[Federal Register: May 22, 2002 (Volume 67, Number 99)]
[Notices]
[Page 35967-35980]
From the Federal Register Online via GPO Access [wais.access.gpo.gov]
[DOCID:fr22my02-29]
=======================================================================
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
Office of Elementary and Secondary Education; Consolidated State
Applications Under Section 9302 of the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act
AGENCY: Department of Education.
ACTION: Notice of final requirements.
-----------------------------------------------------------------------
SUMMARY: We announce final requirements for optional State consolidated
applications submitted under section 9302 of the Elementary and
Secondary Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), as reauthorized by the No Child
Left Behind Act of 2001, Pub. L. 107-110 (NCLB). Submitting a
consolidated application will allow a State to obtain funds under many
Federal programs through a single application, rather than through
separate applications for each program. To receive fiscal year (FY)
2002 program funds on a timely basis, a State educational agency's
(SEA's) application will need to be received no later than June 12,
2002.
DATES: These requirements are effective June 21, 2002.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT: Marcia Kingman, Office of Elementary
and Secondary Education, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland
Avenue, SW., Room 3E213, Washington, DC 20202-6400. Telephone: (202)
260-2199. 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
alternative format (e.g., Braille, large print, audiotape, or computer
diskette) on request to the contact person for information identified
in the preceding paragraph.
SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION: President Bush signed The No Child Left
Behind Act of 2001 (Pub. L. 107-110) (NCLB) into law on January 8,
2002. NCLB, which substantially revised the Elementary and Secondary
Education Act of 1965 (ESEA), is intended to provide all of America's
school children with the opportunity and means to achieve academic
success. It embodies the four key principles of the President's
education reform plan: (1) Accountability for results, (2) expanded
[[Page 35968]]
State and local flexibility and reduced ``red tape,'' (3) expanded
choices for parents, and (4) focusing resources on proven educational
methods, particularly in reading instruction.
These principles aim to produce fundamental reforms in classrooms
throughout America. NCLB provides officials and educators at the
school, school district, and State levels substantial flexibility to
plan and implement school programs that will help close the achievement
gap between disadvantaged and minority students and their peers. At the
same time, the reauthorized Act holds school officials accountable--to
parents, students, and the public--for achieving results. These and
other major changes to the ESEA redefine the Federal role in K-12
education to focus on improving the academic performance of all
students.
The full text of this law may be found on the Internet at: http://
www.ed.gov/legislation/ESEA02/.
On March 6, 2002, the Department published in the Federal Register
a notice of proposed requirements for optional consolidated State
applications (67 FR 10166). That notice explains the general purpose of
consolidated State applications that Congress has authorized in ESEA
sections 9301 and 9302 as an alternative means for States to receive
finding under most ESEA programs. These provisions authorize the State,
in consultation with the Governor, to apply for ESEA program funds on
the basis of a consolidated State application that conforms to the
criteria and procedures the Department establishes, rather than by
submitting the individual applications or plans that the ESEA otherwise
requires.
The March 6 notice also explained our proposal for using this
application and the consolidated performance report that States
thereafter annually would submit, as the basis for a core system of
ESEA accountability for student achievement. Specifically, we proposed
that each State adopt (1) six overall ``performance goals'' that cut
across the ESEA programs, (2) a minimum core of common performance
indicators for measuring progress toward these goals, and (3) State-
defined performance targets that define when satisfactory progress
occurs. We also proposed that each State then would collect reliable
data with which it would determine whether it is meeting its
performance targets.
As we explained in the March 6 notice, this proposal was guided by
a set of basic principles in the ESEA emphasizing that successful
academic performance depends upon schools that--
Provide instruction that, based on rigorous
research, will improve student achievement;
Have highly qualified teachers and principals;
Provide a learning environment that is safe,
drug-free, and conducive to learning; and
Are accountable to the public for results.
The final requirements for consolidated State applications contain
several significant changes from those we had proposed, which we
explain in the Analysis of Public Comments that is available on the
Department's web site at http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/esea/
regsandguidance.html.
I. Principal Changes From Our March 6, 2002 Proposal
In response to our request for public comment, we received 53
letters of comments and recommendations. On March 28, 2002, the
Department also conducted a listening session where State officials
from nine States discussed our proposal. After reviewing all of these
comments and recommendations, we have made several changes to our
proposal. The principal changes are the following:
ESEA Accountability System: Appendix A
We have reduced the number of Goals from six to five, and the
number of indicators from 17 to ten. The ESEA Goals are now:
1. By 2013-2014, all students will reach high standards, at a
minimum attaining proficiency or better in reading/language arts and
mathematics.
2. All limited English proficient students will become proficient
in English and reach high academic standards, at a minimum attaining
proficiency or better in reading/language arts and mathematics.
3. By 2005-2006, all students will be taught by highly qualified
teachers.
4. All students will be educated in learning environments that are
safe, drug free, and conducive to learning.
5. All students will graduate from high school.
The changes in goals and indicators reflect the following:
Goal 1
Modification of Indicators 1.1 and 1.2 to focus
on the percentage of students in all schools, rather than in Title I
schools, in each subgroup and in the aggregate who gain proficiency in
reading/language arts and mathematics.
Change of definition of subgroups from those
identified in section 1111(b)(2)(C)(v) for adequate yearly progress, to
those identified in section 1111(h)(1)(C)(i) for reporting State
assessment results--thus bringing in reporting by migrant status and
gender.
Withdrawal of proposed Indicators 1.4 and 1.5:
``The percentage of migrant students who are enrolled in schools in
need of improvement,'' and ``The percentage of students that meet or
exceed State standards for student literacy in technology.''
Proposed Goal 2
Withdrawal of proposed Goal 2: ``By 2013-2014,
all students will be proficient in reading/language arts and
mathematics by the end of the third grade,'' and Indicator 2.1: ``The
percentage of students in third grade reading/language arts at grade
level or above.''
Goal 2 (Proposed Goal 3)
Revision of statement of Goal 2 to include goal
of reaching high academic standards, at a minimum attaining proficiency
in reading/language arts and mathematics.
Revision of Indicator 2.1 (proposed 3.1) to
clarify that the percentage of limited English proficient students who
have attained English language by the end of the year is to be
determined on a cohort basis.
Goal 3 (Proposed Goal 4)
Inclusion of a new Indicator 3.3 that focuses on
having all paraprofessionals become qualified consistent with the
requirements of ESEA section 1119 (c)-(e).
Withdrawal of proposed Indicator 4.3: ``The
percentage of teachers qualified to use technology for instruction.''
Goal 4 (Proposed Goal 5)
Withdrawal of all proposed indicators except
Indicator 5.4 (now 4.1): ``The number of persistently dangerous
schools, as defined by the State.''
Goal 5 (Proposed Goal 6)
Clarification of the two performance indicators,
5.1 and 5.2.
In addition, we have clarified for which indicator States must
submit baseline data relative to their performance targets by May 2003,
and for which indicators they may do so no later than early September
2003.
State Activities to Implement ESEA Programs: Appendix B
For item 1 (state system of standards,
assessments, and accountability), clarification of information the SEAs
must submit
[[Page 35969]]
consistent with ESEA section 1111, and, for each item, whether the SEA
must do so in June of 2002, no later than May 2003, or at some other
time.
For item 2 (non-formula subgranting), inclusion
of a description of definition of key ESEA terms that the SEA adopts
for each program.
For item 5a (assistance for schoolwide
programs), inclusion of a description of the SEA's actions to modify or
eliminate State fiscal and accounting barriers so that schools can
easily consolidate Federal, State, and local funds for schoolwide
programs.
For item 5 (teacher quality), inclusion in a new
item 5c of the State's need to describe how it will ensure that all
paraprofessionals (excluding those working with parents or as
translators) attain the qualifications in section 1119(c) and (d) by
the 2005-2006 school year.
For item 6 (state coordination), inclusion of
the State's need to describe briefly how SEA officials and staff
consulted with the Governor's office in the development of the State
application.
Key Programmatic and Fiscal Information: Appendix C
Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local
Educational Agencies, Title I, Part A: Clarification that, for purposes
of funds that LEAs distribute to schools for supplemental services
under ESEA section 1167(e)(7), States will describe how they will
inform LEAs of the procedures LEAs must use to distribute these funds,
rather than describe how the State will distribute these funds.
Teacher and Principal Training and Recruitment
Fund, Title II, Part A: Establishment of a rule that of the one percent
available to the State for administration and planning, absent an
agreement between the SEA and the State agency for higher education
(SAHE) to the contrary, the Department will award the SAHE the greater
of--
1. The amount of FY 2001 funds it had received for administration
under the predecessor Title II, ESEA Eisenhower Professional
Development Program, or
2. Five percent of the amount available each year for subgrants to
partnerships under ESEA section 2113(a)(2).
Enhancing Education Through Technology, Title
II, Part D: Addition of a new item 5a that SEAs describe program goals,
performance indicators, performance objectives, and data sources for
use in assessing program effectiveness in improving access to and use
of educational technology by students and teachers in support of
academic achievement.
English Language Acquisition and Language
Enhancement, Title III, Part A: Addition of a new item 6c that SEAs
describe the process for making subgrants under section 3114(d) to
eligible entities that have experienced a significant increase in the
percentage or number of immigrant children and youth.
