Federal Register, Volume 75, Number 98, May 21, 2010, Pages 28463-28750 Page: 28,725
viii, 28749, iv p. ; 28 cm.View a full description of this periodical.
Extracted Text
The following text was automatically extracted from the image on this page using optical character recognition software:
Federal Register/Vol. 75, No. 98/Friday, May 21, 2010/Rules and Regulations
program to high-need schools would
prevent a comparison of the impact of
PBCSs in high-need and non-high-need
schools.
Discussion: Public Law 111-117,
which contains the Department's FY
2010 appropriation, authorizes the
Department to use TIF funds to make
competitive grants to eligible entities to
develop and implement a PBCS in high-
need schools. While this statute
authorizes grantees to use TIF funds to
develop or improve systems and tools,
such as high-quality teacher evaluations
and measurements of growth (as defined
in this notice) in student achievement
(as defined in this notice), that would
enhance the quality and success of the
PBCS either district-wide or only for
participating high-need schools, it does
not authorize the use of TIF funds to
implement the PBCS in schools that are
not high-need. Limiting the use of TIF
funds to implement PBCSs in high-need
schools does not necessarily prevent a
grantee from evaluating the impact of
having a PBCS in high-need schools
versus non-high-need schools. If a
grantee wishes to evaluate the impact of
its PBCS on staff in high-need schools
relative to staff in schools that are not
high-need, however, it would need to
ensure that (1) its use of TIF funds to
conduct the study is reasonable and
necessary to its implementation of its
PBCS for staff in high-need schools, and
(2) it does not use TIF funds for any of
the costs associated with implementing
the PBCS in non-high-need schools.
Changes: None.
Planning Year
Comment: In general, commenters
praised the Department for proposing a
planning year provision in the NPP,
during which TIF applicants that need
additional time to put in place the five
core elements of a PBCS can do so.
However, there were many suggestions
for modifying or providing flexibility in
the requirements of the planning period.
A few commenters recommended that
all grantees use a planning year to
prepare to implement their PBCSs. Two
commenters sought flexibility to begin
implementing some core elements
before plans for all five elements are in
place. One commenter recommended
that members of a consortium be
permitted to have different starting
points reflecting different levels of
preparedness. Another commenter
requested clarification regarding the
portion of TIF funds that may be used
for activities carried out during an
approved planning year, whether TIF
funds are available only for planning,and any other technical assistance and
support that may be available during a
planning period.
Discussion: The Department
appreciates expressions of support from
commenters for the proposed planning
period of up to one year for grantees to
put in place the five core elements prior
to beginning incentive payments. We
disagree with the recommendation to
mandate a planning year, as such a
requirement would needlessly delay
implementation of a PBCS in a site that
has all the key requirements in place
and is ready to move forward. We agree
that grantees should be able to begin
implementing some core elements
before all five elements are in place, as
long as the grantee does not begin
making incentive payments before all
five core elements are completed. For
example, an LEA might begin
conducting observation-based
assessments before it is able to link
student achievement data to individual
teachers. While the LEA may begin
conducting observation-based
assessments using TIF funds, it may not
begin making incentive payments solely
on the basis of these observation-based
assessments. We believe that the
Planning Period provision allows for
this flexibility and that no changes are
necessary in the final notice.
In addition, the Department agrees
that members of a consortium could
have different starting dates depending
on their respective readiness relative to
the five core elements and believes that,
as proposed, the Planning Period
provision and Core Elements would
allow this and that no changes to the
final notice are necessary. With respect
to the portion of TIF funds that may be
used for a planning year, whether TIF
funds are available only for planning,
and any other technical assistance and
support that may be available during a
planning period, an applicant may
propose to use a specific amount of its
TIF awards for a planning period,
subject to negotiation and approval by
the Department; however, TIF awards
are not available solely for planning
purposes. The Department may be able
to provide limited technical assistance
during a planning period.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asserted
that the Planning Period provision is
unnecessary and "potentially unlawful"
because a grantee that does not meet
requirements, including the core
elements, after the planning period may
have spent grant funds unlawfully. For
this reason, the commenter
recommended that the Department
eliminate the Planning Period in thefinal notice.
Discussion: The Department disagrees
with this interpretation of the
authorizing statutes; provided that it
expends its TIF funds properly during
the Planning Period to implement its
planning responsibilities, a grantee that
fails to complete the required core
elements during its planning period
simply would become ineligible to
receive or otherwise obligate the
remainder of its five-year grant amount.
Changes: None.
Eligibility
Comment: A large number of
commenters objected to excluding
current TIF grantees from the Main TIF
and TIF Evaluation competitions, as
proposed in the NPP. In particular,
commenters stated that the prohibition
on awarding new TIF funds to existing
grantees would prevent the expansion of
many promising PBCSs. One commenter
added that excluding current grantees
from the new competitions appeared to
be contrary to the Department's
emphasis on rewarding and replicating
successful practices. Commenters
recommended several alternatives to the
exclusion of existing TIF grantees from
these competitions, including extending
eligibility to current grantees but giving
priority to new applicants, limiting
eligibility for the TIF Evaluation
competition to new applicants but
allowing existing grantees to apply for
the Main TIF competition, and
permitting awards to existing grantees
that want to expand their programs to
cover teachers or other educators who
currently are not served (e.g., a PBCS
currently in place in high-need schools
for principals only could be expanded
to serve teachers).
Discussion: The Department did not
propose to exclude existing TIF grantees
from applying for new TIF awards;
instead, the NPP proposed to limit
eligibility for the Main TIF competition
and the TIF Evaluation competition to
applicants proposing to serve schools
not already served (or to be served)
under current TIF grants. A grantee, for
example, that is serving only some of its
high-need schools would have been
eligible for a new award to expand
coverage of its PBCS to additional high-
need schools. The intention, as stated in
the NPP, was to use new TIF funding to
extend PBCSs to new high-need schools,
rather than to provide more funding for
PBCSs in schools already supported by
the TIF program. Nonetheless, the
Department is persuaded by the
commenters that this proposal might
have a negative impact upon the
continued success of existing PBCSs.
Because we do not want to impede theexpansion of current TIF-funded PBCSs
28725
Upcoming Pages
Here’s what’s next.
Search Inside
This issue can be searched. Note: Results may vary based on the legibility of text within the document.
Tools / Downloads
Get a copy of this page or view the extracted text.
Citing and Sharing
Basic information for referencing this web page. We also provide extended guidance on usage rights, references, copying or embedding.
Reference the current page of this Periodical.
United States. Office of the Federal Register. Federal Register, Volume 75, Number 98, May 21, 2010, Pages 28463-28750, periodical, May 21, 2010; Washington D.C.. (https://digital.library.unt.edu/ark:/67531/metadc52679/m1/271/: accessed March 29, 2024), University of North Texas Libraries, UNT Digital Library, https://digital.library.unt.edu; crediting UNT Libraries Government Documents Department.