# Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria-Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) Program

> Briefs, arguments, decisions, and more.

URL: https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2012-14276

## Record

- **Collection:** Federal Register
- **Document type:** Notice
- **Published:** June 14, 2012
- **Citation:** 77 FR 35758

## Text

DEPARTMENT OF EDUCATION
[Docket ID ED-2012-OESE-0001]
RIN 1810-AB12
Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria—Teacher Incentive Fund (TIF) Program

AGENCY:

Office of Elementary and Secondary Education, Department of Education.

ACTION:

Notice.

CFDA Numbers: 84.374A and 84.374B

SUMMARY:

The Assistant Secretary for Elementary and Secondary Education announces priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria under the TIF program. The Assistant Secretary may use one or more of these priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for competitions in fiscal year (FY) 2012 and later years. We are taking this action so that TIF-funded performance-based compensation systems (PBCSs) will be successful and sustained mechanisms that contribute to continual improvement of instruction, to increases in teacher and principal effectiveness, and, ultimately, to improvements in student achievement in high-need schools. To accomplish these goals, we are establishing priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria that are designed to ensure that TIF grantees use high-quality LEA-wide evaluation and support systems that identify effective educators in order to improve instruction by informing performance-based compensation and other key human capital decisions.

DATES:

Effective Date:
These priorities, requirements, and definitions are effective July 16, 2012.

FOR FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT:

Miriam Lund, U.S. Department of Education, 400 Maryland Avenue SW., Room 3E245, Washington, DC 20202-6450. Telephone: (202) 401-2871 or by email:
miriam.lund@ed.gov.

If you use a telecommunications device for the deaf (TDD) or a text telephone (TTY), call the Federal Relay Service (FRS), toll free, at 1-800-877-8339.

SUPPLEMENTARY INFORMATION:

Purpose of Program:
The purpose of the TIF program is to support the development and implementation of sustainable PBCSs for teachers, principals, and other personnel in high-need schools in order to increase educator effectiveness and student achievement in those schools.

Program Authority:

The Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2012 (Division F, Title III of Pub. L. 112-74).

The Statutory Requirements

The Department's FY 2012 appropriation provides TIF funds for competitive grants to eligible entities to develop and implement PBCSs for teachers, principals, and other personnel in high-need schools. Eligible entities for these funds are:

(a) Local educational agencies (LEAs), including charter schools that are LEAs.

(b) States.

(c) Partnerships of—

(1) An LEA, a State, or both; and

(2) At least one nonprofit organization.

Eligible entities must use TIF funds to develop and implement, in high-need schools, a PBCS that—

(a) Considers gains in student academic achievement, as well as classroom evaluations conducted multiple times during each school year, among other factors; and

(b) Provides educators with incentives to take on additional responsibilities and leadership roles.

A grantee (1) must demonstrate that its PBCS is developed with the input of teachers and school leaders in the schools and LEAs that the grant will serve, and (2) may use TIF funds to develop or improve systems and tools that would enhance the quality and success of the PBCS, such as high-quality teacher evaluations and tools that measure growth in student achievement. In addition, an applicant must include a plan to sustain financially the activities conducted and the systems developed under the grant once the grant period has expired.

We published a notice of proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for this program in the
Federal Register
on February 29, 2012 (77 FR 12257) (NPP). The NPP contained background information and our reasons for proposing the particular priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.

There are differences between the NPP and this notice of final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria (NFP) as discussed in the
Major Changes in the Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria
and
Analysis of Comments and Changes
sections elsewhere in this notice.

Public Comment:
In response to our invitation in the NPP, 32 parties submitted comments on the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria. We used these comments to revise, improve, and clarify the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.

We group major issues according to subject and discuss other substantive issues under the title of the item to which they pertain. Generally, we do not address technical and other minor changes. In addition, we do not address general comments that raised concerns not directly related to the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, or selection criteria.

Major Changes in the Final Priorities, Requirements, Definitions, and Selection Criteria

In addition to minor technical and editorial changes, there are several substantive differences between the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria proposed in the NPP and the final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria that we establish in this notice. Those substantive changes are summarized in this section and discussed in greater detail in the
Analysis of Comments and Changes
section that follows.

Priorities

We have made the following changes to the priorities for this program:

• We have revised
Priority 2—LEA-Wide Educator Evaluation Systems Based, in Significant Part, on Student Growth,
to clarify that the LEA-wide evaluation system must use classroom-level growth data to evaluate teachers (as defined in this notice) with regular instructional responsibilities consistent with paragraph (2)(ii) of the priority. An applicant must use classroom-level growth, rather than school-level or grade-level growth, in significant part, when evaluating teachers with regular instructional responsibilities because we believe classroom-level student growth data is the most appropriate for evaluating the individual effectiveness of these teachers. If an applicant wishes to use school-level or grade-level growth to evaluate teachers with regular instructional responsibilities, it may do so, but the Department will consider the use of those data to be the use of “additional factors” under paragraph (2)(iii) of Priority 2.

• We have revised paragraph (2) of
Priority 3—Improving Student Achievement in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM
), to better align this priority with the language in
Selection Criterion (g)—Comprehensive Approach To Improving STEM Instruction.
With this change, while applicants will be required to describe how each participating LEA will identify and develop the unique competencies that characterize effective STEM teachers, they will not need to describe how those LEAs will evaluate those competencies to meet this priority.

• We have amended
Priority 4—New or Rural Applicants to the Teacher Incentive Fund,
(referred to as
Priority 4—New Applicants to the Teacher Incentive Fund in the NPP
) to give priority to projects serving rural LEAs (as defined in this notice). An applicant can meet this priority if it provides—and the Department accepts—an assurance that each LEA to be served by the project is a rural LEA or an LEA not served by a current or past TIF grant.

• We have revised
Priority 5—An Educator Salary Structure Based on Effectiveness,
by removing the language requiring applicants to propose a comprehensive revision to each participating LEA's salary structure. The revised priority no longer requires an applicant to describe the salary increase that educators (as defined in this notice) with an evaluation rating of effective or higher would receive, or how TIF funds used for salary increases would be used only to support the additional cost of the revised salaries. Instead, the priority now requires that the applicant propose a timeline for implementing a salary structure based on educator effectiveness, and describe the extent to which and how each LEA will use overall evaluation ratings to determine educator salaries as well as how TIF funds will support the salary structure based on effectiveness in high-need schools identified in response to
Requirement 3—Documentation of High-Need Schools.
While we have eased the application requirements related to this priority, to implement their new salary structures many applicants after award will need to design and implement comprehensive revisions to their salary structures. Further, we have amended the priority to require applicants to describe the feasibility of implementing the proposed salary structure and by removing language requiring that implementation begin no later than the third year of the project period.

Requirements

We have made the following changes to the requirements for this program:

• We have revised
Requirement 5—Limitations on Multiple Applications,
to specify that an LEA may participate in no more than one application in any fiscal year, an SEA may participate in no more than one group application for the General TIF Competition and no more than one group application for the TIF Competition with a Focus on STEM in any fiscal year, and a nonprofit organization may participate in multiple group applications under either one or both competitions in any fiscal year.

• We have revised
Requirement 6—Use of TIF Funds to Support the PBCS,
to clarify that TIF funds may be used to support the costs of both salaries and salary augmentations for teachers who take on additional responsibilities and leadership roles (as defined in this notice), including career ladder positions (as defined in this notice), up to the salary cost of 1 full-time equivalent position for every 12 teachers who are not in a career ladder position in the high-need schools (as defined in this notice) identified in response to
Requirement 3—Documentation of High-Need Schools.
Further, we have added an exception to the limitation on educator compensation to allow applicants to compensate educators who attend TIF-supported professional development outside of official duty hours.

Definitions

• We have defined “rural local educational agency”, to mean an LEA that is eligible under the Small Rural School Achievement program or the Rural and Low-Income School program authorized under Title VI, Part B of the ESEA.

Selection Criteria

We have made the following changes to the selection criteria for this program:

• We have amended
Selection Criterion (a)(2)(iii)—A Coherent and Comprehensive Human Capital Management System,
to evaluate the feasibility of an applicant's proposed human capital management system (HCMS) (as defined in this notice) based, in part, on any applicable LEA-level policies that might inhibit or facilitate the use of educator effectiveness as a factor in human capital decisions.

• We have amended
Selection Criterion (b)(2)(ii)—Rigorous, Valid, and Reliable Educator Evaluation Systems
to evaluate the quality of each participating LEA's evaluation system based, in part, on the evidence provided by an applicant to demonstrate the rigor and comparability of the assessment tools used for educator evaluation.

• We have amended
Selection Criterion (c)—Professional Development Systems To Support the Needs of Teachers and Principals Identified Through the Evaluation Process,
to evaluate the quality of each participating LEA's plan for professional development based, in part, on the extent to which the plan provides for school-based, job-embedded opportunities for educators to transfer new knowledge into practice.

Analysis of Comments and Changes:
An analysis of the comments and of any changes in the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria since publication of the NPP follows.

General Comments

Comment:
Several commenters expressed strong support for the TIF program, as outlined in the NPP, both for its overall effort to improve evaluation, to provide educators with support, and to provide additional compensation for effective educators and for specific components of the NPP, including the emphasis on STEM under
Priority 3—Improving Student Achievement in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM).

Discussion:
The Department appreciates the support of these commenters for the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria proposed in the NPP.

Changes:
None.

Comment:
Several commenters recommended designations of absolute, competitive preference, or invitational for the proposed priorities.

Discussion:
The Department appreciates these recommendations, and has considered them in developing the notice inviting applications for the fiscal year 2012 TIF competition (NIA). To preserve future flexibility to adjust priority designations as needed to better serve the needs of LEAs, the Department is not designating in this notice whether priorities are absolute, competitive preference, or invitational.

Changes:
None.

Comment:
We received several comments regarding the LEA-wide provisions, such as
Priority 1—An LEA-Wide Human Capital Management System (HCMS) With Educator Evaluation Systems at the Center
and
Priority 2—LEA-Wide Educator Evaluation Systems Based, in Significant Part, on Student Growth,
included in the NPP. One commenter expressed support for Priority 1, and recommended that we designate it as absolute. According to the commenter, the priority underscores the importance of comprehensive approaches to human capital management and takes advantage of economies of scale in promoting LEA-wide strategies.

However, several commenters opposed the LEA-wide provisions in Priority 1 and Priority 2, and requested that we remove from the notice any requirement that applicants implement LEA-wide human capital management and educator evaluation systems. One commenter stated that it would be premature to require LEAs to undertake LEA-wide human capital management

reform while also working to implement a new PBCS. Another commenter argued that LEA-wide requirements may discourage LEAs from attempting new reforms. According to this and other commenters, pilot efforts are a preferable alternative to requiring LEA-wide reform because pilot efforts introduce change in manageable steps, and LEAs are often willing to bring reforms to scale after implementing a pilot demonstration.

