objectives of placing retiring service members in the teaching
profession and serving needy LEAs. In this final regulation, the
Secretary amends the third tier of the definition of ``high-need LEA,''
as suggested by a commenter, so that that it applies to LEAs with 10
percent or more but less than 20 percent of their children from
families below the poverty line. The provision that all Troops-to-
Teachers program participants in the third tier must be assigned to
high-need schools is unchanged.
The same commenter's other suggestion, that the threshold for the
first tier of the definition, LEAs serving 10,000 or more students from
families below the poverty line, be expanded to apply to LEAs with
7,500 or more such students has not been adopted. In considering this
second suggestion, the Secretary found that once the change in
percentage in the third tier is made, this additional change in the
first tier would not significantly increase the number of LEAs that
would be considered high-need.
The Secretary rejects the suggestion by several commenters that
``high-need LEA'' be defined identically to the statutory definition
for ``high-need school'' in section 2304(d)(3) of the Act because that
suggestion is not consistent with the Act. The Act makes a distinction
between high-need LEAs and high-need schools that the suggestion would
negate. Any participant who receives any financial support, whether
stipend or bonus, must agree to teach in a high-need LEA or public
charter school. There is yet a further threshold for those who wish to
receive a bonus in lieu of a stipend. Those participants must also
agree to teach in a high-need school within a high-need LEA or in a
public charter school. Eliminating the distinction between a high-need
LEA and a high-need school would eliminate currently eligible LEAs from
the program since not all of those LEAs have high-need schools.
Moreover, if all participants were assigned to high-need schools, they
would all be eligible for bonuses; the statutory provisions for stipend
would become superfluous.
As revised, the definition of high-need LEA has been expanded and
should provide an adequate universe of LEAs in which participants can
satisfy their teaching obligations. Approximately 22 percent of the
LEAs in the country serve communities in which 20 percent or more of
school-aged children are from families with incomes below the poverty
line. An additional approximately 36 percent of LEAs in the country
serve communities in which 10 percent or more but less than 20 percent
of school-aged children are from families with incomes below the
poverty line. Participants who teach in this class of LEAs can satisfy
their obligations if they teach in high-need schools.
With potentially 58 percent of the LEAs in the country eligible as
high-need LEAs, the Secretary rejects the contentions that the effect
of the definition is to remove strong teacher candidates from the
classrooms that need them most or that the most needy schools will be
disqualified under the final regulation. If anything, the definition
errs on the side of being over-inclusive rather than under-inclusive.
Potentially, most of the LEAs in the country, serving approximately 65
percent of the Nation's K-12 population, are eligible under the revised
definition.
As noted previously, with regard to the contention that the more
narrow proposed definition excluded the most needy LEAs, one commenter
alleged that the schools surrounding Fort Hood would be eliminated from
eligibility under the proposed rule. However, according to data
obtained from DANTES, even under the more narrow proposed definition, a
number of LEAs within a 25-mile radius of Fort Hood would be considered
high-need LEAs. Under the more expansive revised definition, most of
those LEAs could potentially be high-need LEAs.
Similarly, the comments--that the proposed definition would have
drastically reduced the number of eligible LEAs in particular States--
have been largely addressed by the expansion of the definition of high-
need LEA. As a result, the Secretary believes that in each State there
should be a sufficient number of high-need LEAs with a geographical
distribution adequate to provide an appropriate range of options to
program participants while remaining faithful to the intent of the Act
to target resources. For example, Colorado and North Carolina were two
of the States in which commenters asserted that there would be a
drastic reduction in eligible LEAs under the more narrow proposed rule;
there will potentially be 121 of 180 Colorado LEAs eligible and 110 of
120 North Carolina LEAs eligible under the final regulation.
The Secretary disagrees with the commenters who opposed the use of
Census Bureau data in the application of the definition of ``high-need
LEA.'' U.S Census Bureau's development of model-based census estimates
for LEA poverty rates grew out of the 1994 reauthorization of the Act.
