[Federal Register: January 21, 2000 (Volume 65, Number 14)]
[Notices]
[Page 3427-3431]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr21ja00-35]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
National Awards Program for Effective Teacher Preparation
AGENCY: Office of Educational Research and Improvement (OERI),
Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed eligibility and selection criteria.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Assistant Secretary for OERI proposes eligibility and
selection criteria to govern competitions under the National Awards
Program for Effective Teacher Preparation for fiscal year (FY) 2000 and
future fiscal years. Under these criteria, the awards program would
recognize model programs that prepare elementary school teachers or
secondary school mathematics teachers, and that lead to improved
student learning.
DATES: We must receive your comments on or before March 6, 2000.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments about these proposed definitions and
selection criteria to Sharon Horn, Office of Educational Research and
Improvement, U.S. Department of Education, 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW.,
room 506E, Washington, DC 20208-5644. If you prefer to send your
comments through the Internet, use the following address:
sharon__horn@ed.gov
You may also fax your comments to Sharon Horn at (202) 219-2198.
If you want to comment on the information collection requirements
you must send your comments to the Office of Management and Budget at
the address listed in the Paperwork Reduction Act section of this
preamble. You may also send a copy of these comments to the Department
representative named in this section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Sharon Horn. Telephone: (202) 219-
2203. 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 document in an
alternate format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to the contact person listed in the preceding
paragraph.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation to Comment
We invite you to submit comments regarding these proposed
eligibility and selection criteria.
We invite you to assist us in complying with the specific
requirements of Executive Order 12866 and its overall requirement of
reducing regulatory burden that might result from these proposed
eligibility and selection criteria. Please let us know of any further
opportunities we should take to reduce potential costs or increase
potential benefits while preserving the effective and efficient
administration of the program.
During and after the comment period, you may inspect all public
comments about these proposed eligibility and selection criteria in
room 506E, 555 New Jersey Avenue, NW., Washington, DC, between the
hours of 8:30 a.m. and 4 p.m., Eastern time, Monday through Friday of
each week except Federal holidays.
Assistance to Individuals With Disabilities in Reviewing the
Rulemaking Record
On request, we will supply an appropriate aid, such as a reader or
print magnifier, to an individual with a disability who needs
assistance to review the comments or other documents in the public
rulemaking record for these proposed eligibility and selection
criteria. If you want to schedule an appointment for this type of aid,
you may call (202) 205-8113 or (202) 260-9895. If you use a TDD, you
may call the Federal Information Relay Service at 1-800-877-8339.
General Information
Through this notice the Secretary proposes eligibility and
selection criteria to govern applications for recognition that are
submitted under the National Awards Program for Effective Teacher
Preparation. The criteria established in this notice would be used to
select award recipients in the program's initial year, FY 2000, and in
subsequent fiscal years. The Secretary plans to publicly honor and
recognize successful applicants.
This new program, which is being proposed as part of a continuing
effort to honor excellence in education, is the result of an increased
emphasis across the country on teacher quality and the well-established
principle that high-quality K-12 teachers are critical to the
[[Page 3428]]
ability of children in our nation's schools to achieve to high
standards. Yet, while few would question that any effort to improve
student learning depends on better teaching in schools, we are
proposing this program in an effort to highlight the relationship
between student learning and the quality of the programs preparing our
public school teachers. To this point, there has not existed a
systematic way to identify entities that have successfully linked their
programs for preparing teachers to improved student achievement at the
K-12 level. Given the current emphasis on heightened academic standards
for elementary and secondary students and the need for teachers to gain
the knowledge and skills necessary to teach to those standards, we
believe the time is right to focus attention on those teacher
preparation programs that are particularly effective in preparing
teachers who, in turn, are effective in helping students improve their
learning.
We recognize that demonstrating the link between teacher
preparation programs and the ability of program graduates to improve
student learning is not an easy task. The difficulty involved, however,
makes that link no less critical. We intend to select for awards no
more than five pre-service teacher preparation programs that are on the
leading edge in this effort. Our chief goal in recognizing these
programs is to foster an understanding of how these noteworthy programs
design their teacher preparation activities to increase K-12 student
achievement and how their approaches can be replicated or built upon by
other institutions that prepare teachers. For that reason, the criteria
for selecting award recipients, as described in this notice, focus
significantly on the ability of applicants to provide compelling
evidence of effectiveness in preparing teachers who positively impact
student learning.