Further, one commenter argued against requiring an LEA-wide evaluation system and PBCS, because, according to the commenter, performance-based compensation and evaluation reforms work best for high-need schools when they provide opportunities to educators in those schools that are not also available to educators in non-high-need schools.

Finally, some commenters expressed concern that an LEA-wide approach may encourage applicants to abandon rigorous measures of educator buy-in, such as teacher votes, in favor of less rigorous measures. One commenter expressed concern that Priority 1 promotes a top-down approach to human capital management reform, when, according to the commenter, these efforts are most effectively driven by teachers. One commenter predicted that these provisions would essentially eliminate applications from strong union areas.

Discussion:
As noted in the NPP, we believe that, to be successful and sustainable, any PBCS must be an integral part of an HCMS that is well-designed and implemented LEA-wide. In the absence of sustainable, LEA-wide educator evaluation systems that focus on educator effectiveness and underlie key parts of the LEA's HCMS, the TIF-supported PBCS is not likely to be sustainable. For this reason, we believe it to be both reasonable and advantageous to require LEAs to undertake, under
Priority 1—An LEA-wide Human Capital Management System (HCMS) With Educator Evaluation Systems at the Center
and
Priority 2—LEA-wide Educator Evaluation Systems Based, in Significant Part, on Student Growth,
LEA-wide human capital management reforms that support each LEA's PBCSs. Further, while we agree that pilot projects may provide an LEA with the opportunity to explore the benefits of an innovative approach, and may create the possibility for long-term, large-scale implementation, we disagree with the assertion that the LEA-wide implementation requirements in this notice will discourage LEAs from attempting reform. We have designed the priorities, requirements, and definitions included in this notice to align with the provisions of the Department's Elementary and Secondary Education Act of 1965, as amended (ESEA) Flexibility initiative. Under that initiative, States that receive flexibility must agree to implement LEA-wide educator evaluation systems, and, to date, the Department has received 38 requests from States for flexibility and has granted 11 requests. Based on our experience with the ESEA Flexibility initiative, we believe that requiring LEA-wide implementation will further, rather than inhibit, LEA reform efforts.

While we wish to clarify that nothing in this notice requires applicants to implement an LEA-wide PBCS, we disagree with the assertion that an LEA-wide PBCS and evaluation system would provide fewer benefits to high-need schools than would a smaller-scale implementation plan that focuses solely on high-need schools. To the contrary, we believe that an LEA-wide evaluation system will strengthen the capacity of high-need schools, which are the only schools that may implement a TIF-funded PBCS, to use performance-based compensation to identify and attract educators from other schools in an LEA. Further, for an applicant that proposes to expand its PBCS to educators in non-high-need schools in the LEA, using non-TIF funds, nothing in this notice would preclude the applicant from designing its PBCSs to offer educators in high-need schools larger salary augmentations than those educators in non-high-need schools.

With regard to educator evaluation reform, we believe that evaluation systems are more likely to receive the broad LEA commitment that is crucial to their success and sustainability if those systems are used to evaluate every educator within the LEA. We designed the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria in this notice so that applications will be evaluated based on the extent to which the proposed project has educator involvement and support. Therefore, applicants will be less likely to receive funding if they abandon rigorous measures of teacher buy-in or use a top-down approach to project development and implementation that does not include high-quality teacher and principal involvement. Furthermore, we disagree with the assertion that the LEA-wide provisions included in this notice will inhibit unionized LEAs from applying. The Department believes that for those LEAs the process for securing widespread, high-quality educator support is more straightforward than for LEAs where unions are not designated as the exclusive representative of educators for the purposes of collective bargaining.

For these reasons, the Department declines to revise the provisions in Priorities 1 and 2 that require applicants to implement an LEA-wide HCMS and educator evaluation systems.

Changes:
None.

Comment:
One commenter noted that it may be difficult for charter school consortia to satisfy
Priority 1—An LEA-Wide HCMS With Educator Evaluation Systems at the Center.
The commenter expressed concern that, because charter schools are LEAs, we would require each charter school to develop its own HCMS.

Discussion:
For charter-school LEAs, the HCMS described in response to
Priority 1—An LEA-Wide HCMS With Educator Evaluation Systems at the Center
must apply to the entire charter school, but, depending on the organization of the charter consortia or the involvement of a charter management organization, the HCMS may extend to more than one charter school. In the case of a charter-school LEA consortium with a single shared HCMS, an applicant could describe how the various components of the HCMS apply to each charter-school LEA, and would not need to implement a separate HCMS for each individual charter school.

Changes:
None.

Comment:
One commenter stated that there is insufficient evidence that evaluation systems are ready for large-scale implementation, and no evidence that evaluation systems are more important for school improvement than other investments. This commenter argued that we can help LEAs to implement educator incentive programs without requiring evaluation systems, which, according to the commenter, will be unsustainable without continued Federal assistance.

Discussion:
The Department rejects the contention that there is insufficient evidence that reformed educator evaluation systems can be implemented at scale; the current efforts of numerous States and LEAs to reform their evaluation systems provide ample evidence of the viability of this strategy. The Department also does not agree that it would be worthwhile to invest in educator incentive programs that are not linked to a comprehensive educator evaluation system that meaningfully differentiates educator performance. Performance-based compensation systems (as defined in this notice) that are disconnected from an LEA's official evaluation system have proven difficult

to sustain and require a costly and burdensome duplication of effort.

Changes:
None.

Comment:
A few commenters stated that our encouragement of LEA-wide performance systems was laudable, but unrealistic, as TIF provides funding for only a portion of an LEA's schools. Further, one commenter argued that implementing LEA-wide educator evaluation systems would place a large financial burden on LEAs during tight budget times.

Discussion:
TIF funds may be used for the development or improvement of systems and tools that would enhance the quality and success of the PBCS and benefit the entire LEA. TIF is, therefore, a potential source of funding for LEAs seeking to reform their HCMS and educator evaluation systems in what one commenter noted are tight budget times. With these and other resources, we believe that the development and implementation of LEA-wide performance systems is a very attainable goal.

Changes:
None.

Comment:
A few commenters noted that the LEA-wide provisions in this notice would favor small districts, charter schools, and charter management organizations over large districts because larger districts would face difficulty securing the educator support and outreach needed for implementation. To avoid penalizing larger LEAs, one commenter recommended that we relax the LEA-wide provisions of the notice to allow LEAs to participate if a substantial number of their schools, to be determined by the Department, agree to participate in the TIF-supported PBCS.

Discussion:
The Department does not agree that the LEA-wide provisions in this notice disadvantage large districts. Larger LEAs typically have greater human capital, technology, and other resources needed to implement the systemic reforms promoted by the TIF program than smaller LEAs have. We also note that, to address difficulties in implementation in any type of LEA, we permit the LEA-wide educator evaluation system requirements to be phased in over time, with full implementation required at the beginning of the third project year. We decline to accept the commenter's recommendation that the Department permit an LEA to implement reformed educator evaluation systems on a non-LEA-wide basis because this approach would not result in the system-wide change we believe is necessary to support the sustainability and success of the TIF-funded PBCS.

Changes:
None.

Comment:
Two commenters recommended that we amend the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria so as to more strongly emphasize educator development and support as the central purpose of human capital management. One of the commenters suggested that we amend paragraph (3) of
Priority 1—An LEA-Wide Human Capital Management System (HCMS) With Educator Evaluation Systems at the Center,
to require applicants to describe human capital strategies the LEA uses or will use to ensure that high-need schools are able to support effective teachers. Further, the commenter recommended that we add a new paragraph in Priority 2 to require applicants to describe how the LEA's evaluation systems will be used to identify and address the professional development needs of educators.

A second commenter stated that evidence-based professional development is more effective in improving student outcomes than performance-based compensation, and, therefore, should be the foundation of proposed HCMSs. According to this commenter, an HCMS should focus on diagnosing areas in need of improvement, providing timely and targeted professional development to address those areas, and monitoring progress to ensure the success of educators and students. Further, this commenter noted that punitive HCMS that focus on educator dismissal are ineffective for promoting educator competency or student growth.

Discussion:
The Department fully agrees that professional development must be a key component of any HCMS, and that evaluation systems are critical tools that should guide LEA- and school-level decisions regarding instructional supports. In this notice, as in the NPP, we clarify that a well-designed HCMS, including the evaluation system supporting it, must be aligned with the LEA's vision of instructional improvement (as defined in this notice) that summarizes: (1) The key competencies and behaviors of effective teaching needed to produce high levels of student achievement, and (2) how educators acquire or improve these competencies and behaviors. Accordingly, the Department believes that LEA-wide evaluation systems aligned with this vision are an extremely valuable tool for professional development and improvement. When the evaluation rubrics used in these systems include the key competencies the LEA has identified in its vision of instructional improvement, the feedback and professional learning inherent in the evaluation process will give all educators a clearer understanding of what the LEA has identified as the key competencies needed to be effective educators. Given these linkages between evaluation, professional development, and vision of instructional improvement that are provided for in this notice, we believe it is unnecessary to modify the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria to further highlight the use of evaluation information for providing educator support.

The Department disagrees with the second commenter's assertion that professional development alone is more effective in improving student outcomes than a PBCS that recognizes and rewards educators who have an impact on student achievement. Rather, it is the Department's view that student outcomes are most likely to improve when an LEA implements a coherent and comprehensive HCMS that is aligned to its vision of instructional improvement and that integrates both professional development and a PBCS.

Changes:
None.

Comment:
Three commenters provided feedback regarding the timeline for implementing TIF-funded projects that was included in the NPP. One commenter recommended that we revise the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria so that the first year of a TIF-funded project's implementation would take place in 2013-2014 following an optional planning period of one year. The commenter stated that this shift in the timeline would be appropriate given that the Department is likely to award grants during the most difficult time of year for applicants to begin implementation. A second commenter encouraged us to allow LEAs to pilot evaluation systems in a sample of schools prior to full implementation, rather than require LEAs to fully implement the evaluation systems in all schools simultaneously. A third commenter expressed support for the timeline for implementing of the evaluation system, and stated that the requirements provided applicants with adequate time to gain competence in building and using the new evaluation system before the LEA uses the evaluations to make decisions.

Discussion:
Under the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria, a grantee must begin the implementation of its TIF project at the beginning of the first year of the project period. However, we have included provisions in
Priority 1—An LEA-Wide HCMS With Educator Evaluation Systems at the Center
and

Priority 2—LEA-Wide Educator

Evaluation Systems Based, in Significant Part, on Student Growth

to allow grantees to delay the implementation of certain components of their projects. For example, under Priority 2, a grantee must implement its proposed evaluation system in at least a subset of an LEA's schools, as the official system for assigning overall evaluation ratings, by no later than the beginning of the second year of the project period. Because LEA-wide implementation would not need to begin for another year, we believe that the flexibility included in these priorities already addresses the concerns raised by the commenter because it allows for implementation of the LEA-wide evaluation system over a long period of time.