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities:
Reservation of State Funds for the Governor, Title IV, Part A, Subpart
1, section 4112(a): Addition of new items 8b and 8c that SEAs describe
(1) performance measures, performance indicators, timelines, and
baseline data for drug and violence prevention programs and activities
to be funded under this program, and (2) steps the State will use to
implement the Uniform Management Information and Reporting System
(UMIRS) required by ESEA section 4112(c)(3).
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities:
Community Service Grants (Title IV, Part A, Subpart 2, section 4126):
Adoption of the proposed rule that the Department will award grants
only to SEAs, after they have consulted with their Governors.
21st Century Community Learning Centers (Title
IV, Part B): Addition of new requirement that the SEA, no later than
early September 2003--
1. Identify the percentage of students participating in the 21st
Century Community Learning Centers program who meet or exceed the
proficient level of performance on State assessments in reading/
language arts and mathematics;
2. Collect baseline data for the 2002-2003 school year; and
3. Submit all of these data to the Department.
Rural and Low-Income Schools, Title VI, Part B,
Subpart 2: Inclusion of a description identifying specific measurable
goals and objectives, and how program funds will help the SEA to meet
them.
All of the changes above are reflected in the specific requirements
for consolidated State applications that are contained in appendices A-
D of this notice.
We also have made the following change to the selection criteria
for the Enhanced Assessment Instruments Competitive Grant Program
(Title VI, section 6112) announced in appendix E:
Revision of the first proposed competitive
preference for ``alternative assessments'' so that it is available for
applications that can be expected to advance practice significantly in
the area of increasing the accessibility and validity of assessments
for students with disabilities or limited English proficiency, or both.
Finally, we have made the following change to the optional interim
application for FY 2002 funds under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities State Grants Program, Title IV, Part A, Subpart 1 (appendix
F):
Revision of requirements to conform to the
revised core set of ESEA performance indicators identified in appendix
A.
We have published on the Department's website at http://www.ed.gov/
offices/OESE/esea/regsandguidance.html the substantive comments we
received, our responses to them, and these changes, as well as more
minor or technical changes to the requirements for consolidated State
applications. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor
changes, or suggested changes in proposed requirements that the law
does not authorize the Secretary to make.
II. Requirements for Consolidated State Applications
Each consolidated State application will have four principal
components: (1) Elements constituting the foundation for a core system
of ESEA accountability, State components and baseline data (see
appendix A); (2) a description of key strategies States would use to
implement the ESEA programs in order to accomplish program purposes;
(see appendix B); (3) key programmatic and fiscal information that the
Department needs to review before it awards FY 2002 funds (see appendix
C); and (4) assurances of the State's adherence to all requirements of
the programs included in the application (see appendix D).
Summary of the ESEA Accountability System
A. ``ESEA Performance Goals'' The ESEA performance goals reflect
the expectations of the ESEA programs. We have identified in appendix A
five ESEA performance goals that each SEA submitting a consolidated
application will adopt. These are:
1. By 2013-2014, all students will reach high standards, at a
minimum attaining proficiency or better in reading/language arts and
mathematics.
2. All limited English proficient students will become proficient
in English and reach high academic standards, at a minimum attaining
proficiency or better in reading/language arts and mathematics.
3. By 2005-2006, all students will be taught by highly qualified
teachers.
[[Page 35970]]
4. All students will be educated in learning environments that are
safe, drug free, and conducive to learning.
5. All students will graduate from high school.
These performance goals, like the basic purposes of the ESEA
programs themselves, fall into three areas: (a) Those that address
levels of proficiency that all students would meet; (b) those that
address the special needs of certain populations of students, such as
limited English proficient students, who are the focus of particular
ESEA programs; and (c) those that address such factors as qualified
teachers and safety that are critical to a school's success in
improving student achievement.
B. ``ESEA Performance Indicators'' States will use performance
indicators to measure their progress in meeting the performance goals.
Along with adopting the five key performance goals identified above,
States that submit a consolidated application will submit a statement
that they have adopted, at minimum, a core set of indicators for these
five performance goals. For example, as explained in appendix A,
relative to the third ESEA performance goal, ``By 2005-2006, all
students will be taught by highly qualified teachers,'' all States will
adopt and use the following indicator:
EXAMPLE: 3.1. Performance Indicator: ``The percentage of classes
being taught by ``highly qualified'' teachers (as the term is defined
in ESEA section 9101(23)), in the aggregate and in `high-poverty'
schools (as the term is defined in ESEA section 1111(h)(1)(C)(viii)).''
State adoption of the common core indicators listed in appendix A
is critical to ensuring that all States are accountable for
implementing the ESEA programs in ways that contribute significantly to
the achievement of all students. As with the ESEA performance goals,
States are free to add their own performance indicators to the core set
of indicators that the Department has established.
C. ``Performance targets'' Performance targets define the progress
a State expects to make at specified points in time with respect to
each indicator. For example, for indicator 3.1, described in the
preceding paragraph, a State might adopt as a target: the percentage of
classes being taught by highly qualified teachers, in the aggregate and
in high-poverty schools, will increase from the baseline of ``x''
percent in school year 2002-2003 to ``y'' percent in school year 2003-
2004, ``z'' percent in school year 2004-2005, etc.
While all States submitting a consolidated application must adopt
the core set of ESEA performance goals and indicators in appendix A,
each State defines and adopts its own performance targets. (See
appendix A for some examples of performance targets that States might
choose to use.)
Finally, the accountability system relies upon collection of data
that document how well States are succeeding in meeting their
performance targets. States will describe in their consolidated
applications their timelines and benchmarks for securing these data, as
well as their data sources. States also will provide their ``baseline
data.'' For example, if a State adopted the performance target
described above, it would identify as its baseline ``the percentage of
classes being taught by highly qualified teachers, in the aggregate and
in high-poverty schools, in school year 2002-2003.'' In its annual
performance report, a State will provide updated data on its progress
in meeting these performance targets.
States may include web site references, electronic files, or other
existing documentation to comply with the requirements listed in the
application.
Other Requirements for the Consolidated Application
In addition to the framework for ESEA accountability, a State's
consolidated application also must include:
A. A description of key strategies States will use to implement the
ESEA programs in order to accomplish the purposes of those programs
(see appendix B);
B. Key programmatic and fiscal information the Department needs to
award FY 2002 funds (see appendix C). The information to be included in
the consolidated State application is a small part of what the ESEA
program statutes would have a State otherwise provide in individual
program plans or applications; and
C. Assurances of the State's adherence to all requirements of the
programs included in the application (see appendix D). The final
application package for the consolidated application contains a partial
list of individual program requirements that are while covered by these
general assurances, and that we believe warrant special attention.
III. Documentation of Compliance With Program Requirements
For programs a State chooses to include in a consolidated
application, ESEA section 9302(a)(2) relieves the State of the need to
either prepare or submit to the Department separate individual State
plans or applications that the ESEA would otherwise require in order to
receive funding on a program-by-program basis. However, section 9302
contains no authority for the Department to eliminate or waive
statutory or regulatory requirements that apply to the funds the
Department awards on the basis of a consolidated application.
Therefore, whether or not the ESEA specifies program requirements
as elements of a program-specific plan (or application), a State (or
LEA) that submits a consolidated application still must (1) comply with
all requirements for designing and implementing programs, and (2)
maintain documentation of this compliance. These requirements might
govern, for example, public input, program implementation, or
evaluation. Also, a State must comply with, and maintain records of its
compliance with, requirements of the consolidated application announced
in this notice.
(Note: To the extent consistent with State ``open records''
statutes, documents demonstrating adherence to ESEA requirements
will be available to parents, policymakers, and other members of the
public.)
In determining whether the statute, regulations, or requirements
governing the consolidated application requires the State to document
its plans or planning activities, we suggest that States consider the
following:
1. Does the ESEA require the State to develop a plan that is
separate from the application for funding? For example, does the ESEA
require that the State include a separate plan, or a description of a
separate plan, with the application? Or does the ESEA require that a
State that has received program funding develop or implement a plan of
this kind?
If the answer to any of these questions is yes, the State must
develop that plan and maintain it in its written records, even if the
State includes the program in its consolidated application.
2. Does the statute require that a State conduct a specified
activity? For example, does it require a description of the results of
a needs assessment or procedures for consulting with others? If so, it
requires that specific activities (expressed as application content
requirements) be undertaken--e.g., a needs assessment or consultation,
and the State would need to maintain documentation showing that it had
conducted the activity.
3. Does the law require that a State's individual program plan or
application describe how activities ``will'' occur only after some
precondition, such as a review of scientifically-based research?
[[Page 35971]]
If the answer is yes, the State must conduct those program
activities after meeting the precondition, and must maintain
documentation that it has done so.
IV. Consolidation of Federal Funds
Title VI of the ESEA contains a number of flexibility provisions
that permit States and LEAs to treat funds received under some programs
as if received under other programs. In addition, sections 9201-9203
continue to permit SEAs and LEAs to consolidate administrative funds
under specified programs. However, beyond the flexibility that these
provisions offer, our approval of a consolidated State application
neither authorizes a State or LEA to combine or commingle program funds
nor eliminates State or LEA responsibilities to keep separate records
on the use of each program's funds.