The timeliness of this new awards program is also supported by the
fact that institutions producing teachers, and the states that certify
them, are increasingly coming under scrutiny as the public seeks higher
standards and greater accountability for public schools and school
teachers. The Department, as well as many States, is currently
implementing new accountability measures and reporting requirements for
States and for colleges and universities receiving Federal grants to
support teacher training programs. Some institutions have already
implemented accountability measures, while others have started to take
steps to improve and to become accountable for the teachers they train.
We hope that bringing attention to those teacher preparation programs
that are effective in this area will serve to assist other programs in
their efforts to improve their level of accountability.
In order to align the program with nation-wide efforts to improve
achievement levels in math and reading, this awards program will focus,
in its initial year, on programs that prepare elementary teachers
(since elementary school teachers often teach both math and reading)
and programs that prepare middle or high school mathematics teachers or
both. Thus, to be selected for an award, applicants must be able to
show that their graduates are effective in helping all students improve
their learning in reading and mathematics at the elementary level or
mathematics at the middle and high school level or both. By ``all
students,'' we mean the diverse population of students that graduates
of teacher education programs may encounter in the classroom or other
educational setting, including regular and special education students,
students from diverse backgrounds, and students with limited English
proficiency. The selection process will also depend on the ability of
applicants to demonstrate that their graduates have a depth of content
knowledge in mathematics and reading or both, acquire general and
content-specific pedagogical knowledge and skills, and develop skills
to examine attitudes and beliefs about learners and the teaching
profession.
The Secretary will announce the final eligibility and selection
criteria in a notice in the Federal Register. We will determine the
final eligibility and selection criteria after considering responses to
this notice and other information available to the Department.
Note: This notice does not solicit applications. In any year in
which the Assistant Secretary chooses to use these proposed
eligibility and selection criteria, we invite applications through a
notice in the Federal Register.
Proposed Eligibility, Application, and Selection Criteria
Eligible applicants:
Eligible applicants would be institutions in the States (including
the District of Columbia, Puerto Rico, and the outlying areas) that
prepare elementary teachers, or middle or high school mathematics
teachers, for initial certification. Institutions of higher education
as well as institutions that are not part of a college or university
are eligible to apply. Since this program focuses on initial
preparation of teachers, alternative certification programs are
eligible, while in-service programs are not.
For purposes of this notice, a ``teacher preparation program''
refers to a defined set of experiences that, taken as a whole, prepares
participants for initial (or alternative) certification to teach.
Detailed instructions for applying for this award, including formatting
instructions, are provided within the application package and must be
followed to receive an award.
Application Content Requirements
Applicants would be free to develop their application in any way
they choose as long as they comply with the requirements set out in the
application package. In evaluating applications for the National Awards
Program for Effective Teacher Preparation, reviewers will look to see
whether the application, taken as a whole, demonstrates that the
applicant's teacher preparation program leads to improved teacher
effectiveness and increased student achievement at the K-12 level. In
doing so, reviewers would be guided by the extent to which and how well
applicants address the following components of the application, the
most important of which would concern objective evidence of
effectiveness under section C of the application.
Sections A, B and D of the application provide reviewers with
information describing the teacher preparation program and its
potential as a model. Reviewers will use the information in these three
sections to determine the extent to which there is a logical connection
between the various aspects of the program and the results achieved. In
other words, they will check for consistency between the information
provided in these sections and the applicant's claims of effectiveness
under section C. In section C, applicants provide formative, summative
and confirming evidence that their program is effective in preparing
graduates who are able to help all K-12 students improve their learning
in reading and mathematics at the elementary level or mathematics at
the middle or high school level.
Where appropriate, the following proposed sections of the
application include one or more questions that are designed to help
applicants formulate their responses.
A. Background and Program Description
In this section, applicants would provide the mission statement and
goals and objectives of their teacher preparation program and describe
the components of their program.
[[Page 3429]]
In responding to this section, applicants would be encouraged to
provide information about:
1. Recruitment policies for faculty and candidates.
2. Selection procedures for faculty and candidates.
3. Program structure (e.g., course and field experiences, support
for preservice and novice teachers, mechanisms for monitoring
participants' progress).
