[Federal Register: February 22, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 36)]
[Notices]
[Page 8441-8444]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22fe02-114]
[[Page 8441]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Part VI
Department of Education
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
Local Flexibility Demonstration Program; Notice
[[Page 8442]]
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Local Flexibility Demonstration Program
AGENCY: Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of
Education.
ACTION: Notice of proposed application requirements, selection
criteria, and application process.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: The Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as
amended by the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001 (Pub. L. 107-110),
authorizes the Secretary of Education to enter into local flexibility
demonstration agreements (``Local-Flex'' agreements) with up to eighty
local educational agencies (LEAs), giving them the flexibility to
consolidate certain Federal education funds and to use those funds for
any educational purpose permitted under the ESEA in order to meet the
State's definition of adequate yearly progress (AYP) and specific,
measurable goals for improving student achievement and narrowing
achievement gaps. (ESEA Sections 6151 through 6156)
The Secretary will select participating LEAs on a competitive basis
using a peer review process. The Secretary may enter into Local-Flex
agreements with no more than three LEAs in each State, and the selected
LEAs must be in States that have not received State flexibility
(``State-Flex'') authority under Section 6141 of the ESEA. Each
agreement will be for a period of five years, but that time period may
be shortened or extended depending on an LEA's performance under the
agreement.
In this notice, the Secretary proposes the information that an LEA
would be required to submit to meet the Local-Flex application
requirements, the criteria that the Department would use to select
participating LEAs, and the process that the Department would follow in
conducting the Local-Flex competitions.
DATES: We must receive your comments and recommendations on the
application requirements, selection criteria, and application process
proposed in this notice on or before March 25, 2002.
ADDRESSES: Address all comments about the application requirements,
selection criteria, and application process proposed in this notice to
Mr. Charles Lovett, Office of School Support and Technology Programs,
U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3E241,
Washington, DC 20202. If you prefer to send your comments by facsimile
transmission, use the following number: (202) 205-5870. If you prefer
to send your comments through the Internet, use the following address:
charles.lovett@ed.gov.
If you want to comment on the information collection requirements,
you must send your comments to the Department representative named in
this section.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Mr. Charles Lovett, Group Leader.
Telephone: (202) 401-0039 or via Internet: charles.lovett@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 under FOR FURTHER INFORMATION
CONTACT.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:
Invitation to Comment
The Secretary is interested in receiving comments on the
application requirements, selection criteria, and application process
proposed in this notice. The Secretary is also interested in receiving
comments on the length of time that applicants should be given to
submit their proposals once the notice inviting applications is
published in the Federal Register.
General
To be eligible for Local-Flex, an LEA must submit to the Department
a proposed Local-Flex agreement that contains, among other things, a
plan on how the LEA would consolidate and use funds received by formula
under the following ESEA provisions: Subpart 2 of part A of Title II
(Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting); 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). An LEA does not receive
additional Federal funding for participating in Local-Flex. Rather, it
receives greater flexibility in spending funds that it receives under
the referenced provisions.
The LEA must demonstrate that its proposed agreement offers
substantial promise of assisting the LEA in meeting the State's
definition of AYP and the LEA's specific, measurable goals. An LEA must
also demonstrate that it would meet the general purposes of the
programs included in the consolidation. Furthermore, participation in
Local-Flex does not relieve an LEA of its responsibility to provide
equitable services for private school students and teachers under the
affected programs.
I. Proposed Application Requirements
In order that the Secretary can select Local-Flex participants in
accordance with section 6151 of the ESEA, the Secretary proposes that
Local-Flex applicants be required to submit the following information,
together with other information addressing the statutory application
requirements in sections 6151(b) and (c) and the proposed selection
criteria:
(a) Baseline academic data. Each LEA seeking to enter into a Local-
Flex agreement with the Secretary would provide, as part of its
proposed agreement, student achievement data for the most recent
available school year, as well as descriptions of achievement trends.