Further, the Department understands that the implementation of effective and sustained TIF-funded PBCSs requires substantial effort on the part of its grantees. For this reason, applicants under a TIF competition using the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria in this notice will be asked to provide additional information regarding their capacity for implementation (e.g., on the extent to which they have developed their evaluation system rubric, and on the extent to which they have obtained educator support), which will allow reviewers to evaluate the strength of their applications. Applicants will also provide timelines for their projects to satisfy the provisions of Priority 1 and Priority 2; these timelines will better meet local needs than would a uniform planning period for all grantees. For these reasons, we decline to allow applicants an optional planning period prior to implementation.

Changes:
None.

Comment:
A few commenters encouraged us to require that applicants use performance measures that are valid and reliable for use in educator evaluation, while one commenter stressed that performance measures should be validated and found reliable for each type of human capital decision prior to their use for that decision.

Discussion:
The Department believes that the validity and reliability of performance measures for the determination of educator effectiveness are key for maintaining the credibility of the measures, first, among stakeholders who will use them to inform their practice and manage human capital, and, second, among the educators affected by the outcome of the evaluation using the measures and any consequences or rewards that follow. With this in mind, the Department will evaluate applicants, under
Selection Criterion (b)(2)—Rigorous, Valid, and Reliable Educator Evaluation Systems,
based on the extent to which they have provided (1) a clear rationale to support their approach to differentiating performance levels based on the level of student growth (as defined in this notice) achieved and (2) evidence, such as current research and best practices, that supports the LEA's choice of student growth models and demonstrates the rigor and comparability of assessment tools. Further, the Department will evaluate applicants, under Selection Criterion (b)(3), based on the extent to which they have made substantial progress in developing a high-quality plan for multiple teacher and principal (as defined in this notice) observations, including the procedures for ensuring a high-degree of inter-rater reliability.

We do not believe it is necessary to require that measures validated for use in evaluation be validated further for use in other human capital decisions. Rather, once measures are used to develop an educator's overall evaluation rating, we expect that the rating will be used to inform other human capital decisions in accordance with the LEA's vision of instructional improvement.

Changes:
None.

Comment:
We received many comments regarding the use of student growth measures to inform human capital decisions, such as the requirement, under
Priority 2—LEA-wide Educator Evaluation Systems Based, in Significant Part, on Student Growth,
to use these measures as a significant factor in educator evaluation systems. Three commenters expressed support for the use of student growth for informing educator evaluation, though one stated that student growth should not be used for other types of human capital decisions, including decisions regarding compensation.

One commenter stated that student growth should be introduced gradually into educator evaluation systems, and that both the weight given to student growth and the prevalence of its use among educators should increase following the availability of new assessments for evaluating educators and the availability of professional development aligned with the evaluation system.

Several other commenters expressed concern that the NPP relied excessively on indicators of student achievement and student growth as predictors of teacher and principal effectiveness, and offered arguments against the use of student growth to inform human capital management. One commenter, in particular, recommended that we neither require nor encourage the use of student growth in educator evaluation, and advised that we, at most, allow grantees the option of incorporating student growth into educator evaluation. A few commenters stated that the NPP put a disproportionate weight on student growth as compared with performance measures that the commenters regarded as more reliable, such as classroom observations and student surveys.

The commenters provided a number of arguments against the use of student growth. First, a few commenters cautioned against the use of value-added measures due to inaccuracy, bias, instability, and lack of precision, while others cautioned against the use of student growth, irrespective of the model used, for any human capital decision-making, including for evaluation. Second, commenters argued that the use of student growth for human capital decisions would make educators reluctant to teach or enroll English learners, students with disabilities, students of color, low-income students, and students connected with either child welfare or released from juvenile detention, or otherwise encourage educators to push students out of school using formal disenrollment, discouragement, or the excessive and disparate use of discipline. Third, some commenters stressed that an emphasis on student growth would encourage educators to teach to the test, engage in cheating behaviors, and narrow the scope of the curriculum offered to students.

Discussion:
To meet
Priority 2—LEA-Wide Educator Evaluation Systems Based, in Significant Part, on Student Growth,
an applicant must describe its timeline for implementing its proposed LEA-wide educator evaluation systems. Consistent with this priority, an applicant must implement the evaluation system for at least a subset of educators or in at least a subset of schools no later than the beginning of the second year of the grant's project period, and must use the evaluation system to evaluate all educators in the LEA by no later than the beginning of the third year of the grant's project period. We find this timeline, which allows for gradual implementation, to be consistent with the recommendation presented by one of the commenters. However, from the start of this implementation, each educator's overall evaluation rating must be based, in significant part, on student growth. We believe that student growth data is a meaningful measure of educator effectiveness and that its use in TIF projects is wholly consistent with the

statutory requirement that TIF-funded PBCSs consider gains in student academic achievement. We wish to clarify for the commenters that, for the purposes of this notice, “student growth” means the change in student achievement for an individual student between two or more points in time, and, further, that nothing in this notice requires an applicant to use value-added measures to assess student growth.

Furthermore, student growth is just one of the multiple measures that are required under the rigorous, valid, and reliable educator evaluation systems required under Priority 2; this priority also requires two or more observations during each evaluation period and the use of additional factors determined by the LEA. While the Department agrees with commenters that student growth should not be used in isolation to make human capital management decisions, we also believe that student growth, as a meaningful measure of effectiveness, should be weighed significantly when making a number of human capital decisions, including decisions on professional development and performance-based compensation. The Department further believes that, from the start of the evaluation system's implementation, including student growth as one of multiple measures is important so that human capital decisions, such as those regarding professional development, are based upon a range of measures and do not consider any one measure in isolation. We believe the use of multiple measures, as provided for under Priority 2, ensures that no one measure is relied upon disproportionately, as some commenters fear might occur.

Further, the use of multiple measures is essential to evaluate educators based on a range of important measures, beyond student achievement, so that they may improve instruction for students with diverse learning needs and provide all students with a well-rounded, complete education that will prepare them for college and a career. Accordingly, the Department will evaluate applicants, under paragraphs (5) and (6) of
Selection Criterion (b)—Rigorous, Valid, and Reliable Educator Evaluation Systems,
based on whether the proposed educator evaluation systems evaluate the practice of teachers and principals in meeting the needs of special student populations, such as students with disabilities and English learners. While we find it worthwhile to highlight the needs of these two student subgroups, we would encourage applicants to consider how their evaluation systems might assess the competencies and behaviors of teachers, principals, and other personnel (as defined in this notice) so as to improve the capacity of school staff to instruct and support various types of students. In response to the commenters' concerns regarding school pushout and excessive or disparate use of discipline, we believe that the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria in this notice provide applicants with a unique opportunity to build comprehensive and robust evaluation systems that may monitor for these behaviors and provide the professional development that teachers and principals need to end these practices. In particular, we encourage applicants to consider how the “additional factors” requirement, under paragraph (2)(iii) of Priority 2, will allow for comprehensive assessments.

Regarding the comments about the use of standardized tests and potentially encouraging dishonest behavior among educators, the Department strongly disagrees with the notion that the existence of cheating or “teaching to the test” reflects on the merits of standardized testing or the use of standardized test data for accountability purposes. Instead, cheating robs students of their fair shot at a world-class education, and cheating reflects a willingness to lie at children's expense to avoid accountability. It is the Department's belief that standardized testing is no more vulnerable to cheating behaviors than other forms of instructional accountability; rather, under any educational performance assessment designed for either schools or educators, we must work to develop high-quality, rigorous assessment tools and work to ensure that performance metrics are fair, transparent, and rigorous.

Lastly, we disagree with the commenters' assertion that the use of student growth in educator evaluation, as provided for in the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria included in this notice, may lead to a narrowing of student curriculum. To meet Priority 2, an applicant must propose LEA-wide educator evaluation systems that generate an overall evaluation rating for every teacher in the LEA, irrespective of grade or subject taught and in accordance with applicable State and local definitions of “teacher”. Because TIF funds may be used, under
Requirement 6—Use of TIF Funds to Support the PBCS,
to develop and improve systems and tools, such as assessments, that support the PBCS and benefit the entire LEA, TIF presents a unique opportunity for applicants to modify their existing evaluation systems so that they properly account for the full range of curriculum, be it math instruction, health instruction, arts instruction, or instruction in other subjects. It is our belief that the priorities and requirements in this notice will encourage applicants to design evaluation systems that use a range of performance assessments, both in subjects in which assessments are required and not required under section 1111(b)(3) of ESEA, to evaluate educator effectiveness. Therefore, there is no reason to assume that the use of student growth, as a factor in determining overall evaluation ratings, will lead to a narrowing of student curriculum.

Changes:
None.

Comment:
Four commenters recommended that we invest in research related to the impact of various human capital management decisions on educators and students. One commenter encouraged us to invest in research on effective, evaluation-driven professional development. Another commenter expressed support for the continued evaluation of TIF-funded projects. Two other commenters requested that we conduct research to determine whether performance-based compensation has had disparate impact, considering graduation rates and disciplinary action, on students of color, students from low-income communities, English learners, or students with disabilities.

Discussion:
The Department recognizes that there are many aspects of performance-based compensation and human capital management systems in LEAs and schools that would benefit from additional research. The Department will continue to look to recommendations from the field, such as those made by the commenters, when determining which research questions are of the greatest significance.

Changes:
None.

Comment:
One commenter strongly opposed the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria due to a concern that, according to the commenter, they would directly affect issues and provisions that are subject to collective bargaining under State statutes. The commenter stated that the proposed action may encourage applicants to circumvent the provisions of collectively bargained agreements, where they exist, or exclude stakeholders from providing ongoing input into subjects governed by these provisions. A second commenter recommended that we require that the elements of the applicant's proposed HCMS, including the student growth measures and their use for human capital management, be collectively bargained where unions have been

designated the exclusive representative of educators for the purposes of collective bargaining.

Discussion:
The Department frequently issues regulations that may impact education-related matters that are subject to collective bargaining. Further, we disagree with the commenter's speculation that the TIF program may encourage applicants to circumvent the provisions of collectively bargained agreements or exclude stakeholders from providing ongoing input into subjects governed by these provisions. To the contrary, applicants must provide evidence that educator involvement in the design of the PBCS and the educator evaluation systems has been extensive and will continue to be extensive during the grant period. To clarify the relationship between other Federal, State, and local laws and the regulations that govern the TIF program, we have added a “Note” to
Requirement 2—Involvement and Support of Teachers and Principals
to inform applicants of their responsibilities if they become grantees under the TIF program. The note states that it is the responsibility of the grantee to ensure that, in observing the rights, remedies, and procedures afforded school or school district employees under Federal, State, or local laws (including applicable regulations or court orders) or under terms of collective bargaining agreements, memoranda of understanding, or other agreements between those employees and their employers, the grantee also remains in compliance with the priorities, requirements, and definitions included in this notice. The note goes on to clarify that in the event that a grantee is unable to comply with these priorities, requirements, and definitions, the Department may take appropriate enforcement action (e.g., discontinue support for the project).