In the 1994 amendments to the Act, Congress mandated that the
Department use census data that are updated every two years to
calculate Title I LEA allocations. The NCLB amendments to Act in 2002
reaffirmed the policy to use updated census data developed through the
Census Bureau's model to determine Title I allocations and further
required that LEA poverty estimates be updated every year rather than
every two years. The decision made by Congress to continue using
updated LEA census estimates was based on an evaluation by the National
Academy of Sciences (NAS) of the methodology used by the Census Bureau
in developing these model-based estimates. In its 1999 ``Interim Report
3: Evaluation of 1995 County and School District Estimates for Title I
allocations,'' NAS concluded `` * * * that the Census Bureau's * * *
[updated] estimates are generally as good as--and, in some instances,
better than--estimates that are currently being used.'' Thus, NAS
``recommends to the Secretaries of Education and Commerce that the
Census Bureau's * * * school district estimates of poor school-age
children be used to make direct Title I allocations to school districts
for the 1999-2000 school year.'' After consulting with NAS and the
Census Bureau, the Department of Education and the Department of
Commerce jointly decided to follow NAS' recommendation and allocate
fiscal year 1999 Title I funds to LEAs using updated Census Bureau
school district estimates. The Department has continued to rely on
updated LEA Census model-based estimates because it strongly believes
that these estimates, while not perfect, represent the best data
available on the number and location of children from low-income
[[Page 38020]]
families in LEAs across the country. The Department is currently using
2002 Census estimates to allocate more than $12.7 billion in fiscal
year (FY) 2005 Title I, Part A funds to LEAs and will use updated 2003
Census estimates to allocate funds made available in the FY 2006
appropriation.
While there are other LEA-level data, such as FRPL, that measure
poverty, the Secretary believes that the Census estimates provide a
better measure of the extent of poverty nationally for several reasons.
First, the family income threshold needed to qualify for the FRPL
program is 185 percent of the poverty level used by the Census Bureau.
Hence, many more children qualify for the FRPL program than are
considered poor under the census definition, which makes FRPL
eligibility too expansive a measure of poverty.
Second, FRPL data tend to under-count children in middle and high
schools, because children in the upper grades tend to participate in
the school lunch program in significantly lower numbers. Therefore, the
number of poor children in high school districts are typically not
accurately represented by FRPL counts.
Third, FRPL data are self-reported data. The number of children
included in the FRPL count depends on how many families apply for the
program. The extent to which school districts and schools reach out and
recruit families to apply for the program will affect the number.
Because of this factor, the USDA, which administers the school meals
programs, has raised concerns about the accuracy of these data. Several
data sources, including the eligibility verifications performed by
school districts, indicate that a significant number of ineligible
children appear to have been certified for free and reduced meals and,
therefore, that these data may not be an adequate measure for poverty
for other program uses. USDA believes that the authority for school
officials to use counts of children eligible for free and reduced-price
meals in determining Title I within-district allocations may provide an
incentive for those officials to inflate those counts.
Finally, because FRPL are self-reported data, the relationship
between census poverty and FRPL is not consistent across geographic
areas. Nationally, for example, the number of children eligible for the
FRPL in school year 2000-01 among the States ranges from 1.5 to 41
times the number of children who meet the census criteria for poverty.
In conclusion, under the revised and expanded final definition,
potentially 58 percent of the LEAs in the country will be considered
high-need LEAs. While this percentage of LEAs is not as extensive as
the percentage currently considered ``high-need LEAs'' (approximately
70 percent) under the FRPL standard, it is considerably more than would
have qualified under the NPRM (potentially 38 percent). Consequently,
the Secretary does not believe that by realigning the definition of
high-need LEA with the current statute and thereby providing a
reasonable range of choice under this expanded final definition,
serious candidates will be dissuaded from a career change to teaching
or that the Troops-to-Teachers program will be negatively affected by
this final regulation.
Change: The third tier of the definition of ``high-need local
educational agency'' has been expanded so as to apply to an LEA in
which 10 percent or more but less than 20 percent of the children
served by the agency are from families with incomes below the poverty
line and that assigns all teachers receiving financial assistance
through the Troops-to-Teachers program to high-need schools. In all
other respects, the definition of ``high-need LEA'' is unchanged;
however, a new definition of the term ``children from families with
incomes below the poverty line'' has been added to Sec. 230.2 as the
result of interdepartmental review to clarify what data the Secretary
uses in applying the ``high-need'' LEA definition. That new definition
is based on the data used by the Department in allocating funds under
Title I, Part A of the Act. Thus, the term ``children from families
with incomes below the poverty line'' means the updated Department of
Commerce data on the number of children ages 5 through 17 from families
with incomes below the poverty line used to allocate funds under Title
I, Part A of the Act.