To the extent possible, data would be provided for both mathematics and
reading or language arts, and the results would be disaggregated 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 results had to be
disaggregated under section 1111(b)(3) of the predecessor ESEA, as well
as the categories by which data will be disaggregated for determining
adequate yearly progress under section 1111(b)(2) of the reauthorized
ESEA.)
In addition to submitting baseline achievement data that are
disaggregated, to the extent possible, by the categories noted above,
LEAs could 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
would also be disaggregated.
(b) Specific, measurable education goals. Each applicant would
submit a five-year Local-Flex plan that contains specific, measurable
educational goals, with annual objectives, that the LEA would seek to
achieve by consolidating and using funds in accordance with the terms
of its proposed agreement. The goals would relate to raising student
achievement and narrowing achievement gaps relative to the baseline
achievement data and other baseline data that are submitted.
[[Page 8443]]
At the time an LEA submits its initial proposed Local-Flex
agreement, the goals in its proposal would 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 would revise its
goals, as necessary, based on that definition.
Note: State definitions of AYP under section 1111(b)(2) of the
ESEA must be developed and implemented by the end of the 2002-2003
school year.
(c) Strategies for meeting the goals. Each applicant would propose
a five-year plan that contains specific strategies for reaching its
stated goals. In particular, the plan would describe how the applicant
would 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).
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 would be required to modify, as
appropriate, the strategies that it would implement to reach its
revised educational goals.
II. Proposed Selection Criteria
The Secretary proposes to 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. 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. 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. 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.
(d) Adequacy of the Resources. 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. Proposed Application Process
The Secretary wishes to provide as many LEAs as possible with an
opportunity to apply for Local-Flex. He recognizes that some LEAs may
be ready to submit a proposed Local-Flex agreement in the near future,
while others may need additional time to plan sufficiently for a Local-
Flex competition. In order to accommodate both groups of LEAs, the
Secretary proposes to conduct two separate Local-Flex competitions.
The Department plans to publish a notice inviting applications for
the first competition later this spring and to select the initial group
of Local-Flex LEAs shortly thereafter. The Secretary would reserve a
number of Local-Flex slots for a subsequent Local-Flex competition that
would be conducted in the fall. That competition would involve new
Local-Flex applicants as well as unsuccessful applicants from the first
competition that may wish to apply again.
The Secretary plans to conduct the initial Local-Flex competition
before the State-Flex competition because he believes that it will take
States longer to develop State-Flex proposals than it will for LEAs to
develop proposed Local-Flex agreements. SEAs seeking State-Flex
authority must not only submit a plan that describes how they would
consolidate and use certain Federal funds in order to make adequate
yearly progress and advance the educational priorities of the State and
affected LEAs, but must also include in their State-Flex applications
proposed performance agreements that they would enter into with between
four and ten LEAs (at least half of which must be ``high-poverty
LEAs''). It will likely be more difficult and time-consuming for an SEA
to develop a State-Flex proposal in coordination with a number of LEAs
than it will be for an individual LEA to develop a Local-Flex proposal.
To accommodate the needs of SEAs that are at various stages of
meeting the State-Flex requirements, the Secretary intends to conduct
two separate State-Flex competitions. The Secretary plans to publish a
notice inviting applications for the initial State-Flex competition in
late summer (after the first Local-Flex competition), and he intends to
select three to four SEAs for State-Flex in that competition. A
subsequent State-Flex competition for the remaining State-Flex slots
(up to the maximum of seven allowed under the legislation) would be
conducted later in the year.
[[Page 8444]]
The Secretary would coordinate the State-Flex competitions with the
Local-Flex competitions. Under the legislation, the Secretary may enter
into Local-Flex agreements only with LEAs in States that do not have
State-Flex authority. So as not to preclude an SEA from applying for
State-Flex if an LEA in the State has already entered into a Local-Flex
agreement with the Secretary, the Secretary would allow such an SEA to
seek State-Flex authority if it proposes to incorporate into its State-
Flex proposal any Local-Flex agreements granted to LEAs in the State.