With regard to the request that we require that the elements of an applicant's HCMS, including student growth measures and their use, be collectively bargained, we decline to make this change because we believe it would constitute inappropriate Federal involvement in local matters.

Changes:
We have added a
Note
to Requirement 2 that clarifies the relationship between existing Federal, State, and local law and collective bargaining agreements and similar agreements between employees and employers, and the priorities, requirements, and definitions established in this notice.

Comment:
Five commenters opposed the Department using Federal funds to support performance-based compensation. These commenters stated that there is a lack of evidence demonstrating that additional educator compensation results in improved academic outcomes for students. Of these commenters, four also objected to funding performance-based compensation systems due to concerns that a PBCS might encourage teachers and principals to push struggling and at-risk youth out of their classrooms and schools.

Discussion:
The Department acknowledges the concerns raised by these commenters, and continues to invest in the research to assess the impact of performance-based compensation systems on student growth and educator behavior. However, in The Department of Education Appropriations Act, 2012 (Division F, Title III of Public Law 112-74), Congress authorized and appropriated funding for the TIF program specifically to support the development and use of PBCSs in high-need schools. Through the TIF program, the Department is implementing the provisions of this law.

Changes:
None.

Comment:
Two commenters recommended that the Department revise the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria to promote evidence-based programs. These commenters stated that, in making these changes, we would encourage applicants to direct their scarce resources toward programs that are evidence-based, sustainable, and scalable.

Discussion:
The Department fully agrees that applicants should use TIF funds to support evidence-based, sustainable, and scalable approaches for improving educator effectiveness. To meet
Priority 1—An LEA-Wide HCMS With Educator Evaluation Systems at the Center
and
Priority 2—LEA-Wide Educator Evaluation Systems Based, in Significant Part, on Student Growth,
applicants must implement an LEA-wide HCMS, including LEA-wide evaluation systems, which will support the implementation of a PBCS to be implemented in high-need schools under the grant. As mentioned elsewhere in this notice, it is the Department's belief that these LEA-wide systems will support the sustainability and scalability of all TIF-funded PBCSs. Moreover, we also intend, under
Selection Criterion (f)—Sustainability,
to award points to applicants that develop a feasible sustainability plan that identifies non-TIF resources that would support the PBCS and evaluations systems during and after the grant period. As Congress has authorized and appropriated funding for the TIF program specifically to support the development and implementation of PBCSs in high-need schools, we encourage applicants to embed evidence-based approaches into their plans to evaluate, develop, and reward educators as they respond to the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria in this notice. Under
Selection Criterion (b)—Rigorous, Valid, and Reliable Educator Evaluation Systems,
in particular, we intend to award points to those applicants that provide evidence supporting the LEA's (or LEAs') selection of student growth models and assessments, and to those applicants that have made substantial progress in developing procedures for ensuring a high-degree of inter-rater reliability between observers. For these reasons, we do not believe any changes are necessary; we believe that that priorities and selection criteria already address the concerns raised by the commenters.

Changes:
None.

Comment:
Two commenters requested that the Department further clarify the local match requirements applicable to this program.

Discussion:
Nothing in the NPP or this notice requires applicants to provide a non-Federal or non-TIF match, local or otherwise, for their TIF projects. That said, it is true that we have designed the selection criteria to award points to applicants that will leverage non-TIF funds to support their projects. We have done this in view of the statutory requirement that applications for TIF grants include a plan to sustain financially the activities conducted and systems developed under the grant once the grant period has ended, and because we believe that applicants should work to ensure that TIF-funded PBCSs, and the evaluation systems that support them, are themselves sustainable. Specifically, under
Selection Criterion (f)—Sustainability,
we will award points to applicants that develop a feasible sustainability plan that identifies non-TIF resources that will be used to support the PBCS and evaluations systems during and after the grant period. In addition, for applicants applying to the TIF Competition with a Focus on STEM, under
Selection Criterion (g)—Comprehensive Approach to Improving STEM Instruction,
we will award points to applicants that propose to significantly leverage STEM-related funds across other Federal, State, and local programs when implementing a high-quality and comprehensive STEM plan.

Changes:
None.

Comment:
One commenter encouraged us to safeguard the privacy of educators, and the integrity of performance evaluations, by taking a stand against the publishing of individual evaluation data. The commenter expressed concern that providing individual evaluation data to the public injures the professional relationship needed to conduct meaningful evaluations and provide substantive feedback to educators. Further, in cases where evaluation systems are still under development, the data may not yet provide an accurate assessment of individual effectiveness.

Discussion:
While the Department acknowledges the concerns raised by the commenter, we decline to address the release of individual educator's evaluation data in this notice. The release of this type of data is governed by State or local law and policies. We believe that directing grantees to release or withhold this type of information would constitute inappropriate Federal involvement in State and local matters.

Changes:
None.

Comment:
One commenter recommended that, in funding TIF applications, we give priority to applicant capacity over the quality of project design or project scope, and fund those applicants that can demonstrate the capacity to implement high-quality project design or project scope above applicants without this capacity.

Discussion:
While the Department fully agrees that TIF should support applicants that have the capacity to implement an effective and sustainable PBCS, we also believe it is important to encourage applicants to propose high-quality project designs. For example, under
Selection Criterion (a)(2)(iii)—A Coherent and Comprehensive Human Capital Management System,
we will evaluate applications based on the extent to which the participating LEAs have experience using evaluation data to inform human capital decision-making. Further, under
Selection Criterion (b)(3)—Rigorous, Valid, and Reliable Educator Evaluation Systems,
we will award points to those applications that demonstrate that the participating LEAs have made substantial progress in developing a high-quality plan for completing multiple teacher and principal observations. Lastly, we have devoted all of
Selection Criterion (e)—Project Management
to project management, and will give points to applicants that have carefully considered issues such as staff and timeline for implementation.

Further, we do not designate in this notice the point values for these selection criteria. With this approach, we retain the flexibility to adjust the point allocation in future TIF competitions to achieve the appropriate balance between capacity for implementation and quality of project design in any given year. For the 2012 competition, the Department has considered the commenter's recommendations in designating point values in the NIA.

Changes:
None.

Comment:
One commenter requested that we broaden the eligibility requirements for the TIF program to allow more schools and LEAs to participate in TIF-funded projects. Specifically, the commenter stated that we should allow schools and LEAs located in economically depressed counties (
i.e.,
counties identified by the U.S. Department of Commerce as having a per-capita personal income below the national average, below the State average, and ranked in the bottom twenty-five percent of counties within the State in per-capita income) to be eligible for TIF funding. The commenter stated that, by broadening eligibility in this way, TIF could better assist high-need areas where Federal aid participation is low due to the cultural stigma associated with public assistance.

Discussion:
While we acknowledge the concerns raised by the commenter, we decline to change the definition of
high-need school
or otherwise change the eligibility requirements. Congress has authorized and appropriated funding for the TIF program specifically to support the development and use of PBCSs in high-need schools, as opposed to schools in high-need regions, and has designated all LEAs that have those schools as entities eligible to receive TIF funds.

Changes:
None.

Comment:
Two commenters requested that we clarify the implications of the priorities for nonprofit applicants. Specifically, the commenters asked (1) whether, for the purposes of
Priority 1—An LEA-Wide HCMS With Educator Evaluation Systems at the Center, Priority 2—LEA-Wide Educator Evaluation Systems Based, in Significant Part, on Student Growth,
and
Priority 5—An Educator Salary Structure Based on Effectiveness,
nonprofit applicants partnering with charter schools that are considered LEAs under State law (charter-school LEAs) are required to describe and propose reforms for the LEAs in which the charter school partners reside; (2) whether nonprofit applicants may provide a table or chart to summarize each LEA partner's HCMS in order to remain within maximum page limits; and (3) whether nonprofit applicants partnering with more than one charter school may, for the purposes of
Priority 1—An LEA-Wide HCMS With Educator Evaluation Systems at the Center,
describe how each charter school's HCMS aligns with a vision of instructional improvement shared across the consortium.

Discussion:
To meet the priorities in this notice, nonprofit applicants that partner with charter-school LEAs must describe the vision of instructional improvement and HMCS, including the evaluation systems and professional development, of each charter school included in a group application. Because the charter-school LEA is not administered by the LEA within whose boundaries the charter school is located, an applicant need not, in these cases, provide a description of the HCMS (or other features) of that LEA beyond what the applicant considers to be useful in explaining the project proposal. Regarding the details of application submission, which are not addressed in this notice, we encourage interested applicants to read the TIF Application Package for the 2012 competition.

Changes:
None.

Comment:
One commenter suggested that the proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria include provisions that exceed the scope of the TIF authorizing language. Another commenter observed that the focus of TIF has moved from performance-based compensation to developing human management systems based on educator evaluation.

Discussion:
Congress has authorized and appropriated funding for the TIF program specifically to support the development and use of effective and sustainable PBCSs. As we explain in the NPP and this notice, the purpose of these priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria is to ensure that TIF-funded PBCSs will be successful and sustained mechanisms that contribute to continual improvement of instruction, to increases in teacher and principal effectiveness and, ultimately, to improvements in student achievement in high-need schools. To accomplish these goals, we have designed the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria to ensure that TIF grantees use high-quality LEA-wide evaluation and support systems that identify effective educators in order to improve instruction by informing performance-based compensation and other key human capital decisions.

Changes:
None.

Comment:
One commenter requested that we allow STEM specialty schools to participate in TIF projects, even if they are located in LEAs that are not engaged in system-wide compensation reforms.

Discussion:
In years when we designate
Priority 1—An LEA-Wide HCMS With Educator Evaluation Systems at the Center
and
Priority 2—LEA-Wide Educator Evaluation Systems Based, in Significant Part, on Student Growth
as absolute, all applicants must implement LEA-wide HCMSs and LEA-wide evaluation systems. If the STEM specialty schools are charter-school LEAs, then they may satisfy Priority 1 and Priority 2 by implementing school-wide HCMSs and evaluation systems. However, if the STEM specialty schools are not themselves LEAs, they may not participate in the TIF project unless the LEA of which they are a part participates in the project. Because we believe that LEA-wide HCMSs and educator evaluation systems are critical for the sustainability and success of TIF-supported PBCSs, we decline to create an exception for single schools that, whether they are specialty schools or not, are not themselves LEAs so that they may participate in TIF projects in years we designate either Priority 1 or Priority 2 as absolute.

Further, given the commenter's reference to system-wide compensation reform, we wish to clarify that it is not our intent to require applicants to implement an LEA-wide PBCS. Under
Requirement 1—Performance Based Compensation for Teachers, Principals, and Other Personnel
and
Requirement 6—Use of TIF Funds To Support the PBCS,
applicants must implement a PBCS, but may only use TIF funds to provide additional compensation to educators in high-need schools identified in the application in response to
Requirement 3—Documentation of High-Need Schools.