V. Data Management Reform
Starting in 2002, we will work with LEAs and SEAs to establish data
standards for performance indicators and other information collected
from States and districts. Toward that end, we will confer with LEA and
SEA officials, the research community, information technology vendors,
and other interested parties on ways in which States, LEAs, and schools
can collect and record useful baseline and follow-up data through an
Internet-based format. The new format will accommodate the measurement
of success relative to the various indicators that the Department and
States have adopted. Future application and reporting guidelines will
encourage electronic reporting and provide States with additional
options in fulfilling Federal information requests.
VI. Other Considerations
The requirements for the content of a State's consolidated
application recognize that although the NCLB makes significant changes
to the ESEA, it also builds upon efforts States had begun under both
the ESEA as previously authorized and other Federal and State
initiatives. In developing their consolidated applications, States may
draw upon relevant information and data gathered through these efforts.
To help States try to save money by working together to implement
the core system of ESEA accountability, the Department intends to work
with States to see whether development and use of common or consistent
data collection systems can reduce costs for each State.
VII. Process for Submitting a Consolidated State Application
As explained in the March 6 notice of proposed requirements (67 FR
10168), we recognize the challenges posed by the January 2002 enactment
of the NCLB. States have a limited time to prepare and submit their
consolidated applications and to plan for their use of the FY 2002 ESEA
program funds the Department will distribute this July. In addition,
the ESEA includes a large number of new requirements that govern a
State's use of these FY 2002, and the Department needs to ensure that
States understand them before it awards these funds.
In balancing thee factors, we have determined that, with the
exceptions noted in appendix B, each SEA submitting a consolidated
application must provide the Department certain information in the
following three stages:
June 2002 No later than June 12, 2002, the State must submit:
A. A statement that it: (a) Has adopted the minimum core ESEA goals
and performance indicators that the Department has established, (b)
agrees to adopt and include in its May 2003 submission, its own
performance targets for these indicators, and (c) agrees to include
baseline data for these indicators in May 2003 or September 2003,
respectively, as specified in the in the following discussion of the
schedule for submissions (appendix A);
B. A description of the key activities and initiatives the State
will carry out with State funds or ESEA funds reserved for
administration and State-level activities (appendix B) including--
Activities to help achieve its performance
targets, i.e., information about the State's standards, assessments,
and accountability system (of which for certain items States will
submit only timelines in June 2002);
Subgranting procedures;
Technical assistance, monitoring, and
professional development, and
Activities to promote highly-qualified Teachers
in all schools, support for schoolwide programs, and effective
coordination of Federal programs; and
C. The individual ESEA program descriptions and fiscal information
that the Department determines are needed in order to ensure program
integrity (appendix C), and the required statutory assurances and
certification (appendix D).
May 2003 No later than early May 2003, the State must submit to
the Department those performance targets and corresponding baseline
data that the ESEA requires the State to establish based on the 2001-
2002 school year. The OMB-approved application package identifies those
performance indicators for which the State must provide its targets and
baseline data in early May 2003. We will announce a specific due date
in May 2003 at a later time.
September 2003 No later than early September 2003, the State must
submit its performance targets and baseline data that relate to other
ESEA requirements. These baseline data must reflect either the 2001-
2002 or 2002-2003 school year. The OMB-approved application package
identifies those performance indicators for which the State must
provide its targets and indicators no later than early September 2003.
We will announce a specific due date in September 2003 at a later time.
Other Submission Dates
Appendix B identifies a limited amount of other information that
States must submit at a different due date, e.g., submission of the
State's definition of adequate yearly progress (AYP), as well as how
the State calculated its ``starting point'' as required for AYP by
January 31, 2003.
VIII. Programs That May Be Included in a Consolidated Application
A State may include the following programs in its consolidated
application:
Title I, Part A: Improving Basic Programs Operated by Local
Educational Agencies.
Title I, Part B, Subpart 3: Even Start Family Literacy.
Title I, Part C: Education of Migrant Children.
Title I, Part D: Prevention and Intervention Programs for Children
and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk.
Title I, Part F: Comprehensive School Reform.
Title II, Part A: Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting
Fund.
Title II, Part D: Enhancing Education Through Technology.
Title III, Part A: English Language Acquisition and Language
Enhancement.
Title IV, Part A, Subpart 1: Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities.
Title IV, Part A, Subpart 2: Community Service Grants.
Title IV, Part B: 21st Century Community Learning Centers.
Title V, Part A: Innovative Programs.
Title VI, Part B, Subpart 2: Rural and Low-Income Schools.
In addition, for reasons states in the March 6 Federal Register
notice, the Secretary has designated both the
[[Page 35972]]
formula and discretionary components of the program supporting
development of State assessments, authorized in sections 6111 and 6112
of Title VI, as programs that SEAs may include in their consolidated
applications. Section 6111, the State Assessment formula grants program
provides grants to States for development of State assessments and
related activities. Section 6112, the Enhanced Assessment competitive
grants program, provides competitive grants to States for development
of ``enhanced assessment instruments.'' These two programs bear a close
relationship to the development of a State system of accountability for
student achievement that is at the heart of the Title I, Part A
program. The Department's selection criteria and other requirements to
govern the initial competition under the competitive grant portion of
the section 61111 program are contained in appendix E. SEAs that choose
to apply for the competitive grant program must submit their
applications by September 15, 2002.
IX. Public Participation Requirements
ESEA section 9304(a)(7) provides that a State must provide the
public a reasonable opportunity to comment on a consolidated
application before it is submitted to the Secretary. The procedures
under which SEAs will secure adequate public participation are to be
determined under State law. States that are unable to complete their
public participation requirements, before the June 12, 2002 deadline
for submitting their consolidated applications, must submit appropriate
revisions to the applications at the end of the public participation
process.
Many of the ESEA program statutes contain provisions that require
stakeholder or public input into the process of developing program-
specific funding plans or applications. Absent a State's decision to
include those programs in its consolidated application, it would have
to develop these individual program plans or applications in ways that
complied with these public input requirements. The public participation
requirement in section 9304(a)(7), rather than those program-specific
public or stakeholder participation requirements, govern the
development of a consolidated application for all included programs.
However, as explained in Section IV, States will still need to comply
with those public and stakeholder participation requirements that,
under a given program statute, expressly apply to program planning and
implementation.
X. Consolidated Local Plans or Applications
ESEA section 9305(a) authorizes LEAs to receive funding from the
SEA under more than one ``covered program'' through consolidated local
plans or applications. Section 9305(c) and (d) requires the SEA, in
consultation with the Governor, to collaborate with LEAs in
establishing procedures for submission of these plans or applications,
and to require ``only descriptions, information, assurances, and other
material that are absolutely necessary for the consideration of the
[LEA] plan or application.''
These provisions mirror provisions in section 9302 that govern the
content and procedures for consolidated State applications. Consistent
with the statutory language, we believe that SEAs in consultation with
the Governor and LEAs have wide discretion in fashioning procedures and
content for these plans or applications that focus on increased student
achievement and other ESEA goals. However, we stress that LEAs
submitting consolidated local plans or applications must still
implement all of the statutory requirements--including record-keeping
requirements--of the programs included in those plans or applications
include. See section IV of this notice, ``Documentation of Compliance
With All Program Requirements.''
XI. Voluntary Submission of Consolidated State Applications
Development of a consolidated State application is voluntary. It is
the SEA's decision whether to submit a consolidated application, which
of the eligible programs to include in it if one is submitted, and
whether to add, in later submissions, programs that are not included in
the consolidated application submitted this June for FY 2002 funds.
(Should an SEA choose to submit an individual, program specific
application under the Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities
program, the program statute (Title IV, Part A, Subpart 1) permits SEAs
to submit an ``interim'' application in FY 2002, and a comprehensive
application by FY 2003. Final rules for this interim program
application are included in appendix F.) Moreover, an SEA that submits
a consolidated application for FY 2002 funds that does not contain all
of the information requested can later decide not to submit that
outstanding information and, instead, submit individual program plans
or applications that the ESEA, as amended by NCLB, requires.
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 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: We do not anticipate that
the application requirements proposed in this notice will impose any
significant costs on applicants. These proposed requirements provide a
basis for the Secretary to award funds from a number of different
Federal programs under a single application. Therefore, the
requirements would not impose any unfunded mandates on States. 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.
Paperwork Reduction Act Considerations
The procedures and requirements contained in this notice relate to
the consolidated State application package that the Department has
developed under ESEA section 9309. The public may obtain copies of this
package by calling or writing the individuals identified at the
beginning of this notice as the Department's contact, or through the
Department's website: http://www.ed.gov/offices/OESE/esea/
regsandguidance.html.
As required by the Paperwork Reduction Act, OMB has approved the
use of these application packages under the following OMB control
number 1810-0576, expiration date November 30, 2002.
Intergovernmental Review
These programs are 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
[[Page 35973]]
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.
Electronic Access to This Document
You may view 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 the following site:
http://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 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.
Program Authority: 20 U.S.C. 7842.
Dated: May 16, 2002.
Susan B. Neuman,
Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education.
Maria H. Ferrier,
Director of English Language Acquisition, Language Enhancement, and
Academic Achievement for Limited English Proficient Students.