4. Resources that support the program.
5. Methods for collaboration between the program and K-12 schools.
6. Graduation or completion criteria and rates.
7. Job placement and retention rates of graduates.
B. Program's Criteria for Effectiveness
In this section, applicants would describe the principles,
standards, or other criteria that the applicant uses to judge the
effectiveness of its teacher preparation program.
(Note:
Applications would not be evaluated against a given set of
principles for all programs, but are expected to include relevant
criteria for guiding program improvement and modifications).
In responding to this section, applicants should consider the
following questions:
1. What are the criteria the program uses to evaluate its
effectiveness?
2. How does the program ensure that program components such as
courses and instructional practices are consistent with the evaluation
criteria under Question 1?
C. Evidence of Effectiveness
In this section, applicants would provide three separate types of
evidence that demonstrates the effectiveness of their teacher
preparation program: formative, summative, and confirming evidence.
``Formative evidence'' refers to the use of data to make
adjustments to the program throughout its various stages. These data
are collected as participants (i.e., preservice teachers) move through
the program.
``Summative evidence'' demonstrates that the program is effective
in helping graduates acquire the necessary knowledge and skills to
improve student learning. Summative evidence is collected as preservice
teachers complete the program.
``Confirming evidence'' links teacher preparation and K-12 student
learning by demonstrating that program graduates are effective in
helping all K-12 students improve their learning. Confirming evidence
is collected on graduates who are employed by schools or districts.
Applicants would supply a brief description for each evidence item
submitted. This description must include information about the nature
of the data, the methods used to collect the data, and a summary of the
data analysis.
In responding to this section, applicants must consider the
following questions:
1. What evidence is there that the program, as envisioned in
section A, gathers data about the effectiveness of the various stages
of the program and uses that data to make improvements to the program?
(Formative evidence)
2. What evidence is there that the program is effective in helping
graduates acquire the knowledge and skills needed to improve student
learning for all K-12 students? (Summative evidence)
(Note:
Summative evidence in this section should address graduates'
content knowledge, pedagogical knowledge and skills, and skills to
examine beliefs about learners and teaching as a profession.)
3. What evidence is there that the program's graduates are
effective in helping all K-12 students improve their learning in
reading and mathematics at the elementary level or mathematics at the
middle or high school level? (Confirming evidence)
D. Implications for the Field
A major goal of the National Awards Program for Effective Teacher
Preparation is to make information about successful programs available
across the country to other programs that may be considering ways to
improve their effectiveness. In this section, applicants would discuss
the challenges they have faced and overcome in administering their
teacher preparation program, as well as the resulting lessons they have
learned.
In responding to this section, applicants should consider the
following:
1. What is at least one significant challenge that the program
encountered within the last five years and how was it overcome?
(Note:
Since demonstrating the link between teacher preparation and K-12
student learning is a primary focus of the awards program, applicants
should consider describing challenges related to this issue.)
2. What lessons that would benefit others have been learned about
designing, implementing, or evaluating a program that prepares
graduates who are effective in helping improve student learning for all
K-12 students?
3. What program materials (e.g., videos, Web sites, course
outlines, manuals, strategies, processes) are available that could
benefit others?
4. How have or could you help others adapt the aspects of your
program that contribute most to graduates' effectiveness with K-12
students?
Selection Criteria
Reviewers would evaluate the information provided in each
application based on three criteria: rigor, sufficiency, and
consistency. These criteria, and the performance levels applicable to
each, are identified in the rubric shown in Figure 1. Reviewers would
use this rubric as the review instrument to judge the quality of each
application.
The Evidence of Effectiveness provided by an applicant under
section C, the most critical portion of the application, would be
evaluated on the basis of its rigor and sufficiency. The level of
``rigor'' applied to the evidence submitted would be determined by the
extent to which the qualitative or quantitative data presented is found
to be valid and reliable. The level of ``sufficiency'' applied to the
evidence submitted would be determined by the adequacy and the extent
of the data provided.
The application as a whole will be evaluated on the basis of its
consistency. The level of ``consistency'' of the application would be
based on the extent to which there is a logical link between various
aspects of the program as described in Sections A, B and D of the
application and the evidence of effectiveness provided under Section C.