Section 230.3
Comment: One commenter stated that Sec. 230.3 should be clarified
to specify that a participant can satisfy his or her three-year
teaching obligation if he or she teaches in any of the priority
categories specified in the regulation.
Discussion: Section 2304 of the Act specifies that service in any
high-need LEA or public charter school satisfies a service member's
teaching obligation regardless of the priority given to that service
member in his or her selection to the program. Which priority is used
to select a participant for the program is distinct from how a selected
participant satisfies the teaching obligation one assumes upon
selection to the program. Service members who teach for three years in
a high-need LEA or public charter school (and in a high-need school in
the case of bonus recipients) will satisfy their obligation regardless
of what priority they were given under Sec. 230.3 in their selection
for the program.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter questioned whether participants will be
required to have four-year college degrees including teacher-training
classes and questioned the absence of certification requirements in the
regulations.
Discussion: Section 2303(c)(2) of the Act provides generally that
program participants must have received a baccalaureate or advanced
degree except in the case of vocational or technical teachers, who may
qualify on the basis of one year of college and six or more years of
military experience in a vocational or technical field or otherwise
meet State certification or licensing requirements to be a vocational
or technical teacher. Generally, teacher certification and licensing is
a matter of State law. It would therefore not be appropriate to address
that subject in these regulations.
Change: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that the Secretary establish a
policy providing for partial or full repayment where a participant
makes a good-faith effort to satisfy his or her commitment but is
unable to obtain appropriate employment.
Discussion: It is unnecessary to establish the suggested policy
because the Act already contains, in section 2304(f) of the Act,
provisions governing the repayment of a stipend or bonus, including
partial repayment in appropriate cases, where a participant does not
meet his or her obligation. Section 2304(a)(2) of the Act also
authorizes the Secretary to waive the three-year service obligation and
section 2304(f)(4) of the Act excuses repayment in the event of
permanent total disability.
Change: None.
Executive Order 12866
We have reviewed these final regulations 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 final regulations are those
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined to
be necessary for administering this program effectively and
efficiently.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative
and qualitative--of these final regulations,
[[Page 38021]]
we have determined that the benefits of the regulations 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.
We summarized the potential costs and benefits of these final
regulations in the preamble to the NPRM (70 FR 2584). We include
additional discussion of potential costs and benefits in the section of
this preamble titled Analysis of Comments and Changes.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
These regulations do not contain any information collection
requirements.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is subject to the requirements of Executive Order
12372 and the regulations in 34 CFR part 79. The objective of the
Executive order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a
strengthened federalism by relying on processes developed by State and
local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal
financial assistance.
In accordance with the order, we intend this document to provide
early notification of the Department's specific plans and actions for
this program.
Assessment of Educational Impact
In the NPRM, we requested comments on whether the proposed
regulations would require transmission of information that any other
agency or authority of the United States gathers or makes available.
Based on the response to the NPRM and on our review, we have
determined that these final regulations do not require transmission of
information that any other agency or authority of the United States
gathers or makes available.
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/news/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.gpoaccess.gov/nara/index.html.
(Catalog of Federal Domestic Assistance Number 84.815)
The Secretary of Education has delegated authority to the Assistant
Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement to issue these
amendments to 34 CFR Chapter II.
List of Subjects in 34 CFR Part 230
Armed forces, Education, Elementary and secondary education,
Stipends, Teachers, Vocational education.
Dated: June 28, 2005.
Nina Shokraii Rees,
Assistant Deputy Secretary for Innovation and Improvement.
0
For the reasons discussed in the preamble, the Secretary amends title
34 of the Code of Federal Regulations by adding part 230 to read as
follows:
PART 230--Innovation for Teacher Quality
Subpart A--Troops-to-Teachers Program
Sec.