Changes:
None.

Comment:
One commenter recommended that we encourage applicants to propose evaluation systems that use consistent and sustainable observation methods implemented by school leadership. According to the commenter, the formal training of principals, including their certification and testing, is necessary for developing and sustaining an effective teaching force, and will ensure that judgments about the quality of teachers' practice are valid and reliable for use in various human capital decisions. To embed this approach into TIF projects, the commenter recommended that we encourage applicants to construct evaluation systems that measure principal effectiveness using, in part, meaningful evidence of regular teacher observations.

Discussion:
The Department agrees that the training of principals may be one approach for ensuring high-quality, reliable observations, but declines to prescribe that this method be used by all grantees. While some LEAs may select principals to be the observers for teacher observations, it is also likely that other LEAs will assign that responsibility to external observers, or to those peers taking on career ladder positions. In either case, applicants should carefully consider the implications of their proposal for observation quality and sustainability; applicants will receive additional points for their proposed project based, under
Selection Criterion (b)(3)—Rigorous, Valid, and Reliable Educator Evaluation Systems,
on whether they have made substantial progress in developing a high-quality plan for conducting teacher and principal observations.

Changes:
None.

Comment:
A few commenters suggested that we require grantees to collect and report the discipline indicators included in the Department's Civil Rights Data Collection, and require them to take measures to improve their performance as measured by those indicators. Two commenters encouraged the Department to promote equity in schools by requiring applicants to monitor school discipline indicators and use that data to guide professional development.

Discussion:
The Department fully agrees that schools should monitor student outcome data—including discipline indicators—and use those data to inform improvement efforts. Starting with the 2011-2012 school year, the Department will conduct a Civil Rights Data Collection every two years that includes every school district in the Nation where data for any one school year are collected and reported the subsequent year. As the discipline indicators included in the Civil Rights Data Collection will be provided to the public, disaggregated by LEA and by school, we find it unnecessary and burdensome to require TIF applicants to duplicate their reporting for the purposes of this program. While we encourage applicants to monitor school discipline indicators and develop appropriate human capital strategies to address this important area and thereby promote equity and improve practice in their high-need schools, we do not agree that the Department should mandate the specific additional factors that LEAs include in their educator evaluation systems. Thus, we decline to make the suggested changes, but we encourage LEAs to carefully consider how school and classroom discipline will be incorporated into evaluation and educator support systems, including professional development.

Changes:
None.

Priority 1—An LEA-Wide Human Capital Management System (HCMS) With Educator Evaluation Systems at the Center

Comment:
One commenter recommended that we require applicants to involve the curriculum and instructional staff of the LEA in the management, design, and implementation of the PBCS.

Discussion:
The Department agrees that these central office staff are essential to the development of a well-designed and well-implemented HCMS. The knowledge and expertise needed to design and implement an LEA's HCMS will come from many individuals within the central office, including those responsible for curriculum and instruction. However, the Department believes each LEA should be free to identify the central office staff who will be best able to design and implement whatever HCMS changes may be necessary. Given the variation in organizational structure among LEAs throughout the country, we have determined that individual LEAs—not the Department—should identify the appropriate personnel for this task.

Changes:
None.

Comment:
One commenter recommended that we require TIF projects to have HCMSs that provide a minimum level of compensation for new teachers and paraprofessionals and a minimum rate of increase in compensation based on their years of service.

Discussion:
To attract high-quality candidates into teaching and to retain effective educators in the profession (and, in particular, in high-need schools), the Department believes that compensation for educators must be competitive with other professions requiring a similar level of skill and educational attainment. Even so, compensation at the local level will vary depending on the cost of living, the labor market, and other factors unique to that area. LEAs must consider these local factors when determining the levels of compensation that will attract and retain the best and brightest to the teaching profession. Moreover, the Nation does not have a single labor market for educators. Not only will there be different geographic labor markets, but there may be (and arguably should be) different labor markets by

content area, as evidenced by shortages in particular subjects.

Further, we do not believe it is consistent with TIF's statutorily-defined purpose—supporting performance-based compensation—to require that applicants provide educators a specified salary or a specified rate of salary increase based on years of service. Congress authorized TIF to assist LEAs in developing and implementing PBCSs and, through this final notice, the Department recognizes that TIF-supported PBCSs should align with a broader HCMS if they are to be successful and sustainable. We believe that HCMSs are likely, over time, to offer competitive salaries when they are designed to attract and retain effective teachers consistent with
Priority 1—An LEA-Wide Human Capital Management System (HCMS) With Educator Evaluation Systems at the Center.

Changes:
None.

Comment:
One commenter recommended that we add language to the NFP to clarify that the rights, remedies, and procedures, including due process rights, afforded school or school district employees under existing Federal, State, or local laws supersede any and all provisions established in this notice, and that, in instances where a conflict exists, non-compliance with the TIF final priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria will not result in grant termination.

Discussion:
The Department agrees that it should clarify the relationship between other Federal, State, and local laws and the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria that govern the TIF program. We have added a “Note” to
Requirement 2—Involvement and Support of Teachers and Principals
to inform applicants of their responsibilities if they were to become a grantee under the TIF program. The note states that it is the responsibility of the grantee to ensure that, in observing the rights, remedies, and procedures afforded school or school district employees under Federal, State, or local laws (including applicable regulations or court orders) or under terms of collective bargaining agreements, memoranda of understanding, or other agreements between those employees and their employers, the grantee also remains in compliance with the priorities, requirements, and definitions included in this notice. It also states that in the event that a grantee is unable to comply with these priorities, requirements, and definitions, the Department may take appropriate enforcement action (e.g., discontinue support for the project).

Changes:
We have added a
Note
to Requirement 2 that clarifies the relationship between existing Federal, State, and local law and collective bargaining agreements and similar agreements between employees and employers, and the priorities, requirements, and definitions established in this notice.

Comment:
One commenter advised the Department to use the TIF program to make large grant awards to entities with fully-designed HCMSs. The commenter stated that fully-designed HCMSs (i.e., those systems that bring the full range of personnel decisions into alignment with a vision of instructional improvement) are a better investment than are separate smaller grants focusing on separate, siloed components of an HCMS.

Discussion:
The Department believes that a well-designed and well-implemented HCMS will be the best mechanism to support a successful and sustainable PBCS, which is the statutorily defined purpose of the TIF program. For this reason, we have designed Priority 1 to support State and LEA efforts to strengthen LEAs' HCMSs. Although we believe that every LEA already has a system in place for making hiring and related personnel decisions (that is, an HCMS), we know that some systems are less coherent or comprehensive than others.

LEA needs may vary with respect to aligning the HCMS with the LEA's instructional vision and building into the HCMS human capital decisions that are based on ratings generated by educators evaluation systems consistent with
Priority 2—LEA-wide Educator Evaluation Systems Based, in Significant Part, on Student Growth.
This being said, the Department wants to support reform-oriented LEAs wherever they may be on the continuum as they work to align their HCMS with their vision of instructional improvement. Although we do not require applicants to include the full range of personnel decisions in their proposed HCMS revisions, under
Selection Criterion (a)—A Coherent and Comprehensive Human Capital Management System
reviewers will consider the quality and comprehensiveness of each participating LEA's HCMS as described in the application, including the range of human capital decisions for which the applicant proposes to factor in educator effectiveness and the weight given to educator effectiveness when human capital decisions are made.

Changes:
None.

Comment:
One commenter recommended that we clarify the provisions regarding professional development that are in
Priority 1—An LEA-Wide Human Capital Management System (HCMS) With Educator Evaluation Systems at the Center,
and that we require applicants to address individual professional development, school or team improvement, and program implementation as part of their proposed professional development systems.

Discussion:
To meet Priority 1, applicants must propose a timeline for implementing an HCMS such that applicants use evaluation information to inform the design and delivery of performance-based compensation by no later than the third year of the project period. Further, as professional development is one component of an HCMS, an applicant may choose to describe in its response to Priority 1 how it will use evaluation information to inform professional development, whether professional development is or will be part of its strategy for attracting and retaining effective teachers, and how professional development fits into the LEAs vision of instructional improvement.

Further, Selection Criterion (c) applies to an LEA's professional development plan for educators in the high-need schools that are part of a TIF-funded PBCS. Under Selection Criterion (c)(1), reviewers will specifically evaluate the extent to which the proposed plan will use disaggregated information from the educator evaluation systems “to identify the professional development needs of individual educators and schools.” Thus, we expect applicants to design professional development plans that strive for the improvement of individual educators, teams, and the broader school community, but we leave the ultimate decision on how to do that to applicants. Reviewers will evaluate and provide points under Selection Criterion (c)(1) based on the quality and comprehensiveness of applicant's proposals in this area. For this reason, we find it unnecessary to change Priority 1 because the commenter's concern is adequately addressed through the selection criteria.

Changes:
None.

Comment:
None.

Discussion:
Upon further review of Priority 1, we have determined that it may be helpful to clarify the restrictions on the use TIF funds to support the components of the HCMS (which includes the PBCS, professional development, and LEA systems and strategies to recruit, retain, and reward effective educators). In response to Priority 1, an applicant must describe

each LEA's HCMS as it exists currently and with any planned modifications as well as the human capital strategies each LEA uses or will use to ensure that high-need schools are able to attract and retain effective educators. Applicants will be evaluated on the adequacy of the financial and nonfinancial strategies and incentives, including the PBCS, in its HCMS for attracting effective educators to work in high-need schools and retaining them in those schools. Therefore, in providing a description of the HCMS in response to Priority 1, an applicant may describe a range of systems, strategies, and incentives of which some may be supported by TIF funds while others may not. We have added the “Note” following Priority 1 to clarify that TIF funds may not support all of the systems, strategies, and incentives that an applicant describes in response to these and other elements of the priorities. Whether a cost can be supported with TIF funds is governed by the rules set forth in
Requirement 6—Use of TIF Funds To Support the PBCS.

Upon review of the Priority, we also have determined that paragraph (4) of Priority 1 may not be clear that even if an applicant does not need to make modifications to an existing LEA-wide HCMS, the applicant will need to describe a timeline for using evaluation information to inform the design and delivery of professional development an award of performance-based compensation beginning in identified high-need schools no later than the third year of the grant's project period. We have revised the beginning phrase of the paragraph to clarify that all applicants must include such a timeline regardless of whether it has modification to make in its LEA-wide HCMS to meet other provisions of the Priority.