For example, if an applicant indicates in sections A, B, or D of its
application that field experiences are important to the preparation of
teachers, then the application should describe the variety of field
experiences that are spread over the duration of the program and also
include, for purposes of ``consistency,'' documentation of the
effectiveness of these experiences.
The rubric in Figure 1 identifies a range of performance levels,
from 1 to 4, that reviewers will use to judge the quality of an
application with regard to the three criteria--rigor, sufficiency and
consistency. Reviewers will assign a level of the rubric, 1 to 4, for
each criterion based on their judgment of how well the information
provided in the application matches the descriptions in the rubric of
the relevant performance levels. Prior to reviewing applications,
reviewers will receive extensive training in using the rubric to ensure
inter-rater reliability.
[[Page 3430]]
Figure 1. Rubric for Evaluating Evidence of Effectiveness
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Selection criteria
Performance levels --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Rigor Sufficiency Consistency
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
4........................ The evidence is highly There are extensive data Components of the program
credible. The data are that support claims of are consistent with the
valid and indicators are effectiveness. The vision of the program.
free of bias. Reliability evidence includes data Program components are
is supported by multi-year from multiple sources with monitored to determine if
data from several sources. multiple indicators. they are being instituted
as designed. There is a
planned, logical link
between the program
components and the
outcomes. The evidence
supports the link between
program components and
program success. The
consistencies support the
credibility of the
evidence.
3........................ The evidence is credible. There are adequate data to There are minor
Validity has been support the claims of inconsistencies between
addressed for most of the effectiveness. There are the vision of the program
data. There may be some multiple sources of and program components.
questions of bias. evidence and multiple Some components of program
Reliability is supported indicators for at least may not be monitored or
by two or more years of one source. there may be some
data from at least one inconsistencies between
data source. the evidence provided and
the identified successful
components of the program.
The inconsistencies do not
weaken the credibility of
the evidence.
2........................ The evidence has limited There are limited data to There are several
credibility. The rigor is support the claims of inconsistencies between
compromised by issues of effectiveness. The data the vision of the program
bias or validity/ are collected from only and program components.
reliability. There are no one or two sources. There There are significant
multi-year data from any are no multiple indicators inconsistencies between
source. for the data source(s). the evidence provided and
the identified successful
components of the program.
The inconsistencies raise
questions about the
credibility of the
evidence.
1........................ The evidence has little or There are not enough data There are numerous
no credibility. The rigor to support claims of inconsistencies between
is significantly effectiveness. There is the vision of the program
compromised by issues of only a single source of and its components. The
bias. The data lack data. evidence provided is not
validity/reliability. linked to the components
There is no multi-year of the program that have
data. OR There is not been identified as
enough information contributing to the
provided to determine program's success. The
rigor. inconsistencies raise
significant questions
about the credibility of
the evidence.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Proposed Selection Procedures
Award recipients would be selected through a five-stage process.
Stage 1. During the first stage, applications would be initially
screened by Department staff to determine whether the submitting party
meets the eligibility requirements and whether the application contains
all necessary information (including the three types of evidence
required under section C) and meets the formatting requirements.
Stage 2. The second stage of review, to determine up to 10 semi-
finalists, would be conducted by non-Departmental teams representing a
broad range of teacher educators, practitioners (e.g., mathematicians,
mathematics educators, K-12 teachers, reading specialists), and
policymakers (e.g., superintendents, school board members, principals)
who would evaluate the quality of the applications against the
selection criteria and applicable performance levels.
Stage 3. In the third stage, non-Department expert teams (team
members would differ from the reviewers involved in Stages 2) would
conduct site visits to verify information presented in the semi-
finalists' applications and, to the extent available, to collect
additional information. These teams would draft site-visit reports of
their findings.
Stage 4. During the fourth stage, a non-Departmental national
awards panel (panel members will differ from the reviewers involved
Stages 2 and 3) would review the semi-finalist applications and site
visit reports. Panel members will then present final recommendations to
the Department on which teacher preparation programs merit national
recognition.
Stage 5. In the fifth and final stage, the Department will review
data collected throughout the review process and select for national
recognition up to 5 applications of the highest quality. The Secretary
intends to publicly honor and recognize these awardees at a national
ceremony in Washington, D.C.