230.1 What is the Troops-to-Teachers program?
230.2 What definitions apply to the Troops-to-Teacher program?
230.3 What criteria does the Secretary use to select eligible
participants in the Troops-to-Teachers program?
Subpart B--[Reserved]
Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 3474, and 6671-6684, unless
otherwise noted.
Subpart A--Troops-to-Teachers Program
Sec. 230.1 What is the Troops-to-Teacher program?
Under the Troops-to-Teachers program, the Secretary of Education
transfers funds to the Department of Defense for the Defense Activity
for Non-Traditional Education Support (DANTES) to provide assistance,
including a stipend of up to $5,000, to an eligible member of the Armed
Forces so that he or she can obtain certification or licensing as an
elementary school teacher, secondary school teacher, or vocational/
technical teacher and become a highly qualified teacher by
demonstrating competency in each of the subjects he or she teaches. In
addition, the program helps the individual find employment in a high-
need local educational agency or public charter school. In lieu of a
stipend, DANTES may pay a bonus of $10,000 to a participant who agrees
to teach in a high-need school.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 3474, and 6671-6677)
Sec. 230.2 What definitions apply to the Troops-to-Teacher program?
As used in this subpart--
Act means the Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as
amended.
Children from families with incomes below the poverty line means
the updated data on the number of children ages 5 through 17 from
families with incomes below the poverty line provided by the Department
of Commerce that the Secretary uses to allocate funds in a given year
to local educational agencies under Title I, Part A of the Act.
High-Need Local Educational Agency as used in section 2304(a) of
the Act means a local educational agency--
(1) That serves not fewer than 10,000 children from families with
incomes below the poverty line;
(2) For which not less than 20 percent of the children served by
the agency are from families with incomes below the poverty line; or
(3) For which 10 percent or more but less than 20 percent of the
children served by the agency are from families with incomes below the
poverty line and that assigns all teachers funded by the Troops-to-
Teachers program to a high-need school as defined in section 2304(d)(3)
of the Act for the duration of their service commitment under the Act.
Public Charter School means a charter school as defined in section
5210(1) of the Act.
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 3474, and 6672(c)(1))
Sec. 230.3 What criteria does the Secretary use to select eligible
participants in the Troops-to-Teacher program?
(a) The Secretary establishes the following criteria for the
selection of eligible participants in the Troops-to-Teachers program in
the following order:
(1) First priority is given to eligible service members who are not
employed as an elementary or secondary school teacher at the time that
they enter into a participation agreement with the Secretary under
section 2304(a) of the Act, which requires participants to teach in a
high-need local educational agency or public charter school for at
least three years, who will be selected in the following order:
(i) Those who agree to obtain certification to teach science,
mathematics, or special education and who agree to teach in a ``high-
need
[[Page 38022]]
school'' as defined in section 2304(d)(3) of the Act.
(ii) Those who agree to obtain certification to teach another
subject or subjects and who agree to teach in a ``high-need school'' as
defined in section 2304(d)(3) of the Act.
(iii) Those who agree to obtain certification to teach science,
mathematics, or special education or obtain certification to teach at
the elementary school level.
(iv) All other eligible applicants.
(2) After all eligible first-priority participants are selected,
second priority is given to eligible service members who are employed
as an elementary or secondary school teacher at the time that they
enter into a new participation agreement with the Secretary under
section 2304(a) of the Act, which requires participants to teach in a
high-need local educational agency or public charter school for at
least three years, who will be selected in the following order:
(i) Those who agree to obtain certification to teach science,
mathematics or special education rather than the subjects they
currently teach and who agree to teach in a ``high-need school'' as
defined in section 2304(d)(3) of the Act.
(ii) Those who agree to obtain certification to teach another
subject or subjects and who agree to teach in a ``high-need school'' as
defined in section 2304(d)(3) of the Act.
(iii) Those who agree to obtain certification to teach science,
mathematics, or special education rather than the subjects they
currently teach.
(iv) All others seeking assistance necessary to be deemed ``highly
qualified'' by their State within the meaning of section 9101(23) of
the Act.
(b) [Reserved].
(Authority: 20 U.S.C. 1221e-3, 3474, and 6672(c)(1)).
[FR Doc. 05-13077 Filed 6-30-05; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P