[Federal Register: July 19, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 139)]
[Notices]
[Page 47529-47532]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr19jy02-60]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Local Flexibility Demonstration Program
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Notice of final application requirements, selection criteria,
and application process.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Secretary announces final application requirements,
selection criteria, and the application process for the Local
Flexibility (Local-Flex) Demonstration Program.
EFFECTIVE DATE: August 19, 2002.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: On February 22, 2002, we published in the
Federal Register (67 FR 8442-8444) a notice of proposed application
requirements, selection criteria, and application process for the
Local-Flex program, which is authorized under sections 6151 through
6156 of the Elementary and Secondary Education Act (ESEA), as amended
by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Pub. L. 107-110). This notice
announces final application requirements, selection criteria, and the
application process for the program.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. A notice
inviting applications under the Local-Flex competition is published
separately in this issue of the Federal Register.
Analysis of Comments and Changes
Four parties submitted various comments in response to the notice
of proposed application requirements, selection criteria, and
application process.
Comment: One commenter suggested that we revise the language
concerning the baseline academic data that local educational agencies
(LEAs) would submit with their applications. This commenter suggested
that LEAs should provide as their baseline the results under their
adequate yearly progress (AYP) definition under the predecessor ESEA.
Discussion: Recognizing that States are in the process of
developing State AYP definitions to meet the requirements in the
reauthorized ESEA we are requesting LEAs to submit the best available
disaggregated baseline data. These data should be based on assessments
consistent with section 1111(b)(3) of the predecessor ESEA.
Changes: We have clarified that, in submitting baseline academic
data, LEAs must provide student achievement data from assessments
consistent with section 1111(b)(3) of the predecessor ESEA.
Comment: One commenter suggested that after revising its goals
based on the State's new AYP definition, an LEA should be required to
submit its revised goals to the Secretary.
Response: The Secretary had intended that an LEA be required to
submit these revised goals as part of a proposed amendment to its
Local-Flex agreement.
Changes: We have clarified that an LEA must not only revise its
goals, as necessary, after the State develops the State AYP definition,
but that it must also submit the revised goals to the Secretary as part
of a proposed amendment to its Local-Flex agreement. We have also
clarified that LEAs must submit any revised strategies for reaching
those goals.
Comment: Two commenters expressed concern about the relationship
between LEAs that have entered into Local-Flex agreements and State
educational agencies (SEAs) that subsequently seek State-Flex authority
under sections 6141 through 6144 of the ESEA. One of the commenters
indicated that an SEA seeking State-Flex authority should not be
required to incorporate Local-Flex agreements into its State-Flex
proposal, and the other commenter said that an LEA should not be forced
to incorporate its Local-Flex agreement into its SEA's State-Flex
proposal.
Response: Under the legislation, the Secretary may enter into
Local-Flex agreements only with LEAs in States that do not have State-
Flex authority. Furthermore, if an SEA notified the Secretary, by May
8, 2002, that it intended to apply for State-Flex authority, an LEA in
that State is precluded from applying for Local-Flex until the
Department makes a final determination concerning the SEA's State-Flex
application. The May 8, 2002 notification deadline essentially gave
SEAs an opportunity to seek State-Flex before permitting their LEAs to
seek Local-Flex authority.
The application process that we described in the February 28, 2002
Federal Register notice is consistent with the statutory provisions.
Under this process, an SEA initially decided whether it intended to
apply for State-Flex authority and to preclude its LEAs from entering
into Local-Flex agreements with the Secretary. If an SEA chose not to
notify the Department, by May 8, 2002, that it intended to apply for
State-Flex, its LEAs may participate in the Local-Flex competition.
Once an LEA in a State has entered into a Local-Flex agreement, an
SEA may subsequently receive State-Flex authority only if any LEA in
the State with a Local-Flex agreement agrees to be part of the SEA's
State-Flex proposal.
Changes: In the notice inviting applications published elsewhere in
this issue of the Federal Register, we have clarified that if an LEA
has entered into a Local-Flex agreement with the Secretary and its SEA
later seeks to apply for State-Flex authority, the SEA may not force
the LEA to be part of the State-Flex proposal. The SEA may seek State-
Flex only if each of its LEAs that has a Local-Flex agreement with the
Secretary agrees to be part of the SEA's submission. SEAs and LEAs are
encouraged to work cooperatively to minimize potential disputes
regarding the implementation of State-Flex and Local-Flex.
