Federal Register, Volume 75, Number 98, May 21, 2010, Pages 28463-28750 Page: 28,721

                                
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 98/Friday, May 21, 2010/Rules and Regulations

authority for the TIF program or this
final notice, which states that, in
determining teacher effectiveness, the
LEA must give significant weight to
student growth (as defined in this
notice) and must include observation-
based assessments of performance.
Moreover, we believe that priority 4 is
fully consistent with the observation of
one study cited by a commenter that
value-added approaches "may be
appropriate for wider use as student
assessment systems and value-added
models evolve." One purpose of priority
4 is to promote such evolution by
encouraging grantees to adapt value-
added models to their PBCSs consistent
with the safeguards for all PBCSs
required by this final notice (i.e., the use
of multiple measures in teacher
evaluation systems, teacher involvement
in developing such systems, and robust
data systems).
In addition, value-added models have
the potential to improve the
measurement of academic growth (as
defined in this notice) for many
students with learning disabilities, and
thus should not be dismissed simply
because they may not be appropriate for
all students with disabilities. TIF funds
also may be used to improve tools to
measure growth (as defined in this
notice) in student achievement (as
defined in this notice), such as value-
added models, and thus could be used
to refine a value-added model,
addressing some of the concerns raised
by commenters. For this reason the
Department does not agree with the
commenters who suggested that we
eliminate priority 4. Similarly, the
Department does not agree that a
competitive preference for programs
that enhance teaching and leadership
skills through professional development
or attainment of professional credentials
holds the same promise of improving
our ability to measure teacher
effectiveness as value-added measures
of student achievement (as defined in
this notice). We say this largely because
such programs are not designed or
intended to measure teacher
effectiveness, as is statutorily required
for the TIF program.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter requested
clarification as to whether applicants
could meet priority 4 by using value-
added models only to evaluate teacher
performance or whether they also must
provide to teachers feedback aimed at
improving instruction.
Discussion: In the NPP, the
background section for proposed
priority 4 clearly stated that one goal of
this competitive preference priority is to

ensure that applicants have a plan to

enable teachers "to use the data
generated through the models to
improve classroom practices." However,
the language of the proposed priority
inadvertently omitted any reference to
improving classroom practice. The
Department has revised priority 4 to
require TIF applicants seeking to meet
this priority to ensure that they will use
value-added data to improve classroom
instruction as well as to evaluate teacher
performance. As these activities are
directly related to providing feedback
educators need to improve their
performance, and thus are part of a
coherent and integrated approach to
strengthening the educator workforce
(see priority 2), TIF funds may be used
to pay for activities needed to help
educators use the value-added data to
improve classroom practices, including
the development or enhancement of
systems and tools used to generate
feedback to teachers for the purpose of
improving instruction.
Changes: The Department has revised
clause (2) of priority 4 to clarify that an
applicant must demonstrate in its
application that, as part of its PBCS, it
has the capacity to clearly explain the
chosen value-added model to teachers
to enable them to use the data generated
through the model to improve classroom
practices.
Comment: One commenter
recommended that priority 4 be revised
to require LEAs to have a plan for
including career and technical
education (CTE) teachers in value-added
systems, although the commenter
acknowledged that value-added
measures are problematic in CTE due to
the lack of comparative data for the end-
of-course assessments typically used in
CTE courses.
Discussion: The Department declines,
for the reason cited by the commenter,
to require applicants to have a plan for
including CTE courses in their value-
added systems. However, applicants
that have the capability to use such
measures for CTE programs certainly
may include them to meet the
requirements of priority 4.
Changes: None.
Priority 5
Comment: One commenter
recommended changing priority 5, the
competitive preference priority on
increased recruitment and retention of
teachers in hard-to-staff subjects and
specialty areas in high-need schools, to
an absolute priority. Another
commenter called for giving priority to
applications that propose to increase
recruitment or retention of teachers in
hard-to-staff subjects in high-need

schools. A third commenter sought

clarification that an applicant could
receive points for priority 5 by
including an emphasis on recruiting and
retaining teachers in hard-to-staff
subjects and specialty areas as part of an
overall PBCS for all teachers, rather than
a PBCS focused solely on the goals of
priority 5.
Discussion: We agree with the first
commenter that increased recruitment
and retention of teachers in hard-to-staff
subjects and specialty areas in high-
need schools is an important goal;
however, we also believe that designing
and implementing a good PBCS is
difficult, and that some LEAs may be
reluctant to add to the challenge by
making recruitment and retention
bonuses a required component of the
system. Consistent with our overall
policy of establishing mandatory
requirements only when necessary, we
believe that retaining priority 5 as a
competitive preference priority is the
appropriate way to encourage applicants
to consider ways to use the PBCS to
promote increased recruitment and
retention of teachers in hard-to-staff
subjects and specialty areas in high-
need schools. The Department declines
to give a competitive preference to an
applicant that proposes to increase
recruitment or retention, because we
believe that it is the combination of the
two strategies that is likely to be both
most needed and most effective in
serving high-need students in high-need
schools. Finally, we agree that the
components and activities required to
meet priority 5 may be part of a broader
TIF proposal for developing and
implementing a PBCS that fulfills the
full range of an applicant's recruitment
and retention needs, not just those
related to teachers in hard-to-staff
subjects and specialty areas.
Changes: None.
Comment: Two commenters objected
to what they described as the premise of
priority 5-that an effective teacher will
be effective in any school without
regard to the school's conditions and
climate. These commenters
recommended that we address factors
such as poor leadership and support,
inadequate professional development,
discipline and safety concerns, and
planning time. The commenters argued
that addressing these factors could help
remove the "hard-to-staff' label from the
school. A third commenter stated that
any effort to attract and retain teachers
should invest in teacher support and
development.
Discussion: Priority 5 is not premised
on the assumption that an effective
teacher will be effective in any school;
rather, it is based on the premise that a

teacher who has demonstrated the

28721