Changes:
We have added a
Note
to Priority 1 stating that TIF funds can be used to support the costs of the systems and strategies described under
Priority 1—An LEA-Wide HCMS With Educator Evaluation Systems at the Center, Priority 3—Improving Student Achievement in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM),
and
Priority 5—An Educator Salary Structure Based on Effectiveness
only to the extent allowed under
Requirement 6—Use of TIF Funds To Support the PBCS.
We also have revised paragraph (4) to clarify that all applicants must submit the timeline regardless of whether modifications are needed to an existing HCMS to ensure that it comports with paragraphs (1), (2), and (3) of the Priority.

Priority 2—LEA-Wide Educator Evaluation Systems Based, in Significant Part, on Student Growth

Comment:
One commenter noted that its LEA currently operates two different evaluation systems, each of which meets the needs of schools using different instructional approaches. The commenter asked that, when establishing final priorities, requirements, and definitions for the TIF program, we take this into consideration.

Discussion:
By requiring an LEA-wide approach to evaluation reform under
Priority 2—LEA-Wide Educator Evaluation Systems Based, in Significant Part, on Student Growth,
we seek to prevent situations in which a TIF-funded PBCS relies upon evaluations that are separate from the official educator evaluation systems the LEA uses to provide overall evaluation ratings. With these ancillary evaluations, an LEA might evaluate the educators in high-need schools once to determine eligibility for TIF-funded performance-based compensation and then again under separate criteria that the LEA uses for purposes of the educators' overall performance ratings. Consequently, when TIF funding ends, the ancillary evaluations that had been supported by a TIF-funded project, and which are needed to inform the PBCS, are also likely to end. To avoid this scenario and increase the sustainability and impact of the TIF-funded PBCS, Priority 2 requires applicants to use the evaluation systems described in response to the priority to both inform TIF-funded performance-based compensation and assign overall evaluation ratings to every educator in an LEA. Further, these overall evaluation ratings will provide an LEA with a single index—one for teachers and one for principals—with which to identify effective educators and, using their TIF-funded PBCS, recruit them to high-need schools.

Nothing in this notice precludes an applicant from using its own funds to implement an evaluation system in addition to the systems described in response to Priority 2 if, for example, the applicant finds that such an additional system would meet the needs of unique schools or groups of educators. However, those evaluations may not be supported by TIF funds, used to inform the TIF-funded PBCS, or used to assign overall evaluation ratings.

Changes:
None.

Comment:
Three commenters urged us to require applicants to propose, as part of their evaluation rubrics, a minimum of four performance levels so that those rubrics align with current, evidence-based evaluation models and encourage more meaningful performance-based differentiation.

Discussion:
We proposed and are now finalizing the requirement in Priority 2 that applicants include a minimum of three performance levels in their evaluation rubrics because we want to align this program with the requirements of other Department initiatives, including the ESEA Flexibility initiative. States that receive approval for ESEA flexibility will be developing, piloting, and implementing educator evaluation systems that differentiate performance using at least three levels of performance. The Department believes that an evaluation rubric that uses three performance levels provides for adequate differentiation of educator effectiveness and is a significant improvement over the binary rating system that continues to be used by many LEAs. We note that nothing in this notice precludes an applicant from proposing an evaluation rubric that uses more than three performance levels.

Changes:
None.

Comment:
One commenter recommended that we require TIF-funded evaluation systems to assess educator performance twice annually. The commenter stated that this would provide educators a baseline performance rating, identify early on areas in need of improvement, and allow educators greater opportunity to demonstrate professional growth.

Discussion:
While the Department agrees with the commenter that educators can benefit from regular and frequent feedback on their performance, we do not believe it is necessary to require summative evaluations twice annually. Rather, we expect that the various educator evaluation systems that applicants describe in their TIF applications in response to Priority 2 will present many different models for securing multiple opportunities for performance feedback. For example, under paragraph (2)(ii) of Priority 2, applicants are required to incorporate two or more observations during each evaluation period. The observations, which will occur multiple times each year, should generate abundant feedback. Moreover, applicants that find it desirable to evaluate educators twice annually will have the flexibility to propose to do so.

Changes:
None.

Comment:
A few commenters recommended that we revise
Priority 2—LEA-Wide Educator Evaluation Systems Based, in Significant Part, on Student Growth
to require

comprehensive evaluations that consider multiple factors without specifically requiring that the evaluations consider student growth in significant part. One commenter recommended that we require applicants to consider several factors—teacher portfolios, contributions to the school community, parent feedback, and professionalism—to improve the predictive power of their evaluation tools and strengthen the utility of performance assessment for identifying areas of weakness. A few commenters recommended that the Department require consideration of student and parent surveys, and one commenter cited research concluding that student surveys, in particular, correlate as strongly with student learning as classroom observation. Two commenters advised the Department to emphasize the use of observation over student growth for educator evaluation. One commenter advised the Department to require applicants to embed classroom management, conflict prevention and resolution, and cultural competence into their teacher evaluation rubrics.

Discussion:
As we have noted throughout this notice, Congress has required that any TIF-funded PBCS consider gains in student achievement (i.e., student growth), and this requires that student growth be part of an educator evaluation system that would determine which educators are eligible for performance-based compensation. We have stated previously, in announcing priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria for the FY 2010 TIF competition (75 FR 28713, 28718-19), that given the wide range of possible factors that might be included in an LEA's teacher evaluation system as well as the fact that improving student achievement is the underlying purpose of the TIF program, we believe it is both appropriate and consistent with the statute to ensure that TIF grantees give student growth significant weight among the factors included in these systems.

As the comments indicate, there are many points of view, as well as many valid practices, that may guide an LEA's decision regarding the factors to include in its educator evaluation systems. Given the statutory requirement that grantees also base their educator evaluations on multiple annual observations, among other factors, the LEA, in consultation with school staff and with the support of any teacher's union that represents teachers in collective bargaining, is in the best position to determine the relative weight to give these other factors. The Department believes that it is important to preserve for applicants the flexibility to identify the additional factors that will be included in their educator evaluation systems. Providing applicants this discretion will help ensure that the systems they establish are responsive to local needs, circumstances, and perspectives. For this reason, we decline to change paragraph (2)(iii) of Priority 2 to prescribe the additional factors which applicants must include in their evaluation systems. Further, we decline to change Priority 2 to indicate the relative weight that observation should carry, in relation to other factors such as student growth, in the determination of educator effectiveness.

Changes:
None.

Comment:
One commenter recommended that we revise Priority 2 to require TIF-funded evaluation systems to include monthly observations.

Discussion:
While paragraph (2)(ii) of Priority 2 requires at least two observations during each evaluation period, the Department believes that applicants should retain the discretion to decide whether a greater number of observations should occur. We believe that a minimum of two observations per year would be sufficient if the observations and resulting feedback are high-quality: two comprehensive observations by a well-prepared evaluator may provide a more accurate picture of teacher performance than five cursory classroom visits. For this reason, the Department declines to make the change recommended by the commenter. However, we note that under Priority 2, applicants have the flexibility to propose additional observations beyond two per year, if they choose.

Changes:
None.

Comment:
One commenter recommended that we require applicants to clarify how they will define student growth for the purpose of educator evaluation. This commenter recommended that we require applicants to describe how their definition of student growth will help students achieve proficiency, how their definition will help teachers to better understand their performance, and how the definition will identify educator strengths.

Discussion:
The Department defines “student growth” as the change in student achievement for an individual student between two or more points in time. This definition, and the various options it provides for determining “student achievement” for grades and subjects for which assessments are and are not required under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA, aligns with the use of the term in other Department initiatives, including the recent ESEA Flexibility initiative. It allows applicants to choose a student growth model that best meets their needs in developing rigorous, valid, and reliable educator evaluation systems. Applications will then be evaluated, in part, under
Selection Criterion (b)(2)(ii)—Rigorous, Valid, and Reliable Educator Evaluation Systems
on the evidence they present, including current research and best practices, to support the LEA's choice of student growth models. In their response to this selection criterion, we expect that applicants will provide a full justification for their selection, which may include such considerations as those described by the commenter (e.g., how the model will help students achieve proficiency, how it will help teachers to better understand their performance) or include other evidence to support their choice of student growth models. For these reasons, we find it unnecessary to further require applicants to clarify their definition of student growth.

Changes:
None.

Comment:
One commenter recommended that we require LEA applicants to use widely-accepted formalized assessments to determine student growth.

Discussion:
The Department believes that the definition of
student growth
in this notice is adequate to ensure the use of valid and reliable assessments and other methods that the definition includes for measuring student growth. Under this definition, applicants must use, at minimum, the formal assessments required under section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA to measure student growth for certain grades and subjects. For grades and subjects not covered by section 1111(b)(3) of the ESEA, the definition requires that the alternative measures of student learning and performance, such as student results on assessments, be rigorous and comparable across schools. Beyond these requirements, we do not agree that these measures of student growth need to be based on assessments that, as the commenter proposes, are widely accepted and formalized.

Further, the Department has determined that TIF grantees need the flexibility to develop or adopt new assessments for certain grades and subjects. Where new assessment tools may be needed to measure student achievement, applicants should consider LEA capacity, costs, and the project timeline when determining

whether to adopt readily available, valid, and reliable instruments, rather than develop new assessment tools.

For these reasons, we decline to require applicants to use widely-accepted formalized assessments to determine student growth.

Changes:
None.

Comment:
Several commenters expressed concerns regarding the use of classroom-level growth for measuring teacher performance, and recommended that we allow LEAs to determine the level of student growth, be it classroom-level, school-level, or grade-level growth, appropriate for assessing educators. These commenters were particularly concerned that, under
Priority 2—LEA-Wide Educator Evaluation Systems Based, in Significant Part, on Student Growth,
applicants must use classroom-level student growth for the evaluation of teachers with regular instructional responsibilities. The commenters asserted that this provision might encourage the evaluation of teachers in non-tested grades and subjects based on their students' achievement in other subjects or based on new assessments not yet tested for reliability, standardization, or validity. Additionally, one commenter stated that requiring classroom-level growth in each subject and grade could create conflict between teachers in tested subjects and grades, who are evaluated using accepted assessment instruments, and those in non-tested grades and subjects, who might be evaluated using instruments that have not been validated.

Discussion:
The Department believes that the improved educator evaluation systems implemented under Priority 2—which depend upon generating an evaluation rating that is an appropriate reflection of each educator's effectiveness—are a central component of the reforms upon which the PBCS and other human capital decisions must be based. In order to produce educator evaluation data that are reflective of an educator's effectiveness, at least for teachers with regular classroom responsibilities for whom paragraph (2)(ii) of Priority 2 requires consideration of classroom-level growth, applicants must base the student growth component of the evaluation rating on the growth of the students in a teacher's own classroom, rather than the growth of students in other classrooms. Therefore, for the vast majority of teachers, student growth must be determined at the classroom level.

Further, the Department recognizes that some teachers do not have regular instructional responsibilities, which makes evaluation based on classroom-level student growth inappropriate. For these teachers' overall evaluation ratings, LEAs are free to identify another level of student growth measurement.