Comment: One commenter suggested that applicants be required to
submit the following information to enable the Secretary to evaluate
whether they are focusing on serving the needs of students most at risk
of educational failure: (1) The number and percentage of schools in the
district that qualify for schoolwide programs; (2) The amount of local
education funds spent per pupil at Title I schools compared to the per-
pupil spending at non-Title I schools; and (3) Any formula the district
would use to target consolidated Federal funds to students most at risk
of education failure.
Discussion: An applicant must submit detailed baseline academic
data and specific measurable goals, with annual objectives, that it
seeks to achieve by consolidating and using funds in accordance with
the terms of its proposed agreement. The goals must relate to raising
student achievement and narrowing achievement gaps relative to the
baseline data that are submitted. In addition, the applicant must
propose specific strategies for reaching the stated goals. On the basis
of the application requirements and the selection criteria that will be
used for this competition, we will be able to focus Local-Flex
agreements on LEAs serving the need of students most at risk of
educational failure competition.
Changes: None.
[[Page 47530]]
Comment: One commenter suggested that each applicant be required to
describe how its proposed Local-Flex plan will meet the general
purposes of the programs included in the consolidation. This commenter
also urged us to require each applicant to document parental
involvement in the planning process, to explain how the applicant will
continue to comply with all applicable civil rights requirements, and
to include in its application a description of the accounting
procedures and safeguards that it would employ to ensure proper
disbursement of, and accounting for, Federal funds.
Discussion: In the February 22, 2002 Federal Register notice, we
did not include all of the statutory application requirements. We did
not believe that it was necessary to seek public comments on some of
the more explicit requirements included in the legislation. However,
all of the statutory application requirements, including those
addressed in this notice, are discussed in the application package.
The comments referenced in the preceding paragraph concerning
parental involvement and fiscal responsibility are addressed in the
application package. We have made changes to the application
requirements and selection criteria in this notice to address the
comment concerning the general purposes of the programs included in the
consolidations. With respect to the comment on civil rights compliance,
all applicants, as mandated by the legislation, will be required to
submit an assurance that they are complying with all applicable civil
rights requirements.
Changes: We have modified the application requirements to state
expressly that each applicant must, as part of its five-year proposal,
describe how it will meet the general purposes of the programs that are
consolidated. In addition, we have modified the ``Quality of the Local-
Flex Plan'' selection criterion to include a factor relating to the
general purposes of the consolidated programs.
Comment: One commenter suggested that under the application
requirements, migrant status should be listed as one of the subgroups
by which the baseline academic data should be disaggregated.
Discussion: We do not agree because migrant status is not one of
the required subgroups for determining AYP under Part A of Title I.
Given that an LEA's progress in implementing Local-Flex will be
measured on the basis of its AYP status, we believe that it is
important to obtain, at a minimum, disaggregated baseline data that
reflect the AYP subgroups. While it is not mandatory, applicants may
also submit other disaggregated data, such as migrant status, which are
required for reporting assessment results under section 1111(b)(3) of
the reauthorized ESEA.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter suggested that under the ``Quality of the
Local-Flex Plan'' selection criteria, we add a factor about the extent
to which the LEA included parents in the development of its Local-Flex
proposal, particularly parents of subgroups of significant size.
Discussion: We agree that the selection criteria should include a
factor relating to parental involvement in the development of the
Local-Flex proposals, particularly the parents of students most at risk
of educational failure.
Changes: We have modified the ``Quality of the Local-Flex Plan''
criterion to add a factor relating to the involvement of parents,
particularly the parents of students most at risk of educational
failure, in the development of the Local-Flex proposal.
Comment: One commenter stated that the overall application process
should outline a process for reviewing and deciding issues of continued
participation in Local-Flex if the LEA does not meet its stated targets
for student achievement over a two-to three-year period.
Discussion: The legislation states that the Secretary must, after
providing notice and an opportunity for a hearing, promptly terminate a
Local-Flex agreement if an LEA fails to make adequate yearly progress
for two consecutive years. The legislation also provides that, after
providing notice and an opportunity for a hearing, the Secretary may
terminate a Local-Flex agreement if there is evidence that an LEA has
failed to comply with the terms of the agreement.