If an SEA notifies the Secretary, by May 8, 2002, that it will be
applying for State-Flex, an LEA in that State is precluded by statute
from applying for Local-Flex until a final determination is made
concerning the SEA's State-Flex application, should one subsequently be
submitted. The May 8, 2002 date is not the deadline for submission of a
State-Flex application. Rather it is the final date, established in the
legislation, by which an SEA may preclude LEAs in the State from
applying for Local-Flex by notifying the Department that it intends to
apply for State-Flex.
An SEA that chooses not to notify the Department prior to May 8,
2002 that it will be applying for State-Flex may nonetheless seek
State-Flex authority once the State-Flex competition is conducted. LEAs
in that State, however, would have an opportunity to seek Local-Flex
before that SEA seeks State-Flex. As noted previously, an SEA would not
be precluded from applying for State-Flex so long as it agrees to
incorporate into its State-Flex proposal any Local-Flex agreements
already entered into between the Secretary and LEAs in the State. The
Department will announce more details on the State-Flex competitions in
a future notice in the Federal Register.
All comments submitted in response to this notice will be available
for public inspection, during and after the comment period, in room
3E241, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., Washington, DC, between the hours of
8:30 am and 4:00 pm, Eastern time, Monday through Friday of each week,
except Federal holidays.
Executive Order 12866
This notice has been reviewed in accordance with Executive Order
12866. Under the terms of the order, we have assessed the potential
costs and benefits of this regulatory action.
The potential costs associated with the notice are those associated
resulting from statutory requirements and those we have determined as
necessary for administering this program effectively and efficiently.
In assessing the potential costs and benefits--both quantitative
and qualitative--of this notice, we have determined that the benefits
justify the costs.
We have also determined that this regulatory action does not unduly
interfere with State, local, and tribal governments in the exercise of
their governmental functions.
Summary of Potential Costs and Benefits: It is not anticipated that
the application requirements proposed in this notice will impose any
significant costs on applicants. Since these regulations provide a
basis for the Secretary to negotiate local flexibility demonstration
agreements with up to 80 LEAs, giving the LEAs the flexibility to
consolidate certain Federal education funds, the regulations would not
impose any unfunded mandates on States or LEAs. The benefits of the
program are described in the SUMMARY section of this notice.
Regulatory Flexibility Act Certification
The Secretary certifies that the requirements in this notice would
not have a significant economic impact on a substantial number of small
entities. The small entities affected by these regulations would be
small LEAs. Since the Secretary is only authorized to enter into
agreements with up to 80 LEAs, the requirements proposed in this notice
will not affect a significant number of LEAs. In addition, these
requirements are minimal and are necessary to ensure effective program
management.
Federalism
Executive Order 13132 requires us to ensure meaningful and timely
input by State and local elected officials in the development of
regulatory policies that have federalism implications. ``Federalism
implications'' means substantial direct effects on the States, on the
relationship between the National Government and the States, or on the
distribution of power and responsibilities among the various levels of
government. Although we do not believe these proposed regulations would
have federalism implications as defined in Executive Order 13132, we
encourage State and local elected officials to review them and to
provide comments.
Paperwork Reduction Act of 1995
This document contains proposed data requirements. The feedback
received on these data requirements will eventually result in a new
information collection and will be under the review of the Office of
Management and Budget (OMB) until OMB approves the data requirements at
the time of the final notice.
If you want to comment on the proposed information collection
requirements, please send your comments to Mr. Charles Lovett, Office
of School Support and Technology Programs, U.S. Department of
Education, 400 Maryland Avenue, SW., room 3E241, Washington, DC 20202.
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: 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 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: 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 (Pub. L. 107-110).
Dated: February 19, 2002.
Susan B. Neuman,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary, Education.
[FR Doc. 02-4257 Filed 2-21-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-P