Lastly, the Department does not agree with the commenter that an evaluation system that treats all classroom teachers the same, evaluating each, in significant part, on the basis of the achievement of the students they teach, will create conflict among teachers who teach different subjects. Conflict is more likely among teachers when only some teachers are evaluated using the achievement of students in their classrooms, while others are not. At the same time, the Department agrees with the commenters that the assessments used to determine student growth must, for all grades and subjects, be rigorous and comparable across the schools in the LEA, and this is reflected in our definition of
student growth.
By requiring that all measures of student growth that an LEA uses be rigorous and comparable across the LEA's schools, we believe that the definition levels the playing field sufficiently between teachers of tested grades and subjects, on the one hand, and teachers of non-tested grades and subjects, on the other. To help ensure that applicants focus their applications on this issue, we have added language to
Selection Criterion (b)(2)(ii)—Rigorous, Valid, and Reliable Educator Evaluation Systems
to make clear that reviewers will examine the rigor and comparability of assessment tools an applicant proposes to use.

Changes:
The Department has added language to Selection Criterion (b)(2)(ii) so that, in considering the extent to which an applicant has provided evidence, such as current research and best practices, supporting the LEA's choice of student growth models, the Department also considers how those models demonstrate the rigor and comparability of assessment tools used.

Comment:
Several commenters advised us to further clarify paragraph (3) of
Priority 2—LEA-Wide Educator Evaluation Systems Based, in Significant Part, on Student Growth,
which requires that applications include a plan for how the evaluation systems will generate an overall evaluation rating that is based, in significant part, on student growth. The commenters requested that we set clear expectations regarding how student growth must be incorporated into the proposed evaluation rubric, and otherwise promote the strong use of student growth for differentiating educators based on their performance. Of these commenters, three requested that we require that student growth comprise 50 percent of an educator's evaluation, and two commenters requested that we not specify a minimum percentage or otherwise restrict the applicant's flexibility to determine significance.

Discussion:
LEAs have wide discretion in determining how to weight or otherwise combine the evaluation factors to derive an overall evaluation rating under Priority 2. However, a key requirement relates to the student growth component of the evaluation rubric: The overall evaluation rating must be based, in significant part, on an educator's student growth outcomes. While understanding the commenters' desire that student growth comprise 50 percent of an educator's evaluation, the Department has decided that such a requirement would be too inflexible, and so has not established a specific minimum weight for the student growth component of the overall rating. This is, in part, because there are reasonable ways to derive an overall rating that considers student growth, in significant part, without relying on a weighting approach. For example, an LEA may decide that student growth outcomes below an established minimum will always generate an overall rating of ineffective—regardless of the other measures included in the evaluation rubric. Generally, however, an overall rating is not based, in significant part, on student growth if the growth measure has little effect on the overall rating or will affect an overall rating in only the most extreme circumstances. Under paragraphs (b)(5)(i) and (b)(6)(i) of
Selection Criterion—Rigorous, Valid, and Reliable Educator Evaluation Systems,
peer reviewers will consider whether an applicant bases its overall evaluation rating on student growth, in significant part. In response to this criterion, applicants should carefully explain why they believe that the student growth component of their proposed overall rating calculation is significant.

While the Department appreciates the concerns of commenters who argued for giving greater weight to student growth in TIF-funded PBCSs, we continue to require that this factor be given “significant” weight in this final notice. In light of the statutory requirement that grantees also base their evaluations on multiple annual observations among other factors, we believe that the LEA, in consultation with school staff and with the support of any teacher's union that represents teachers in collective bargaining, is in the best position to determine the relative weight to give these other factors.

Changes:
None.

Comment:
One commenter requested that we clarify in the priority that, for charter-school consortia applicants, the proposed evaluation system may extend to the entire consortium, rather than to the entire LEA in which the charter schools are located.

Discussion:
In a consortium of charter schools in which each charter school is considered an LEA in its State, each of the charter schools listed in the partnership application is an LEA for purposes of Federal grants. Accordingly, each charter school in the consortium could implement its own evaluation system because doing so would result in implementing an LEA-wide evaluation system. Alternatively, all charter schools in the consortium (or group application) may choose to implement the same evaluation system in all charter schools in the consortium. In either case, the application would meet the LEA-wide requirement of Priority 2.

For the purposes of this notice, the evaluation system in a charter school that is considered an LEA has nothing to do with the evaluation system of the LEA in which the charter school is located (which might not be a part of the charter schools' TIF application).

Changes:
None.

Comment:
Two commenters expressed concern regarding the background statement provided for proposed
Priority 2—LEA-Wide Educator Evaluation Systems Based, in Significant Part, on Student Growth
in the NPP. Specifically, the commenters questioned the statement that our intent behind this priority is to ensure that educators eligible for performance-based compensation meet minimum performance thresholds on all measures included in an evaluation rubric. One of the commenters stated that interpreting Priority 2 to require that educators meet minimum thresholds on all measures in an evaluation rubric would be too restrictive for applicants that propose to use many performance measures in their evaluation rubric. Another commenter suggested that such an interpretation would require that any one of an educator's performance measures override any of the others, rather than permit applicants to propose evaluation systems that distribute weight more evenly across the various performance measures.

Discussion:
In the background discussion of proposed Priority 2 contained in the NPP, we did not intend to suggest that, to consider an educator effective, LEAs must find the educator's performance to be satisfactory on each of the performance measures the LEA adopts for its evaluation systems. Rather, the LEA must determine the educator to be effective overall, taking into consideration his or her performance on all measures. Each LEA will determine the degree or weight to be given to each measure in the evaluation systems, bearing in mind that the overall rating must be based, in significant part, on student growth.

The Department believes that requiring payments made under the PBCS to be based upon an overall rating of effective or higher will ensure that grantees will provide compensation to educators eligible for performance-based compensation in high-need schools based on an evaluation of effectiveness that considers both practice and student outcome data. While the Department believes that compensating educators with very low scores on key aspects of the evaluation rubric may send the wrong message as to who should be compensated based on performance, Priority 2 leaves to applicants to determine how an LEA should ensure that its overall evaluation ratings for educators are based, in significant part, on student growth. Doing so provides great flexibility to an applicant on how to design its evaluation systems and PBCS while ensuring that an educator's impact on student achievement is central to the overall determination.

Changes:
None.

Comment:
None.

Discussion:
Upon further consideration of the language in proposed paragraph 2(ii) of Priority 2, we believe that a slight wording change would better reflect what we intended this provision to mean. We intended this paragraph to require applicants to determine overall evaluation ratings for teachers with regular instructional responsibilities based, in part, on student growth at the classroom level. To ensure that this component of Priority 2 is sufficiently clear, we have revised this paragraph to state that, for the purpose of determining overall evaluation ratings for those teachers, student growth “must be”, rather than “must include”, the growth of the students included in an individual teacher's own classroom. We note that as long as applicants are using classroom-level growth to determine the overall evaluation ratings for teachers with regular instructional responsibilities to meet paragraph (2)(ii) of the priority, they may also consider whole-school growth as an additional factor under paragraph (2)(iii) of the priority.

Changes:
The Department has revised paragraph (2)(ii) of Priority 2 to clarify that, for the purpose of determining overall evaluation ratings for teachers with regular instructional responsibilities, student growth must be, rather than must include, classroom-level growth.

Priority 3—Improving Student Achievement in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM)

Comment:
Several commenters recommended that we not conduct a separate TIF Competition with a Focus on STEM. The commenters expressed concern that encouraging applicants to single out educators in specific fields, such as the STEM fields, for additional compensation could cause misalignment in components of an LEA's HCMS.

Discussion:
In the past several months, Federal agencies and private partners have launched national efforts, such as Educate to Innovate, to increase the number of effective STEM teachers in the Nation over the next few years. While we appreciate the commenters' concerns, the Department believes it is necessary to help States and LEAs attract and retain highly-effective STEM teachers to schools, particularly high-need schools where students are in greatest need of academic improvement. As TIF provides applicants a unique opportunity to rethink LEA-wide human capital management and revamp educator compensation, we believe it is appropriate to use the TIF program to encourage applicants to leverage this opportunity to recruit and develop top-quality STEM educators, and thereby improve STEM instruction. On the other hand, it is not our intent to prohibit, or even discourage, applicants proposing to meet
Priority 3—Improving Student Achievement in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM
) from expanding performance-based compensation to non-STEM educators, principals, or other personnel.

Changes:
None.

Comment:
Several commenters requested that we designate
Priority 3—Improving Student Achievement in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM
) as either competitive preference or invitational, but not absolute.

Discussion:
As mentioned elsewhere in this notice, to preserve future flexibility to designate priorities as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational, as needed to serve the intended goals of any TIF competition, we will not designate in this notice whether the final priorities are absolute, competitive preference, or invitational. Rather, we will make these designations in the notice inviting applications for any competition in which we use one or more of the priorities. While we have considered the commenter's suggestions

in designing the TIF 2012 competition, we have determined that, consistent with our announcement in the NPP, we will designate Priority 3 as an absolute priority in the NIA and hold a separate TIF with a Focus on STEM competition in 2012.

Changes:
None.

Comment:
One commenter recommended replacing
Priority 3—Improving Student Achievement in Science, Technology, Engineering, and Mathematics (STEM
) with a priority focused on providing additional pay to all teachers in high-need schools. The commenter opposed providing educators in a single field additional compensation, because doing so would create inherently unequal pay systems and communicate to educators that some fields are more important than others. In making this statement, the commenter pointed to a number of hard-to-staff fields, such as special education, bilingual education, and specialized instructional support, that are not addressed by our proposed priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria.

Discussion:
We do not prescribe, in either Priority 3 or
Requirement 1—Performance-Based Compensation for Teachers, Principals, and Other Personnel,
the proportion of educators in high-need schools that must be served by the applicant's proposed PBCS. Rather, we provide applicants the flexibility to propose a PBCS that best serves the human capital needs of its high-need schools, has the full support of the school community, and considers the feasibility of sustaining the PBCS past the five-year project period. While we acknowledge that applicants proposing to meet Priority 3 may choose to limit opportunities for performance-based compensation to STEM educators, applicants would not be prohibited from expanding performance-based compensation to other educators, principals, or other personnel, such as those in the types of hard-to-staff fields mentioned by the commenter. Accordingly, applicants with shortages in the areas of special education and bilingual education would have the option to use TIF funds on performance-based compensation to attract new staff in those fields to their high-need schools. While we recognize the merits of the commenter's recommendation, and agree that comprehensive compensation systems would be ideal, we find it more important to offer applicants the flexibility to tailor their proposals to local need. We decline to replace Priority 3 with a priority focused on providing competitive pay to all teachers in high-need schools.

Changes:
None.

Comment:
None.