Appendix A: ESEA Performance Goals, Performance Indicators, and State
Performance Targets
State and local accountability for the academic achievement of
all students is central to the No Child Left Behind Act of 2001. The
consolidated State application builds the framework for a system of
overall ESEA accountability that is intended to help the public
understand how well the State is meeting its student achievement
goals for all students. This system is built around with several key
elements:
1. ESEA ``Performance goals'' that the Department has
established. These goals reflect the basic purposes of the ESEA and
the programs included in the consolidated application.
2. ESEA ``Performance indicators'' that the Department has
established for each ESEA performance goal. States submitting a
consolidated State application will use these indicators to measure
their progress in meeting the ESEA performance goals.
3. ``Performance targets'' that each State will establish. The
performance targets define the progress a State expects to make at
specified points in time with respect to each indicator. For
example, for indicator 3.1, described below, a State might adopt as
a target: the percentage of classes being taught by highly qualified
teachers, in the aggregate and in high-poverty schools, will
increase from the baseline of ``x'' percent in school year 2002-2003
to ``y'' percent in school year 2003-2004, ``z'' percent in school
year 2004-2005, etc.
We identify the following five ESEA performance goals that are
central to the purposes of the ESEA programs, and performance
indicators for each of these performance goals. Each State must
adopt this set of five performance goals and corresponding
performance indicators. However, a State may include additional
performance goals and indicators in its application if it desires to
do so.
Performance Goal 1: All Students Will Reach High Standards, at a
Minimum Attaining Proficiency or Better in Reading/Language Arts and
Mathematics by 2013-2014
1.1 Performance indicator: The percentage of students, in the
aggregate and for each subgroup, who are at or above the proficient
level in reading/language arts on the State's assessment. (Note:
These subgroups are those for which the ESEA requires State
reporting, as identified in section 1111(h)(1)(C)(i).)
1.1.1 Example of a State performance target: The percentage of
students, in the aggregate and in each subgroup, who will be at or
above the proficient level in reading/language arts consistent with
the State's annual measurable objectives for ensuring that all
students reach this level by the end of the 2013-2014 school year.
Note: The State annual measurable objectives for all students in
reading/language are the same as those the State includes in its
definition of adequate yearly progress.
1.2 Performance indicator: The percentage of students, in the
aggregate and in each subgroup, who are at or above the proficient
level in mathematics on the State's assessment. (Note: These
subgroups are those for which the ESEA requires State reporting, as
identified in section 1111(h)(1)(C)(i).)
1.3 Performance indicator: The percentage of Title I schools
that make adequate yearly progress.
1.3.1 Example of a State performance target: The percentage of
Title I schools that make adequate yearly progress will increase by
``x'' percent each year from the percentage of schools that made
adequate yearly progress in 2001-2002
Performance Goal 2: All Limited English Proficient Students Will Become
Proficient in English and Reach High Academic Standards, at a Minimum
Attaining Proficiency or Better in Reading/Language Arts and
Mathematics
2.1 Performance Indicator: The percentage of limited English
proficient students, determined by cohort, who have attained English
proficiency by the end of the school year.
2.2 Performance indicator: The percentage of limited English
proficient students who are at or above the proficient level in
reading/language arts on the State's assessment, as reported for
Performance Indicator 1.1.
2.3 Performance indicator: The percentage of limited English
proficient students who are at or above the proficient level in
mathematics on the State's assessment, as reported for Performance
Indicator 1.2.
Performance Goal 3: By 2005-2006, All Students Will Be Taught by Highly
Qualified Teachers
3.1 Performance indicator: The percentage of classes being
taught by ``highly qualified'' teachers (as the term is defined in
ESEA section 9101(23), in the aggregate and in ``high-poverty''
schools (as the term is defined in ESEA section
1111(h)(1)(C)(viii)).
3.1.1. Example of a State performance target: The percentage of
classes being taught by highly qualified teachers, in the aggregate
and in high-poverty schools, will increase from the baseline of
``x'' percent in 2001-2002 to ``y'' percent in 2002-2003, ``z''
percent in 2003-2004, etc.
3.2 Performance indicator: The percentage of teachers receiving
high-quality ``professional development'' as the term is defined in
ESEA section 9101(34).
3.3 Performance Indicator: The percentage of paraprofessionals
(excluding those with sole duties as translators and parental
involvement assistants) who are qualified. (See criteria in section
1119(c) and (d).)
Performance Goal 4: All Students Will Be Educated in Learning
Environments That Are Safe, Drug Free, and Conducive to Learning
4.1 Performance indicator: The number of persistently dangerous
schools, as defined by the State.
Note: The lack of other performance indicators from this Goal 4
demonstrates our difficulty in finding good measures that can
reliably link indicators of schools that are safe, drug-free, and
conducive to quality teaching and academic achievement. Students and
teachers plainly need to work in learning environments that are safe
and drug-free. Technology, which we had proposed as a subject of
performance indicators for this goal, like other instructional tools
can be a powerful means of helping teachers and other school staff
make a school environment conducive to learning. In determining
whether individual States and the Nation as a whole are meeting Goal
4, the Department intends to seek other means of obtaining useful
information.
Performance Goal 5: All Students Will Graduate From High School
5.1 Performance indicator: The percentage of students who
graduate from high school each year with a regular diploma--
disaggregated by race, ethnicity, gender, disability status, migrant
status, English proficiency, and status as economically
disadvantaged--calculated in the same manner as used in National
Center
[[Page 35974]]
for Education Statistics reports on Common Core of Data.
5.2 Performance indicator: The percentage of students who drop
out of high school--disaggregated by race, ethnicity, gender,
disability status, migrant status, English proficiency, and status
as economically disadvantaged--calculated in the same manner as used
in National Center for Education Statistics reports on Common Core
of Data. (ESEA section 1907 requires States to report all LEA data
regarding annual school dropout rates in the State disaggregated by
race and ethnicity according to procedures that conform with the
National Center for Education Statistics' (NCES') Common Core of
Data. Consistent with this requirement, in developing their
performance targets for Indicator 5.2 States must use NCES'
definition of ``high school dropout,'' i.e., a student in grade 9-12
who--
(a) Was enrolled in the district at some time during the
previous school year;
(b) Was not enrolled at the beginning of the succeeding school
year;
(c) Has not graduated or completed a program of studies by the
maximum age established by a State;
(d) Has not transferred to another public school district or to
a nonpublic school or to a State-approved educational program; and
(e) Has not left school because of death, illness, or a school-
approved absence.)
Note: As it develops regulations or guidance for the Title I,
Part A program, the Department will determine what, if any,
modifications to Indicators 5.1 and 5.2 are needed to ensure
conformance with Title I requirements.
During 2002, the Department will work with LEAs and SEAs to
establish data standards for performance indicators and other
information collected from States and districts. Toward that end,
the Department will confer with LEA and SEA officials, the research
community, information technology vendors, and other interested
parties on ways in which States, LEAs, and schools can collect and
electronically record useful baseline and follow-up data through an
Internet-based format. The new format will accommodate indicators
that the Department and States have adopted to measure success.
Future application and reporting guidelines will encourage
electronic reporting and provide States with additional options in
fulfilling federal information requests.
Appendix B: State Activities To Implement ESEA Programs
States will conduct a number of activities to ensure effective
implementation of the ESEA programs included in their consolidated
applications. Many of the activities may serve multiple programs.
For example, a State may develop a comprehensive approach to
monitoring and technical assistance that will be used for several
(or all) programs. In responding to the items in this section, an
SEA will indicate the ESEA programs that will benefit from the
activities it describes. Where applicable, States may include web
site references, electronic files, or other existing documentation
to comply with the requirements listed in the application.
1. Describe the State's system of standards, assessments, and
accountability and provide evidence that it meets the requirements
of the ESEA. In doing so--
a. In the June 2002 submission, provide a timeline of major
milestones for either--
i. Adopting challenging content standards in reading/language
arts and mathematics at each grade level for grades 3 through 8,
consistent with ESEA section 1111(b)(1), or
ii. Disseminating grade-level expectations for reading/language
arts and mathematics for grades 3 through 8 to LEAs and schools if
the State's academic content standards cover more than one grade
level.
(Note: This information must be consistent with the final
regulations that the Department expects to issue in August 2002.)
By May 1, 2003, provide evidence that the State has adopted
standards or disseminated grade-level expectations.
If the State already has content standards or has disseminated
grade-level expectations that meet the requirements, provide--
i. A statement to this effect in the June 2002 submission, and
ii. Evidence when the Department requests it, which will likely
be in fall 2002 after the Department issues final regulations and
guidance.
b. In the June 2002 submission, provide a timeline of major
milestones for adopting challenging content standards in science
that meet the requirements of section 1111(b)(1).
By May 1, 2003, provide a detailed timeline for the above.
By May 1, 2006, but as soon as available, provide evidence that
the State has adopted challenging content standards in science that
meet the requirements of section 1111(b)(1).
If the State already has adopted science standards that meet the
requirements of section 1111(b)(1), provide--
i. A statement to this effect in the June 2002 submission, and
ii. Evidence when the Department requests it, which will likely
be in fall 2002, after the Department issues final regulations and
guidance.
c. In the June 2002 submission, provide a timeline of major
milestones for the development and implementation, in consultation
with LEAs, of assessments that meet the requirements of section
1111(b)(3) in the required subjects and grade levels.