Goals 2000: Educate America Act
The Goals 2000: Educate America Act (Goals 2000) focuses the
Nation's education reform efforts on the eight National Education Goals
and provides a framework for meeting them. Goals 2000 promotes new
partnerships to strengthen schools and expands the Department's
capacities for helping communities to exchange ideas and obtain
information needed to achieve the goals.
These proposed eligibility and selection criteria would address the
National Education Goal that the Nation's teaching force will have the
content knowledge and teaching skills needed to instruct all American
students for the next century.
[[Page 3431]]
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This notice and the proposed application packet contains
information collection requirements. Under the Paperwork Reduction Act
of 1995 (44 U.S.C. 3507(d)), the Department of Education has submitted
a copy of this notice and the application package to the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) for its review.
Collection of Information: National Awards Program for Effective
Teacher Preparation.
Entities that prepare elementary teachers, or middle or high school
mathematics teachers, for initial certification are eligible to apply
for national recognition of the quality of their teacher preparation
program. Information in the application would include:
(1) A description of the applicant's teacher preparation program in
terms of its mission, goals, and components.
(2) The evaluation criteria used by the applicant's program.
(3) Available evidence to support the effectiveness of the
applicant's program in preparing teachers to improve student learning
at the K-12 level.
(4) Implications or lessons that the applicant's program can
provide the field of teacher preparation. Applications also would be
limited in page number and have to meet basic formatting requirements.
The Department would use this information to select the highest-quality
applicants through a review of responses provided in the application
and site visits that can confirm the accuracy of information contained
in the application.
All information is to be collected once only from each applicant.
Annual reporting and record keeping burden for this collection of
information is estimated to average 50 hours for each response for 50
respondents, including the time for reviewing instructions, searching
existing data sources, gathering and maintaining the data needed, and
completing and reviewing the collection of information. For the 10
applicants selected for site reviews, there will be an additional
annual reporting and record keeping burden that is estimated to average
20 hours for each response. Thus, the total annual reporting and record
keeping burden for this collection is estimated to be 2,700 hours.
If you want to comment on the information collection requirements,
please send your comments to the Office of Information and Regulatory
Affairs, OMB, room 10235, New Executive Office Building, Washington, DC
20503; Attention: Desk Officer for U.S. Department of Education. You
may also send a copy of these comments to the Department representative
named in the ADDRESSES section of this preamble.
We consider your comments on this proposed collection of
information in--
* Deciding whether the proposed collection is necessary for
the proper performance of our functions, including whether the
information will have practical use;
* Evaluating the accuracy of our estimate of the burden of
the proposed collection, including the validity of our methodology and
assumptions;
* Enhancing the quality, usefulness, and clarity of the
information we collect; and
* Minimizing the burden on those who must respond. This
includes exploring the use of appropriate automated, electronic,
mechanical, or other technological collection techniques or other forms
of information technology; e.g., permitting electronic submission of
responses.
OMB is required to make a decision concerning the collection of
information contained in this notice of proposed eligibility and
selection criteria between 30 and 60 days after publication of this
document in the Federal Register. Therefore, to ensure that OMB gives
your comments full consideration, it is important that OMB receives the
comments within 30 days of publication. This does not affect the
deadline for your comments to us on the notice of proposed eligibility
and selection criteria.
Intergovernmental Review
This program is subject to Executive Order 12372 and the
regulations in 34 CFR Part 79. One of the objectives of the Executive
order is to foster an intergovernmental partnership and a strengthened
federalism. The Executive order relies on processes developed by State
and local governments for coordination and review of proposed Federal
financial assistance.
This document is intended to provide early notification of our
specific plans and actions for this program.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 8001
Electronic Access to This Document
You may review 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 either of the
following sites:
http://ocfo.ed.gov/fedreg.htm
http://www.ed.gov/news.html
To use the PDF you must have the Adobe Acrobat Reader Program with
Search, which is available free at either of the previous sites. If you
have questions about using the PDF, call the U.S. Government Printing
Office (GPO), toll free, at 1-888-293-6498; or in the Washington, D.C.
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
Dated: January 18, 2000.
C. Kent McGuire,
Assistant Secretary for Educational Research and Improvement.
[FR Doc. 00-1515 Filed 1-20-00; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-U