The Secretary does not believe that it is necessary to issue, at
this time, additional guidance on the termination of a Local-Flex
agreement.
Changes: None.
I. Application Requirements
In order that the Secretary can select Local-Flex participants in
accordance with section 6151 of the ESEA, Local-Flex applicants must
submit the following information, together with the other information
set forth in the legislation and outlined in the Local-Flex application
package.
(a) Baseline academic data. Each LEA seeking to enter into a Local-
Flex agreement with the Secretary must provide, as part of its proposed
agreement, student achievement data for the most recent available
school year, including data from assessments under section 1111(b)(3)
of the predecessor ESEA, as well as descriptions of achievement trends.
To the extent possible, an LEA must provide data for both mathematics
and reading or language arts, and the LEA must disaggregate the results
by each major racial and ethnic group, by English proficiency status,
by disability status, and by status as economically disadvantaged.
(These are the categories, among others, by which an LEA will
disaggregate data for determining AYP under section 1111(b)(2) of the
reauthorized ESEA. Furthermore, these are the categories, among others,
by which an LEA had to disaggregate data for reporting assessment
results under section 1111(b)(3) of the predecessor ESEA.)
In addition to submitting baseline achievement data that are
disaggregated, to the extent possible, by the categories noted above,
LEAs may also submit baseline achievement data that are further
disaggregated by gender and by migrant status, or baseline data on
other academic indicators, such as grade-to-grade retention rates,
student dropout rates, and percentages of students completing gifted
and talented, advanced placement, and college preparatory courses. To
the extent possible, the baseline data on other academic indicators
should also be disaggregated.
(b) Specific, measurable education goals. Each applicant must
submit a five-year Local-Flex plan that contains specific, measurable
educational goals, with annual objectives, that the LEA seeks to
achieve by consolidating and using funds in accordance with the terms
of its proposed agreement. The goals must relate to raising student
achievement and narrowing achievement gaps relative to the baseline
achievement data and other baseline data that are submitted.
At the time an LEA submits its initial proposed Local-Flex
agreement, the goals in its proposal will not have to relate to the
State's definition of AYP under section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA because
those definitions are just being developed. However, as soon as its
State definition of AYP is submitted to and approved by the Secretary,
each LEA that has entered into a Local-Flex agreement must revise its
goals, as necessary, based on that definition. (Note: State definitions
of AYP under section 1111(b)(2) of the ESEA must be submitted no later
than January 31, 2003, and implemented by the end of the 2002-2003
school year.) The LEA must submit its revised goals as part of
[[Page 47531]]
a proposed amendment to its Local-Flex agreement.
(c) Strategies for meeting its goals and the general purposes of
the consolidated programs. Each applicant must propose a five-year plan
that contains specific strategies for reaching its stated goals. In
particular, the plan must describe how the applicant will consolidate
and use funds received under Subpart 2 of Part A of Title II (Teacher
and Principal Training and Recruitment); Subpart 1 of Part D of Title
II (Enhancing Education Through Technology); Subpart 1 of Part A of
Title IV (Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities); and Subpart 1 of
Part A of Title V (Innovative Programs).
As part of its five-year plan, an applicant must also describe how
it will meet the general purposes of the programs that are consolidated
under the Local-Flex agreement. In particular, an applicant must
describe how its proposed plan would--
(i) Improve teacher and principal quality and increase the number
of highly qualified teachers in classrooms (Title II, Part A);
(ii) Improve teaching and student academic achievement through the
use of technology in schools (Title II, Part D);
(iii) Support programs that prevent violence in and around schools
and that prevent the illegal use of alcohol, tobacco, and drugs (Title
IV, Part A);
(iv) Support local education reform efforts that are consistent
with and support statewide education reform efforts (Title V, Part A).
Once a Local-Flex LEA's State definition of AYP has been
established and the LEA has modified its goals, as necessary, to
reflect that definition, the LEA must modify, as appropriate, the
strategies that it would implement to reach its revised educational
goals. The LEA must submit these modifications as part of a proposed
amendment to its Local-Flex agreement.
