Federal Register, Volume 75, Number 98, May 21, 2010, Pages 28463-28750 Page: 28,722

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

ability to raise student achievement (as
defined in this notice) in one school is
more likely to be effective in another
school than a teacher who has not
demonstrated such effectiveness in any
school setting. In addition, an applicant
seeking to meet priority 5 will be
expected to incorporate the strategies for
doing so into its coherent and integrated
strategy for strengthening the educator
workforce, which may, and whenever
necessary should, include efforts to
address the other conditions described
by the commenters.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter objected to
the use of the terms "effective" or "likely
to be effective" in the context of priority
5 because of concerns about the use of
growth measures to determine
"effectiveness." Another commenter
recommended that the priority be
revised to include NBPTS certification
as one measure that could demonstrate
whether a teacher who is filling a hard-
to-staff vacancy is effective or likely to
be effective.
Discussion: We have addressed
concerns about the use of student
growth (as defined in this notice)
measures to determine teacher and
principal effectiveness under the
General Comments section of this
preamble. In addition, priority 5
requires applicants to provide an
explanation for how they will determine
that a teacher filling a vacancy is
effective or likely to be effective. We
believe that this language provides
flexibility for an applicant to propose
appropriate measures of effectiveness or
likely effectiveness, including NBPTS
certification, under priority 5.
Changes: None.
Comment: Three commenters
provided suggestions about how to
define "hard-to-staff' subjects under
priority 5. One commenter
recommended that we add CTE to the
list of hard-to-staff subjects and
specialty areas. Another commenter
requested that the priority provide
flexibility to allow LEAs to change their
lists of hard-to-staff subjects and
specialty areas over the 5-year grant
period. The last commenter asked the
Department to clarify that LEAs have
the authority to determine which
subjects are hard-to-staff and which
areas constitute "specialty areas," and
that specialty areas could include
extended day, pre-K, or other areas in
high-need schools that are difficult to
staff.
Discussion: Priority 5 requires
applicants to demonstrate, in their
applications, the extent to which the
subjects or specialty areas they propose

to target are hard-to-staff. The language

of the priority leaves the determination
of hard-to-staff subjects and specialty
areas up to applicants and the LEAs that
administer the affected high-need
schools. The Department, therefore,
believes that, under priority 5,
applicants have the flexibility to define
"hard-to-staff' subjects consistent with
the suggestions made by the
commenters, including flexibility to
change their definitions over the 5-year
grant period. Also, because of this
flexibility, we do not believe that any of
the specific suggestions for additions to
the list of hard-to-staff subjects and
specialty areas are necessary, and
therefore decline to make any changes
to the priority.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter stated that
paying the teachers of some subjects
more than teachers of other subjects
undermines the basic equity of existing
compensation systems. Instead, this
commenter recommended that we
address gaps in subject and specialty
areas through scholarships, tuition
assistance, and loan forgiveness
programs.
Discussion: The TIF program is
premised on the belief that existing
compensation systems do not serve the
goal of increasing the number and
proportion of effective teachers serving
low-income, minority, and low-
achieving students, and the belief that
providing financial rewards for both
effectiveness and willingness to work in
challenging schools is a promising
education reform. Many high-need
schools have particular need for
teachers of certain subjects and
specialty areas (e.g., mathematics,
science, and special education), and we
believe that higher pay for effective
teachers in these areas who agree to
work in high-need schools could help to
alleviate this problem. We are confident
that performance-based compensation
available through TIF can be one means
of addressing this problem. The
Department agrees that other kinds of
rewards and incentives described by the
commenter also may be effective, but
they fall outside the scope of the TIF
program.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asserted
that the school intervention models
required by the School Improvement
Grants (SIG) program, some of which
require the replacement of a school's
teachers, could be a disincentive for
teachers to take jobs in hard-to-staff
schools.
Discussion: Except for school closure,
none of the school intervention models
required by the SIG program mandates

the replacement of all effective teachers.

Moreover, the Department believes that
the significant resources potentially
made available through the SIG program
(up to $6 million per school over 3
years) will, in many cases, create a
strong incentive for effective teacher
and leaders seeking the challenge of
turning around a persistently lowest-
achieving school.
Changes: None.
Comment: One commenter asked
whether priority 5 includes principals
as well as teachers.
Discussion: Priority 5 is a competitive
preference priority focused on recruiting
and retaining teachers in hard-to-staff
subjects and specialty areas and does
not apply to principals. That said,
applicants may include strategies and
incentives to recruit and retain effective
principals in high-need schools as part
of the overall design of their PBCSs, but
would not receive priority consideration
for doing so under either the Main TIF
or TIF Evaluation competitions.
Changes: None.
Suggested Priorities
Comment: Three commenters
recommended that the Department
establish additional absolute priorities
for the TIF program. Two commenters
called for an absolute priority on
incentives to take on additional
responsibilities and leadership roles, a
recommendation that these commenters
described as consistent with the
treatment of other statutory mandates
for this program. The third commenter
suggested a new absolute priority on
establishing and sustaining a
competitive compensation schedule for
school personnel that is comparable to
compensation schedules of similar
professions in the region. The
commenter stated that such a priority is
needed to avoid a situation in which a
PBCS is perceived as preventing any
teachers eligible for the PBCS from
receiving a competitive, professional, or
living wage, and that the schedule
would need to be based on educational
and professional attainment and provide
annual increases that double the base
salary within 10 years.
Discussion: Under the Application
Requirements, each applicant is
required to describe in its application
how its proposed PBCS will provide
educators with incentives to take on
additional responsibilities and
leadership roles (as defined in this
notice). The Department believes that
this requirement adequately addresses
the commenters' concern, and that it is
unnecessary to add a new absolute
priority on additional responsibilities
and leadership roles (as defined in this

notice). The recommendation to use the

28722