By May 1, 2003, provide a detailed timeline for the above.
No later than indicated in the following schedule, but as soon
as available, provide evidence that the State has developed and
implemented, in consultation with LEAs, assessments that meet the
requirements of section 1111(b)(3) in the required subjects and
grade levels.
If the State already has implemented some of these assessments,
provide--
i. A statement to this effect in the June 2002 submission, and
ii. Evidence when the Department requests it, which will likely
be in the fall of 2002, after the Department issues final
regulations and guidance.
Schedule for Assessments
Subject: Mathematics
Grades: 3-8.
Implement by: 2005-06.
Submit evidence by: December 2006.
Subject: Reading/Language Arts
Grades: 3-8.
Implement by: 2005-06.
Submit evidence by: December 2006.
Subject: Science
Grades: Elementary (3-5); Middle (6-9); High School (10-12).
Implement by: 2007-2008.
Submit evidence by: December 2008.
d. In the June 2002 submission, provide a timeline of major
milestones for setting, in consultation with LEAs, academic
achievement standards in mathematics, reading/language arts, and
science that meet the requirements of section 1111(b)(1).
By May 2003, provide a detailed timeline for the above.
No later than indicated in the following schedule, but as soon
as available, provide evidence that the State, in consultation with
LEAs, has set academic achievement standards in mathematics,
reading/language arts, and science that meet the requirements of
section 1111(b)(1).
If the State already has implemented some of these academic
achievement standards, provide--
i. A statement to this effect in the June 2002 submission, and
ii. Evidence when the Department requests it, which will likely
be in the fall of 2002 after the Department issues final regulations
and guidance.
Schedule for Academic Achievement Standards
Subject: Mathematics
Grades: 3-8.
Implement by: 2005-06.
Submit evidence by: December 2006.
Subject: Reading/Language Arts
Grades: 3-8.
Implement by: 2005-06.
Submit evidence by: December 2006.
Subject: Science
Grades: Elementary (3-5); Middle (6-9); High School (10-12).
Implement by: 2007-2008.
Submit evidence by: December 2008.
e. By January 31, 2003, describe how the State calculated its
``starting point'' as required for adequate yearly progress
consistent with section 1111(b)(2)(E), including data elements and
procedures for calculations.
f. By January 31, 2003, provide the State's definition of
adequate yearly progress. The definition must include:
i. For the percentage of students meeting or exceeding the
State's proficient level, provide for both reading/language arts and
mathematics--
The starting point percentage;
The intermediate goals;
The timeline; and
Annual objectives.
ii. The definition of graduation rate (consistent with section
1111(b)(2)(c)(vi) and final regulations).
iii. One academic indicator for elementary and for middle
schools.
[[Page 35975]]
iv. Any other (optional) academic indicators.
g. By January 31, 2003, identify the minimum number of students
that the State has determined, based on sound statistical
methodology, to be sufficient to yield statistically reliable
information for each purpose for which disaggregated data are used
and justify the determination. (Note: This information must be
consistent with final regulations, which the Department expects to
issue in August 2002.)
h. In the June 2002 submission, provide a plan for how the State
will implement a single accountability system that uses the same
criteria, based primarily on assessments consistent with section
1111(b), for determining whether a school has made adequate yearly
progress, regardless of whether the school receives Title I, Part A,
or other Federal funds.
By May 2003, provide evidence that the State has implemented a
single accountability system consistent with sections 1111(b) and
1116.
i. In the June 2002 submission, identify the languages present
in the student population to be assessed, the languages in which the
State administers assessments, and the languages in which the State
will need to administer assessments. Use the most recent data
available and identify when these data were collected.
j. In the June 2002 submission, provide evidence that, beginning
not later than the school year 2002-2003, LEAs will provide for an
annual assessment of English proficiency that meets the requirements
of ESEA sections 1111(b)(7) and 3116(d)(4), including assessment of
English proficiency in speaking, listening, reading, writing, and
comprehension. Identify the assessment(s) the State will designate
for this purpose.
k. In the June 2002 submission, describe the status of the
State's effort to establish standards and annual measurable
achievement objectives under ESEA section 3122(a) that relate to the
development and attainment of English proficiency by limited English
proficient children. These standards and objectives must relate to
the development and attainment of English proficiency in speaking,
listening, reading, writing, and comprehension and be aligned with
the State academic content and student academic achievement
standards as required by ESEA section 1111(b)(1).
If they are not yet established, describe the State's plan and
timeline for completing the development of these standards and
achievement objectives. Include in the May 2003 submission the
State's annual measurable achievement objectives under ESEA section
3122(a).
(Note: Descriptions 2-6 must be included with the State's June
2002 submission.)
2. Describe key procedures, selection criteria, interpretations
provided for any key ESEA terms, and priorities the State will use
to award competitive subgrants or contracts to the entities and for
the activities required by the program statutes of applicable
programs included in the consolidated application. States should
include a description of how, for each program, these selection
criteria and priorities will promote improved academic achievement.
Applicable included programs are:
Even Start Family Literacy (Title I, Part B).
Education of Migrant Children (Title I, Part
C).
Prevention and Intervention for Children Who
Are Neglected, Delinquent, or At-Risk--Local Agency Programs (Title
I, Part D, Subpart 2).
Comprehensive School Reform (Title I, Part
F).
Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting
Fund--subgrants to eligible partnerships (Title II, Part A, Subpart
3).
Enhanced Education Through Technology (Title
II, Part D).
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities--
reservation for the Governor (Title IV, Part A, section 4112).
Community Service Grants (Title IV, Part A,
Section 4126).
21st Century Community Learning Centers
(Title IV, Part B).
3. Describe how the State will monitor and provide professional
development and technical assistance to LEAs, schools, and other
subgrantees to help these entities implement their programs and meet
the State's (and those entities' own) performance goals and
objectives. This description should include the assistance the SEA
will provide to LEAs, schools, and other subgrantees in identifying
and implementing effective instructional programs and practices
based on scientific research.
4. Describe the Statewide system of support under section 1117
for ensuring that all schools meet the State's academic content and
student achievement standards, including how the State will provide
assistance to low-performing schools.
5. Describe the activities the State will conduct to--
a. Help Title I schools make effective use of schoolwide
programs to improve the achievement of all students, including
specific steps the SEA is taking and will take to modify or
eliminate State fiscal and accounting barriers so that schools can
easily consolidate Federal, State, and local funds for schoolwide
programs;
b. Ensure that all teachers, particularly those in high-poverty
areas and those in schools in need of improvement, are highly
qualified. This description should include the help the State will
provide to LEAs and schools to--
(i) Conduct effective professional development activities;
(ii) Recruit and hire highly qualified teachers, including those
licensed or certified through alternative routes; and
(iii) Retain highly qualified teachers;
c. Ensure that all paraprofessionals (excluding those working
with parents or as translators) attain the qualifications in ESEA
section 1119(c) and (d) by the 2005-2006 school year;
d. Help LEAs with a high need for technology, high percentages
or numbers of children in poverty, and low-performing schools to
form partnerships with other LEAs, institutions of higher education
(IHEs), libraries, and other private and public for-profit and non-
profit entities with technology expertise to improve the use of
technology in instruction;
e. Promote parental and community participation in schools; and
f. Secure the baseline and follow-up data for the core ESEA
accountability system discussed in appendix A.
6. Describe how--
a. SEA officials and staff consulted with the Governor's office
in the development of the State application;
b. State officials will coordinate the various ESEA-funded
programs with State-level activities the State administers; and
c. State officials and staff will coordinate with other
organizations, such as businesses, IHEs, nonprofit organizations,
and other State agencies, and with other State agencies, including
the Governor's office, and with other Federal programs (including
those authorized by Individuals with Disabilities Education Act, the
Perkins Vocational and Technical Education Act, the Head Start Act,
the Adult Education and Family Literacy Act, and the McKinney-Vento
Homeless Assistance Act).
7. Describe the strategies the State will use to determine, on a
regular basis, whether LEAs, schools, and other subgrantees are
making satisfactory progress in meeting State and local goals and
desired ESEA program outcomes. In doing so, the SEA should also
describe how it will use data it gathers from subgrantees on how
well they are meeting State performance targets, and the actions the
State will take to determine or revise interventions for any LEAs,
schools, and other subgrantees that are not making substantial
progress.
Appendix C: Key Programmatic and Fiscal Information
The Department has an overall responsibility for ensuring the
programmatic and fiscal integrity of the ESEA programs. Therefore,
before we can award FY 2002 program funds the Department needs to
review and approve information on how the State will comply with a
few key requirements of the various ESEA programs that the State
includes in the application. In particular, the Department will
review the SEA responses to the following:
I. Key Program Requirements
1. Title I, Part B, Subpart 3--Even Start Family Literacy
a. Describe how the SEA will use its indicators of program
quality to monitor, evaluate, and improve its Even Start projects,
and to decide whether to continue operating them.
b. Describe what constitutes sufficient program progress when
the SEA makes continuation awards.
c. Explain how the State's Even Start projects will provide
assistance to low-income families participating in the program to
help children in those families to achieve to the applicable State
content and student achievement standards.