Discussion:
The Department determined that a minor edit to Priority 3 will improve its alignment with
Selection Criterion (g)—Comprehensive Approach to Improving STEM Instruction
and avoid duplicating elements required under
Priority 2—LEA-Wide Educator Evaluation Systems Based, in Significant Part, on Student Growth.
As applicants must describe their evaluation systems under Priority 2, we do not believe it necessary to ask that applicants provide a separate description of how they propose to evaluate STEM teachers. Instead, we will require applicants to describe how each participating LEA will identify and develop the unique competencies that characterize effective STEM teachers. We will assess this description, in part, under Selection Criterion (g)(2), which makes reference to STEM-specific professional development opportunities, but not evaluation.

Changes:
We have removed the term “evaluate” from paragraph (2) of Priority 3.

Priority 4—New Applicants to the Teacher Incentive Fund (Now New or Rural Applicants to the Teacher Incentive Fund)

Comment:
Several commenters requested that we remove
Priority 4
from the final priorities, or that we designate it as either competitive preference or invitational, in order to allow previous TIF cohorts to apply for a new grant. Many commenters that are recipients of a TIF grant expressed concern that they would not be able to sustain their current programming without the financial support that TIF provides. Many commenters stated that, if Priority 4 were an absolute priority, it would slow momentum in those LEAs that have already demonstrated their willingness to pursue challenging reform efforts. Many commenters also noted that, given the provisions in the TIF NPP, the next competition would help previously served LEAs to bring their projects to scale. Further, one commenter recommended that we allow SEAs and Regional Education Service Agencies to apply as lead applicants, even if an entity were the lead applicant under a previous TIF project, as SEAs and Regional Education Service Agencies have the capacity to serve a diverse group of LEAs. The commenter noted that it was unclear whether these entities would be ineligible to apply for a new TIF grant under Priority 4. One commenter asked whether a nonprofit applicant could meet Priority 4 if it proposed to serve charter schools located in an LEA that previously participated in a TIF-supported project, but that had excluded its charter schools from participation in the previous TIF project.

Discussion:
As mentioned elsewhere in this notice, to preserve future flexibility to designate priorities as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational, as needed to serve the intended goals of any TIF competition, we do not designate in this notice whether priorities are absolute, competitive preference, or invitational. We will make these designations in the notice inviting applications for any TIF competition that uses one or more of these priorities.

Priority 4 applies to all applicants, including SEAs, LEAs, and nonprofit applicants. To the extent that a regional educational service center or the like is “a public board of education or other public authority legally constituted within a State ... to perform a service function for, public elementary schools or secondary schools in a city, county, township, school district, or other political subdivision of a State, or of or for a combination of school districts or counties that is recognized in a State as an administrative agency for its public elementary schools or secondary schools” it is an LEA (See section 9101(23)(A) of the ESEA (20 U.S.C. § 7801(26)(A))). Therefore, since a regional educational service center or like agency that meets this definition is an LEA, it may apply for a TIF grant and Priority 4 applies to it.

In years we designate Priority 4 as absolute, applicants would not be eligible to receive TIF funds unless they provide an assurance, which the Department accepts, that each LEA to be served by the project has not previously participated in a TIF-supported project. In years we designate Priority 4 as a competitive preference priority, applicants that fail to meet this priority would be eligible to receive TIF funds; however, applicants that meet this priority would receive additional points or preference over an application of comparable merit that did not meet this priority. Regardless of whether this priority is designated competitive preference or absolute, SEAs and nonprofit organization applicants that have previously participated in a TIF-supported project may meet this priority, and, if they so choose, apply as a lead applicant, if they propose to serve only LEAs that have not previously participated in a TIF-supported project. In years when we designate this priority as absolute, LEA applicants (which may include regional education service agency applicants) may meet this

priority, and, if they so choose, apply as a lead applicant, only if they have not previously participated in a TIF-supported project. In years when we designate this priority as competitive preference, LEA applicants that have previously participated in a TIF-supported project may apply as a lead applicant, but may not meet this priority or receive competitive preference. Further, group applications that include charter schools in the application may meet this priority only if each charter school included is either: an LEA that has not previously participated in a TIF-supported project, or, if not an LEA, is located in an LEA that has not previously participated in a TIF-supported project.

With this priority, it is our intent to direct TIF resources to those LEAs that are ready to pursue compensation reform, but have not yet benefited from the Federal financial assistance available under TIF to help support effective and sustained PBCSs and related areas of reform. We agree that this year's notice inviting applications would provide current and former TIF grantees a unique opportunity to bring their projects to scale, and, in years this priority is designated either competitive or invitational, we would encourage entities to submit an application. At the same time, the Department notes that, consistent with the TIF authorizing statute, all current and former TIF grantees were expected to sustain their PBCSs past the conclusion of the project period. As they have already implemented a PBCS with Federal TIF funding, these grantees have already had an opportunity to convince stakeholders of the merits of performance-based compensation and thereby solicit the local investment needed for sustainability and scale up. In order to provide new LEAs with the same opportunity, we decline to remove Priority 4 from this notice.

Changes:
None.

Comment:
One commenter recommended that we amend proposed
Priority 4—New Applicants to the Teacher Incentive Fund
to give preference to rural applicants because these applicants are often not able to successfully compete for Federal discretionary grants.

Discussion:
We agree that this notice should help the Department ensure geographic diversity among TIF grantees, and have modified Priority 4 to give priority to applicants that propose to serve only rural LEAs. We have limited the rural component of the priority to applicants that propose to serve only rural LEAs in order to ensure that the priority is not undermined by applicants that might otherwise seek to include only one or some rural LEAs in the project. We also have modified the title of the priority accordingly.

Changes:
The Department has modified Priority 4 to give priority to applicants that agree to serve either only LEAs that have not previously participated in a TIF-supported project, or only rural LEAs.

Priority 5—An Educator Salary Structure Based on Effectiveness

Comment:
Several commenters requested that we revise Priority 5 to allow applicants to choose between performance-based compensation systems that either award bonuses or are implemented through a salary structure, rather than require that all applicants revise their salary schedules. While two commenters expressed support for our effort to encourage salary schedule reform so that salary is linked to performance—one because adjustments to the salary schedule would influence base pay, increase career earnings, and factor into pension calculations—they and other commenters expressed concern about making Priority 5 absolute (i.e., requiring that applicants meet it). One commenter disagreed with these views, and suggested that we require applicants to include a plan to transition from performance-based compensation to a salary structure based on effectiveness. Many other commenters expressed concern that such a requirement may lead to negative consequences. For example, a commenter stated that such a requirement might dissuade LEAs from applying for a TIF grant because teacher salary schedules are often subject to collective bargaining, and many LEAs would be unwilling to commit to a scope of work that has not been negotiated. A second commenter cited one State's laws regarding performance-based compensation—which requires the implementation of performance-based compensation, but allows compensation to take the form of a bonus or new salary—and argued that greater flexibility for TIF applicants would enable high-need schools to satisfy both State law and the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria included in this notice. A third commenter expressed concern that requiring all applicants to revise their salary schedules would reduce overall TIF participation, as it would create significant resource and stakeholder challenges.

A fourth commenter advised against promoting any tie between newly developed evaluation systems and educator salary before the new evaluation system has been tested for reliability, and cautioned that linking educator salary to what could be flawed evaluation ratings may work against TIF's goal of teacher retention. A fifth commenter expressed concern that it would be difficult to convince teachers in schools not participating in the TIF grant to support changes to their salary schedule, and such an effort would require significant outreach at the outset of the project.

Discussion:
As mentioned elsewhere in this notice, to preserve future flexibility to designate priorities as absolute, competitive preference, or invitational, as needed to serve the goals of the TIF program, we do not designate in this notice whether priorities are absolute, competitive preference, or invitational. We will make these designations in the notice inviting applications for any TIF competition that uses one or more of these priorities. In response to the first comment, in years when Priority 5 is designated as a competitive preference or invitational priority, applicants would be able to choose whether their proposed PBCS would be implemented through a salary structure based on educator effectiveness or through a bonus structure. In years when Priority 5 is designated as an absolute priority, applicants would be required to implement their proposed PBCS through a salary structure based on educator effectiveness.

The Department agrees with many of the commenters about the practical concerns that applicants will need to address in responding to Priority 5. We also recognize the challenges local laws and collective bargaining can pose to such a change within an LEA. However, the Department believes one way to increase the likelihood that a PBCS continues after the end of the grant period, and is sustained through local budget fluctuations, is to award additional compensation not as incentive awards or bonuses, but rather as part of an educator's salary. In response to the challenges raised by commenters, the Department has modified the priority by removing the language that would have required implementation of the salary structure beginning no later than the third year of the project period. Instead, to meet this priority, applicants must describe a timeline for implementing a salary structure based on effectiveness as well as the extent to which the proposed implementation is feasible, given that implementation will depend upon stakeholder support and applicable LEA-level policies. We believe that these changes will provide LEAs with

the flexibility needed for this type of work. As a result of these changes, LEAs addressing Priority 5 will not be held to a uniform deadline. Rather, proposed timelines will be based on local contexts. Thus, we believe Priority 5 will not dissuade LEAs from applying to the program.

The flexibility when Priority 5 is designated as a competitive preference or invitational priority addresses a commenter's concern regarding an applicant's ability to meet both State law and the priorities, requirements, definitions, and selection criteria included in the notice as well as one commenter's concern that requiring applicants to revise their salary schedules would reduce overall TIF participation by creating significant resource and stakeholder challenges. Our revision to the timeline requirement will allow an applicant to ensure a high-quality implementation of the evaluation system and the subsequent linkages to the salary structure. In addition, we believe that a sustained performance-based salary structure will enhance an LEA's ability to retain effective teachers.

We understand the commenter's concern about the Department's making Priority 5 an absolute priority and will take that concern into consideration in any decision to designate the Priority as absolute, a competitive preference, or invitational. Finally, we agree with the commenter who expressed concern that change of this scope would require significant outreach at the outset of the project. The Department believes that significant outreach is required for all types of performance-based compensation reform and has designed this notice so that applicants must include evidence that educators in each participating LEA have been involved, and will continue to be involved, in the development and implementation of the PBCS and evaluation systems described in the application.

Changes:
We have revised Priority 5 to require that each applicant describe, as part of its plan for implementing the PBCS, a timeline for implementing the proposed LEA salary structure as well as a rationale for why the applicant views its implementation plan as feasible. We also have removed language from the priority that would have required implementation of the salary structure beginning no later than the third year of the project period.

Comment:
One commenter recommended that we add language to
Priority 5—An Educator Salary Structure Based on Effectiveness
to require that the proposed salary structure be collectively bargained or agreed upon by the organization representing educators. Further, the commenter recommended that the priority stipulate that the process for creating any new salary structure be transparent to ensure that performance-based compensation is attainable and that teachers clearly understand the criteria for earning additional compensation.

Discussion:
With regard to the request that we require that elements of an appl

[Text truncated at 120,000 characters. The full text is on the page linked above.]

---

Source: Frix Law Library, https://www.frixlaw.com/law-library/documents/fr%3A2012-14276. Public record. Not legal advice.