II. Selection Criteria
The Secretary will use the following criteria to select the LEAs
with which he will enter into Local-Flex agreements:
(a) Identification of the Need for the Local-Flex Agreement. (25
points) The Secretary considers the LEA's description and analysis of
its need for a Local-Flex agreement. In determining the quality of the
description and analysis, the Secretary considers the following
factors:
(i) The extent to which the LEA's baseline achievement data and
data on other academic indicators are objective, valid, and reliable,
and provide disaggregated results.
(ii) The extent to which the proposal identifies achievement gaps
among different groups of students.
(iii) The extent to which the Local-Flex agreement will focus on
serving or otherwise addressing the needs of students most at risk of
educational failure.
(iv) The extent to which the additional flexibility provided under
the Local-Flex agreement would enable the LEA to meet more effectively
the State's definition of adequate yearly progress and specific,
measurable goals for improving student achievement and narrowing
achievement gaps.
(b) Quality of the Educational Goals. (25 points) The Secretary
considers the quality of the goals that the LEA sets in its proposed
Local-Flex agreement. In determining the quality of the LEA's goals,
the Secretary considers the following factors:
(i) The extent to which the goals in the proposed Local-Flex
agreement are clearly specified and measurable.
(ii) The significance of the improvement in student achievement and
in narrowing achievement gaps proposed in the agreement.
(iii) The extent to which the goals relate to the needs identified
in the LEA's baseline achievement data and data on other academic
indicators.
(iv) The extent to which the goals support the intent and purposes
of the Local-Flex program.
(c) Quality of the Local-Flex Plan. (35 points) The Secretary
considers the quality of the LEA's Local-Flex plan. In determining the
quality of the Local-Flex plan, the Secretary considers the following
factors:
(i) The extent to which the LEA will use funds consolidated under
the Local-Flex agreement to address the needs identified in the
baseline achievement data in order to assist the LEA in achieving its
educational goals.
(ii) The extent to which the LEA's Local-Flex plan constitutes a
coherent, sustained approach for reaching the LEA's goals, and to which
the timelines for implementing strategies in the plan are reasonable.
(iii) The extent to which the LEA will use achievement data and
data on other academic indicators to manage the proposed activities and
to monitor progress toward reaching its goals on an ongoing basis.
(iv) The extent to which the LEA demonstrates that it will meet the
general purposes of the programs that would be consolidated under its
Local-Flex agreement;
(v) The extent to which the LEA included parents, especially
parents of children most at risk of educational failure, in the
development of the Local-Flex proposal.
(d) Adequacy of the Resources. (15 points) The Secretary considers
the adequacy of the resources for the proposed Local-Flex agreement. In
considering the adequacy of the resources, the Secretary considers the
following factors:
(i) The extent to which the funds that the LEA proposes to
consolidate under the Local-Flex agreement are adequate to support the
strategies in its Local-Flex plan.
(ii) The extent to which the funds that the LEA proposes to
consolidate under the Local-Flex agreement will be integrated with
other resources to meet the goals of the proposed agreement.
(iii) The extent to which costs that the LEA will incur under the
Local-Flex agreement are reasonable in relationship to the goals that
will be achieved under the agreement.
III. Application Process
The Secretary will conduct two separate Local-Flex competitions. A
notice inviting applications for the initial group of Local-Flex LEAs
is published elsewhere in this issue of the Federal Register. Depending
on the number and quality of the applications submitted, the Secretary
intends to select up to 40 LEAs with which to enter into Local-Flex
agreements during the initial competition. The Secretary will reserve
the remaining Local-Flex slots for a subsequent Local-Flex competition.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Ms. Milagros Lanauze. Telephone: (202)
401-0039 or via Internet: LocalFlex@ed.gov.
If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD), you may
call the Federal Information Relay Service (FIRS) at 1-800-877-8339.
Individuals with disabilities may obtain this notice in an alternative
format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer diskette) on
request to the contact person listed above.
Electronic Access to This Document
You may view this document, as well as 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
[[Page 47532]]
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
version 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: Sections 6151 through 6156 of the ESEA, as
amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (P.L. 107-110).
Dated: July 15, 2002.
Susan B. Neuman,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
[FR Doc. 02-18307 Filed 7-18-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P