2. Title I, Part C--Education of Migrant Children
a. Describe the process the State will use to develop,
implement, and document a
[[Page 35976]]
comprehensive needs assessment that identifies the special
educational and related needs of migratory children.
b. Describe the State's priorities for the use of migrant
education program funds in order to have migratory students meet the
State's performance targets for indicators 1.1, and 1.2 in appendix
A (as well as 5.1 and 5.2 that expressly include migratory
students), and how they relate to the State's assessment of needs
for services.
c. Describe how the State will determine the amount of any
subgrants the State will award to local operating agencies, taking
into account the numbers and needs of migratory children, the
statutory priority for service in section 1304(d), and the
availability of funds from other Federal, State, and local programs.
d. Describe how the State will promote continuity of education
and the interstate and intrastate coordination of services for
migratory children.
e. Describe the State's plan to evaluate the effectiveness of
its migrant education program and projects.
3. Title I, Part D--Children and Youth Who Are Neglected,
Delinquent, or At-Risk
a. Describe the program goals, performance indicators,
performance objectives, and data sources that the State has
established for its use in assessing the effectiveness of the
program in improving the academic and vocational and technical
skills of students participating in the program.
b. Describe how the SEA is assisting projects funded under the
program in facilitating the transition of children and youth from
correctional facilities to locally operated programs.
4. Title I, Part F--Comprehensive School Reform
a. Describe the process the SEA will use to ensure that programs
funded include and integrate all eleven required components of a
comprehensive school reform program.
b. Describe the process the State will use to determine the
percentage of Comprehensive School Reform schools with increasing
number of students meeting or exceeding the proficient level of
performance on State assessments in reading/language arts and
mathematics.
5. Title II, Part A--Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting
Fund
a. If not fully addressed in the State's response to the
information on performance goals, indicators, and targets in
Appendix A, describe the remainder of the State's annual measurable
objectives under ESEA section 1119(a)(2).
b. Describe how the SEA will hold LEAs accountable both for (1)
meeting the annual measurable objectives described in ESEA section
1119(a)(2), and (2) ensuring that the professional development the
LEAs offer their teachers and other instructional staff is
consistent with the definition of ``professional development'' in
ESEA section 9101(34).
Note: This program, and the financial support it provides to
States, LEAs, and schools is vitally important to ensure that all
students have teachers who are highly qualified, and who can help
them to achieve to their maximum capabilities. The two items
identified above supplement other information States need to provide
in response to items in Appendix A, Goal 3; Appendix B, item 5b and
c; and Appendix C, information on Title II, Part D (Enhancing
Education Through Technology program) on how they plan to implement
key teacher quality activities.
6. Title II, Part D--Enhanced Education Through Technology
a. Describe the program goals, performance indicators,
performance objectives, and data sources that the State has
established for its use in assessing the effectiveness of the
program in improving access to and use of educational technology by
students and teachers in support of academic achievement.
b. Provide a brief summary of the SEA's long-term strategies for
improving student academic achievement, including technology
literacy, through the effective use of technology in the classroom,
and the capacity of teachers to integrate technology effectively
into curricula and instruction.
c. Describe key activities that the SEA will conduct or sponsor
with the funds it retains at the State level. These may include such
activities as provision of distance learning in rigorous academic
courses or curricula; the establishment or support of public-private
initiatives for the acquisition of technology by high-need LEAs; and
the development of performance measurement systems to determine the
effectiveness of educational technology programs.
d. Provide a brief description of how--
i. The SEA will ensure that students and teachers, particularly
those in the schools of high-need LEAs, have increased access to
technology, and
ii. The SEA will coordinate the application and award process
for State discretionary grant and formula grant funds under this
program.
7. Title III, Part A--English Language Acquisition and Language
Enhancement
a. Describe how the SEA will ensure that LEAs use program funds
only to carry out activities that reflect scientifically based
research on the education of limited English proficient children
while allowing those grantees flexibility (to the extent permitted
under State law) to select and implement such activities in a manner
that they determine best reflects local needs and circumstances.
b. Describe how the SEA will hold LEAs accountable for meeting
all annual measurable achievement objectives for limited English
proficient children, and for making adequate yearly progress that
raises the achievement of limited English proficient children.
c. Describe the process that the State will use in making
subgrants under section 3114(d) to LEAs that have experienced a
significant increase in the percentage or number of immigrant
children and youth.
8. Title IV, Part A--Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities
a. Describe the key strategies in the State's comprehensive plan
for the use of funds by the SEA and the Governor to provide safe,
orderly, and drug-free schools and communities through programs and
activities that--
i. Complement and support activities of LEAs under ESEA section
4115(b);
ii. Comply with the principles of effectiveness under section
4115(a); and
iii. Otherwise are in accordance with the purpose of Title IV,
Part A.
Note: The reauthorized provisions of the Safe and Drug-Free
Schools and Communities (SDFSC) Program clearly emphasize well-
coordinated SEA and Governor's Program activities. The statute
requires that significant parts of the program application be
developed for each State's program, not for the SEA and Governors
Programs individually. For this reason, each State must submit a
single application for SDFSC SEA and Governors Program funds. States
may choose to apply for SDFSC funding through this consolidated
application or through a program-specific application.)
B. Describe the State's performance measures for drug and
violence prevention programs and activities to be funded under Title
IV, Part A, Subpart 1.
These performance measures must focus on student behaviors and
attitudes. They must consist of (1) performance indicators for drug
and violence prevention programs and activities, and (2) levels of
performance for each performance indicator. The description must
also include timelines for achieving the levels of performance
stated, details about what mechanism the State will use to collect
data concerning the indicators, and provide baseline data for
indicators (if available).
c. Describe the steps the State will use to implement the
Uniform Management Information and Reporting System (UMIRS) required
by ESEA section 4112(c)(3). The description should include
information about which agency(ies) will be responsible for
implementing UMIRS, a tentative schedule for implementing UMIRS
requirements, as well as preliminary plans for collecting required
information.
9. Title IV, Part B, 21st Century Community Learning Centers
Identify the percentage of students participating in 21st
Century Community Learning Centers who meet or exceed the proficient
level of performance on State assessments in reading/language arts
and mathematics. Baseline data is to be collected for the 2002-2003
school year, and submitted to the Department no later than September
2003 by a specific due date the Department will announce.
10. Title IV, Part B--21st Century Community Leaning Centers
Identify the percentage of students who participate in 21st
Century Community Learning Centers who meet or exceed the proficient
level of performance on State assessments in reading/language arts
and mathematics. The State must collect baseline data for the 2002-
2003 school year, and submit these data to the Department no later
than early September of 2003 by a date the Department will announce.
[[Page 35977]]
11. Title VI, Part A, Subpart 1--grants for State Assessment and
Related Activities
Describe how the State plans to use formula funds awarded under
section 6113(b)(1) for the development and implementation of State
assessments in accordance with section 6111 (1) and (2).
12. Title VI, Part B, Subpart 2--Rural and Low-Income School
Program
a. Identify the SEA's specific measurable goals and objectives
related to increasing student academic achievement; decreasing
student dropout rates; or improvement in other educational factors
the SEA may elect to measure, and describe how Rural and Low-Income
School program funds will help the SEA meet the goals and objectives
identified.
b. Describe how the State elects to make awards under the Rural
and Low-Income School Program:
i. By formulas proportionate to the numbers of students in
eligible districts;
ii. Competitively (please explain any priorities for the
competition); or
iii. By a State-designed formula that results in equal or
greater assistance being awarded to school districts that serve
higher concentrations of poor students.
(Note: If a State elects the third option, the formula must be
submitted for Department approval. States that elect this option may
submit their State-designed formulas for approval as part of this
submission.)
I. Key Fiscal Information
Consolidated Administrated Funds
1. Does the SEA Plan To Consolidate State-Level Administrative Funds?
If yes, please provide information and analysis concerning
Federal and other funding that demonstrates that Federal funds
constitute less than half of the funds used to support the SEA.
If yes, are there any programs whose funds are available for
administration that the SEA will not consolidate?
2. Please Describe Your Plans for Any Additional Uses of Funds
Transferability
Does the State plan to transfer non-administrative State-level
ESEA funds under the provisions of the State and Local
Transferability Act (sections 6121 to 6123 of the ESEA)? If so,
please list the funds and the amounts and percentages to be
transferred, the program from which funds are to be transferred, and
the program into which funds are to be transferred.
(Note: If the State elects to notify ED of the transfer in this
document, the State's responses to the application's requests for
information should reflect the State's comprehensive plan after the
transfer. If the State has not elected to transfer funds at this
time, it may do so at a later date. To do so, the State must (1)
establish an effective date for the transfer, (2) notify the
Department (at least 30 days before the effective date of the
transfer) of its intention to transfer funds, and (3) submit the
resulting changes to the information previously submitted in the
State's consolidated application by 30 days after the effective date
of the transfer.)
Program Specific Fiscal Information
1. Title I, Part A--Improving Basic Programs Operated by LEAs
a. Identify the amount of the reservation in section 1003(a) for
school improvement that the State will use for State-level
activities and describe those activities.
b. For the 95 percent of the reservation in section 1003(a) that
must be made available to LEAs, describe how the SEA will allocate
funds to assist LEAs in complying with the school improvement,
corrective action, and restructuring requirements of section 1116
and identify any SEA requirements for use of those funds.
c. Identify what part, if any, of State administrative funds the
SEA will use for assessment development under ESEA section 1004, and
describe how those funds will be used.
d. Describe how the State will inform LEAs of the procedures
LEAs must use to distribute funds for schools to use for
supplemental services under section 1167(e)(7) and the procedures
for determining the amount to be used for this purpose.
e. Describe how the State will use formula funds awarded under
section 6113(b)(1) for the development and implementation of State
assessments in accordance with section 6111.
2. Title I, Part B--Even Start Family Literacy
Identify the amount of the reservation under subsection 1233(a)
that the State will use for each category of State-level activities
listed in that section, and describe how the SEA will carry out
those activities.
3. Title I, Part C--Education of Migratory Children
Identify the amount of funds that the SEA will retain from its
Migrant Education Program (MEP) allocation, under section 200.41 of
the Title I regulations (34 CFR 200.41), to carry out administrative
and program functions that are unique to the MEP, and describe how
the SEA will use those funds.
4. Title I, Part D--Children and Youth Who Are Neglected, Delinquent,
or At-Risk
Describe how the funds reserved under section 1418 will be used
for transition services for students leaving institutions for
schools served by LEAs, or postsecondary institutions or vocational
and technical training programs.
5. Title II, Part A--Teacher and Principal Training and Recruiting Fund
a. If applicable, of the one percent of the State's program
allocation that ESEA section 2113(d) makes available to both the SEA
and State agency for higher education (SAHE) for the costs of
administration and planning, identify the amount the two agencies
have agreed each agency will retain.
Note: In the absence of an agreement between the two agencies to
apportion the one-percent in another way, of this amount the
Department annually will award to the SAHE for administration and
planning the greater of--
1. The amount of FY 2001 funds it had received for
administration under the predecessor Title II, ESEA Eisenhower
Professional Development Program, or
2. Five percent of the amount available each year for subgrants
to partnerships under ESEA section 2113(a)(2).
The Department annually will award the remainder of the one-
percent of the State allocation to the SEA for its costs of
administration and planning. We will provide further guidance on
within-State allocations of Title II, Part A funds reserved for
administration in the guidance it is developing for the program.
b. Describe how the SEA will use funds reserved for State
activities described in ESEA section 2113(c) to meet the teacher
professional development and paraprofessional requirements in
section 1119.
6. Title III, Part A--English Language Acquisition and Language
Enhancement
a. Specify the percentage of the State's allotment that the
State will reserve and the percentage of the reserved funds that the
State will use for each of the following categories of State-level
activities: professional development; planning, evaluation,
administration, and interagency coordination; technical assistance;
and providing recognition to subgrantees that have exceeded their
annual measurable achievement objectives. A total amount not to
exceed 5 percent of the State's allotment may be reserved by the
State under ESEA section 3111(b)(2) to carry out one or more of
these categories of State-level activities.
b. Specify the percentage of the State's allotment that the
State will reserve for subgrants to eligible entities that have
experienced a significant increase in the percentage or number of
immigrant children and youth. A total amount not to exceed 15
percent of the State's allotment must be reserved by the State under
section 3114(d)(1) to award this type of subgrant.
c. Specify the number of limited English proficient children in
the State. (See definitions of ``child'' in ESEA section 3301(1),
and ``limited English proficient'' in section 9101(25).)
d. Specify the number of immigrant children and youth in the
State. (See definition of ``immigrant children and youth'' in ESEA
section 3301(6).)
Note: ESEA section 3111 requires that State allocations for the
Language Acquisition State grants be calculated on the basis of the
number of limited English proficient children in the State compared
to the number of such children in all States (80 percent) and the
number of immigrant children and youth in the State compared to the
number of such children and youth in all States (20 percent). The
Department plans to use data from the 2000 Census to calculate State
shares of limited English proficient students. However, these data
on limited English proficient students will not be available for all
States until September 2002. To ensure that States have access to
funds as soon as they are available, the Department will provide,
for FY 2002 only, an initial distribution of 50 percent of the funds
under the limited
[[Page 35978]]
English proficient portion of the formula based on State-reported
data. As soon as Census data become available, the Department will
recalculate and make final State allocations using 2000 Census data.
For the 20 percent of formula funds distributed to States based
on State shares of immigrant children and youth, the Department will
use the most recent State-reported data in allocating these funds.
Census does not collect data that can be used to calculate State
allocations for this part of the formula.
7. Title IV, Part A, Subpart 1, Section 4112(a)--Safe and Drug-Free
Schools and Communities: Reservation of State Funds for the Governor
a. The Governor may reserve up to 20 percent of the State's
allocation under this program to award competitive grants or
contracts. Identify the percentage of the State's allocation that is
to be reserved for the Governor's program.
b. The Governor may administer these funds directly or designate
an appropriate State agency to receive the funds and administer this
allocation. Provide the name of the entity designated to receive
these funds, contact information for that entity (the name of the
head of the designated agency, address, telephone number) and the
``DUNS'' number that should be used to award these funds.
8. Title IV, Part A, Subpart 2, Section 4126--Safe and Drug-Free
Schools and Communities: Community Service Grants
Describe how the SEA, after it has consulted with the Governor,
will use program funds to develop and implement a community service
program for suspended and expelled students.
9. Title V, Part A--Innovative Programs
a. In accordance with ESEA section 5112(a)(1), describe the
SEA's formula for distributing program funds to LEAs. Include
information on how the SEA will adjust its formula to provide higher
per-pupil allocations to LEAs that have the greatest numbers or
percentages of children whose education imposes a higher-than-
average cost per child, such as --
Children living in areas with concentrations
of economically disadvantaged families;
Children from economically disadvantaged
families; and
Children living in sparsely populated areas.
b. Identify the amount or percentage the State will reserve for
each State-level activity under section 5121, and describe the
activity.
Appendix D: Assurances
With its June 2002 submission, an SEA will need to include a
signed statement of its agreement to the following sets of
assurances and cross cutting declaration:
1. General and Cross-Cutting Assurances. Section 9304(a)
requires States to have on file with the Secretary, as part of their
consolidated application, a single set of assurances, applicable to
each program included in the consolidated application, that provide
that--
a. Each such program will be administered in accordance with all
applicable statutes, regulations, program plans, and applications;
b.i. The control of funds provided under each such program and
title to property acquired with program funds will be in a public
agency, a nonprofit private agency, institution, or organization, or
an Indian tribe, if the law authorizing the program provides for
assistance to those entities; and
b.ii. The public agency, nonprofit private agency, institution,
or organization, or Indian tribe will administer those funds and
property to the extent required by the authorizing law;
c. The State will adopt and use proper methods of administering
each such program, including--
i. The enforcement of any obligations imposed by law on
agencies, institutions, organizations, and other recipients
responsible for carrying out each program;
ii. The correction of deficiencies in program operations that
are identified through audits, monitoring, or evaluation; and
iii. The adoption of written procedures for the receipt and
resolution of complaints alleging violations of law in the
administration of the programs;
d. The State will cooperate in carrying out any evaluation of
each such program conducted by or for the Secretary or other Federal
officials;
e. The State will use such fiscal control and fund accounting
procedures as will ensure proper disbursement of, and accounting
for, Federal funds paid to the State under each such program;
f. The State will--
i. Make reports to the Secretary as may be necessary to enable
the Secretary to perform the Secretary's duties under each such
program; and
ii. Maintain such records, provide such information to the
Secretary, and afford such access to the records as the Secretary
may find necessary to carry out the Secretary's duties; and
g. Before the plan or application was submitted to the
Secretary, the State afforded a reasonable opportunity for public
comment on the plan or application and considered such comment.
2. ESEA Specific Assurances and Crosscutting Declaration. Each
SEA also must provide an assurance that it will--
a. Comply with all operational requirements of the ESEA programs
included in the consolidated application, whether the program
statute identifies these requirements as a description or assurance
that States would have addressed, absent this consolidated
application, in a program-specific plan or application, and
b. Maintain records of the State's compliance with each of those
requirements.
(Note: For the Safe and Drug-Free Schools programs, the SEA must
have all appropriate assurances from the Governor on record.)
Through the general assurance and assurance (1) in section
9304(a), the SEA agrees to comply with all requirements of the ESEA
and other applicable program statutes. While all requirements are
important, we have identified in the application package a number of
those to which we believe SEAs should pay particular attention in
order to ensure the effective use of ESEA program funds in promoting
increased student achievement. At the same time we stress that this
list of program-specific requirements that the SEA is assuring it
will meet is not exhaustive and that States are accountable for all
program requirements.
3. Cross-Cutting Declaration: Certification of Compliance with
Unsafe School Choice Option Requirements.
The State certifies that it has established and implemented a
Statewide policy requiring that students attending persistently
dangerous public elementary or secondary schools, as determined by
the State (in consultation with a representative sample of local
educational agencies), or who become victims of violent criminal
offenses, as determined by State law, while in or on the grounds of
public elementary and secondary schools that the students attend, be
allowed to choose to attend a different, safe public elementary or
secondary school (which may include a public charter school) within
the local educational agency.
Appendix E: Enhanced Assessment Instruments Competitive Grant Program
(Title VI, section 6112)--Program Information and Proposed Selection
Criteria
Overview. Proficiency on State assessments required under Title
I, Part A of the ESEA is the primary indicator in the ESEA of
student academic achievement and, hence, the primary measure of
State success in meeting the goals of No Child Left Behind. In view
of the critical importance of these State assessments, ESEA section
6111 provides formula grants to all SEAs, and section 6112
authorizes the Secretary to make competitive grant awards to State
educational agencies (SEAs) to help them enhance the quality of
assessment and accountability systems.
Because of the close relationship between this program and Title
I, Part A, section 6112 requires States wishing to apply for the
competitive portion of the State assessment grants to include their
applications for this program in the State plans they prepare under
Title I, Part A. For this reason, the Secretary has designated this
program for voluntary inclusion in a State's ESEA consolidated
application even though it is not a formula grant program. In doing
so, the Secretary establishes the following procedures and
requirements to govern this competition.
Eligible applicants. By law, all eligible applicants must be
SEAs or consortia of SEAs. An application from a consortium of SEAs
must designate one SEA as the fiscal agent.
Proposed Award Amounts and Timelines. The statute requires that
any funds appropriated in excess of the required amount for State
assessment formula allocations (section 6111) be allocated as
competitive grants. From the amount appropriated, approximately $17
million is available for the upcoming fiscal year 2002 competition.
Subject to the minimum size of award provided in section
6113(b)(2)(A)(ii) (which is based on a State's enrollment of
[[Page 35979]]
students ages 5-17), the Department estimates that it will make 20
awards ranging from $300,000 to $2,000,000, with an average size of
$850,000.
All applications must be submitted on or before September 15,
2002. We expect to issue grant awards by December 1, 2002. Project
periods will run until September 30, 2004.
Application requirements. Section 6112(a) requires that all
funded applications demonstrate that States (or consortia of States)
will--
1. Collaborate with institutions of higher education, other
research institutions, or other organizations to improve the
quality, validity, and reliability of State academic assessments
beyond the requirements for the assessments described in section
1111(b)(3) of Title I, Part A;
2. Measure student academic achievement using multiple measures
of student academic achievement from multiple sources;
3. Chart student progress over time; or
4. Evaluate student academic achievement through the development
of comprehensive academic assessment instruments, such as
performance and technology-based academic assessments.
Competitive preferences. Enhancing assessment instruments so
that they take into consideration alternatives for assessing
students with disabilities and limited English proficient students
is one of the pressing needs in the area of assessments. In
addition, the complexity of improving assessments calls for
collaborative efforts between and among states to yield approaches
that can be adapted in varied contexts and for effective
dissemination of results to increase the likelihood that the
projects funded will contribute to ongoing State efforts to improve
their assessment systems.
Toward those ends, the Secretary establishes the following
competitive preferences, and will award up to 35 points to an
applicant based on how well its application meets these preferences.
These preference points are in addition to points an applicant earns
under the selection criteria.
1. Accommodations and alternate assessments (20 points)
Applications that can be expected to advance practice significantly
in the area of increasing accessibility and validity of assessments
for students with disabilities or limited English proficiency, or
both, including strategies for test design, administration with
accommodations, scoring, and reporting.
2. Collaborative efforts (10 points) Applications that are
sponsored by a consortium of States.
3. Dissemination (5 points) Applications that include an
effective plan for dissemination of results.
Selection criteria. The Secretary establishes the following
criteria and weights authorized by sections 75.209-210 of the
Education Department General Administrative Regulations (EDGAR):
1. Need for the Project (10 points)
The magnitude and severity of the problem to
be addressed by the proposed project;
The extent to which the proposed project will
provide services or otherwise address the needs of students at risk
of educational failure; and
The extent to which the proposed project will
focus on serving or otherwise addressing the needs of disadvantaged
individuals.
2. Scope (10 points)
The extent to which the goals and objectives
to be achieved by the proposed project are clearly specified and
measurable, and
The extent to which the goals and objectives
are sufficiently broad to be likely to result in significant change
or improvement of one or more State assessment systems.
3. Significance (15 points)
The potential contribution of the proposed
project to increased knowledge or understanding of educational
problems, issues, or effective strategies;
The potential contribution of the proposed
project to the development and advancement of theory, knowledge, and
practices in the field of study;
The extent to which the proposed project is
likely to yield findings that may be used by other appropriate
agencies and organizations; and
The extent to which the proposed project
involves the development or demonstration of promising new
strategies that build on, or are alternatives to, existing
strategies.
4. Quality of Project Design (30 points)
The extent to which there is a conceptual
framework underlying the proposed research or demonstration
activities, and the quality of that framework;
The quality of the proposed design and
procedures for documenting project activities and results;
The extent to which the design for
implementing and evaluating the proposed project will result in
information to guide possible replication of project activities or
strategies, including information about the effectiveness of the
approach or strategies employed by the project;
The extent to which the proposed project is
designed to build capacity and yield results that will extend beyond
the period of Federal financial assistance;
The extent to which the design of the
proposed project reflects up-to-date knowledge from research and
effective practice;
The extent to which the proposed project
represents an exceptional approach for meeting statutory purposes
and requirements; and
The quality of the methodology to be employed
by the proposed project.
5. Quality of the Management Plan (5 points)
The adequacy of the management plan to
achieve the objectives of the proposed project on time and within
budget, including clearly defined responsibilities, timelines, and
milestones for accomplishing project tasks; and
The extent to which the time commitments of
the project director and principal investigator and other key
project personnel are appropriate and adequate to meet the
objectives of the proposed project.
6. Quality of Project Personnel (10 points)
The extent to which the applicant encourages
applications for employment from persons who are members of groups
that have traditionally been underrepresented based on race, color,
national origin, gender, age, or disability;
The qualifications, including relevant
training and experience, of the project director or principal
investigator;
The qualifications, including relevant
training and experience, of key project personnel; and
The qualifications, including relevant
training and experience, of project consultants or subcontractors.
7. Adequacy of Resources (10 points)
The adequacy of support, including
facilities, equipment, supplies, and other resources from the SEA or
the lead applicant SEA;
The relevance and demonstrated commitment of
each partner in the proposed project to the implementation and
success of the project; and
The extent to which the budget is adequate to
support the proposed project.
8. Quality of the Evaluation Plan (10 points)
The extent to which the methods of evaluation
are thorough, feasible, and appropriate to the goals, objectives,
and outcomes of the proposed project;
The extent to which the methods of evaluation
are appropriate to the context within which the project operates;
The extent to which the methods of evaluation
include the use of objective performance measures that are clearly
related to the intended outcomes of the project and will produce
quantitative and qualitative data to the extent possible; and
The extent to which the evaluation will
provide guidance about effective strategies suitable for replication
or testing in other situations.
Appendix F--Optional Interim Application for FY 2002 Funds Under the
Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants Program (Title
IV, Part A, Subpart 1)
The Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants
program authorizes States that desire to submit a program-specific
application for FY 2002 funds to do so in either of two ways. A
State may either submit (1) the comprehensive State application
described in ESEA section 4113(a) or (2) an interim application
that, under section 4113(b), offers the State an opportunity to
develop and submit the comprehensive application prior to its
receipt of fiscal year 2003 funds under the program.
Section 4113(b)(1) provides that the content of the interim
application must be consistent with the requirements of that section
of the law and contain the information that ``the Secretary may
specify in regulations.'' So that States may understand their
various options for applying for Safe and Drug-Free Schools and
Communities State Grants program, the
[[Page 35980]]
Department is using the vehicle of this notice to announce rules for
this interim program application for FY 2002 funds.
States that desire to use this interim application to apply for
FY 2002 Safe and Drug-Free Schools and Communities State Grants
program funds must submit the following:
A description of how the SEA will coordinate
the agency's activities under this subpart with the chief executive
office's drug and violence prevention programs and with the
prevention efforts of other State agencies and other programs, as
appropriate.
A statement of the State's performance
measures for drug and violence prevention programs and activities to
be funded under this grant, which will be focused on student
behavior and attitudes, derived from the State's needs assessment in
section 4113(a)(9). These indicators must be developed through
consultation between the State and local officials, and that
consists of performance indicators for drug and violence prevention
programs and activities, and levels of performance for each
indicator. The description must also include timelines for achieving
the levels of performance stated, details about what mechanisms the
State will use to collect data concerning the stated indicators, and
baseline data for indicators if they are available.
In its statement, the State must submit performance measures for
(1) the following indicator: the number of persistently dangerous
schools, as defined by the State, and for (2) other indicators that
it identifies as appropriate based on its analysis of need and its
comprehensive plan for use of funds:
A description of how the State educational
agency will review applications from local educational agencies,
including how the agency will receive input from parents in such
review.
A description of how the State educational
agency will monitor the implementation of activities and provide
technical assistance for local educational agencies, community-based
organizations, other public entities, and private organizations.
A description of how the chief executive
officer of the State will award funds under section 4112(a) and
implement a plan for monitoring the performance of, and providing
technical assistance to, grant recipients.
[FR Doc. 02-12865 Filed 5-21-02; 8:45 am]
BILLING CODE 4000-01-U